Submitted by lilyofthevalley, Feb 13, 2007 17:06

Mr. Johnson, I want to believe you, but when you make statements that attempt to make hard and fast rules for certain groupings, it's a double edged sword. I know many conservatives, as well as liberals, moderates, and all sorts of people not so easily boxable, who embrace change as it affirms wisdom. But I also know folks from all sorts of so called leanings who embrace change for all sorts of other reasons, and not always good ones.

The problem with trying to stake philosophical territories in manners such as this is that they are not entirely accurate. Although people may have enough in common to be labeled in certain ways, they are all unique when it comes down to the nitty gritty differences. (Most people would try to label such folks moderates, but that doesn't quite work either most of the time.)

When one tries to force the concept of groupings, especially in the manner in which you do here, it only stands to further drive every day folks apart from each other, instead of bringing us together, whether to debate or even simply agree to disagree.

I think that when humanity can play nice while still living the lives they want to live that do not harm (in the manner of life long mental of phyiscal way, not in that awful manner of "because she is wearing a mini skirt, she is harming women everywhere" sort of nonsense,) others, then we will truly be a progressive, as you put it, and civilized species. It's not about pandering, it's not about compromise, it's not even about being politically correct. It's about extending respect to others as we would expect them to do for us.

Trying to make this yet another issue of "let's blame the liberals/conservatives/hippies/business execs/etc." only stands to lengthen the time needed to truly address the issues at hand.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.