I find myself in an interesting predicament. Surrounded on the one side by those who seem to thrive upon the destruction of others and the profits to be made therein, and on the other by people who believe that destruction is never necessary and that resolution is a simple matter of talking.

So you're thinking, another post on the war, right? Well, not necessarily. Many Republicans whom I've met take the view that elimination is the best philosophy when it comes to dealing with one's problems: if it's bothering you, kill it off. On the other hand, some Democrats go to the opposite extreme by saying that all things should be preserved no matter what the potential drawbacks. It's an identity narcisissm of sorts, where because you believe in a certain thing, you come to be unable to validly identify alternatives as reality.

This is what I see on the national stage... identities so fashioned in one or the other that compromise, or the middle ground, has become devalued because it has come to equivocate wtih defeat. Compromise in other arenas would be considered a success, a sign of maturity perhaps, by showing an awareness that the truth, often, does lie somewhere in between.

My solution to the problem of destruction versus preservation? Preserve that which does not destroy, destroy that which does not preserve. Formulaic, yes, but why do we seek to preserve destruction in a world in which it only serves to foster its' own propagation?