Something happened yesterday here that made me ponder politics in a new light. I found myself agreeing with an avowed lib on the topic of taxation. [ Forget the details, one of us might have to change our minds. ] But that's not the point. The thing of it is this: We are all familiar with the slightly over-used expression that the "We should not allow the Perfect to become the enemy of the Good." In other words, for every problem there are a range of possible solutions. And if we are looking to fix a problem, we are not going to get there if we insist on "perfection" as the sole permissible option, since few of us will ever agree on what even constitutes "perfection." Back to taxes, then. If an avowed and ardent liberal and I can agree that a form of "flat tax" that incorporates SOME elements of a progressive structure is a potentially desirable outcome, then why should we permit the demands of the extremes on either end of the political spectrum to derail that effort? It's akin to a discussion (on that other board) I once participated in involving the issue of "abortion." Some of my conservative colleagues and I agreed with each other (and with a few liberals, too) that it would be an enormous first step if we could get some limits on abortion even if only to the extent that it would no longer be available merely as a matter of "convenience." More strident opponents of abortion would take us to task -- since our proposal would NOT end abortion. And they were right up to a point. It wouldn't. But I felt (and some of my conservative friends also felt) that a move to CUT the massive number of abortions would at least be a rational first step. It makes me wonder what other political issues MIGHT actually be subject to a give and take approach? If I am seeking movement at least in the right direction, why should I oppose a plan that accomplishes such movement merely because it doesn't get us all the way to the promised land right away? Not all compromise is necessarily a dirty word. Thus endeth the ramble.