Sometimes, you have to fight, you can't always concede your position

in order to "broaden" your appeal unless you don't hold that position strongly or believe in it enough.

to set us straight. :)

I voted for change, God Dammit!

I'm thinking on more of a political plane.

Does anyone really believe that a higher power is going to act or not act based on Rick Warren's "invocation"?

It's about torture.

Thank you for the first lesson on tactics, and I'm happy to have the opportunity to present the second.

Don't worry, charlie,. I get the whole Huffing-Puffing-Matter-of-Principle thing. It's charming, for sure. When your rhetorical strategy is a loser, you examine it and you change it. Or, you stick to it and claim to be in it for the "long term." Or you stick to it and lose. I'm a Marxist - like a real Marxist. I fucking get it, truly. So you can do the whole principle thing until you're blue in the face, it doesn't change the fact that there are a number of strategic approaches, and "sticking to your position no matter what" is not the only one. Sometimes it is smarter, and some times it is not smarter. Especially when you get your ass handed to you, it's often not smarter. You adjust, or sit in for the long war, or lose. It's easy to huff-n-puff, harder to analyze our own failures and adjust. Huffing and puffing take less effort, and are self-satisfying, after all.

that you lose any principled stand yourself has little benefit because the outcome will always be something more of what your opposition seeks. When it changes the fundamental relationship between a citizen and their government in terms of power, that can result in a problem sometimes.

Only you. "Always" is the opposite of strategy.

be up for compromise. I'm not making either a sometimes or always argument. I have noticed on the political landscape, little willingness to compromise on the part of the Republican party but plenty on the democratic side, even when no political advantage really exists. It sometimes makes me wonder if there exists a side politicians don't create.

Or lose.

For me, the simple principle that all value is derived from labor power is a fundamental fact, and that, therefore, profit is theft. Profit is theft, the extraction of surplus value from labor power, exploitation, period. Fucking PERIOD. And I don't care if you're a small business owner who treats your employees well or a sweat shop owner who has goons stomping union organizers in the back alley. Profit is theft. Because all value is derived from labor power. That's my fundamental belief system. It goes to the heart of human social relations. I'm not willing to "compromise" on that position. But I'm not going to pretend that it is a position that can play nationally. So you do what you can to alleviate the negative effects of thew basic THEFT system of capitalism. And you dig in for the long war. You want to play that game, fine. Just be aware that it comes with consequences, and work.

Someone unfairly sitting in a jail because someone in power changed the law requires a quicker response if one is to support the concept of responsibilty inherent in representative government.

We can go back and forth all day. The point is you have to make a realistic assessment of goals, means, and audience. You can huff and puff all day long. I know. I've tried.

Then, when you're done, you can get to work. On this particular issue, I think the first thing people need to do is examine the utter failure of the anti-Prop 8 campaign, and it was an utter failure. Why? Why did it fail? What can be changed? How can you draw in other constituencies? What specific strategies would bring people in? These questions have nothing to do with "always," or with your severely abstract theorizing about strategy. They have to do with concrete strategy and tactics. When you decide that you want to stop huffing and puffing and start working, that might be a good place to get started.

Cheers.

An immediate injustice does not require an approach of compromise but something quicker. As far as compromise, one has to determine if it is a move forward or losing ground.

That's the problem. The world would be easy...and terrifying...if everybody agreed on those points.