Unforuntately things usually don't work non extreme measures. You don't often see one man saying 2+2=4 and one saying 2+2=6 you see one same 2+2=3 and 2+2=5. Even in our own government you have, most noteably, the 2 extremes. Conservatives and Liberals. In most cases I disagree with both sides (yet I do favor the Conservative side most of the time). I find Rush Limbaugh to be, as Al Frankin put in the title of one of his books, "A Big Fat Idiot." I also find the rantings of the Reverend Jessie Jackson to be equally stupid. Somewhere in the middle is the truth that both are really wanting. But you can't come out with what you want and expect the other to back down. If someone is WAY to one side, you have to be WAY to the other side so that you can both meet where you really want, in the middle. It's the art of haggling that most Americans have long since forgotten. People are willing to accept things at face value. Many people purchase cars at sticker prices these days. Those cars come with a flexibility in them, for those wishing to bring it down.

I remember watching in horror (as I've never seen it before) as a good friend of mine and I went to a computer store for their parents to buy a computer. He walked in with the idea to not pay sticker price. He actually walked in with the idea "I will get at least a $300 printer." And he left that store with a Computer and a $300 printer. But I watched him haggle with the clerk, who repeatedly went to talk with his "manager." Until then, I never saw anyone do that for a product like a computer. I've seen it repeatedly happen now that I've grown up, but it's not very frequent. Often you can hear other people say under their breath "Just pay the damned full price." But I digress a little. This isn't about money.

I don't know if you ever saw the movie "The Last Supper." But I thought it was a great film. It touches very much on this topic of extremes meeting in the middle.

Not entirely, Kavey. The sentiment in the original post is well taken - for many problems, one side insists on one solution (the right one), the other insists the opposite, and the "middle" is completely worthless.

Take, for instance, Iran. It's patently obvious to the world that their leaders are nuts, and that letting them become a nuclear power is a bad thing. The problem lies in that all the "solutions" to this (such as having another nation provide them with fuel as an incentive for them not to research it on their own) presumes that their intentions are actually benign, when anyone can see that such a claim is pure bull poop.

So, what's the solution? Well, it's sure not letting Iran get away with it, but that's what every "compromise" amounts to.

Which is why I used the modified "usually" I think more often than not people realize to oppose an extreme one must take an extreme stance. That way when you do compromise, it's closer to what you had in mind, "right," than trying to start with the middle ground you really want, and getting pushed back. Yes, there are instances where some people start in the middle. They either end up compromising what they wanted, or get ignored as being an unmovable uncompromising fool.