Compromise: Served with the short: Elitism and you and others and so on...

Elitism is the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite — a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight or those who view their own views as so; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern. This comes right off the definition of the word from Wikipedia. So what we got is people who are better than us cause they are better at things. Really when you get down to it everyone will fit this definition at some point. The real bit is when there is people who seem to be put into this position and then given the power to stay there. Any politician falls into this as their views are always given priority over other views. Like the guy in massachusets who ran saying he will vote down the health care bill just cause he is a republican and better than the rest of us. Just to note his state has a health care plan so he would get it even if the rest of us don't. However in this example you see how the elite and other elite are able to fight over things in their own way. By that I mean instead of getting hit in the face they go for the low blow and attack America itself. The worst thing is that people in this position rarely ever have to deal with the situations that come as a result of their bickering. They will never do us good and the whole "better than you" attitude from the social elite is a problem pretty much anywhere you go. On a smaller scale this attacks the little people in our normal lives. The cool kids at school, or the rich kids, and lets not forget the pretty ones. They teach us at a young age that there is a fundamental difference between people and that "because they are" is the only reason they need to be better than us. The group dynamic also to a lesser state shows this. In every group is a leader whose actions and decisions seem to influence the group as a whole. Over time this being becomes bigger and better in their mind and when they don't contemplate that they aren't always right and the best person for every job heads will butt. This becomes a problem and people resent others when they get into this mode. The social upbringing leads one to compare these individuals with the ones presented in the media and in ones own life. Resentment sets in and oddly sometimes leads to others to stage social uprisings which result in them taking on the qualities of the elitist they despise. Over time the roles change and a viscous cycle continues. Some times the only way to deal with ones differences (And all government people gotta learn this...and I mean now!) is to shoot them all and let god sort them out... I mean compromise. This is a thing that can be the best and worst thing ever. They essential truth behind this is that one can find a middle ground in which two or more parties are able to find common ground. This is supposed to give people closure and prevent bickering. When one looks at this there is something most people don't realize. Some where in all of this someone usually losses something they want. Where this is part of the process often one makes compromises they really don't want to (again government, I'm looking at you). The way I look at it is when one loses things they fight for they in essence lose a part of themselves. So now compare this over time. The more one agrees and compromises; unless they are the party that gets all or almost all of what they want (for some reason this happens alot) they begin to resent the "deal". Most people can deal with this over time but not when it occurs all of the time. The more one gives the more one gets. This is what most of us always thought but in every battle there is a winner and loser. When one doesn't stand up for their side enough often they will lose more than they would giving up (once again united states government get off your asses and make things better). True compromise is often impossible and would in theory be awesome but from experience most people aren't willing to deal with problems directly taking the time needed (seriously government...flying cars. We should have had them already but what the fuck...No starships or enhanced dna soldiers or virtual sex bots and light beer that doesn't suck even if it says that it doesn't) to make things right. Most like a quick fix. Lets say this and do this for a while. Later when it begins to degrade and the issues go back (and to the left) to where they were we once again confront them. Sometimes it takes a few times to get things right. However pushing something back and then to the front and back again essentially loses the issue and after a while no one gets what they want and refuses to fight for it anymore. When good soldiers stop fighting the ideals they protect often go the way of "New Coke" (seriously google it if you don't know what it is). The point that I try to make is that things will rarely be talked about and dealt with in the manner they should be. People should take all things to the table and fight for all they can get. Only when all is put on that table can things be resolved so that the loses are mutual and the gains shared by friends and allies and not democrats and republicans (destined to bicker like little bitches until they are replaced with younger little bitches with faster cars). The theory comes full circle that often it's the elite that benefit from compromisation (new word I call it) between parties and the common man is the one wondering that if what he came away with is really worth the fight for it and the casualties that fell during the war. Till the time when all is one I will contemplate this and more. Because I (wait for it) (seriously wait for it) (almost there) can.