Attention, Christopher!

Thank you. I just love attention!

I even like negative attention. Feel free to challenge me any time.

(If you haven't read the last couple posts, you will have missed a comment by Christopher to which I offered a response. I've decided to challenge him a little more than I have so far. He still has not contacted me directly.)

Let me remind you of how I view bi-partisanship.

The point of my post was to say that while I have chosen sides, while I have a lot of confidence in my views and the solutions I have worked on for years, I have learned that I have probably missed something. If my suggestions are not challenged, they could fail for that reason. I could have missed something.

What worries me is that not everyone else is willing to give thought to the possibility that they might have missed something important in their enthusiasm to get their suggestions accepted.

A true bi-partisan is one who has taken a side but is not closed to other information s/he has not taken into account.

That's why partisan solutions tend to fail. Their proponents fail to listen. They fail to think the other side may have an important point.

So, when you disagree with me, give me your best information and I just may change my mind. -- I await the copy of the EFCA bill you offered.

And as my post of the other day indicated, arrogance is bad enough when it comes to decision-making but adding greed is really a bummer. Any thoughts on that?

Next time, when you comment, put the shotgun down and tell me specifically why you think I am wrong. We all need to help each other. This is not a team sport where only one side wins. We're talking about the game of life where bad decisions and failure to communicate can lead to all of us losing.

And don't give another thought to my grammar. Have you noticed most people have trouble with grammar? Bring it up only if you want to help me improve my writing.

Okay?