insert witty title here

Webster's defines the word compromise as:

1 a : settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions b : something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things

To my mind, the operative concepts in those sentences are 'mutual concessions' and 'something intermediate'.

I like to think of myself as an accomodating fellow, but over years I've realized that many people prefer accomodation to be as one-sided as possible - and usually not at their expense.

Call it naïveté on my part, but I don't see mutual concessions as a bad thing provided that there is a greater benefit for both parties as a result. To that end, I believe in approaching things with as open a mind and as large a view as possible, rather than with a less-than-broad what's in it for me philosophy.

I regularly find myself in situations where the brunt of any accomodation effort falls to me (if I so choose). Alternatively I suppose I could adopt a more hard-nosed approach to things from the start, but frankly that doesn't sit well with me. I think that if folks wish to take a more entrenched position then so be it: it's their karma to balance, not mine.

I realize the final responsibility lays with me to choose to accept their 'terms' or not. And by choosing their terms, I negate the option of complaining about it later. But it still rankles that it should have to invariably come to that sort of choice simply because so few people out there are willing to give to a level commensurate with what they want to get.

For example, every few years I fly back east to visit my friend Brian (you may recall him from my 'old guy at the club' post). I've made this trip three or four times over the years in contrast to his one visit in 1990 (for my wedding).

Every time I go I enjoy his company and we have a lot of fun together, but it concerns me that if it wasn't for my effort (and expense) that we would never see each other at all.