I recent read a column in a parent magazine discussing the importance of the firm "no" when raising a child. In fact, the parent noted that he had an easier time of it than the wishy-washy approach of the mother. A PSA also promotes the importance of the firm no when dealing with teens and drug/alcohol use. And, a discussion of the recent school race cases discussed that we cannot always get what we want or have it easy. You do not always go to the school you might want ... sometimes, often for good reason, you are told "no."
I think this reminder of how life works is useful now and again. Life does not always have due process of law ... it is not some totally equitable deal where each parent has equally healthy children and so on. This too has to be dealt with, though society has every obligation to supply a safety net, but the equitable no is even more justified. Surely, especially in our society, we do not like to accept this. We surely do not like to accept that no one promised us a rose garden as a birthright. It does amuse me how people blame God when death happens to them. It's natural, sure, but blatantly myopic.
One problem I had with the recent FISA bill and related issues is the lack of the "no." More enabling. Articles over the weekend underline that the enabling was in large part a result of yet again giving into administration b.s. But, like a parent who gives in to stop a child from whining or the like, there was no "firm no." This included the Democratic leadership. Members of the Republican caucus do not all accept the conservative mind-set of the backward leadership. But, they realize party loyalty a tad bit more than their opposite numbers.
They take the idea too far, yes, but the opposite extreme is not the answer. Moderation, as the philosophers say. Anyway, though it is sometimes hard to take, you have to respect the limits. In the long run, this often provides the best path to success. Who likes to look that far, right?