Tonight's Favorite Movie Quote

This is my favorite piece of dialogue from one of my favorite movies. Near the end of the film, Tom Hanks' character is back home after 4 years on a deserted island. He recounts the moment when he realized what surrender was and how it affected him.

"I had power over nothing. And that's when this feeling came over me like a warm blanket. I knew somehow that I had to stay alive. Somehow, I had to keep breathing, even though there was no reason to hope. So that's what I did - I stayed alive and kept breathing and one day the tide came in and gave me a sail. I know what I have to do now - I've gotta keep breathing because tomorrow the sun will rise. Who knows what the tide could bring?"
Tom Hanks

WHEN EROS ENDS, IT'S NO ONE'S FAULT

Jill Brooke, a writer and editor in chief of FirstWivesWorld.com, posted a blog on the Huffington Post entitled, "Wouldn't It Be Great If Divorces Had Concession Speeches?"

Jill writes:

"One of the remarkable aspects of our democracy is how, after a grueling presidential race, the losing candidate makes a concession speech and there is a gracious transition of power. The incoming President then acknowledges the attributes of his competitor in the Presidential race. This tradition starts the process of healing and accepting the inevitability of the outcome."
"Wouldn't that be nice in a divorce?" Jill continues. "An olive branch, a speech or a built-in-tradition where ex-husband and ex-wife vowed to make efforts to support each other in their lives ahead.I know many of my friends would have loved to hear their ex-husbands (or ex-wives) give a concession speech after their divorces. In any marriage, as in any election, there is a winner and a loser. Even in an amicable divorce, someone feels more disappointment, someone is more elated."

Well, I definitely agree with most of Jill's sentiment here, though any speech or tradition is only as good as the genuine intention behind it. After however many years of sharing love and life together in a marriage or relationship of any kind, how valuable it would be to effect an ending that was infused with harmony and a loving acknowledgment of what the relationship had been.

So why is it that so often, so many couples end their time together with strife and anger, or as Jill says, with one person feeling more disappointment and the other more elation?

This is a subject that frequently comes up in therapy sessions, of course. At one end of a typical break-up is the person who feels they've been rejected and abandoned, the one who still wanted the relationship to continue, who claims to still be in-love; at the other end is the one who feels guilty for no longer being in-love, and for wanting to leave, who may even label themselves "commitment-phobic."

But here's where I may part ways with Jill, and with some of my colleagues. While it may be true that a couple can be split on whether or not they WANT to continue in a relationship or not, it's not true that one person can be unilaterally in-love with someone who is not.

"In-love-ness," or Eros, must be mutual to survive because it is an energetic current that can only exist in a completed circuit. If the flow of Eros is not mutual, it ends. What may remain, however, is a certain level of love, and sometimes even a certain amount of sexual desire. Many couples who are no longer in-love, still love each other and still have a kind of need-based, plateaued sex life together. But that special "thing" is gone, that nostril-flaring, pupil-dilating, butterfly-inducing charge is no longer present. The conflict starts when, in such a situation, one person is willing to live without that thing, and one isn't. And it's usually the person who is more developed emotionally that can't live without Eros, but that person usually is the one who takes the heat and criticism for being selfish or lacking in commitment.

This is what leads to destructive, blame or guilt-ridden break-ups, and to the unfortunate illusion that there is a "winner" or "loser" at the end of a relationship. Why Eros ends is complicated, with multi-layered reasons, depending on many factors (a subject for another writing), but if couples could accept that it is Eros that has ended, and it's no one's "fault," it would be possible to effect an ending that could really benefit both people, and could help to integrate all the gifts that the time together offered.

Todays Quote

"When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it - always."
Mahatma Gandhi

"Anonymous" Responds to "RELIGIOUS KIDS HAVE MORE SEX!"

Here's "Anonymous":

"Wow, another gem. I agree with what you said about exploring your desire, and I think I understand it better as an adult. But being raised Catholic, abstaining was the way to go. Respect your body and your sister's HOT friend's body. Ha! Having two little girls, though, the sex thing scares me. I am extremely sexual and I have no doubt that I lent a couple of those fantastic genes to my daughters. That is the part that scares me. Not an easy row to hoe.
Just my thoughts."

Good thoughts! Thanks!
PL

NO SURPRISES - RELIGIOUS KIDS HAVE MORE SEX!

Ah. Now that this eternal election is finally over and I can stop hammering the dumb-as-nails right wingnuts, I can get back to my favorite subject: sex! Here's a beauty from the latest New Yorker Magazine, an article called, "Red Sex, Blue Sex: Why do so many evangelical teen-agers become pregnant?" by one Margaret Talbot.

From the article:

"The vast majority of white evangelical adolescents — seventy-four per cent — say that they believe in abstaining from sex before marriage. (Only half of mainline Protestants, and a quarter of Jews, say that they believe in abstinence.) Moreover, among the major religious groups, evangelical virgins are the least likely to anticipate that sex will be pleasurable, and the most likely to believe that having sex will cause their partners to lose respect for them. (Jews most often cite pleasure as a reason to have sex, and say that an unplanned pregnancy would be an embarrassment.) But evangelical teen-agers are more sexually active than Mormons, mainline Protestants, and Jews. On average, white evangelical Protestants make their 'sexual début' shortly after turning sixteen. Another key difference in behavior is that evangelical Protestant teen-agers are significantly less likely than other groups to use contraception."

Okay, folks, put it together in your head, because I know at first blush, it may not compute - professing abstinence and NOT expecting pleasure leads to MORE SEX, and MORE UNPROTECTED SEX at that!

Get it? Hypocrisy - and yes, forgive me, "Rick," STUPIDITY - on the part of these parents has a way of outing itself through subconsciously motivated actions. Lame adults who teach their kids that their most powerful natural desires are sinful, that somehow nature and the way we're made is flawed, are putting their kids in such tremendous conflict with themselves that acting out becomes inevitable. On the other hand, kids that are taught to love their bodies and to expect pleasure, develop the capacity for patience and practicality when it comes to sex. It's not the "forbidden fruit" that Evangelicals think Eve partook of in the Garden to all of our detriment. In fact, the forbidden fruit was the development of self-consciousness, of a reflective ego. Remember? The parable in the Old Testament says that "they realized that they were naked." It doesn't say that they realized they were horny!

Anyway, glad to be back after a few days off basking in the shift in mass consciousness that just occurred.

Morning Quotes From Teddy

"Character, in the long run, is the decisive factor in the life of an individual and of nations alike. People ask the difference between a leader and a boss. The leader leads, and the boss drives."
Theodore Roosevelt

TONIGHT'S BONUS QUOTE

"With Malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds."
Abraham Lincoln

Today's Quote

"For that is the true genius of America - that America can change."
President-elect Barack Obama

CONGRATULATIONS, AMERICA!!!

We hold these truths to be self-evident...

Today's GREAT REPUBLICAN Quote

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
Abraham Lincoln

LET IT BE

Here's my final postscript for this election eve (already technically election day at 1 AM.)

Although I have railed at the stupidity of people who refuse to use their innate abilities to read the body language of politicians to determine who is lying and who is not, people who are looking for their idealized, long-lost parents from childhood in their candidates, people who are desperately afraid of change, people who want their own lack of intellectual curiosity validated as somehow "American," although I have decried this inanity, I do know this - there can be no "wrong" outcome today. Whoever is elected, it is merely a reflection of our current state of consciousness and therefore only another measure of where we are and where we need to go.

As John Lennon once wrote so simply and beautifully:

"Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be."

So be it.

WHEW! It's a HOT NIGHT! LOFF56 Weighs In.

LOFF56:

AMEN, Brother Rick!

One more comment from me, and then I guess tomorrow we'll have an outcome to all of this and we can all move on.

First of all Pete, you're way off base about the "Pro-life" versus "Pro-choice" debate. By saying that the "Pro-life" side is actually "Anti-choice" is exactly as erroneous as saying that the "Pro-choice" side is actually "Anti-life". I understand your argument, at it's core. Many pro-lifers' intentionally and dubiously call us "Anti-life" or "Pro-abortionists" which is characteristically wrong. Labels are important because words carry meaning; either negative or positive connotations. Which is why proponents of each side refer to themselves with the "pro" version of the phrase and more importantly why they label the opposite side of the debate with the negative connotation. Again... it's all politics and semantics!

But more to the point about this specific debate... Most (good) laws have some sort of moral basis. However that moral basis has to have a balancing practicality to it or that law would be counterproductive. Now some of those laws that are deeply rooted in morality are unquestioned by both the right and the left, by the religious and the scientific. Murder is illegal because it's morally wrong to both a religious person and a scientist (or a mental health specialist for that matter). Banning alcohol has an incredibly strong moral argument simply based on the number of deaths due to drunk driving every year. But as we learned, the policy of banning alcohol itself was naive to human nature and actually made the problem a lot worse.

Now I happen to believe that overturning Roe v. Wade would amount to the same (or far worse) problems we had during prohibition. (Of course the follow up is that we'd learn, repeal the ban and never talk about it again, just as we barely ever hear anyone talk about banning alcohol anymore.) But that doesn't mean that the moral argument for banning abortion isn't legitimate. In fact I believe that the moral argument itself helps temper a person's right to choose with an understanding of the consequences of a decision to have an abortion. (As you duly note, not everyone in this country is completely enlightened, and most don't have the advantage of understanding the value of therapy and enlightenment. The debate itself is literately a barbaric tool of providing information to the unenlightened masses.) Interestingly, Hillary Clinton's view on this issue has always been the most lucid: "Abortions should be legal, safe and rare." Without the very moral argument against killing an unborn baby, I don't believe the "rare" in this instance would have the same weight as the other two.

I hope you understand that this is all from a "this is where we're at right now" view point. I get it; that in an enlightened world this debate is moot because really in the end there can only be one good answer to the debate. (An answer that balances morality and practicality). But we don't live in that world, and I think it's unfair to chastise people (who don't have access to those enlightenment tools) for not living in that utopian world.

Second.

I totally agree with Rick's assessment of both candidates. (Almost, there are a few minor disagreements but...) If you think that Barack Obama comes with out his pile of shit, I think you're in la-la land. When you vote for Obama tomorrow, you're voting for Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Obama's press representatives, his policy advisers, his campaign managers, his speech writers, his wife, the DNC, and the countless number of people that could all potentially be giving Barack bad advice. It's an impracticality for Obama to be able to weed out every bad egg in his entourage. And even if his judgment is completely crystal clear, there will still be some people that will fool him and give him bad advice. He's only human.

I agree that there are some questions about things that he hasn't been completely transparent about. I figured that out when he missed some obvious opportunities in the debates to either set the record straight or nail McCain to the cross on some obvious slip ups. But where I disagree with Rick is in my ultimate choice is that I'm biting on Obama's message of Hope. However... with a big grain of salt, some of that hope is hope that he'll end up being who he claims to be. If he is, he probably will be the Messiah (or should I say the Filet Mignon) that everyone claims him to be. I'm not holding my breath, but I am hoping.

I have a whole other diatribe about the importance of moderation between right and left, but I'm tired, and I really just wanted to emphasize the point that all viewpoints are legitimate, and that all politicians, no matter how well they speak or how much you agree with them or disagree with them are still just politicians.

But hey, guess what, tomorrow there's one guy that's not on the ballot, George W. Bush, and that may just be the single biggest victory that this country could possibly ask for. :-D

GO VOTE EVERYONE!!

"Anonymous" Responds to Rick's Rip of PL

ANONYMOUS:

I really enjoyed reading the latest response by Rick, I thought it was insightful - if just for the fact that he points out the “seemingly incongruous” nature of PL's writings vs. his chosen profession- which would imply some sort of neutrality in these areas regarding labels such as stupidity and the like.

From the perspective of a patient of PL's (for 6 years), I can say that his compassion and “tough love” approach is not altogether incongruous with his writings; he happens to be more consistent then one might imagine. When you are on the receiving end of a therapist who gives his unqualified acceptance and support, it is infinitely easier to digest strong criticism from the same. I understand how an occasional reader would regard these words as provocative. I believe they are intended to be taken as such.

As for Rick's qualified positions on the election, I find there to be great incongruity in what he wrote regarding Senator Barack Obama. He writes “Obama = smoke + mirrors. He is inspiring, eloquent and has the passion to win an election. I think he is a genuinely good person.” But then goes on to say “However, there is nothing in his record that proves the kind of mettle required to run this country.”

Sadly, there seems to be an obvious fact that eludes many Americans here. Why is it that while we have watched Senator Obama, for the last 12 months, run an amazing campaign, stay calm under enormous pressure, stay on message, stay consistent, holding his ground without resorting to lies and deceit in order to gain points, organizing and spear-heading the most successful and financially prosperous campaign in the history of the US, bring together people - democrats, republicans, independents, young and old- from all walks of life - for one common goal, that some can still say he doesn’t have the experience to run this country? Experience is sorely overrated in the country and not always what it's cracked up to be. I have had many teachers in my life and the ones with the “most experience” have too often been the most archaic and ineffectual.
I only wish more people would trust what they are actually experiencing rather than what the have been conditioned to expect.

REALLY WORTH READING IF YOU'RE REALLY, SOMEHOW, TRULY UNDECIDED

Mike Barnacle, a good 'ole Irish Catholic from Boston on why Obama, why now.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-barnicle/driving-through-history_b_140665.html

PL GETTING FLAMED!

Okay, here's "Rick" ripping me a new one, but doing so, I might add, with a great deal of thoughtful, impassioned arguments. I'm going to leave this one up for a bit without a response from me, though I certainly would welcome any reactions from any other readers.

Here's "Rick":

"There you go again!
"I would like to commend you on your passion about this election and Obama. Passion usually leads to such a singleness of purpose which makes what was once considered unattainable, a reality. Unfortunately, that very passion can also make us close-minded, unreasonable and hurtful. 'In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible.'
Orwell, George
"No matter what came out about McCain or Obama, there would still be people who would support them either because of the party, race,gender, one issue or because they feel other issues override any shortcomings.
"I, like Loff56, have written about the narrow and the seemingly incongruous views (for a therapist) incessantly posted on this blog. Whether we call it a judgment, assessment or opinion, it still comes across as 'my way or the highway' and close-minded. As I and others have written, your commentary, although quite amusing, is painfully dogmatic and unproductive. You define stupid as 'when you rely on superstitious, regressed thinking and behavior for ego-driven purposes, for a self-aggrandizing agenda and/or out of exaggerated pride, while pretending there won't be any negative consequences for such behavior.' Do you really think that there wouldn’t be any negative consequences for your writings? If people read your blog, the 'I am right and you are wrong' tone is clearly ego driven, self-aggrandizing and regressed. People will tune you out. If you expected this negative consequence, then, according to you, you are not stupid. If you didn't think people will now dismiss the balanced and beneficial things you sometimes write, well, by your own pen, one would have to classify you as stupid.
"To qualify my position on this election, I do follow the issues and have taken action to make a difference. I ran for several political offices. I won and lost. I am involved, and ran for those offices to really make a difference. Unfortunately, my Mr. Smith Goes to Washington ideals never made it beyond my town. Although I am sensitive to the incredibly biased, political info out there, I try to be open to others and allow the opportunity for learning.
"I am one of “those people” who is undecided. However, I am leaning towards leaving that election box blank or voting for someone other than the two big guys. Blanks are recorded and indicate that I did show up to vote but did not choose from the options on that particular race. Not showing up at all is a different pig with bad lipstick. To defend not voting at all, sorry, see aformentioned Orwell quote. There are other races and ballot questions on this year's ballot and I will not leave those blank.
"Here is why I am struggling with the last two standing… McCain = Keating 5. That is a fact. Given the leadership we need in this economy, I could end my argument here. He is no longer the maverick/centrist he was in 2000. His failure to come out assertively on his positions and show some passion for the job, leads me to think that he has lost a few steps. As Al Gore did in 2000, John McCain is doing now, departing from the core values that got him to Washington in the first place. (Al Gore lost his own state in 2000 because he was no longer the Vietnam enlisting, gun carrying, anti pro-choice (Is that a more honest way of putting it?) and one of the most passionate environmentalists Washington had seen.) You change your fundamental stripes and that leads to questions on your character. Gore returned to his roots and won a Nobel prize.
"Obama = smoke + mirrors. He is inspiring, eloquent and has the passion to win an election. I think he is a genuinely good person. However, there is nothing in his record that proves the kind of mettle required to run this country. In addition, his lack of transparency with respect to reasonable questions about his background and the connections he has with many questionable characters and groups, those are facts, make me question and fear him. One could argue the criticisms are biased, unfortunately, so too are the defenses which make it difficult to navigate these muddled waters unless you have experience in 'political speech.'
"With only a few hours to go, Obama and McCain still haven’t allayed my concerns. If one chooses to ignore these shortcomings, that doesn’t make them stupid, in need of therapy, or even uninformed. They are just voting on what they feel is right.
"In a few years, some people will know if our thoughts, assessments, judgments + opinions were honest and ’IF’ - we have 'freed up and cleared out of ourselves the distorted, destructive deformations of our character structures (our collection of defenses).'
"The rest of us will just simply say we got it right or wrong.

Today's AMAZING Quote from a TRUE REPUBLICAN!

"Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure. "
Abraham Lincoln

TAMING GODZILLA

Well, today’s the last day of what has been a very surprising and very long campaign to elect a new leader for our country. We have seen the best and the worst of ourselves during the last two years. TWO YEARS?! It’s hard to believe.

Two things in particular that have been surprising to me: one, that the same country that chose George Bush and Dick Cheney as leaders for the last eight years seems poised to turn around and choose a totally transformational person in the form of Barack Obama; and two, that I have been so intense in my focus on this campaign, and so vehement in my drilling (pun intended) of John McCain and Sarah Palin and their followers.

Another very interesting aspect for me is that I have barely heard a word from my conservative friends in the last couple of months, no debates, no arguments, nary more than a few drops of criticism from my right-leaning associates. Nope. When the criticisms have come, in fact, they’ve been from my liberal-leaning friends and relatives. Yep. I’ve been chastised from the Democratic/liberal side of my relations, in most cases for what has been seen as my un-therapist-like attitude reflected in my writings.

Well, let me clarify with a story that is relevant to the situation.

Years ago, as I really landed in my niche as a psychotherapist, I discovered that I’d become an expert on the psychopathic character structure. I was one of a rare breed of therapists willing to work with psychopaths in therapy, let alone one whose approach didn’t include the use of medication. In fact, I was once invited to be the featured guest on a national radio show to speak about the school shootings at Scottsborough, Texas, and how to identify psychopathy in children.

An important revelation in my work with this very intractable character structure came one night in a dream. Here’s a shortened version:

Godzilla (yes the Japanese mega-monster we all know too well), broke into my home. When he saw me, the monster roared menacingly at me. Unruffled, I firmly whacked him on the snout. The chastened Godzilla stopped roaring, and bowed his head in surrender. I then took him by the “hand” (or claw, as it were), brought him into the kitchen and gave him some food.

That was it! When I woke up, I understood that my dream was a very simple outline for how to work with psychopaths. Firmly, with conviction, stop their maniacally ego-driven acting out, even if it means with a hard "slap," then offer nourishment for the heart, mind and soul.

This is the approach I have brought not only to my therapy practice, but to my writing as well when dealing with psychopaths. And make no mistake, those who have taken over the Republican Party, those referred to as “the base,” are full-blown psychopaths. (Read the chart at this link: http://fullpermissionliving.blogspot.com/2008/08/psychopathic-character-structure.html or watch the Movie, “STAR TREK 2: THE WRATH OF KHAN.” Ricardo Montleban plays a pure psychopath who destroys his ship, his crew and finally himself to defeat Captain Kirk. In Kahn’s final epithet, he says it all, quoting Captain Ahab of Moby Dick: “For hate’s sake, I spit my last breath at thee.”) These political Godzilla’s on the right we've been dealing with are not only not moderates, they are not even “conservatives” (Which, in a moment of self-awareness, is why they renamed themselves "neo-conservatives.") That is why so many prominent conservative thinkers and politicians have denounced the McCain-Palin ticket and openly come out in support of Barack Obama.

So, with this election finally drawing to a conclusion tomorrow, I hope that the monsters inside of the distorted characters that have wreaked havoc on our national psyche and on the world at large for eight years have been sufficiently slapped down. If so, I plan to return to a kindler-gentler writing style and offer the nourishment of a lighter consciousness to those same people. If not, I am ready, willing and able to continue taming Godzilla. No apologies necessary.

Today's Quote

“We are the only species that follows unstable pack leaders. The most important thing that we have to provide every day is that we are the pack leader, that we set the rules, the boundaries and the limitations... and then we love."
Cesar Millan (The Dog Whisperer)

Tonight's Quote

“Tenderness and kindness are not signs of weakness and despair but manifestations of strength and resolution”
Kahlil Gibran

GETTING FED-UP: FOOTNOTE TO "UNDECIDED-UNFORGIVEN"

Barack Obama is a terrorist-sympathizer who identifies with extreme Islamic fundamentalists; he's a radical socialist who wants to take your money and use it to bloat the pockets of government bureaucrats; he wants your children to learn how to have sex in kindergarten and grow up to marry someone of the same sex; oh, and he hates America.

John McCain is a true hero who knows that what's best for America's corporations is what's best for all Americans; he knows that firm, honest diplomacy and dialogue with less enlightened governments is actually a weakness; Sarah Palin knows that women don't know what's best for themselves or their children when it comes to procreation and their bodies; she knows that if you don't kill animals for sport, or if you think that scientists are right when they estimate that the earth is billions of years old, not six thousand, then you are not a real American.

If you or anyone you know believes all of this, OR if you really can't decide who to vote for, then by all means, people and dear readers, vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin. But... don't - DO NOT! - tell me that I cannot ask this question on a regular basis: "HOW STUPID ARE WE?!"

GEEZ!

P.S. And by the way, LOFF56, the different sides of the abortion issue are not for or against abortions. No one wants to have an abortion. The debate is whether or not women and their doctors should have the right to make the decision about giving birth or not, or whether it should be a crime to make that choice. The "pro-choice" advocates of the debate are at least honest in what they call their side, while the other side uses the misleading "pro-life" slander-by-implication grandiose title for their position.
There really aren't always two valid sides to every issue, nor are there always equally-deserving "teams" in every conflict. Everything is not a matter of opinion. If you're not thinking dualistically, then it can be understood that while we all create our own personal realities, there is such a thing as Reality with a capital "R."

MORE on "UNDECIDED" versus "UNFORGIVEN"

Here's two more responses to my post questioning the motives of the so-called "Undecideds" in this election between two starkly different candidates, plus a "follow-up" from the NY tImes.

One response is a comeback from "LOFF56":

"Well...
You can defend your post with semantics as much as you want, but it doesn't change my mind that it was tasteless in it's attempt to demonize people who disagree with you.
This coming from someone that agrees with you!!! (Or rather your position on the candidates specifically.)
I of course believe in a woman's right to choose, but I also believe that the opposing viewpoint has a valid moral argument that holds water. If, for example, the abortion issue is an incredible deal-breaker issue to a given voter, and if that voter is also absolutely repulsed by every other aspect of the republican ticket, that voter is completely justified in being 'undecided' as far as I'm concerned.
So... Joe-the-undecided, I forgive you."

Another is from "Bonni":

"Interestingly, just a day or two ago I was pondering the difference between 'judgement' and 'assessment' (or, as I tend to think of it, observation). I've known for years that there is definitely a difference, but, being human, I still sometimes fall into a judgmental attitude as opposed to just making the observation or assessment.
I love your definition. 'Judgement comes from a place of fear, prejudice, ignorance and/or hostility.' If I look for those things in myself in relation to my assessment (or judgment, as it were), I'll know I'm on the wrong track and can take steps to fix it.
So, thank you for that. I know that wasn't necessarily the purpose of your post, but I got something extremely valuable from it."

Thank you, LOFF56, and you're welcome, Bonni.

Finally, just to validate that I'm not the only one questioning the motives of these "Joe the Undecided" characters, here's an excerpt from this morning's NY Times, entitled: "The Undecided: Sheepish, Proud or Set to Flip Coin":

"Senators Barack Obama and John McCain have stood (or sat) for 36 debates, endured thousands of interviews, and spent hundreds of millions of dollars on advertisements and the better part of two years trying to convince voters that they are worthy of the presidency, or at least a vote. But with only days left until Election Day, a small cluster of holdouts — 4 percent, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll — are still wrestling with the 'Who are you voting for?' question.
Which raises a follow-up: 'What is up with these people?"

Exactly.

A Thoughtful Flame to PL (and PL's Response) on "UNDECIDED-UNFORGIVEN"

"LOFF56" writes:

"Wow!
I never thought I'd hear a therapist use a word like "unforgiven". Especially one who's blog is entitled "Full Permission Living". Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't "full permission" include a sense of self forgiveness, not to mention a forgiveness; and certainly non-judgment from their therapist?
I can only hope that none of your patients are voting for McCain or are undecided. I would think that it would not be such a good place to start if your therapist starts out thinking you're an idiot.
Besides that, although I don't disagree with your points about the differences between the two candidates, what you are saying is more of a dis to McCain voters than "undecided" voters anyway.
And I won't even start with the fact that this is all coming from someone who made the decision to remain "intentionally" undecided for 30 some-odd years.
Sorry Pete, but I'm calling you out on this one!"


PL"

Thanks for the call-out, LOFF56!

Here's the deal -

First, "Full Permission Living" is an understanding of how we are meant to live, how we are naturally created, and how we can behave outwardly in our lives, IF - and that's a huge "IF" - we have freed up and cleared out of ourselves the distorted, destructive deformations of our character structures (our collection of defenses). "Forgiveness" is the natural state of things, and yes, I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek by using the title of Clint Eastwood's movie to describe people whose motives are suspect.
Second, it is not always a "judgment" (which comes from fear, prejudice, ignorance and/or hostility) to call someone stupid. It can be an accurate assessment. As I said in a previous post about Sarah Palin, my definition of "stupid" is when you rely on superstitious, regressed thinking and behavior for ego-driven purposes, for a self-aggrandizing agenda and/or out of exaggerated pride, while pretending there won't be any negative consequences for such behavior. My use of the word does not imply intellectual limitations or a low level of mental capacity. In fact, to qualify for my version of stupid, you have to be of at least normal intellectual functioning. (By the way, I do sometimes lovingly let my patients know when they are being stupid!)
Finally, I have not been undecided during the years that I didn't vote for a presidential candidate. I was most definitely "DECIDED" that my vote was going to be a well-thought-out, firmly delivered "None-of-the-Above." (I was tempted to say "Thanks, but no thanks," but unfortunately, that phrase has been tainted by someone stupid!)