Compromise vs. Gridlock

I was Recently Reading One of my Very Old Posts from May 4, 2009.  It is a Post that was Written in a Way that was a Little Confused and I Ended Up Adding a Comment to it that was more Clear.  Feel Free to Read the Old Post, Extremism vs. Moderation, An Introduction, yet what I Really Want you to Read Now is what my Current Thoughts are about what I should have Wrote, for here I am Two Years Later, Finally Clarifying.  Here is the Comment that I Added beneath that Post Late Last Night...


"You Know, When I Read this Again, I Realized that it is just a 'Hodge-Podge of Ideas', just as Soapbox Said.  Let's see if I can Clarify as I Visit this Sight Again.

"I was Struggling when I Wrote this, because I was Writing as a Moderate and Expressing my Desire for Compromise, yet at the Same Time, I was also Frustrated because I did not Like the Extreme Nature of what the Democratic President, Obama, was Doing, for he was Trying to Cram a Highly Expensive Stimulus Package, and Later Health Care Bill, Down Our Throats and the Congress Men and Women were not Even Taking the Time to Read what they were Voting on.

"Yes, that Happened in 2009.

"Anyway, Under the Circumstances, the Need for Gridlock, rather than Compromise was Very Apparent, yet as a Moderate that had just Been Defending Vigorously the Idea of Compromise, I was Struggling in Knowing how to Explain the Necessity of Gridlock.

"It's Really not that Hard, though.  Just Like Anything Else, Compromise is Sometimes Beneficial and Sometimes not.  To Say that we should NEVER Compromise is an Incorrect Extreme or Absolute. To Say the we should NEVER Refuse to Compromise, though, is also an Incorrect Extreme or Absolute and Absolutes are Rarely Ever Correct.

"I just Said Something Interesting Recently on Someone's Blog, though, and it Goes Like This... 

"'As to Compromise, there is Really no Valid Reason for Walking All the Way Across a Bridge for the Sake of Someone who is not Willing to Walk even as little as a Quarter of the Way Across the Bridge.'

"Basically what this Means is that Compromise has to Go Both Ways and if there is no Compromise on the Other Side and One of the Two Parties has Already Walked to the Middle, then there can be no Further Compromise and Gridlock is what is Needed.

"Also, Compromising too Soon is not Always what is Needed in Order to Accomplish the Greatest Benefit for your Own Position.

"There. Now that is what the Original Post Should have Said." 


I Look Forward to Your Comments.

Spiritaul Pause - Only God Can Change Hearts.

Since my Previous Post has Reached 41 Comments and I Often Try to Limit the Length of my Comment Threads to..., Oh, I don't Know.  I guess to 50..., And since some Time has Passed since I Last Posted anyway, it is Time for me to Post Again.

As I Pause Briefly from Politics, it is not as if I do not Know What I want to Post about Next.  I Imagine my Next Post after this One will be Based on the Last Link that was Posted in the Comment Section of my Previous Post, yet for some Reason I Feel the Need to Pause before I Continue with that Subject.

There are Still Things that Over Whelm me at Times and I am Gradually Learning how to Manage the Stress.  One Thing that I Keep Forgetting is the Need to Stop and Ask God for his Help, which I am Doing Right Now.  Sometimes it just Feels more Right to Pause Briefly from Politics and Say Something that is more Spiritual.

Funny.  I didn't Know that I was Going to be Posting what I am Actually Thinking about Right Now and yet this is the One that Feels Right to me and it is Something that I Wrote Earlier Today in the Comment Thread Below a Post at Someone Else's Blog.  The Subject was Sociology, Behaviorism, Psychology and Control and not Politics, yet at the End, I'm Going to also Make a Statement about Politics as well.  Whatever is not in Italics was Added Later for the Purpose of this Post.  Here's what I Wrote...


"I Find it Interesting that you are Criticizing Sociology and when I Think about Sociology, Especially that which is Connected to Behaviorism, I Find that I have Issues with it Myself and the Reason is because it is all about Control, that is the Controlling of People's Behaviors through Rewards and Punishments.
 
"The Problem is that Some People Simply can not be Controlled and the Reason Why is because there are People who are Willing to Make whatever Sacrifices Necessary for the Sake of what they Believe and they will Endure the Punishment and/or Lack of Reward for the Sake of those Beliefs.  This is the Reason why Most Psychologists (Non-Behaviorists) realize that it is Necessary to Change the Way People Think and not just the Way in which they Behave.  Only this can Result in a Change that will Actually Last.

"Changing Beliefs, though, is Difficult as Well.  In Christianity, we are Taught that it is God who Changes the Hearts of Men.  In Light of this, any Real Change has to Come from God, so the Best that any of us can do is just Submit to Him and Pray for those who are Caught up in an Error. 

"Neither Government, nor Sociology, nor even Psychology can Change the Hearts of Man.  Only God can do that."


These are the Sort of Spiritual Thoughts that Make me Wonder if even the Practice of Blogging About Politics is Worth it.  Though when I Originally Wrote this, it was about Sociology and Psychology, the Idea that it is God who Changes Hearts is also Connected to the Fruitlessness of Political Debate.  I don't know that Debate is Necessarily Fruitless, yet what I do Know is that if there is Any Chance at all that the Debate is not Entirely Fruitless, it is the Pausing and Focusing on God that will Make the Difference.

It is for This Reason that I Deliberately Slow Down my Blog and am not in a Hurry.

Liberal Facts & Figures, Continued Again

Ok, Here is what we are Going to do.  Here are the Last 5 Comments of the 55 Comment, Thread, Beneath the Post, More Liberal Facts and Figures, so we can Continue the Conversation here.  I do this Only because Shorter Comment Threats are more Likely to be Read Later than Longer Ones.  Feel Free, though, to Read all of the Original 55 Comments and Respond to any of them Here.  Also see More Liberal Facts & Figures; Continued.

dmarks said...

 P. J. said: "On the comment from Soapster about libertarian view, he denies this requires a perfect world.  Look around.  The less regulation we have had in the banking “industry” (misnomer, IMO), the bigger the nightmare." Actually, a big regulation/intervention caused the banking mortgage collapse and the economic crisis.  The government made banks make bad loans and dump them into Fannie-Mae which was a sump-hole for bad debt.  Entirely unsustainable, and everything broke.  Yes, the government strongly encouraged banks to make bad loans.  If not for this regulation, we'd be a lot better off.

March 21, 2011 9:01 AM

Lista said...

The Problem with the Regulation that Forces Bad Bank Loans is that it did not Consider the Cost Benefit Equation Correctly.  The Benefit to those who are Given the Loans was Considered, but not the Cost to the Banks.  The Current State of our Government is Imbalanced in the Direction of the Consumer and Away from the Needs of the Business Man.  To be Balanced, any Governmental Decision has to Consider both of these Parties, not Only One, and that is the Problem in a Nut Shell.

March 21, 2011 2:50 PM

P. J. Grath said..

Please, let’s not focus on bad loans so exclusively that we forget all those complicated “products” that financial institutions came up with, aimed at making money for them while they ducked any responsibility and often were purposely losing their investors’ money.  Those so-called “products” would not have been possible without deregulation.  The regulation was put in place because of similar, earlier (but not nearly as sophisticated in a Machiavellian way) outrages by banks.  Then people conveniently forgot, and banking interests, through their lobbyists, were able to remove the protections and apply once again the BOHICA principle.  (Out of deference to you, Lista, I’m leaving that as an acronym, but you can infer the meaning, I’m sure.)  There were also plenty of “good” loans that were really bad owing to the overvaluation of the market—again, not by accident. I agree with you about Randism, dmarks.  I belonged to that cult for a few years, long ago, but cults become wearisome if one is not a "true believer" but continues to think and question.  No individual or group of humans has the WHOLE, FINAL TRUTH.

March 21, 2011 4:48 PM

Lista said...

I'm Laughing, in a way, at the Length of this Comment Thread.  Ok. Fine.  Whatever. It's just that I Think this is my Longest One Yet.  Your Last Sentence, J.B.Grath, is really True.

March 21, 2011 10:45 PM

Silverfiddle said...

PJ: If the government would remove all backstops and protections from the banks, making them eat their own losses, instead of blowing a hole in the treasury to refill their pockets, the kind of crap you describe would stop immediately. These crony capitalists would not gamble so recklessly with their own money.  That's deregulation I think most of us could get behind.

March 22, 2011 7:25 AM

This is the End of the Earlier Comment Thread.  Now Click on the Comments Link, cause there is More.

Gone Coo Coo with Key Board Symbols

Here’s Something Silly just for Fun…

I was Just Having Fun on Someone’s Blog, Creating Pictures with the Symbols on the Key Board.

…...^.^......)).........../)/)...
….{^.^}.....//.........(^.^)..
----8-8---((...…......_(__)o
Cat or Kitten.....Bunny

..^...^..
.(O^O)...........(^0^)
(====).......*(_._._)*
_^__^______^_^__
..Owl......Some Other Silly Bird

Isn’t This Silly?  I Must be Board.  Either that, or the Politics have made me go coo coo.  Somebody Help me Please Return to Sanity.  Lololololololol.

Pure Unregulated Capitalism in an Imperfect World

Well, when I read the Last of Soapster's Comments that I've Gotten Behind in Commenting on, I was Debating about just Submitting it as a Comment, or Making a Whole Separate Post from it and I decided that it was an Interesting Enough Topic that I Could do a Whole Separate Post on it.


Here is Soapster's Comment that was Submitted on March 16, at 1:33 PM...

"'On the comment from Soapster about libertarian view, he denies this requires a perfect world.'

"That is a rather bold statement to make and an especially bold statement that should include some foundation on your part as to why you believe it requires 'a perfect world.'"

"It does not."


Me Talking Now
Soap's First Sentence is a Quote from P.J.Grath.  Grath's Comment was Submitted on March 16, at 6:29 AM.  You Will Find the Entire Comment Under my Post, More Liberal Facts and Figures.

I Guess Grath was Responding to Something that I Said in Even an Earlier Post.  In the Last Paragraph of my Another Look at Libertarianism Post, I Wrote the Following...

"Perhaps if we Lived in a More Perfect World, the Perfection of Pure Unregulated Capitalism could Work, but we do not Live in a Perfect World and in Our Imperfect State, the Strong are Continually Oppressing the Weak.  Without Regulation, such Oppression will do Nothing but Get Worse and Worse.  That's just the Way Man is."

I'm Hoping that his will Answer Soap's Question, yet this is Also Open to Further Discussion.

More Liberal Facts & Figures; Continued

I'm just Starting this New Post in Order to Continue the Discussion on the Earlier One.  Towards the End Soapster Submitted a Whole Series of Comments all at Once, to the Point at Which I was having Trouble Keeping Up with him.  I Published a Lot of it, but there are Still Four More and so I Have Decided to Start a New Post with his Comments instead of Allowing the Previous Thread to Keep Growing and Growing until no Body that just Arrived on the Scene will be Willing to Read it all.  Here is some of the Earlier Dialogue...

Soapster said: "Regardless of the regulatory apparatus that is implemented, the fact still stands that either man could still take advantage over the other by performing shoddy work."

Lista said: "You are Assuming that the Goal of Laws is Total Prevention, or Perfection, yet Perfection can never be Accomplished because we Live in an Imperfect World."

Soapster said: "Actually, Lista, if you read what I wrote, I wasn't saying that at all!

"I was in fact stating the EXACT OPPOSITE, by pointing out that REGARDLESS, either man could still take advantage over the other by performing shoddy work.

"I pointed out matter of factly imperfection.

"It is not for some middle man, some regulatory authority, some suit wearing bureaucrat to determine whether the farmhouse and the horseshoes have been made to satisfactory standards.  It is instead up to each individual in the transaction to make that assessment"


Here's my Response to Soap's  Above Comment...

Ok.  Let's Look at that Quote Again... 

Soap - "Regardless of the regulatory apparatus that is implemented, the fact still stands that either man could still take advantage over the other by performing shoddy work."

Me - To Me, this Means that Life is Imperfect Either Way and Even after Reading it another Time, that is Still what I see.   The Fact that Life is Imperfect with or without Laws and Regulations is not a Relevant Fact Unless the Goal of Laws and Regulations is Perfection, yet since the Goal of Laws and Regulations is not Perfection, your Statement Holds no Relevance to the Discussion of Whether or not there should be Laws.

And as to your Last Paragraph...

Soap - "It is not for some middle man, some regulatory authority, some suit wearing bureaucrat to determine whether the farmhouse and the horseshoes have been made to satisfactory standards.  It is instead up to each individual in the transaction to make that assessment"

Me -  Due to the Imperfect Nature of Our World and the Fact that not Everyone has Equal Power in the Area of Self-Protection, a Third Party is Often Necessary in Order to Protect the Weaker from someone who is Stronger.


Well, that is the First of Soapster's Comments that I had Left in Moderation from Earlier Today.  This One was Submitted at 6:13 AM.  There are Three Others Still in Moderation, but I'm just Going to Focus on One at a Time in the Comment Section of this New Post.

More Liberal Facts & Figures

I Continue to be Frustrated by the Fact that Liberals seem to be Able to Give Historical Facts and Figures that Support their Point of View.  Just as in the Post Below this one, I Posted some Liberal Facts and Figures and a Conservative, this Time, Pamela Hart, was able to Give Facts and Figures as well.  I Find the Fact that Both Sides can Give Facts and Figures Troubling.

And Here we go Again.  These Facts and Figures were Given to me by Dave Miller in a Comment Below his Post, Was President Bush Right?.  Unfortunately, there were not Many Conservatives Chiming in on this Discussion, so I am at the Mercy of what the Liberals are Saying to me, but I know that there are Conservatives that Follow my Blog, so Please, One Again, you are going to have to help me Out.


In One of Dave's Comments he said this...

"Lista, look at almost any graph of unemployment and job loss for the last few years and then respond on the charge of unemployment...

"Here's a good place to start...
 
Jobs Lost Under Bush vs. Obama


Later he Wrote This...

"Lista, here's a quote from Forbes magazine, published by strong conservative Steve Forbes, who once ran for President as a Republican... 

"'The first part of that path entails raising higher revenues. Everyone remembers Reagan's 1981 tax cuts. His admirers are less likely to tout the tax hikes he accepted as the 1981 recession and his own tax cuts began to unravel his long-term fiscal picture--a large tax increase on business in 1982, higher payroll taxes enacted in 1983 and higher energy taxes in 1984. A decade later, when a serious recession and higher spending began to upend the fiscal outlook again, the first President Bush similarly raised taxes on higher-income people in 1991; Bill Clinton doubled down and raised them again in 1993.'

"And here's the link... 

Even Reagan Raised Taxes

 "Here's a link to an article that lays out Reagan's Tax Raising Strategy when he was Gov. of California... 

10 Things Conservatives Don't Want You to Know About Ronald Reagan 

"Here's a link debunking the Reagan fiscal aura, written not by a liberal dem, but by his former budget director and author of the 'Trickle Down' theory, David Stockman... 

Four Deformations of the Apocalypse 

"There should be no doubt, Reagan believed in, and lived out rising taxes when necessary to fund the government and eliminate deficits."  (End of Quote)


Well, I Found these Links Troubling and I am not a History Expert and have Never Claimed to be.  Please, my Conservative Buddies.  Help me Out here.  What I Need, though, is Historical Facts, not Anger and Accusations of Stupidity and Lying.

Unemployment and Wealth Tax

Since Things Appear to be a Little Slow Right Now in the Blogosphere, I thought I Might Actually Post another One.  Here is a Conversation that Took Place on another Blog and Once Again, Due to my Limited Knowledge in Historical Facts, I thought I'd Give some of my More Conservative Friends the Chance to Respond to it.

My Words 
"And the Truth Remains that those who Own Businesses are those who Produce Jobs and if they do not Find the Rewards for Doing so Worth it to them, they will not Produce the Jobs.  You see, most Republicans Think that the Fact that when Taxes are too High, it Hurts the Job Market, as well as the Consumer is Something that's a No Brainer."

Response from a Liberal 
..no idea why most Republicans would think that.  Consider the marginal tax rate on the wealthy vs employment in our recent past:

Eisenhower:
Unemployment-2.92-6.84%
Wealth tax 91%

Johnson:
Unemployment-3.56-5.64%
Wealth tax 75%

Reagan:
Unemployment-6.2-9.6%
Wealth tax 28%

..the tax on wealth has nothing to do with employment...just another 'non-fact' bandied about by political manipulators.  (On the other hand, the tax on wealth has a LOT to do with the national deficit..even old conservative Ben Stein has noted that.)

Another Look at Libertarianism.

Ok.  You Know What?  There are Probably Many Different Flavors of Libertarianism.  I Wonder if some of you would be Surprised if I said that I may not Necessarily Reject Every Part of that Philosophy.  It's just that if Libertarianism Means Going all the Way Back in Time to a Time in which the KKK Went Around Torturing People, Witches were Burned at the Stake, Women were Second Class Citizens and Slavery was Legal, then that doesn't Interest me.

Come on, Now.  Do you Really Think that Every Form of "Progress" that has ever Occurred in the Country has been a Negative?  Do You Really Think that the Original Constitution was Flawless and that the Amendments that were Later Added were Unnecessary?  Have we Not Made some Improvements Over Time?  And if so, than isn't it Possible that the Current State of the Constitution May Actually Still not be Flawless?

I also Think that the Selling of all Public Lands to the Highest Bidder would be a Mistake.  Public Parks, and the Like, Give Kids something to do, instead of just Playing in the Streets and I have a Little Trouble Believing that the Church could Actually Take Over the Entire Burden of all the Assistance Programs that the Government is Currently Doing.  Perhaps that Shows a Lack of Faith on my Part, yet I just Don't Like such Extremes.  Seeking a Balance between the Extremes just Makes more Sense to me.

Perhaps if we Lived in a More Perfect World, the Perfection of Pure Unregulated Capitalism could Work, but we do not Live in a Perfect World and in Our Imperfect State, the Strong are Continually Oppressing the Weak.  Without Regulation, such Oppression will do Nothing but Get Worse and Worse.  That's just the Way Man is.

"It's JUST Money!!" / "The Value of Money"

As is not Uncommon with me, I was Responding to Someone's Comment on another Blog and the Comment was Long Enough and Interesting Enough, that I decided to Make it into a Post on my Own Blog.  This Time my Post is Written in Response to the Comment "Money isn't Everything.", which is not Unlike another Common Saying, as is Mentioned in the Title of this Post, "It's Just Money!!"

This Statement is not Untrue in that Money (that is Excess) isn't Everything, yet the Lack of Money (That is the Bear Essentials that One Needs) is Enormously Stressful and can Even Cause Marital Strife.

You See, I was Raised with Money and it Never Mattered to me that much.  In Fact, I Actually Disliked the Envy because of the Walls it Produces between People.

I can Actually Recall a Time in which someone Walked in to Our House and said "Wow!  It must be Nice!" and I Actually Felt like Slugging the Guy.  I was Feeling sort of Distanced from my Father at the Time and was Wishing for so many Things that have nothing to do with Money.

Later in Life, I Learned Something Entirely Different, though.  My Husband Bought a Bran New Camero, Bright Red, and I thought it was too Showy and Actually didn't Like the Attention that I Got, yet Later Understood that this was the First Bran New Car that he had Ever Owned and it was something that he had Wanted all his Life.

The Poor and the Rich do not at all Think the Same.  Mostly it is the Rich who will say "It's just Money".  The Poor Man will not say this.  Instead he Desires to Teach his Children "The Value of Money", that is that we have to Work Hard for it and so we should Appreciate it and do not Take it for Granted.

Only the Rich man will say "Oh, No Biggie.  They are just Things."  The Poor Man, though, desires to Teach his Children "the Value of Things".  Once again, that we have to Work Hard for what we have and therefore, should Take Care of what we Possess, Not Take it for Granted and not Treat it too Lightly.

To Illustrate this Point, my Father Once had a Lincoln Town Car that, Believe it or not, he Actually would Put his Contractor Supplies in the Trunk of.  People Used to Tease him for it and say that they Really Liked his New "Work Truck".  They just couldn't Understand how he could Abuse something so Valuable.

The Poor Man, though, Values what he has and Takes Care of it, so it will Last.  It's a Whole Different Perspective and it is not Right for the Rich Man to Belittle it.

Anyway, these are a Few of the Reason's Why, though Republican, I will not go so Far as to be a Libertarian.  I Understand Both Sides and Feel that the Poor and the Rich Need to Make Compromises with Each Other.

This Post was Inspired by Silverfiddle, Beneath his Post, How to Save a Life.

Issues of Frustration & Trust

You Know, Someone just Recently Sent me a Comment that I did not Post.  Mostly it was because it Seemed more Like a Personal Message to me, then Like Something that Needed to be Posted.  The Truth is, though, his Message has Stimulated some Thought.

There were a Number of Themes in it that I'd Like to Respond to and the First one is Frustration.  It's just Like I said to Beth, Beneath an Earlier Post, "As a Person who Struggles with Depression on Occasion, it is Interesting how Often People will Tell me to Stop Doing a Particular Thing that I am Doing at the Time in which I am Talking to them, as if Giving Up that One Item is going to be the Solution to a Life Long Problem."

It just so Happens that Frustration is a Part of Life.  Life isn't Perfect and because of this, we are Never Going to be Experiencing Exactly Everything in the Exact Way that we would Like to be Experiencing it and Unfortunately, this Reality Brings with it at Least Some Level of Frustration.  This is why it Puzzles me that People will Tell me to Run Away the Minute I Admit to some Frustration, as if they Think that the Existence of such Frustration is Something that can Actually be Avoided.

Another Thing Worth Noting is that just because I Admit Frustration does not Mean that I am being in some way "Dominated" by the Frustration.  I believe that is the Word my Blogger Friend Used.  To Me, the Challenge is to NOT "Submit" to the Various Levels of Frustration that will Inevitably always be in my Life.

Some People may Find it Odd when they Hear me Say that I Prefer Stress to Boredom and yet to me, Boredom is What Results whenever we Succeed at Removing all Stress from our Lives.

The Next Theme that I'd Like to Respond to is Trust.  My Friend was Absolutely Right when he said that we Need to Trust Ourselves First.  This Really is True, for we Need to First Trust Our Own Judgment about who is Trust Worthy and Who is not.  We Also Need to Trust Our Own Level of Self-Discipline in not Giving in to Things when we shouldn't.  If we are Afraid that Someone is Going to Steer Us Down the Wrong Path, then at Least Part of that is Trusting Ourselves that we are not Going to Allow that to Happen, for we are not Going to Follow if we do not Like the Direction that the Person is Going in.

Trust Does Indeed Begin with us, yet Part of that Involves Deciding who not to Trust and that is where the Responsibility of the One who Desires to be Trusted Comes in, for Trust is Earned and should Never just be Expected.  If Someone Refuses to Even Try to Work to Earn Trust and Respect, then they Deserve the Lack of Such that they are Given.

I'd like to Thank my Friend for Inspiring this Post.  I Know that there are Others who would Like to Take Credit for Saying Similar Things as this to me, yet the Credit Goes to the One who Said these Things to me more Recently, because his Delivery of the Information was both Humble and Respectable.

Penguin Goes Shopping

Here's Something Cute that was Recently Sent to me through Email.  Aren't you Proud of Me?  I Figured Out how to Post the Video Direct, rather than Posting a Link to it.  Ok.  I'm a Little Slow, but Check this Out!  It's Really Cute!!

The Sun, The Wind, Dominants & Submissives

Ok.  Maybe I Will be Submitting this One.  I didn't Know Yesterday, when I Posted, that I would be Posting two Days in a Row and yet somehow it Seems like the Appropriate Time to Submit this.

Here are just a Few Thoughts that I've been Recently Thinking about.  The First is about the Story of the Competition Between the Sun and the Wind.

The Sun and the Wind were Talking about a Man Walking Below them who had his Coat on and they Both Claimed that they could Influence the Man to Take his Coat Off.  The Wind Went First and Tried to Use Force.  He Blew and Blew and Blew in the Attempt to Blow the Coat Off of the Guy, but the Harder the Wind Blew, the More the Man Clung to the Coat, so the Wind was Unsuccessful in Forcing the Man to Do as the Wind was Insisting on.

Next, the Sun Took a Turn.  Instead of Force, the Sun Simply Used Warmth.  The Sun Came Out and Shown Brightly, Warming Up the Air Until, Guess What?  The Man Removed his Coat of his Own Free Will, without being Forced in any Way to Do so.

So what is the Moral of the Story.  Well, the Warmth of Love is more Effective than any Form of Forceful Persuasion.

I've Know this for a Very Long Time and yet Applying it is so Very Hard to do.  Sometimes the Way in which People Resist us and at Times Behave in Ways that we Consider Inconsiderate just Cause us to Feel Angry to the Point in which Our Love Dries Up, yet Applying Our Own Source of Forceful Wind does not Alleviate the Problem.

As Difficult as it is, the Lord Says that we are to "Turn the Other Cheek" (v. 39), "Go the Extra Mile" (v. 41), "Give to him who Asks of us" (v. 2) and "Pray for our Enemies" (v. 44).  (Matthew 5:39-44)

Here is where I have Struggled in Relation to this...

I've Discovered that there are People Out there who have Divided the World into Dominants and Submissives and who Appear to Believe that the Above Verses are for those who are Submissive by Nature.  I Hated this because the Above Verses are not just for "Submissives", but for Everyone.  The Other Reason that I Hated this is because if a "Submissive" does Apply the Above, God does not Get the Glory, for if Submissiveness is in some People's Nature, then those who are Submissive get the Credit for Acting in Accordance with their Own Nature and it is not God who Gets the Glory.

The Other Problem with Dividing the World into Dominants and Submissives is that Submissives then, get Taken for Granted.  They are Viewed as People who are just Acting in Accordance to their Nature and the Full Extent of the Sacrifice that is being Made is not Recognized.  This Results in Lack of Appreciation and a Disregard for their Needs.

What such a Dominant doesn't Realize is that these Verses were Written for Everyone, not just for Submissives and that the Principle that the Sun Persuades Better than the Wind is Still True, even for those who are Dominant.  Submissives are Human Beings and Human Beings do not Always Behave as they Should.  Even if there is Submissiveness in that Person's Nature, the Dominant is Still Required to be Warm, rather than Cold and Forceful.

What I have Said is Actually Quite Conservative in Nature, for I Know that Some would go even Further with the Idea in Favor of these "So Called 'Submissives'" by saying that there is no such thing and we are all Equal.

Excessive People Pleasing. Still Overwhelmed.

You Know, I've been Feeling Overwhelmed now for Quite Awhile and it is not Letting Up.  It's Frustrating how Blogging can be at Times.  I Watch my Hit Counter and when I See the Number of Hits Drop a Little, I Feel Compelled to Post again and it is not as if I do not have a Post Ready that I could Submit, yet here's the Problem...

I Know that if I was to Post the  Post I'm Referring to, it would Open Up a whole other Can a Worms and since I'm Feeling Overwhelmed by Worms already on a Number of Other Blogs, it would not be Wise for me to Submit my Next Post at this Time.  You see, here's the Thing...

I have a Tendency to be Overly Submissive and to at Least one of my Other Bloggers, even that is a Can of Worms, yet I'm going to Try and Explain this anyway.  There is an Unhealthy Form of Submissiveness and this is what Causes my Stress.

Let me Start by Saying that I Expect too much of myself.  Even the Expectation that I should Post when my Hit Count Drops can be at Times an Unreasonable thing to Expect because I can become Overwhelmed by the Commenters if there is more Activity than I can Handle.

The Reason why I Started with the Idea of Excessive Submissiveness, though, is Because a lot of what I Expect from myself comes from what I Think Others Expect from me.  This Includes Expectations such as Don't Speak Unless you can Prove Everything that you say.  This is a rather High Expectation for me because I am Slow at Web Research and even Arguments that do not Require Web Research Take Time to Think Through and Present to those I'm Dialoguing with.  Sometimes I just Plain Fall Short of this Goal and when I am Judged because of it, this Causes Stress.

Another Expectation is that when I am Challenged, I Need to Offer a Defense in a Timely Manner.  Again, if I do not Meet this Expectation, I Risk being Judged and being Judged or Misunderstood causes me Stress.

The Most Serious Excessive Submission Problem, though, is Caused by the Fact that I Feel Compelled to Respond Positively to most every Request that Sounds Reasonable to me at First.  A Good Example of this is the Request that I Visit a Certain Person's Blog and Offer my Input.  This wouldn't be so Bad if this was the End of the Request, yet Unfortunately the Expectations Continued and Turned to Don't say anything that you can not Give Full Support to within a Certain Time Frame.

Apparently, I can't Handle High Expectation Blogs because I am just too Limited in my Ability and Speed at Doing Web Research.  This Particular Blog that I am Referring to has been Highly Stressful for me and I Never Should have Honored the Initial Request that I Visit the Blog and Give my Input.  It was my Excessive Submissive Tendencies that Led to this Stress.

Some have Called this Sickness "People Pleasing" and what it Basically Consists of is the Inability to Say No.  I Keep Working on this Problem, so that I can Experience more Peace and Less Stress in my Life, yet I Continue to Struggle with this Weakness and Experience Stress because of it.

I want to Apologize if I have Allowed my Recent Stress to Cause me to be Rude to at Least one of my Commenters.  Even if such an Apology is not Required, I'm Doing it anyway because I have a Personal Need to.  Don't you see, even Honoring a Suggestion that I shouldn't Apologize would be a Form of People Pleasing and I Need to Stop doing that cause it is the Cause of my Stress.

Black and White Thinking; The Definition is Gray.

Once in Awhile, I am Inspired by my New Friend Man of Wonder and he has been Inspiring me in Relation to that Black and White Idea, mostly because that is Stated as the Main Theme in his Blog.  I'm Finding that the Concept of Black and White can be Understood in Quite a Number of Ways.  Some of them are Negative and Some are Positive.  I Realized this, as I was Writing Responses to Man of Wonder on his Blog, and then Later, as I thought of a Response to him on my Own Blog, that I've Decided not to Post Until Now.  Here is what I was Thinking of Writing to him below the Next Post Down,  Why do People Believe What they do?....

"There is just Something about Sloppy Thinking, Boy Wonder, that just Seems to Stir Anger within us, in the Flesh.  1)So Many People Out There just do not Know what is Black and White and What is Not.  2)Some Call what is Gray, Black or White and 3)some Call what is Black, White and what is White, Black."

Now to Show you What I Mean by the Different Meanings of the Black and White Concept, in the Context of the First Sentence Above, in which Black and White is Mentioned, it Means that which is Simple and Obvious, as well as Absolute and in the Context of the Second Sentence after that, the First Usage or the Words Black and White is about what is Confused and/or Relative being Called Obvious and/or Absolute and the Second Usage of them Refers to what is Right (White) and Wrong (Black).

Now Read that Paragraph again and see what you get out of it.

Now, for those of you who are Caught up in the Gray (that is Confusion), Some Things are Indeed Black and White (Clear and Obvious, as well as Absolute, or the Same for Everyone), but not Everything is Black and White.  Some Things are not Clear Cut and Obvious and also not Absolute, for Some Things are Gray (Relative) to a Person and/or Situation.

As to the Definition of Black and White as Nothing More than Simple, rather than Complex, Yes, we can "Over Complicate" with Irrelevant Details, yet we can also "Over Simplify", by Assuming that Everything Works According to Our Own Perception on Things or Our Own Point of View, while not Realizing that not Everyone is the Same and that the Way we are Viewing Things May be Beneficial to Oneself, but not to the Other Person (Relative, Rather than Absolute).  Perhaps it would be better not to be quite so Dogmatic in out Thinking.

You See, Black and White can Mean a Lot of Things and some of them are Negative and some of them are Not.  For Example, when Black and White Means Basic and Simple, this is not Necessarily a Negative, but when Black and White Means According to MY Point of View, or "My Way or the High Way", this is a Negative.

Also, When I Say that some of Life is Gray, at Least Part of What this Means is that Sometimes Things are not As they Seem.  Or Put another Way, Things are Foggy and Confused, Not as Easy to Understand as they Seem, or there is "more there than at first Meets the Eye" and this could also Mean that some things are Relative, rather than Absolute.

Now, as a Review of a Few of the Links that I had Referred to in an Earlier Post,  these Links; (Thoughts on Standing Beside a Bomb in a Crowded Square &  Black and White Thinking doesn't Work in a Gray World); Place the Idea of Black and White Thinking in a Very Negative Light.  The First of these Links Actually Places Black and White Thinking Right Along Side of Extremism and the Second just Explains why Black and White Thinking, as Described in the Article, does not Work in the Real World.  Both of these Links Came from a Post at Dave Millers Blog, The War on Extremism.  I Agree with what is Said in these Linked Articles.  The Problem, though, is this...

If Sometimes Black and White Thinking is Understood According to the Given Linked Articles, than Later when someone Uses the Same Terminology to Describe what is Simple, rather than complex, then the One Who Means Only Simple, and not Complex, will not be Judged Fairly for what he or she Says if the Readers are thinking instead about some of the more Negative Definitions of the Terms, Black and White.

There Obviously is a Negative Form of Black and White Thinking, yet this Concept has been Used in so Many Different Ways that Perhaps we Need to be Clear in Our Definitions before Throwing such Words Around.