612: Division of the House

American political parties stand-off

The conflict in the US over policy goes far, far beyond Democrat or Republican. In all actuality, those two surface divisions are far more alike than they are different. No, it goes far deeper and far more fundamental than political party affiliation.

Where we fundamentally agree is on “what’s best for America and her citizens.” Where we fundamentally disagree is on what exactly that “best” consists of.

To me, it boils down to two camps which are not necessarily identified by party affiliation, and this describes the two and the primary difference between them.

The difference, as I see it, is between those who  want people to stand on their own two feet, to be responsible and mature, and to provide for themselves and the progeny they produce: in effect, a limited government. This refers to the vast majority of able-bodied citizens, not those honestly and deservedly unable to care for themselves through advanced or young age, physical or in limited cases, mental defect. I get it, some people need AND DESERVE help. Unfortunately, there are far too many getting help currently who do not deserve help – they are where they are because of choices they themselves have made, and this camp believes that bad choices should have consequences.

The other camp believes that people actually born and breathing deserve all their needs, nay even their wants and desires (apparently irregardless of practicality or worth) met by a government that cares and provides for them from cradle to grave, in every aspect of life, economy, personal responsibility, decision making and bad choices totally irrelevant. Cost apparently irrelevant as well.

That appears to be where the division of the house occurs. I guess you can tell on which side of that fence I pitch my tent.


419: Staying Put

I am reading a book about religion. I have had this book for more than five years, and I am less than half-way through with it. That is a profound indication of how difficult this book is for me. I can read five books or more in a single day, easily. I am the speed-reading paragon of reading books. Except for this one.

This one is about giving up on being offended. OUCH. Twinged my toes just typing it.

Being offended comes, according to this author, from a few sources: feeling that someone owes you something you are not getting, knowing you owe someone something you are not giving, and finally, feeling that God (who is the One who ultimately controls everything) owes you something you are not getting. Most of it, therefore, is the fact that I am not getting something I think I deserve, or that I want, whether I think I deserve it or not. The rest is knowing that I owe something to someone that I am not willing to give to them – mostly forgiveness for something they did to me, but occasionally it is an abject apology, or restitution, for something I did I am not particularly proud about having done to them.

I have discovered, reading this book, that I have a world view of an ordered, logical existence. Regardless of the inescapable fact that this world in which we live is not that sort of world, I WANT it to be that sort of world, and I am offended when people in positions of leadership are idiots. Particularly when they are in positions of leadership over ME.

I want a calm life, and I am not getting it, dammit.  *sigh*

Back to the book……….

One of the things it says is that God has you in the position where you are, to help you learn the lessons He wants you to learn, so you are not supposed to bail when things get tough, you are supposed to buckle down and learn your lessons. If you flee, you will just have to learn your lessons in another place and time. God is very patient, unfortunately. And here I was, filling out job applications for another school in  another country, looking forward to being able to bail on this current position (and country, for that matter).