NOW:53110:USA00949
http://widgets.journalinteractive.com/cache/JIResponseCacher.ashx?duration=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.wp.myweather.net%2FeWxII%2F%3Fdata%3D*USA00949
51°
H 54° L 45°
Cloudy | 6MPH

The Way I See It!

I am an Ultra-Conservative, Alpha-Male, True Authentic Leader, Type "C" Personality, who is very active in my community; whether it is donating time, clothes or money for Project Concern or going to Common Council meetings and voicing my opinions. As a blogger, I intend to provide a different viewpoint "The way I see it!" on various world, national and local issues with a few helpful tips & tidbits sprinkled in.

Confusion?

Culture

Before reading this, please review the following so we are all on the same page.

 

Generalizations

 

Recognizing and Avoiding Logical Fallacies

 

Let’s consider the following paragraph and are the examples given generalizations or generally speaking?

 

Those generalizations again are getting you into trouble.  You list definitions of words when you start some of your blogs (which I think is good only if you think some may misinterpret your meaning), but then you leave those specifics behind to generalize (such as "legislate from the bench" or "unions")

 

So when I say, “You don’t want a judge that legislates from the bench” that is not a generalization, but generally speaking.  There is a difference!

 

--------------------------------------------------------

 

Now please read this excerpt.  Ask yourself if it is filled with generalizations or is it generally speaking with respect to Big Government, Big Business, Republicans and Democrats.  Is it oversimplification?

 

Please keep in mind that most of the time I don’t deal with political parties but ideologies (Liberals and Conservatives since Democrats and Republicans have many different degrees and factions within them and one cannot just simple assume a Republican is a Conservative and they are not necessarily interchangeable !).

 

 

The end of Chesterton's "What's Wrong With the World" I think he summarizes Hudge and Gudge perfectly (Big Government and Big Business, Republican and Democrat, self labeled Conservatives and Liberals, many of these descriptions fit quite well).  I'll replace Hudge and Gudge with Republican and Democrat.  This was published 100 years ago.

 

And now, as this book is drawing to a close, I will whisper in the reader's ear a horrible suspicion that has sometimes haunted me: the suspicion that Democrats and Republicans are secretly in partnership.  That the quarrel they keep up in public is very much of a put-up job, and that the way in which they perpetually play into each other's hands is not an everlasting coincidence.  Republicans, the plutocrats, wants an anarchic industrialism; Democrats, the idealists, provides him with lyric praises of anarchy.  Republicans want women-workers because they are cheaper; Democrats call the woman's work "freedom to live her own life.”  Republicans want steady and obedient workmen, Democrats preach teetotalism--to workmen, not to Republicans--Republicans want a tame and timid population who will never take arms against tyranny; Democrats prove from Tolstoi that nobody must take arms against anything.  The Republican is naturally a healthy and well-washed gentleman; Democrats earnestly preach the perfection of Republicans washing to people who can't practice it.  Above all, Republicans rule by a coarse and cruel system of sacking and sweating and bi-sexual toil which is totally inconsistent with the free family and which is bound to destroy it; therefore Democrats, stretching out their arms to the universe with a prophetic smile, tells us that the family is something that we shall soon gloriously outgrow.

 

I do not know whether the partnership of Democrats and Republicans is conscious or unconscious.  I only know that between them they still keep the common man homeless.

 

You may disagree with the above stating Gudge (Republicans) want the people timid and unwilling to stand up to tyranny, but I think repubs accomplish that goal by making sure there members never see them as the ones imposing tyranny, they recognize and play off the natural desire of freedom and make sure that those with the guns are on their side.  During Chesterton's time, England was still being expansionist (for example the Boar war) in which the rich wanted for the natural resources.  They were pro-England, overtly prideful in their nation.  He still saw this as a position of the Gudges (modern day Repubs), I'll take his word for it.

 

During the Boar war, Chesterton was against it not because he was a Pacifist, but because he thought it was wrong for England to force it's will on others for their resources, that it wasn't a justifiable war.  The people he was protesting with were Pacifists, people he didn't agree with and couldn't stand.  He said he wasn't sure which side disliked him more, that's where I am now.  His quote:

 

I was called a Pro-Boer and, unlike some Pro-Boers, I was very proud of the title.  It expressed exactly what I meant much better than its idealistic synonyms.  Some intellectuals indignantly repudiated the term, and said they were not Pro-Boers but only lovers of peace or pacifists.  But I emphatically was a Pro-Boer, and I emphatically was not a pacifist.  My point was that the Boers were right in fighting; not that anybody must be wrong in fighting. I thought that their farmers were perfectly entitled to take to horse and rifle in defense of their farms, and their little farming commonwealth, when it was invaded by a more cosmopolitan empire at the command of very cosmopolitan financiers.  As no less an authority than Mr. Discobolus says in Lear's Nonsense Rhymes, I thought so then and I think so still.  But this sort of militant sympathy naturally separated those who thought as I did from our colleagues who were mere anti-militarists.  The consequence was not unimportant to me personally.  It was that I found I belonged to a minority of a minority.  Most of those who not unnaturally sympathized with the British, disapproved of us for sympathizing with the Boers.  Most of those who sympathized with the Boers disapproved of us for sympathizing with them for the wrong reasons.  Indeed, I do not know whether the Jingo or the Pacifist found us the more offensive and objectionable.

 

This is why Chesterton is quoted by everyone but neither the Hudges or Gudges can claim him as on their side.  He pointed out the truth, which isn't exclusive to either of these two.  God, Religion, that's where we all need to seek the truth.  We won't find it in a single political party.  I doubt a thousand years from now either party will be around, but God will.  This doesn't mean I don't care about my civic duties, it means they trail the priorities of God and my family.

 

Point of Questions – Doesn’t religion tell us not to judge others or pass judgment?  Can anyone claim God?  Can a religion claim God is on their side?  Can a country?  Can religion pass judgment on another religion and their interpretation of God and can a religion say their God is the right God without claiming him?  Are we claiming God when we say my God?  If you don’t believe in God can you still seek truth or find it?

This site uses Facebook comments to make it easier for you to contribute. If you see a comment you would like to flag for spam or abuse, click the "x" in the upper right of it. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use.

Page Tools