What is Good for the Union...

Recently, the United Auto Workers (UAW) tried to unionize a Volkswagen factory in the South
It is interesting to note that when a vote is taken and the union doesn't win the vote, it is blamed on some outside factor, like the "South", as if this ubiquitous direction had some kind of influence.  The employees are the ones that vote, so why don't the employees get the blame, or the praise, or the Unions see no virtue in their rejection, and no introspection in their efforts.  Perhaps they could look at being relevant, instead of pushing their ever-present "redistribution of wealth" mantra.  Back to the vote...it seems that for those that rule, there is no respect to the vote, or to the principles that are the basis of the vote.  Look at recent initiatives to reinforce the definition of marriage.  There is no respect for the majority of voters and their moral basis for the success of the vote.  Where a definition-of-marriage initiative has been presented and voted-on by the public, it has won a majority of votes.  Then it is dismissed, out-of-hand by the ruling elite and then directed to a handful of people to decide its morality (the courts).  Is it to be assumed that the morality of a few would trump the votes of a majority?  It is like an answer in search of a question, and there is no "civil-right" in an institution first established as a sacrament of religion.  Wasn't it God that performed the first marriage?

The rule of Law has been disgraced by this process.  The courts have been established as a check-and-balance for the other branches of government, not as an arbiter of morality, that would try to trump the vote of the majority.

There is a movement afoot to establish Article V conventions, according to the Constitution, that would assert the rights of the States to establish law, when the branches of government are not doing their job.  I would assume that the future, being a reflection of the direction of the past, would tell us that the results of these conventions would come under the final scrutiny of the Judicial Branch.  The Constitution has no such provisions.  But they will certainly try, and cause that the Constitution "shall hang by a thread", and not be overtaken.

The rule of Law must be sustained if our form of government is to continue and I don't mean the rule of law that is activist, but one that is no respector of persons, that is even-handed and true, versus false.

Even though this is just an observation.....

Slight of Hand

Okay, this is a good one. The Democratic machine is bringing in the re-enforcements and trotting out the sympathies for all the discussion on Contraception and the government involvement. Rick Santorum has made a point of bringing up this social issue as a freedom of religion debate. Pres. Obama and his apologists have countered that this is a poverty issue, that the government should provide a means for the "poor" to have access to contraception, therefore they are requiring insurance companies to pay for patient's contraceptive costs, like it is a prescription or something. Self-insured employers, like the Catholic Church oppose contraceptive practices and feel that it is not the government's place to force policies on an employer that are contrary to the religious beliefs of the employer especially if it is a Church. The White House and the Democratic machine have been trying to pull the discussion away from the 2nd Amendment argument and more towards the poor and affordability argument. The have even demonized Mr. Santorum as anti-women's health (who would have thought that contraceptives made women healthier - "Vitamin S"?...for Sex). Anyway, the Catholic and other church don't want to be mandated to provide something that is against their beliefs....kind of like making the Rainforest Alliance buy S.U.V.s for their company vehicles (which I think they do voluntarily and hypocritically). Again, this is not an issue about women's health or the poor...it is about the government forcing someone to do something they don't believe in...aren't they pro-choice, meaning allowing options for all the consequenses?

So they march the Georgetown Co-ed in front of the congressional committee hearing to give testimony in support of their (the Democrats) argument. The actions of the polititians in this respect is reprehensible, in taking advantage of a young women that was willing to represent their position, but opening her up to public scrutiny without a full vetting of her testimony....sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

In the game of propaganda the end justifies whatever action needs to be taken.  With that course doesn't an effort like that de-legitimize the point that you are trying to make?  If you can't make a logical and thoughtful justification of your point, then you are just trying to push a lie.  Where does a lie take us?  Down a dead-end road; game, set, match.

Maybe we need to examine where we are going and what are people's motives.  If a movement is purely political, it is more often the result of a pushing a lie to make a point, no common sense, no conscience...but of course, this is just an observation....

Situational Ethics

What is ethics?   Yea, look it up, but the dictionary is an example of situational ethics.  If you were to say to someone today, "..a pox on you!", would it mean the same as it did in the 16th Century?  The answer is no.  As society changes, should ethics necessarily change?  And you are going to tell me that even in other countries, there are different ethics from those in the U.S., because of the different type of culture.  Yes! 

What is consistent from day-to-day, from year-to-year, from decade-to-decade?  Truth!  Truth is everlasting, eternal, unchanging.  What is true in the 16th Century, is true in the 21st Century, but does it necessary follow that what isn't true in the 21st Century wasn't true in the 16th Century, that is, if it doesn't endure the test of time, then it is not true?  On the other hand if something was true, and the knowledge of it was not passed on to the following generation, does it mean that it wasn't true?  "..Truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it.", meaning it is not something that is concocted, or invented, by man.  Man can only discover the truth that already exists.  This is called getting the "Big Picture", putting aside the opinions and half-truths that have collected over the span of time.

It the recent past there has been a movement afoot to legalize marriage for all arrangements...in other words, situational ethics or civil rights.  At one time it was legal in the U.S. to own slaves.  It was legal during the Roman Empire, the Assyrians, the Egyptians, even the Israelites had slaves, but how do we feel about it today?  It is morally wrong.  Is that true?  Was it wrong during the other ancient societies, or just situationally ethical?  On the other hand, it has always been wrong to take an innocent life, but in modern times it has become a "right" to terminate a life of an unborn child.  What is the truth?  Is one life more important than another?  Is it a civil right? 

Will it be legal if we fast-forward 100 years?....I don't know, but this is definitely a true observation.....

The Fog of Dogma

The allusion of the title of this posting to the "Fog of War", a book written by Robert S. McNamara, the Secretary of Defense under Presidents John Kennedy & Lyndon Johnson, who orchestrated our country's efforts during the Viet Nam conflict. The following are the his eleven lessons of war:

1.Empathize with your enemy
2.Rationality will not save us
3.There's something beyond one's self
4.Maximize efficiency
5.Proportionality should be a guideline in war
6.Get the data
7.Belief and seeing are often both wrong
8.Be prepared to re-examine your reasoning
9.In order to do good, you may have to engage in evil
10.Never say never
11.You can't change human nature

I would propose that any kind of fog is due in part or in whole to the above. Many people use their dogma like a weapon of war to bring others in submission. Many on the irreligious left think that the religious right are forcing their beliefs on the rest of us, when both sides are doing just that. The last I remember, when I checked the Declaration of Independence, we are free to choose. I would like to adapt the above list to those who would like to beat us senseless with their dogmas:

1. Empathy does not equal Tolerance which does not equal compromise.
2. Reason and persuasion will save us; name-calling will not.
3. There's something beyond this life and we will all account for our actions.
4. Maximize efficiency; listen to the past.
5. Do unto others.... should be a guideline in life.
6. Seek the truth and follow it to completion.
7. Faith is always based in truth; if it doesn't lead to the truth, it is false.
8. Be prepared to re-examine your reasoning, and follow truth.
9. In order to do good, you have to choose that which is true. The end does not justify the means. True means lead to a true end.
10. Never give up.
11. Only Christ can change human behavior.

The reason for this dissertation on Fog is due in part to the dead end to which our nation has been lead. The current administration has not listened to the governed, but has stuck to the dead end of their Fog. No true solutions to the problems have been tried, except when they are backed into a corner. We all know that when are family budgets are reduced, we cut our expenses. Similarly, our government should follow this truth. They suppose that since they are in charge of distributing goodies to those that they have selected (let's call them, 'the poor') that everyone should be forced to give them the goods so that they can take care of 'the poor'. The government doesn't corner the market on giving and should learn that you can't force people to do what is right....(wait a minute, that is their complaint about the religious right!). People have to be able to make their own choices, and if they can't make their own choices, then it is not up to us to make them, they will only learn for themselves. I remember when my children were younger, it was hard to watch them make bad choices. It is still hard to watch, but they only learn by making their own choices, not by have someone make their choices for them. As much as I struggle with my weight, I don't want someone else (the government) to force me to eat correctly, I have to do that for myself. The strength is in the struggle, but don't let me make a choice for you....this is just an observation.

Bumper Sticker Wisdom or Propaganda?

I saw a bumper sticker,"Criminals Don't have Budget Cuts", that capsulized the hyperbole that is generated by the special interests that don't want to face the financial crisis that all of us in the private sector have been dealing with for the past three years. The implication is that if we cut police services to meet budget requirements, the criminals will win. Actually, crime statistics have been down for the past (three years ), so I guess that criminals have been hit by the recession....but really, if we were to assume that criminals don't have budget cuts, then law enforcement shouldn't have them either? Would it necessarily follow that since law enforcement has a union, the criminals or criminals-in-prison should have a union? I am sure that someone would think that prison conditions are sub-par and there are certain benefits that are a right, no matter what a person's status....Oh, I think that in California, it is already happening.

So, back to the bumper sticker....is it really a matter of not cutting the budget, or raising taxes on one sector of the people (lowering their ability to balance their finances), in order to keep the financial standards of another sector (redistributing wealth, or is it distributing poverty to those who don't have a special interest). Who is going to represent the interest of the taxpayer? When are we going to realize that as long as we allow the public sector to grow, to overcome the private sector, there will not be enough of the private sector to pay for the public sector. Government does not generate revenue, it spends it! And it will always be willing to spend our children's and grandchildren's future to do it.

Don't blame me, this is just an observation....

Public Clamor and the New Mobocracy

Have you ever been to a large sporting event, and the announcer or the crowd will be unified in a moment of disapproval of a call by the referee? Scary, isn't it. We have heard stories about large football (soccer) contests where the crowd has become a destructive element, being whipped into a frenzy over the result of a match. Or maybe you have seen the pictures of the team's hometown after having won the SuperBowl or the World Series, or the NBA Championship? How about when a union goes on strike or does some very aggressive picketing the quickly degrades into pushing, shoving and then violence? Or do you remember those "non-violent" peace rallies of the '60s & '70s that ended with someone getting bloodied-up?

I think that it is amazing that we live in a country (USA) where we have the right to assemble as we wish, and can express our opinions freely, but nothing is free of consequences. You know that law that states, "...for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction...". I think that it is in the Constitution, or something. In other words, however we choose to act there will always be a reaction.

Back to the mobocracy....when things get out of control it is up to each individual to maintain control over his own actions and not let the actions of a group dictate how one reacts in a situation. Cooler heads must prevail. Too many times emotions rule over common sense. Is it better to get caught up in the moment where the end is more important than how we get there? Is it really the right thing to take advantage of a crisis, if it serves your purpose. The result is that we usually get more that we bargain for, and people get hurt....or maybe I am just taking advantage of this crisis....It may be...just an observation.

Tribal Stirrings

Has it appeared to you that all this embracing of diverse cultures has lead to a new tribalism? Hey, I celebrate Cinco de Mayo (a non-celebrated holiday in Mexico) by having burritos or tacos for dinner...but our ultra-tolerance of cultural diversity, even bowing to other cultural practices as more enlightened, has negated the unifying effect of a dominant culture. Sure the United States is a "melting pot" of different cultures, but even in a melting pot, the mixture homogenizes into a unified mixture, not a sedimentary soup, where the ingredients don't mix together.

On to tribalism...in the past tribalism has appeared as a result of different groups split from a larger culture due to various reasons, such as: a charismatic leader, economic interests, religious interests, even the gathering of food, etc. to the extent that they can no longer function within the main body. Many anthropologists think that tribalism is what lead to larger societies. I would like to note that the large, pre-columbian cultures degenerated in the tribal societies that the europeans discovered when they arrived in America.

So, what is the virtue of these small groups of people, living off the natural law of kill, or be killed? So, how did they survive when their mother-culture didn't? Well, if you examine the history of the United States, they didn't survive, and that their virtue might have been a minor aspect, it wasn't enough to sustain their own progenitors....and they continually fought among themselves. Look at the African cultures, so many of them have not endured passed a couple of generations, they haven't kept records and they may have lost any of the advances that might have been gained by their separation from the larger group.

We are going down that road. Gangs are prevalent in all countries of the world and have infiltrated governements to siphon off the resources that the governments control. Groups that advance their particular cultural bent in a foreign country, seem to forget the reasons of their expatriation. Too many cultures tend to isolate themselves within a foreign country to the extent that they do not learn the language or sovereignty of that country. There is no growth within the culture and generations can come and go without being integrated....Remember when integration was a good thing and segregation was a bad thing? Are we not all americans, not just hyphenated-americans?

There is no virtue in special interest groups at the expense of the entire group. We don't need to give up our identity, and what makes us different from others, but letting your "freak flag" fly because you want to be "in-the-face" of someone that may disagree with you, smacks of tribalism. Don't blame me...but this is just an observation.