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.

Global Anthropogenics

It is difficult to measure man's effect on the physical world. By the shear volume of mass, it is not even close to 1% of the tipping point. Global Warming has recently undergone a shake due to its proponents trying to fake the facts, and consequently the results (refer to "The Ends Justify the Means"). It has been stated before: "...What power shall stay the heavens? As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven..." (Doctrine & Covenants 121:33). Does this infer that man gets a little cocky sometimes, just because he thinks he knows something that someone else may not know? Then there was an incident with a tower where some guys who made some bricks thought that they could build a tower to heaven. The result was confusion, though we don't have all the details, the authority on the matter said that it was pride that was their downfall.

We humans can't handle power or knowledge very well and it seems that when we get a little power, it tends to make us a little heady, and then prideful. It would seem to me that seeing the cosmos in relationship to man, would put us in our place. The human-centric-aristotlean types still think that the universe revolves around Man & Earth, when modern science has proven otherwise. When are we going to admit that the designer of the universe is an intelligent lifeform? There is no way that order can result from chaos, unless acted upon by another, intelligent force! The Bing-Bang apologists need to consider that there was and is an Supernal God! It is the only reasonable explanation.....but of course, this is just my observation.

Is There a Right To Be Heard?

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States defines its relationship with the "right" of free speech: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.". The amendment never speaks to a "civil right", or the citizen's rights, but only states that Congress (meaning the government) cannot abridge the freedom. This is not an additive process that establishes what a government can and will do, but a reductive process that states what a government cannot do, thereby leaving it open to future generations to establish what free speech is. Does this mean that just because the government, through the constitution has agreed not to abridge the implied, or natural right to speak freely, that there is an implied right to be heard?...and is the government responsible to provide that right?...and is the government the arbiter of free speech?

This lends to a deeper discussion of whether or not the government is the one that bestows rights upon its people. The "Bill of Rights" ammendments to the Constitution of the United States is about the government abridging the rights of its citizens. It infers that the rights of the citizens are inherent and bestowed upon the peoples of the world by a "higher power". Man's efforts to abridge, or control, the inherent rights has varied throughout history. Longheld institutions have been co-opted by government in the modern era, simply because government has decided that it can do it more fairly. The has led to government control of charity, education, religious expression, speech, marriage, families, etc., all under the guise of making an even playing-field, or fairness.

The 1st amendment simply and succintly states: "Congress shall make no law...", and then goes on to define where it shall no infringe the long-held, natural rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a landmark piece of legislation in that it specifically targeted the 14th amendment for a specific enforcement. Many people of that era fought for these rights, and some died. But really, what it did was take away the government's infringement to those natural rights, then sought to bestow rights that made a class of people that were more "equal" than other citizens.

The question is, "Is there a right to be heard?"....maybe, but it is a natural right, and the government should get out of the way and stop inventing "fairness" doctrines, and campaign "reforms" that further infringe upon our natural rights. The Congress seems to have as its objective, to try to tip the scales so that they can remain in power, and to maintain the status quo. When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, it was the ideal situation. A Republican President and a Democratic Congress; nothing got done. As soon as laws were passed, they were vetoed by the President. They could not pass any laws. As soon as the electorate figures out that this is the real utopia, we will be there, but of course, this is just an observation.....

Who is the Sole Survivor?

Another season of Survivor in the can; in the end you wanted the villain (Russel) to win. I can imagine how people could have sympathy for the devil, but that is how he works. He preys on others, and like the parable of the snake and the frog where the snake says after carrying the frog across the water, "why are you suprised that I bit you, you knew that I was a snake, when you met me. I haven't tried to do anything but what I am."...In the end he was bitter and only wanted the glory, the title of "The Sole Survivor"! He was even willing to pay the winner (Natalie) for the title.

In the grand councils of Heaven where we planned out this earth life there was one who wanted to be the one to bring us back to our Heavenly Father, but wanted the glory for himself and wanted to take away the gift of agency (free will) and force all of us to make correct choices. Our Father in Heaven knew that we had to choose for ourselves and so the Savior offered himself to be the One to lead the way, to show us the right path and give the glory to our Heavenly Father (Abraham 3:22-28). So now we find ourselves in the thick of the fight between good & evil. We know what the outcome will be. We know who will win the fight. We know who the Sole Survivor is.....and it is not the one that lies, cheats, plots, and tramples all others to get to the end. It is the one who will pay the price to do what is right.....but this is Just an Observation....