Pink High Heels - Interpreting the Declaration, Part II

Did you read Part I yet?  This is Part II in a two-part series discussing the Declaration of Independence.  

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Here, Jefferson was justifying the colonies' break from Great Britain.  Since the main purpose of this series of posts is to discuss commonalities and differences between political philosophies, I wonder if this part of the Declaration is relevant to our discussion.  It is clear that our Government gets its power from the consent of the governed.  How does this play out in our current political system?  Some rambling on that point:

• We vote for our representative in Congress.  They make the laws.  We give them permission to govern us with legislation;
• We vote for the President of the United States; he enforces the laws; we give him permission and power to enforce the law;  
• We do not give the President permission to govern us by legislating, but this particular thread of discussion belongs in the discussion of the Constitution (stay tuned for that);
  

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

• I cannot see how this line would apply today.  "These ends" refers us back to the purpose of the government: to secure our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  I believe there are many politicians that are, indeed, "destructive to these ends"--that is there are many elected officials who do not secure our rights.  Examples:
• Life:  Abortion rights?  This does not secure the right to life for millions of unborn children.  
• Liberty:  Censorship, employed in the name of "separation of Church and State" (which is a phrase not found in the Constitution), violates the liberty of many people - usually Christians, incidentally.  
• Pursuit of happiness: Federal regulations that do not let business owners discriminate in their services clearly prevent a pursuit of happiness.  Why can I not open a business and only serve people females wearing pink high heels?  How can the government dictate that I serve everyone?
• But, although I believe that certain people are "destructive to these ends", I do not believe our "Form of Government" is "destructive to these ends".   Sure, I'd vote "yeah" on a bunch of impeachments tomorrow; but I would not support an overthrow of our Constitution.  Now, if a group of elected officials hi-jack the government, ignore the Constitution, and begin to destroy our rights, perhaps there is greater reason for a restorative revolution.  Have we reached that point?  No.  Are we dangerously close to that point?  Maybe.  Are we heading in that direction and in need of a major shift in political practice?  Definitely.   

That's all for the Declaration of Independence.  I think the remainder of the text (including today's text) overlaps enough with ideas found in the Constitution, that I can safely move on to that document.  

Interpreting the Declaration.

This is the first in a series of posts on political theory.  My purpose is to invite all readers to comment on my position/interpretation.  My hope is that we can engage in constructive and critical debate with regards to politics today - as measured primarily against the Constitution.  No rules, really (except keep it clean).  I trust that those who take the time to respond (however harsh their argument may seem to their political foes) does so with "malice towards none."

As I began to look at the Constitution I realized that a large part of my political ideology stems from phrases found in the Declaration of Independence; and that document is no less important.  So I begin there. . .

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men. . .

"We hold these truths to be self-evident"
The stated truths that follow must be held as a given. . .

"That all men are created equal"
Slavery and other immoral growing pains that our nation has endured notwithstanding*, our government affirms this important truth: the equality of men.  But what does this mean?  

• It's an indisputable fact that not all men are born with the same opportunities.  Scratch that.  Not all men are born in the same environment, but this does not necessarily mean that not all men are born with the same opportunities.  Hear me out on this one.  We are all born in different circumstances, but this does not mean that our ability to find happiness differs with our variable circumstances.  Cannot I find just as much happiness in my life as Bill Gates?  And can't a person in the ghetto achieve a happiness as every bit as real as mine?  Certainly there must needs be some minimum requirement met for this rule to hold true: adequate food, shelter, safety, and availability to healthy interaction with others.  
• What's the government's role in those situations where men are clearly at a disadvantage through no fault of their own?  I think this question comes later in our discussion.  This equality phrase is simply a precursor to the rest of the sentence, which further clarifies in what way men are created equal.  

Okay, at this point, I realized it was silly to take this sentence apart.  It is better understand in whole, not parts.

All men are created equal in that they are endowed by their creator certain inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  I am equal to the next man because, regardless of the circumstances in which we were born, we have been given life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness from our Creator.

Two more ideas to wrap up this post:

• "endowed by their Creator" I believe in God.  And I believe that it is only because of God that I have life, liberty, and the ability to choose what makes me happy.  I am not sure if atheism impacts ones decision to embrace the political philosophy of our Founding Fathers; I imagine it varies from one atheist to another.  I do know that my belief in God does impact my political ideology, as it will be apparent in these discussions.  Furthermore, theists differ greatly in their individual beliefs.

The next sentence can sum up the big picture of the purpose of government: 

"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men."

Governments have the grand purpose of securing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Governments do not grant these rights, they make sure that these God-given rights are protected.  This is the first great litmus test for the scope of the government for me.  If the government is spending money on something other than securing these three rights, it is a waste.  That's a rather hyperbolic statement; but I do think it can serve as a general guideline, a good starting point.  Google "government wasteful spending", narrow your search to "past month" and you will find countless articles, including this page on a Congressman's website.  The federal government has become too big, and it has clearly overstepped its mandate.  

I intended each of these posts to be short, succinct, and focused on a small part of the document at hand.  I learned my lesson with this first post: easier said than done!  Everything seems to connect to everything else. . .  I choose to write in a manner that is more like stream-of-consciousness, allowing the reader to experience my backpedalling and changes in focus.  It is a lot quicker than polishing the piece over and over (knowing I'll never be satisfied if I'm searching for the perfect post).  Also, I admit that my views change even as I write; and it's a good exercise for me to write like this.  

So, I welcome your opinions.  What am I missing?  Where do you agree?  Disagree?  

*The scope of this study does not include picking apart the inequality in the law during the time this document was written.  Certainly, that inequality at the outset of the nation has had far reaching effects; and some may argue these effects are present today.  I will write about the ideal of these documents, and we have always fallen short of that ideal.

What makes a leader?

This post is in response to a conversation on FB I recently had with a former student.  I made the statement that Bush was a better leader than Obama, and she challenged me to support that assertion with evidence.  I want to start with the bigger picture of leadership; and we'll see if I get to the issue eventually. . .

Let me begin by listing the names of people who I think are great leaders: Jesus the Christ, Lord Baden Powell, Helaman, Trina Packard (a former boss of mine), Bronco Mendenhall, Kristian Watford (fellow missionary in Chile), George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, Glenn Beck, Thomas S. Monson.

Though I can probably think of more, I will stop there.  My next logical step is to justify why I think each on that list is a leader.  This is an indirect way of defining leadership (from my perspective, of course).  Now, each person has a long list of great qualities (and some may have many character flaws, too), but I will focus on qualities that caused me to think of them as a leader.

Jesus - His life, example, and teachings inspire me to be a better person;
Lord Baden Powell - He trained boys and men to be better people, he led men in successful campaigns on the battlefield, and his life inspires me;
Helaman - He rallied men to a righteous cause, inspired them, and led them in battle against superior numbers without losing a single soldier;
Trina Packard - She was tough on me and inspired me to perform my job duties at a higher level.
Bronco Mendenhall - He trains boys to become leaders, he admits his mistakes, he puts his trust in others and lets them succeed or fail, and he lives with integrity in that he does not compromise his principles;
Kristian Watford - I spent a couple of hours with him knocking doors in Chile.  His example of love for others, and singleness of heart toward a righteous purpose inspires me to this day;
George Washington - Unwavering bravery and refusal to compromise his principles.  He inspired men to fight for a cause against all odds.  He refused a Kingdom because he valued freedom;
Abraham Lincoln - He worked hard.  He made difficult decisions in the face of opposition;
Ronald Reagan - "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - and he said this after all his friends repeatedly told him not to.  He treated his political enemies with kindness.
Glenn Beck - He inspires me to study more, and to work on becoming a better individual and raising a good family;
Thomas S. Monson - He exemplifies service to his fellow man, and he inspires me to serve others.

That exercise surprised me.   I was anticipating that my definition of leadership would include something like: "a person that has improved something with measurable results".  It is clear that I define leader as somebody who inspires me to live according to my beliefs, or to be a better person.

So, where do I go from here?  Based upon that definition, how do I judge Obama and Bush on their leadership, or compare the two?  To be honest, I have not felt inspired by either of them.  I cannot deny that Obama has inspired a lot of people.  But I honestly do not know that he has inspired them to be better people.  Only those who have felt inspired by him can answer that one (any takers?). To like someone is not to be inspired by them.  I like Brian Regan, Harold Finch and John Reese (both fictional), and Tyler Haws--but they do not inspire me to be a better person.

Therefore, I conclude that (according to my definition of leadership) neither Obama, nor Bush (nor any current politician) is a good leader.  Sadly, I am not sure we look for good leaders in politicians.  When I go to the polls, I am not thinking This guy inspires me to be a better person, but rather I agree with this guy's policies more than the other guy's.  Could it be that no leaders are running for office?  I don't know.

I am fully aware that my judgements above hinge upon my definition of leadership.  Others might define leadership differently and come to a different conclusion.  Furthermore, others may embrace my definition, but feel personally inspired by some current politicians; and they would also reach a different conclusion.  If so, I would love a response.   Now, an entirely different post can be written about Obama, Bush, and others being a "good president" (as opposed to "good leader"); and my definition for good president would come from my interpretation of the Constitution.  I may or may not write that post some day.  We'll see!

Public note to my former student:  After typing this I realized that maybe I dodged the issue.  I didn't do exhaustive research to delineate points for or against Obama and Bush.  I didn't mention even one of their decisions, statements, or actions (not even an umbrella incident!).  After defining leadership and coming to the conclusion that I didn't consider either to be a leader, I simply didn't want to spend the time to hack apart their presidencies for the purpose of arguing leadership qualities.  It would be as though I decided to compare Eminem and Little Wayne to judge who has more musical talent.  Wait,  musical talent?  Silly me!  Now, would I like to hack apart the presidencies of Obama and Bush to say what I do (or don't) like about each of them.  Maybe.  That's how I originally began the post in my mind, but it seemed petty and fruitless.  So I started with my definition of leadership based upon my personal experience and went from there. . .

Possibly the best line ever.

So, Lizzie (age 7) and I were browsing Pinterest for some Christmas gift ideas for her 6 year-old cousin.  We run across something that Lizzie absolutely loves, and she thinks her cousin will love also:

Right about that time, Jacob (age 5) comes into my room, notices we are on the computer, and jumps on the bed next to me to see what we are looking at.  Upon seeing these princess dolls, he remarks: "That would be cool if they had these that were superheroes."

Not 2 minutes later, we scroll down the page and run into this:

Jacob sees it and loudly exclaims:  "My imagination came true!"

Uh, I know what I am making for Christmas.

This cute one-liner by Jacob may have to be one of my all-time favorites.  But Hyrum has had some zingers, like this one, and this one.  I'll have to compile a list one day and ask for a vote.

Easy way to keep a journal (you are already doing it!)

Heard about this in March at a conference.  Heard about it again in October at another conference.  Finally went to check it out.  Awesome.

First of all, as a web design snob, I must say that this site has the best user-interface ever.  Super easy and clean.  The idea behind the site is simple, create cause and effect recipes, so one event triggers another.  I decided to use it for purposes of journal keeping.  You see, with emails, FB posts, and blog posts, I am already recording my thoughts, opinions, and experiences.  So, I created four recipes to help me catalog these into journals:

1.  Whenever I publish a blog post, FB automatically updates my status with a link to the post;
2.  Whenever I publish a blog post, the post is automatically added to the end of a specified document in Google Drive (there's my journal #1);
3.  Whenever I update my status in FB, Google Drive automatically adds this status to the end of a (different) specified document (there's my journal #2);
4.  Whenever I star an email in gmail, the text of that email is automatically added to the end of a specified document in Google Drive (there's my journal #3).

I still need to go back and cut and past all my old blog posts because I eventually want to make hard copies, but from this point forward my journal is being auto-populated with content that I am creating anyway.

Love it!

Testing, schmesting. . .

“What was once educationally significant, but difficult to measure, has been replaced by what is insignificant and easy to measure. So now we test how well we have taught what we do not value.”*

–Dr. Arthur L. Costa, emeritus professor,
California State University, Sacramento

It's a sad byproduct resulting from a number of factors: a) the federal government meddling in education in a variety of ways; b) the evil conglomeration of politicians, publishers, and testing companies; and c) the general public's willingness to blindly embrace standardized testing as though it were valid.  Okay, I admit that I do not actually know of an "evil conglomeration", but it merits investigation.  There is so much money being made by these companies, it stands to reason there are shady happenings behind closed doors.  

I am too lazy at the moment to propose a solution in this post.  I haven't begun to elucidate the problem.  

I've never criticized anyone for choosing to homeschool.  And for the record, the lame argument against home-schooling in which people say kids need social interactions or they will be awkward: I completely disagree.  The weird kids that are home-schooled would be just as weird if/had they went to school; and there are plenty of weird kids in "regular" school anyway. 

Moving to a different facet of the topic.  I love the teachers at Oquirrh Hills Elementary.  That's where the rubber hits the road with my kids' education: the teachers.  And we have been super fortunate that our kids have had GREAT people that have served as their teachers.  When all is said and done, it's a big social contract where we trust some of our fellow citizens with the education of our children.  I trust the teachers my kids have had over the years at OHE.  I do not trust all those higher up the chain.  Actually, perhaps I shouldn't frame it as trust.  Rather, I do not agree with the goals of many of those that are shaping public education.  

I loved public school growing up.  Except maybe fourth grade.  My teacher was--well, I won't say. . .

I think the key is not to expect anything (except physical safety for kids) from the public school system.  It's a huge government system, for Pete's sake--and as such is inherently rife with waste, fraud, and inefficacy.  This is not to say that there are not many awesome people working within the system--and those people work miracles; it's just that the crazy bureaucracy pulls the teachers, kids, and administrators in so many different ways, it's completely unrealistic to think a school's (or student's) success can be measured with a test.  

*I found the quotation on the signature line from a co-worker's email.

Obscure, difficult, and useless

In this quest of knowledge, both natural and right, there are two faults to be shunned, — one, the taking of unknown things for known, and giving our assent to them too hastily, which fault he who wishes to escape (and all ought so to wish) will give time and diligence to reflect on the subjects proposed for his consideration. The other fault is that some bestow too great zeal and too much labor on things obscure and difficult, and at the same time useless. - Cicero

Still working my way through some Cicero quotations I gathered from my reading.  Let me judge myself on the two faults Cicero warns against:

Fault One:  Taking unknown things for known. How do I even judge myself on this one?  There are things I hang onto that I claim to be "known", while others assert otherwise. It might help to break up knowledge into categories in order to approach this.  I am tempted to use the category of Observable Facts--things like cats have whiskers, and trees have roots--but it seems silly to include such things, because a cursory study can easily prove one right or wrong.  Perhaps this would have been a good category for Cicero, living in a time where so much (seemingly) still was yet to be discovered.  I am not sure.  Another category can be Events/Occurrences. This is different than Observable Facts because these events happen once only, and cannot be observed over and over (unless you have a video tape).  Things like--let me stop myself here.  Perhaps that category is silly, as well, because it seems that most everything of consequence is recorded these days.  Of course, in a court of law this is always the crux of the matter, but I am trying to apply Cicero's warnings to my personal quest for knowledge, and not a court case.  

I immediately thought there might need to be a separate category for spiritual or religious beliefs.  But cannot these beliefs fall under the Events category?  If Jesus died then resurrected, this is a real event that impacts an entire subset of knowledge that we pursue.  

I am thinking that categorizing knowledge might not prove helpful in this exercise after all.  When I trace my own pursuit of knowledge, my practice usually does not involve a question of WHAT I believe, but WHO I believe.  I choose to listen to and believe certain individuals, and with few exceptions I will accept their expositions/arguments as "known".  (I just heard my Dad from the other side: "Aaron, it's not about Who is right, but What is right!").  Well, Dad, you always said that as we were arguing, not as we were questing for knowledge--I am not necessarily sure that maxim applies in a search for knowledge.  Or does it?  

In order to move forward, it seems that most of us get much of our knowledge by putting our trust in others. I'm not sure that people always consciously make this correlation.  If one reads or listens to a person and accepts what is presented--they are trusting that person.  

Okay, let's get pragmatic here.  Who do I currently trust as it relates to seeking knowledge?  My wife, my parents, my siblings (at times), my in-laws, some other family members (at times), the General Authorities of the LDS Church, Glenn Beck, Brad Wilcox, and some others.  Why do I trust these people?  For each person on the list, there are different and various reasons.  I trust my family members because I know them personally, and I believe their motive and intentions align with mine;  I trust my church leaders because I believe they are men called of God to instruct me; I trust Glenn Beck because I believe he is motivated by love for his fellow men, and he consistently and constantly reminds me that the solution to the ills of this world rests in each individual faithfully embracing that which is good.  

So, how to make sure I do not error in what I accept as known?  Cicero reminds us to give time and diligent reflection.  I can do this more--and I am learning that this includes healthy debate and conversation with others.

Fault Two:  Too much zealous efforts pursuing obscure, difficult, and useless knowledge.  How can I improve in this area.  Obscure items?  I think that some political conversations can fall into this category.  Useless knowledge?  Ha ha!  I just signed up for a fantasy basketball league with some family and friends.  If that isn't useless knowledge, I don't know what is!  But I assert that there must be time set aside for pursuits of entertainments and leisure; and I have a good rule to measure whether my entertainment is too excessive.  If what you are doing (no matter what type of entertainment) prevents you from fulfilling your duties, covenants, promises, or obligations, then you need to stop.  When I talk with youth, I give them a test for themselves.  If you can't immediately stop what you are doing when your Mom calls for your help, then you have a problem.  No hobby or entertainment should take priority over helping those you love.  

Besides certain topics or approaches in politics and fantasy basketball is there anything else obscure, difficult, and useless that I pursue?  Blogging?  It could be, if I break any of my above rules.  

How to wrap this up?  I need to study more.  And limit my time with fantasy basketball!   

You can't just stick to your principles

So I just watched a two-minute clip where Abby Huntsman tried to rip on Senator Mike Lee for stirring the pot.  She quoted Lee as saying he did not stir the pot for stirring the pot's sake, but then accused him of doing just that in recent weeks.  She went on to state that Lee's popularity is dropping in Utah, and she quoted some big Utah players to back up her point.  Here is what made me stop the post I was crafting and create this post:  She quotes the president of Zion's Bank as stating: "If things are going to happen, you can't just stick to your principles.  You have to make things work. . .you've got to be practical."*

Whoah.  Hold it.  You are slamming on somebody for sticking to their principles?  Okay.  That's all I need to know to judge your political character, Ms. Huntsman.  And I'm glad I don't bank at Zion's.

For me, the jury is still out on Senator Lee.  I do like the recent stand he made, and I do think that neither he (nor Cruz) were stirring the pot for stirring sake.  They were choosing to stand for their principles.  It takes an entire Congress (and the President) to pass a budget.  It should have been done months ago.  And these few guys get vilified and scapegoated because they cast their one vote each to not fund the [un]health[y] care law?

What gets me is that Ms. Huntsman pretends to be a conservative.  She came from the Huffington Post, for Pete's sake!  And she currently works at MSNBC.  She's not fooling anyone.  I guess she self-identifies as a "moderate conservative".  What's that?  A conservative who does not stick to principles?  Thank goodness we have had moderates like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Reagan throughout our history so our nation could be where it is today!  And let's not forget the moderates on the world stage, like Gandhi and Jesus.  Put her in with the McCain's of the party who show their true colors by slamming those who fulfill their promises to their constituents.  And we won't even mention the current state of the law they were opposing.  

Heaven forbid you stick to your principles instead of playing the game.


*I am fully aware that there is more to that quote (see the three dots?), but she didn't include more.  I'm arguing against what she presented. . .