18 October 2012
12 October 2012
Weekly Wrap-up: the one where we potty trained
This week has been intense! And that intensity is probably going to keep right on going through the weekend: we are potty training Dragon. He's doing great. On day 2 he was dry from naptime clear until bedtime. Turns out that, now that he's got it figured out what he's supposed to be doing on the potty, those M&Ms are pretty motivating. Daddy took Hero out for the morning on day 1 (Wednesday), and Dragon and Mom stayed home and just worked on peeing in the potty. He loved it when I got out my camera! I got some great ideas for doing it this time around here. Last time, with Hero, it was a process and he sort of grew into it. This time, Dragon had everything: he wanted underwear, he had control, he understands rewards... he just wouldn't pee in the potty. We got it done though! And now he's doing awesome. We're just doing days for now; when I asked him the one time if he wanted to pee in the night (he'd come into my room and was "awake" already) he just cried and cried. But daytime trained is great for a little boy just past 2! And, once the new baby gets here my budget will really appreciate not needing to diaper them both.
In spite of all that craziness early in the week, we still got some good school done, especially late in the week. (We took Monday off to recover from General Conference before doing any serious work, Tuesday was full of appointments and a visit to Grandpa and Nana, and Wednesday was Potty Training Day.) We were supposed to finish up Story of the World volume 1, but we're not quite done. Still, Hero did a couple of great narrations. This is one of them:
One of the paragraphs in the story talked about the size of the battle. It was huge. There were 100,000 Celts, and only about 10,000 Romans, yet the Romans won. I didn't think that this had made any impression on Hero, so while he colored his picture of Boadicea I got out our base-10 blocks and our cuisenaire rods. And I showed him what it looks like to be outnumbered 10 to 1. He was suitably impressed. And we talked about how the organization of the Romans helped them, while the Celts just charged in without any plan. Still. Just imagining looking at a force like the blue one coming at your little white guys... intimidating. No wonder Washington was so adamant about the importance of discipline to the army!
 |
| We had a bear that "peed" too; a medicine dropper helped create the illusion. |
 |
| Hurray for salty snacks and "Daddy Soda"! |
 | |
| Jiggle that pee down; JUMP!! |
In spite of all that craziness early in the week, we still got some good school done, especially late in the week. (We took Monday off to recover from General Conference before doing any serious work, Tuesday was full of appointments and a visit to Grandpa and Nana, and Wednesday was Potty Training Day.) We were supposed to finish up Story of the World volume 1, but we're not quite done. Still, Hero did a couple of great narrations. This is one of them:
One of the paragraphs in the story talked about the size of the battle. It was huge. There were 100,000 Celts, and only about 10,000 Romans, yet the Romans won. I didn't think that this had made any impression on Hero, so while he colored his picture of Boadicea I got out our base-10 blocks and our cuisenaire rods. And I showed him what it looks like to be outnumbered 10 to 1. He was suitably impressed. And we talked about how the organization of the Romans helped them, while the Celts just charged in without any plan. Still. Just imagining looking at a force like the blue one coming at your little white guys... intimidating. No wonder Washington was so adamant about the importance of discipline to the army!
 |
| Discipline is the soul of an army. It makes small numbers formidable; procures success to the weak, and esteem to all. -George Washington |
We'll clean up a bit of math on Saturday, but otherwise, things are looking pretty good. Dragon is (mostly) staying dry; Hero got a good amount of school in this week, even if it wasn't on our usual schedule. His reading is coming along so nicely. I'm going to have to start getting some "Step 2" books to have around so that as he feels a bit more secure in the "Step 1s" and other easy books we've got, he's got something to grow into. One of these days, I'd like to take a trip up to Half-Price books to browse their easy readers all by myself. And, in the mean time, I'm making slow progress on organizing and cataloging my bookshelves. We're getting there!
Check out how other homeschoolers' weeks went at Weird Unsocialized Homeschoolers:
08 October 2012
Pondering the Debates (Part 3)
If you're a real glutton for punishment, you can have a look at the previous installments too:
Part 1
Part 2
Otherwise, you can just read part 3 of my attempt at responsible citizenship. I'm looking at the debate and trying to measure the candidates' positions against the Constitution. I still consider myself a student of the Constitution, but even a student can make an effort! This is mine. I'm still working from page 3 of the transcript.
OK. So I'm still waiting for Mr. Obama to say something of substance, but in this section he's talking about Mr. Romney's plan, rather than his own. Much to Mr. Romney's frustration, since he feels like Mr. Obama is misrepresenting his position. But really, neither of them say anything new, and particularly not as it relates to the Constitution, for the rest of page 3. So. On to page 4. Aaaand the rest of the section on this first question is all back-and-forth. He's going to do this. No I'm not. Well, he's going to do this. Nope, that's not it. It's really not very interesting.
But here comes the second question:
It's that power over liberty that concerns me, both my own liberty, and that of my children and future grandchildren. The Founders knew that sometimes the nation would need to take on debts, but they are clear that they hoped it would always be short-term. The fact is, our debt should be telling us that, as a nation, we are living beyond our means. When other nations buy our debt, we are giving them power to dictate our actions - lest the stop buying, or require payment unexpectedly. It also places us over a barrel if they stop buying the debt. What does the household, behind in its credit, do when the creditors say, "That's enough?" It's never very pretty. What will happen when it's not a household, but our nation itself? These sorts of cuts are not fun, but they have to happen. So. Mr. Romney elaborates on his plan for reducing our debt:
I think Mr. Romney's test makes a lot of sense: "Is the program so critical it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?" But I think there should be another one, even before this test: "Is it Constitutional?" We could save a ton by getting rid of unconstitutional stuff at the federal level. Both of the examples that he cites, Obamacare and PBS, are things that fail both of these tests. He also talks about sending stuff back to the States. Again, I like this. It's in line with the Tenth Amendment, though he doesn't actually cite that as part of his reasoning. In not doing that, he leaves some question in my mind: is this a purely practical move, or is it motivated by a desire to conform to the Constitution? I don't think he's going to answer that question here; that sort of question is not popular to ask, and it makes politicians very uncomfortable to talk about it. (It's amazing the number of "cite your Constitutional authority" letters that I send to Congress that never get answered.) They don't like it.
Next is Mr. Obama's turn. He starts with some mushy, "those increases aren't my fault" rhetoric. And, to a point, there's some legitimacy in that. It was Mr. Bush who started the bailouts. I was stunned at how seamless the hand-off was on those bailouts. The inauguration of Mr. Obama never caused a single hiccup in the process, near as I could tell. But he could have stopped them. There's been scandal after scandal come out of those bailouts. At the end of the day, making my neighbor pay to keep my failing business open isn't right. If I try to do that on my own authority, it's called theft or extortion or something similar, and I go to jail. But, those who support the bailouts want us to believe that it's somehow morally OK when the government makes my neighbors pay to prop up my business. I don't buy it.
Part 1
Part 2
Otherwise, you can just read part 3 of my attempt at responsible citizenship. I'm looking at the debate and trying to measure the candidates' positions against the Constitution. I still consider myself a student of the Constitution, but even a student can make an effort! This is mine. I'm still working from page 3 of the transcript.
OK. So I'm still waiting for Mr. Obama to say something of substance, but in this section he's talking about Mr. Romney's plan, rather than his own. Much to Mr. Romney's frustration, since he feels like Mr. Obama is misrepresenting his position. But really, neither of them say anything new, and particularly not as it relates to the Constitution, for the rest of page 3. So. On to page 4. Aaaand the rest of the section on this first question is all back-and-forth. He's going to do this. No I'm not. Well, he's going to do this. Nope, that's not it. It's really not very interesting.
I'm going back onto page 3, trying to figure out what this "approach" is that he's supposedly talking about. It's hard. Mostly he's talking about how Mr. Romney's plan won't work. There is this, from the bottom of page 3:
Obama: Bill Clinton tried the approach that I'm talking about. We created 23 million new jobs. We went from deficit to surplus. And businesses did very well.
Obama: Now, Governor Romney and I do share a deep interest in encouraging small-business growth. So at the same time that my tax plan has already lowered taxes for 98 percent of families, I also lowered taxes for small businesses 18 times. And what I want to do is continue the tax rates — the tax cuts that we put into place for small businesses and families.
But here comes the second question:
This question is somewhat better than the first one (see part 1). But still, the question relies heavily on the President making recommendations to Congress that Congress actually acts upon. Or, he could veto bills that are too expensive. I don't hear about a whole lot of action for the veto pen. But it could probably be used pretty effectively to reduce our deficit. Make Congress pass by super-majority the stuff the President felt was going to run up the deficit. The problem that makes that not very practical is that they make these huge mega-bills that run to 1000 or 2000 pages have so much crammed into them that there's always something in there that the President can be crucified for vetoing. So. Still a flawed question, in my opinion. But better than the first. Let's see what the candidates have to say. Looks like Mr. Romney is first this time.
And the question is this, what are the differences between the two of you as to how you would go about tackling the deficit problem in this country?
I'm going to agree with what he says here. It's not moral to go into debt for someone else. That's slavery. The Founders, those "wise men, raised by the Lord," would not be impressed.
Romney: Good. I'm glad you raised that, and it's a — it's a critical issue. I think it's not just an economic issue, I think it's a moral issue. I think it's, frankly, not moral for my generation to keep spending massively more than we take in, knowing those burdens are going to be passed on to the next generation and they're going to be paying the interest and the principal all their lives.
And the amount of debt we're adding, at a trillion a year, is simply not moral.
George Washington: Avoid occasions of expense. . . and avoid likewise the accumulation of debt not only by shunning occasions of expense but by vigorous exertions to discharge the debts, not throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.
Alexander Hamilton: Allow a government to decline paying its debts and you overthrow all public morality — you unhinge all the principles that preserve the limits of free constitutions.Nothing can more affect national prosperity than a constant and systematic attention to extinguish the present debt and to avoid as much as possibly the incurring of any new debt.
Benjamin Franklin: When you run in debt; you give to another power over your liberty.
It's that power over liberty that concerns me, both my own liberty, and that of my children and future grandchildren. The Founders knew that sometimes the nation would need to take on debts, but they are clear that they hoped it would always be short-term. The fact is, our debt should be telling us that, as a nation, we are living beyond our means. When other nations buy our debt, we are giving them power to dictate our actions - lest the stop buying, or require payment unexpectedly. It also places us over a barrel if they stop buying the debt. What does the household, behind in its credit, do when the creditors say, "That's enough?" It's never very pretty. What will happen when it's not a household, but our nation itself? These sorts of cuts are not fun, but they have to happen. So. Mr. Romney elaborates on his plan for reducing our debt:
Romney: So how do we deal with it? Well, mathematically, there are three ways that you can cut a deficit. One, of course, is to raise taxes. Number two is to cut spending. And number is to grow the economy, because if more people work in a growing economy, they're paying taxes, and you can get the job done that way.
The presidents would — president would prefer raising taxes. I understand. The problem with raising taxes is that it slows down the rate of growth. And you could never quite get the job done. I want to lower spending and encourage economic growth at the same time.
What things would I cut from spending? Well, first of all, I will eliminate all programs by this test, if they don't pass it: Is the program so critical it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And if not, I'll get rid of it. Obamacare's on my list. ...
I'm sorry, Jim, I'm going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I'm going to stop other things. I like PBS, I love Big Bird. Actually like you, too. But I'm not going to — I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for. That's number one.
Number two, I'll take programs that are currently good programs but I think could be run more efficiently at the state level and send them to the state.
I think Mr. Romney's test makes a lot of sense: "Is the program so critical it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?" But I think there should be another one, even before this test: "Is it Constitutional?" We could save a ton by getting rid of unconstitutional stuff at the federal level. Both of the examples that he cites, Obamacare and PBS, are things that fail both of these tests. He also talks about sending stuff back to the States. Again, I like this. It's in line with the Tenth Amendment, though he doesn't actually cite that as part of his reasoning. In not doing that, he leaves some question in my mind: is this a purely practical move, or is it motivated by a desire to conform to the Constitution? I don't think he's going to answer that question here; that sort of question is not popular to ask, and it makes politicians very uncomfortable to talk about it. (It's amazing the number of "cite your Constitutional authority" letters that I send to Congress that never get answered.) They don't like it.
Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This is something that I think that he could actually do, without needing Congress. It'll cause a whole lot of kicking and screaming, because although nearly every single person I've ever talked to agrees that government is too large, when you start looking at what to cut the consensus seems to be, "Not in my backyard!" When it comes right down to making the actual cuts, people are inevitably happy with the specifics. This is short-sighted. Government produces nothing. People whose jobs in government are eliminated not only are contributing to a reduction of the tax burden (that's where their pay and benefits come from), but they are also returned to the private sector, where they can get a job, or start a business. Either one of those things will contribute to economic growth. If, along with cutting employees, Mr. Romney also reduced the regulatory burden of red tape and hoops that businesses have to jump through, he would ease the transition of these displaced workers back into the private sector. Doing this thing by attrition isn't very efficient, but it would effectively reduce the backlash of the reductions.
Romney: Number three, I'll make government more efficient and to cut back the number of employees, combine some agencies and departments. My cutbacks will be done through attrition, by the way.
This is the approach we have to take to get America to a balanced budget.
Next is Mr. Obama's turn. He starts with some mushy, "those increases aren't my fault" rhetoric. And, to a point, there's some legitimacy in that. It was Mr. Bush who started the bailouts. I was stunned at how seamless the hand-off was on those bailouts. The inauguration of Mr. Obama never caused a single hiccup in the process, near as I could tell. But he could have stopped them. There's been scandal after scandal come out of those bailouts. At the end of the day, making my neighbor pay to keep my failing business open isn't right. If I try to do that on my own authority, it's called theft or extortion or something similar, and I go to jail. But, those who support the bailouts want us to believe that it's somehow morally OK when the government makes my neighbors pay to prop up my business. I don't buy it.
Obama: When I walked into the Oval Office, I had more than a trillion-dollar deficit greeting me. And we know where it came from: two wars that were paid for on a credit card; two tax cuts that were not paid for; and a whole bunch of programs that were not paid for; and then a massive economic crisis.
And despite that, what we've said is, yes, we had to take some initial emergency measures to make sure we didn't slip into a Great Depression, but what we've also said is, let's make sure that we are cutting out those things that are not helping us grow.
05 October 2012
Weekly Wrap-up: the one with the Books
This week has been all about books. I'm working on organizing my bookshelves, which is a huge job. And, of course, there's schoolwork to be done. Turns out this week we've focused on reading. Funny how putting shelves in order encourages that! Plus, I did some sewing, and in the midst of all that, I have to be careful not to do too much or I get contractions. At 22 weeks, that is Not OK. But, when I went in to get checked over the verdict is that the contractions are not doing anything, so no restrictions at this point. Still, I take naps every afternoon that I can manage it, since that is the single most effective way I have to turn them down or even off for a while. Makes life interesting! The other exciting thing with the pregnancy this week is that Hero was the first person to feel the baby kick besides me! I wish that I'd been able to get a picture of his grin; he was so pleased.
As I started organizing our books, the very first thing I did was get a bin for "easy books." It's been wildly successful. Hero can choose any books he likes for his quiet time. The first day I had books in it Hero chose them for his quiet time. And then he sat there, all by himself, and read them!! I was laying down too, trying to get some rest as well, but listening to my boy read books of his choice, and really read them, I sure was one Happy Happy Mama!
"Keeping a Nature Journal" I got out to show him some of the cool things that he can put into his new nature journal that we just started taking with us when we go out to the park. Turned out that it was a fruitful book twice: not only did he like looking at the picture, but we also had a conversation about how art is a skill that is developed over time, so if he wants to draw like the author (and he says he does), then he needs to keep practicing and be patient with himself. One thing that really surprised me when I started drawing was how much it is a skill, and how, like any skill, it can be honed with practice and study. So often, people think of art and music as talents: a thing that either you've got or you don't, and I don't believe it. After teaching music lessons, I am convinced that for the garden-variety musician, the one who plays for personal enjoyment and maybe helps out at church a bit, persistent practice is way more important that raw talent. The most talented student I ever taught refused to practice and dropped out after just a few months, and so she does not play piano. The one that scared me the first time I taught him, because that first lesson was so awful and I wondered how we would ever get anywhere, turned out to be the best practicer that I ever had and he went places. I want to use this knowledge to my children's advantage, to teach them that if they work at it, they can draw, or play, or pretty much whatever it is, and do it well. Maybe not world-class, but well.
History's going well too. Not a lot of hands-on stuff this week, but lots of reading and that sort of learning. We're still exploring Rome, and he's loving it. He brought me the "How To Be a Roman Soldier" book and asked me to read it to him, and we've done a page or two at a time till we're nearly through the book, all because he keeps asking for it. Pompeii is a beautiful book with some awesome illustrations, and we're also doing it a little bit at a go, and he's loving that one as well. We also watched this BBC documentary about the last day in Pompeii. I was expecting something about the archeology of the site, but it's about what it was like for the people living through the last day, experiencing the eruption in the city. Pretty intense. One interesting thing is that there's no word for "volcano" in Latin: they had absolutely no idea what was happening, so many didn't even try to run away until it was way too late. But it sounds like even those who ran didn't fare very well. The power of that volcano is ... intense. Hero handled the video, but he thought about asking me to turn it off, even though I was there snuggling him while we watched. I did try to take the edge off when they were talking about some of the children who died by reminding him that those kids went straight to Jesus. It seemed to help. Still. This one definitely warrants some parental guidance, more so than other documentaries we've watched.
This one was much more of archaeology, and deals with some of the problems of preservation. It's got some beautiful scenes of what the buildings in Pompeii and Herculeum look like today. It was long, but that let me work on a shirt I'm sewing.
On Wednesday we headed to the local children's museum. We recently purchased a membership, so we've been able to go more often, and that's fun. The other good thing is that, since it's an annual membership, I don't feel like I need to stay the whole day to make it worth the expense of going. Plus, since we were there during school hours, there was hardly anyone else in the building, and it was so nice to be able to get turns - long turns - on some of the most popular exhibits that are always super busy. Hero's never had so much time on the crane, and he was making some great progress on figuring out how to make it do what he wants.
I'm noticing that there is a certain ebb and flow to the way that our school work gets done. There for a while, math was the thing to do. Hero was going great guns, and we got tons of math done, but phonics moved along slowly. Now that reading is taking off, we've backed off the math somewhat. When we do a lot of history there tends to be less science. In general, I think this is OK. It allows us to come at what we are studying with a fresh mind and strong interest, and then to take a rest while we focus on other topics. I do try to keep things from sliding too much, particularly core things like math and phonics. This week we returned to fractions in our math. A couple weeks ago, when math was peaking and taking up tons of our time, we started to explore fractions. Then, as the reading took off they took something of a backseat. I'm glad we didn't let them sit any longer; Hero was starting to show signs of forgetting the stuff that he was finding easy previously. But with a very little bit of nudging to get him going, he did great. I love the flexibility of Miqan-style math that allows us to explore math and follow where his interests take us to a large degree. Fractions aren't the usual fare for a 6 year old, but he's doing great with them.
It being so close to an election, politics is on my mind, and has, with the books, taken up a good amount of time. I blogged about Reid's claims that Romney "sullies" our faith, and also have been trying to compare the debate comments of the candidates to the Constitution. So far, I have a part 1 and part 2 for that. We also added the Catechism on the US Constitution to our memory work. That's going to be a very long-term project, but I think that it will be well worth it to go through and talk about the government that way. There are some parts that, due to amendments, will need tweaking. But overall, I'm excited to have found such a great tool for teaching government in a way that even young children can understand.
Check out what other homeschoolers have done this week with Chris, over at Weird Unsocialized Homeschoolers!
As I started organizing our books, the very first thing I did was get a bin for "easy books." It's been wildly successful. Hero can choose any books he likes for his quiet time. The first day I had books in it Hero chose them for his quiet time. And then he sat there, all by himself, and read them!! I was laying down too, trying to get some rest as well, but listening to my boy read books of his choice, and really read them, I sure was one Happy Happy Mama!
"Keeping a Nature Journal" I got out to show him some of the cool things that he can put into his new nature journal that we just started taking with us when we go out to the park. Turned out that it was a fruitful book twice: not only did he like looking at the picture, but we also had a conversation about how art is a skill that is developed over time, so if he wants to draw like the author (and he says he does), then he needs to keep practicing and be patient with himself. One thing that really surprised me when I started drawing was how much it is a skill, and how, like any skill, it can be honed with practice and study. So often, people think of art and music as talents: a thing that either you've got or you don't, and I don't believe it. After teaching music lessons, I am convinced that for the garden-variety musician, the one who plays for personal enjoyment and maybe helps out at church a bit, persistent practice is way more important that raw talent. The most talented student I ever taught refused to practice and dropped out after just a few months, and so she does not play piano. The one that scared me the first time I taught him, because that first lesson was so awful and I wondered how we would ever get anywhere, turned out to be the best practicer that I ever had and he went places. I want to use this knowledge to my children's advantage, to teach them that if they work at it, they can draw, or play, or pretty much whatever it is, and do it well. Maybe not world-class, but well.
History's going well too. Not a lot of hands-on stuff this week, but lots of reading and that sort of learning. We're still exploring Rome, and he's loving it. He brought me the "How To Be a Roman Soldier" book and asked me to read it to him, and we've done a page or two at a time till we're nearly through the book, all because he keeps asking for it. Pompeii is a beautiful book with some awesome illustrations, and we're also doing it a little bit at a go, and he's loving that one as well. We also watched this BBC documentary about the last day in Pompeii. I was expecting something about the archeology of the site, but it's about what it was like for the people living through the last day, experiencing the eruption in the city. Pretty intense. One interesting thing is that there's no word for "volcano" in Latin: they had absolutely no idea what was happening, so many didn't even try to run away until it was way too late. But it sounds like even those who ran didn't fare very well. The power of that volcano is ... intense. Hero handled the video, but he thought about asking me to turn it off, even though I was there snuggling him while we watched. I did try to take the edge off when they were talking about some of the children who died by reminding him that those kids went straight to Jesus. It seemed to help. Still. This one definitely warrants some parental guidance, more so than other documentaries we've watched.
This one was much more of archaeology, and deals with some of the problems of preservation. It's got some beautiful scenes of what the buildings in Pompeii and Herculeum look like today. It was long, but that let me work on a shirt I'm sewing.
On Wednesday we headed to the local children's museum. We recently purchased a membership, so we've been able to go more often, and that's fun. The other good thing is that, since it's an annual membership, I don't feel like I need to stay the whole day to make it worth the expense of going. Plus, since we were there during school hours, there was hardly anyone else in the building, and it was so nice to be able to get turns - long turns - on some of the most popular exhibits that are always super busy. Hero's never had so much time on the crane, and he was making some great progress on figuring out how to make it do what he wants.
I'm noticing that there is a certain ebb and flow to the way that our school work gets done. There for a while, math was the thing to do. Hero was going great guns, and we got tons of math done, but phonics moved along slowly. Now that reading is taking off, we've backed off the math somewhat. When we do a lot of history there tends to be less science. In general, I think this is OK. It allows us to come at what we are studying with a fresh mind and strong interest, and then to take a rest while we focus on other topics. I do try to keep things from sliding too much, particularly core things like math and phonics. This week we returned to fractions in our math. A couple weeks ago, when math was peaking and taking up tons of our time, we started to explore fractions. Then, as the reading took off they took something of a backseat. I'm glad we didn't let them sit any longer; Hero was starting to show signs of forgetting the stuff that he was finding easy previously. But with a very little bit of nudging to get him going, he did great. I love the flexibility of Miqan-style math that allows us to explore math and follow where his interests take us to a large degree. Fractions aren't the usual fare for a 6 year old, but he's doing great with them.
It being so close to an election, politics is on my mind, and has, with the books, taken up a good amount of time. I blogged about Reid's claims that Romney "sullies" our faith, and also have been trying to compare the debate comments of the candidates to the Constitution. So far, I have a part 1 and part 2 for that. We also added the Catechism on the US Constitution to our memory work. That's going to be a very long-term project, but I think that it will be well worth it to go through and talk about the government that way. There are some parts that, due to amendments, will need tweaking. But overall, I'm excited to have found such a great tool for teaching government in a way that even young children can understand.
Check out what other homeschoolers have done this week with Chris, over at Weird Unsocialized Homeschoolers!
Pondering the Debate (Part 2)
So, yesterday, I started looking at the debate. A couple of my friends on Facebook asked me to do more with it, so I'll see what I can do. It's kind of fun to look at what the candidates say and compare it to the Constitution. Due to limited time for this project, I'm taking them both at face value. I know that there are fact-checking articles out there. I'm only looking at them and comparing what they claim with my best understanding of the Constitution and original Founding Principle. But it's not the sort of comparison that I see happening anywhere else, so hopefully it's useful to someone besides just me.
So here I am, continuing from page three.
OK. Much of this I looked at near the end of part one. Last night, I wasn't very happy with Mr. Romney's comments about education, because federal involvement is unconstitutional. However, if by "we've got to get those dollars back to the states and go to the workers" he's talking about a plan for removing education from the federal level and returning control to the states, then he's talking stuff that I like to hear! To really do this, all federal funding would have to be done away with, in order to do away with the "strings" that always come with money. (Obviously, that would need to be done over a period of time to avoid chaos.) That would be right in line with the Tenth Amendment:
One thing I'm noticing about the debate is that the time limits don't allow the sort of elaboration that would really make the answers to these questions meaningful. You see that here. I am cautiously optimistic about Mr. Romney's comments here. They could mean that he intends to follow the Constitution. But they don't have to mean that, and our politicians have been betraying the people for a very, very long time. So long that neither they nor the people generally think a thing of it. The wording here is vague. There is value in seeing what the candidates say in the moment, but it's not the sort of format that allows for a complete answer that could be really scrutinized.
Again, all tax code arises in the House of Representatives. The president usually sends a proposal, which is permitted under Article II Section 3, but the House chooses if they are going to use some, all, or none of it. To say "I will" or "I won't" relies heavily on the Congress actually accepting his proposals, and, to my way of thinking, implies that he plans to use the veto power if they don't do what he asks. This is within his rights; the veto is authorized in Article I Section 7:
So the president does have the power to do what he says he plans to do... sort of. It takes a good deal of intestinal fortitude to face the political storm that would come from vetoing a budget bill, particularly at the point we are at, where we haven't had a budget for so long. Does Mr. Romney have that fortitude of character? I don't know.
OK, I know I said I was focusing on the Constitution, but the BS Alarm is going absolutely nuts over this one. It's Obamacare that's the problem. Either Obamacare is, as the Supreme Court ruled, the biggest tax hike in history, or it's unconstitutional on its face and should have been struck down. (After all, the Supreme Court is filled by fallible men, and also able to make mistakes and misjudgements in their rulings - that's why they periodically overturn previous decisions.) I personally believe that it's unconstitutional on its face, but for Mr. Obama to keep it as the crowning achievement of his presidency he has to keep all of it, including its status as a tax hike. He can't have it both ways, even though he wants to. Doesn't work. As long as he keeps Obamacare, he raised taxes on middle class families and every one else too. Claiming otherwise is dishonest, and dishonesty is NOT a good character trait in one who hopes to be the president. Not that it's an unusual trait in politicians; but it an undesirable one. We need men of virtue in our nation. We need them among the people at large, and we need the best of them as our leaders.
Alright. I'd hoped to keep things more even between the two of them, but it's not turned out that way in this section. Hopefully Mr. Obama will say something about his own plans soon, rather than just commenting on Mr. Romney's stuff. But I've noticed that he doesn't like to say much about his plans, so we shall see.
And now, my kids need lunch.
So here I am, continuing from page three.
Romney: Middle-income families are being crushed. And so the question is how to get them going again. And I've described it. It's energy and trade, the right kind of training programs, balancing our budget and helping small business. Those are the — the cornerstones of my plan. But the president mentioned a couple of other ideas I'll just note. First, education. I agree: Education is key, particularly the future of our economy. But our training programs right now, we've got 47 of them, housed in the federal government, reporting to eight different agencies. Overhead is overwhelming. We've got to get those dollars back to the states and go to the workers so they can create their own pathways to get in the training they need for jobs that will really help them.
OK. Much of this I looked at near the end of part one. Last night, I wasn't very happy with Mr. Romney's comments about education, because federal involvement is unconstitutional. However, if by "we've got to get those dollars back to the states and go to the workers" he's talking about a plan for removing education from the federal level and returning control to the states, then he's talking stuff that I like to hear! To really do this, all federal funding would have to be done away with, in order to do away with the "strings" that always come with money. (Obviously, that would need to be done over a period of time to avoid chaos.) That would be right in line with the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
One thing I'm noticing about the debate is that the time limits don't allow the sort of elaboration that would really make the answers to these questions meaningful. You see that here. I am cautiously optimistic about Mr. Romney's comments here. They could mean that he intends to follow the Constitution. But they don't have to mean that, and our politicians have been betraying the people for a very, very long time. So long that neither they nor the people generally think a thing of it. The wording here is vague. There is value in seeing what the candidates say in the moment, but it's not the sort of format that allows for a complete answer that could be really scrutinized.
Again, this speaks to over-reach, or at the very least, over-stating the power that the President legitimately has. Certainly, he can propose these ideas to Congress, and certainly he can reign in, downsize, and (hopefully) begin to disband unconstitutional agencies such as the EPA, but there are limits to what a single man can do. Even the President of the United States. And that is by design.
Romney: The third area, energy. Energy is critical, and the president pointed out correctly that production of oil and gas in the U.S. is up. But not due to his policies. In spite of his policies.
Mr. President, all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land. On government land, your administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half. If I'm president, I'll double them, and also get the — the oil from offshore and Alaska. And I'll bring that pipeline in from Canada.
And, by the way, I like coal. I'm going to make sure we can continue to burn clean coal. People in the coal industry feel like it's getting crushed by your policies. I want to get America and North America energy independent so we can create those jobs.
Thomas Jefferson: "In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
Romney: And finally, with regards to that tax cut, look, I'm not looking to cut massive taxes and to reduce the — the revenues going to the government. My — my number-one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that: no tax cut that adds to the deficit.
But I do want to reduce the burden being paid by middle-income Americans. And I — and to do that, that also means I cannot reduce the burden paid by high-income Americans. So any — any language to the contrary is simply not accurate.
Again, all tax code arises in the House of Representatives. The president usually sends a proposal, which is permitted under Article II Section 3, but the House chooses if they are going to use some, all, or none of it. To say "I will" or "I won't" relies heavily on the Congress actually accepting his proposals, and, to my way of thinking, implies that he plans to use the veto power if they don't do what he asks. This is within his rights; the veto is authorized in Article I Section 7:
Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill. (Emphasis added)
So the president does have the power to do what he says he plans to do... sort of. It takes a good deal of intestinal fortitude to face the political storm that would come from vetoing a budget bill, particularly at the point we are at, where we haven't had a budget for so long. Does Mr. Romney have that fortitude of character? I don't know.
Obama: Well, I think — let's talk about taxes, because I think it's instructive. Now, four years ago, when I stood on this stage, I said that I would cut taxes for middle-class families. And that's exactly what I did. We cut taxes for middle-class families by about $3,600.
OK, I know I said I was focusing on the Constitution, but the BS Alarm is going absolutely nuts over this one. It's Obamacare that's the problem. Either Obamacare is, as the Supreme Court ruled, the biggest tax hike in history, or it's unconstitutional on its face and should have been struck down. (After all, the Supreme Court is filled by fallible men, and also able to make mistakes and misjudgements in their rulings - that's why they periodically overturn previous decisions.) I personally believe that it's unconstitutional on its face, but for Mr. Obama to keep it as the crowning achievement of his presidency he has to keep all of it, including its status as a tax hike. He can't have it both ways, even though he wants to. Doesn't work. As long as he keeps Obamacare, he raised taxes on middle class families and every one else too. Claiming otherwise is dishonest, and dishonesty is NOT a good character trait in one who hopes to be the president. Not that it's an unusual trait in politicians; but it an undesirable one. We need men of virtue in our nation. We need them among the people at large, and we need the best of them as our leaders.
John Adams: "The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure, than they have it now, They may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty."
Alright. I'd hoped to keep things more even between the two of them, but it's not turned out that way in this section. Hopefully Mr. Obama will say something about his own plans soon, rather than just commenting on Mr. Romney's stuff. But I've noticed that he doesn't like to say much about his plans, so we shall see.
And now, my kids need lunch.
Pondering the Debate (Part 1)
So, the presidential candidates had a big debate, and now I'm trying to look at it. There's a lot going on right now: books that need to be organized, kids that need to be taught and fed, church stuff that needs to get done. Sleep. I like sleep. But, politics need to have at least a little time too, least we loose freedoms. So I'm looking at the debate.
Here's the transcript that I'm using. I like to look at the printed words because they're less distracting; it's easier to look at them coolly and logically, and I try to avoid getting caught up in the emotionalism of it all, or falling into the trap of spending time thinking too much about who looks more "presidential" or other things of that nature that really don't matter at all. What I want to know is this: how do the candidates' words measure up against the Constitution? What might the Founders say about the positions that our current candidates are taking? That's my issue. That's what I vote on. I want the Constitution, and freedom.
So. First question, from the 2nd page of the transcript:
But, let's look at the responses anyhow. Maybe one of them said something useful.
Here's the transcript that I'm using. I like to look at the printed words because they're less distracting; it's easier to look at them coolly and logically, and I try to avoid getting caught up in the emotionalism of it all, or falling into the trap of spending time thinking too much about who looks more "presidential" or other things of that nature that really don't matter at all. What I want to know is this: how do the candidates' words measure up against the Constitution? What might the Founders say about the positions that our current candidates are taking? That's my issue. That's what I vote on. I want the Constitution, and freedom.
So. First question, from the 2nd page of the transcript:
I'm just not feeling the whole President-as-job-creator thing. Maybe it could come under recommending laws to Congress. Maybe. But then Congress would still have to get its collective act together and actually pass the thing. There's tons more to it that just "The President says so." But, in general, I feel like we ascribe too much power to the Presidency. He's just one guy. He's not supposed to be an all-powerful leader capable of fixing all our nation's ills. Our government is deliberately limited because to give a single man that kind of power to build also gives him the power to destroy, and that was something that the Founders were acutely aware of and cautious to avoid.
Gentlemen, welcome to you both. Let's start the economy, segment one, and let's begin with jobs. What are the major differences between the two of you about how you would go about creating new jobs?
But, let's look at the responses anyhow. Maybe one of them said something useful.
Obama: You know, four years ago we went through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Millions of jobs were lost, the auto industry was on the brink of collapse. The financial system had frozen up.
And because of the resilience and the determination of the American people, we've begun to fight our way back. Over the last 30 months, we've seen 5 million jobs in the private sector created. The auto industry has come roaring back. And housing has begun to rise.
But we all know that we've still got a lot of work to do. And so the question here tonight is not where we've been, but where we're going.
02 October 2012
Reid, Romney, and My Church
Harry Reid recently made headlines by bashing Mitt Romney, saying that Romney has "sullied" Mormonism with him comments about the 47%. Reid's got a pretty good history of bashing Romney; it's nothing new at all. But this time, he's brought the faith that I share with the two of them into the fray, which kind of boggles my mind. One expects religious barbs from outside, rather than inside, the faith.
But what about the comments? Is there any basis to what Reid says? I don't think so. I'll tell you why. But, before I start, I think that when forming an opinion of something, looking at original sources is critical. Commentary is often useful and thought-provoking (I hope including this post!) but it's best to start with the original stuff whenever possible. To that end:
First, it's useful to look at the video of Romney's comments. You will likely find a transcript of the whole meeting useful; I did. The 47% comments -and their complete context- are approximately a quarter of the way down the page.
Next, for the other side of the story, read the whole blog post by one Gergory Prince, that Reid is agreeing with. I haven't been able to find a complete transcript of Mr. Reid's comments, so a news article summarizing them will have to do. I'll wait. It's a bit of reading and watching to get to this point, but it's best to have both sides of the story when trying to find the truth of any matter, and without the truth of what both sides are saying its impossible to come to a well-informed opinion.
Finally, I'll share my thoughts on the matter with you. Right up front, I'll say that I don't have a problem with Romney's comment.
Now, I don't know that the whole 47% are actually dependent, but I do know there are a number of people of my acquaintance who, if they are not dependent themselves, feel that others are and that not only is that OK, but it's their Christian duty to support those folks who are less fortunate. And, between the two groups, yep, I think they are going to vote for this president, no matter what. (I believe that government is the wrong place to be doing charitable work, which I have blogged about here and here.)
Now here's the part that's got a lot of people up in arms:
According to Mr. Prince and Mr. Reid, this is absolutely terrible. But if you look at the context Mr. Romney is speaking in, he's talking about potential voters to be persuaded to his cause. If you look at that transcript, he's been talking about persuadable voters for quite some time prior to the "offensive" comment. The audience asks him what they can do to help his campaign, and that's what he's talking about. They address the persuadablilty of women voters, and how to reach out to Hispanic voters. He asks them for money, so that he can fight back against the anticipated character assassination attempts by Mr. Obama's team. (It is, after all, a fundraiser.) They talk about college students, and how they might reach them, and persuade them to vote for Mr. Romney. And that is the context of the comments: which voters are persuadable. Mr. Romney's assessment of the dependent voters is that they're never in a million years going to vote for him, and recognizing that, he's not going to put effort and funds into trying to reach them.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with charitable work in the first place! What they have done here is called a "Straw Man Fallacy." That is, Mr. Prince and Mr. Reid have set up something that is similar to but not actually what Mr. Romney was talking about, and then, rather than attacking what he actually said (47% of voters will never vote for me) they attack the "straw man" (Romney hates the poor). It's flawed reasoning, but American schools don't teach reasoning or logic any more, so the public falls for this sort of thing all the time. If Mr. Reid actually believes what he's saying, then we have a Senate Majority Leader who does not understand basic logic. If he is aware that this is flawed logic, and I'd like to give him that credit if for no other reason that I hate to think of a man in such an influential position being so vulnerable to bad arguments, then to make the argument that he's making is disingenuous at best and at worst, dishonest.
But, let's pretend for a minute, for the sake of argument, that it does mean that Mr. Romney is unconcerned about the poor. Then, we can give some critical attention to the comments made in Mr. Prince's post, and to the claims that Mr. Romney is out of step with Mormon theology.
At the outset, Mr. Prince is clear: this is a religious beef, not a political one that he's got with Mr. Romney's comments.
My guess is, that if he's responding that quickly, he didn't have the full transcript. And the comments, out of context, are easily to interpret in ways that Mr. Romney clearly didn't mean when you look at the larger context. And this clip isn't the only one that the Mother Jones YouTube folks have either removed from context or given sensationalist titles. But there are still things about his analysis of the situation that bother me, even if you assume that Mr. Romney is dismissing half the country out of hand.
This section bothers me because Mr. Prince doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between the duties of a Bishop - a position that Mr. Romney is not currently serving in - and the duties of the President of the United States. The duties of those two positions are widely disparate, and it seems to me they have really very little overlap. Bishops duties are laid out in scripture, and include: to be "common judges in Israel" - which I understand to mean they assist repentant sinners in their repentance process and they deal with church discipline in the cases of unrepentant sinners. He is to use the Holy Spirit to discern spiritual gifts and prevent counterfeits leading his flock in the wrong direction. He is to "administer in all temporal things" which does, indeed, mean that he spends a great deal of time and effort in administering to needs of the poor. On the other hand, the President of the United States holds a secular position, and his duties are laid out in Article II Section 2, and include: being the Commander in Chief of the nation's military. He, with the advice of the Senate, makes treaties, appoints people to various national positions including in the judiciary and our ambassadors, he fills vacancies in the Senate, he periodically informs Congress as to the State of the Union, he may propose laws for Congress to consider, he receives ambassadors, oversees the execution of federal law, and commissions officers in our military.
I'm really not seeing any overlap in the duties of the two offices, and it makes perfect sense to me that there should be a sharp contrast between Bishop Romney and Candidate Romney. In fact, I submit that undue attention to the charitable efforts that Christian faith requires from its adherents would actually violate the Mormon faith's tenants. Let me explain:
First, we have scripture dealing with the Constitution:
For those readers not familiar with the LDS concept of "agency," it is basically freedom. We believe that the ability to choose, to determine our own fate, to live, to prosper, to fail, and so on, on the strength of our own choices is God's greatest gift to man, next to life itself. Thus, in the Mormon belief, to attack agency is a crime of similar magnitude to attacking a life.
We also have strong beliefs about the Constitution, and about the importance of the freedoms that it codifies, and the importance of upholding them. There is also quite a bit of commentary by the leaders of the Church on this topic. Here are a few representative quotes:
So, what do those "inspired architects" say about charity in the federal government? They say it is unconstitutional.
Thomas Jefferson commented on the practice of "redistributing" as well:
While he was not a founder, President Franklin Pierce agreed that charity is outside the role of the federal government as described by the Constitution:
Though there are all sorts of "charitable" programs run by the government in our day, the Constitution has never been altered to allow it. The enumerated powers of Congress (Article I Section 8) do not include the power to take what one man has earned and give it to another who has not earned it. Just because it is done, and has been allowed, does not make it lawful or just. And, given the position of the Church on adhering to the Constitution, is not Mr. Romney required to acknowledge as well that these things belong, until We The People alter our Constitution, to the private sector? It is absolutely critical also to realize that saying, "Charity is the exclusive domain of the private sector," is not at all the same thing as, "Charity is unimportant." Far from it! Charitable acts are, as many have noted, critical to the Christian way of life. The Lord called upon individuals to care for those less fortunate many times during His ministry as recorded in the New Testament, but I cannot think of a single time where He called upon the government of Rome to perform that labor. It is the same in our day. When Mr. Romney was serving as a Bishop, coordinating his congregation's charitable acts in order to match service to needs was a very important part of his duties. But the office of the President of the United States is a whole different ball of wax, and to make charitable efforts part of his public work would be a violation of our Church's teachings. Which is not at all to say that he could not do for the poor on his own time, or that Mrs. Romney, acting as First Lady, would be out of line to continue in the tradition of service that is well established in our nation. Far from it!
Mr. Prince is correct when he says:
Unfortunately, Mr. Prince and Mr. Reid both seem to have missed the differences between the services rendered by a Bishop and by the President of our nation. To everything there is a season, and not all of the Lord's servants serve in the same way at the same time; that would cause chaos! In my opinion, even if Mr. Romney had been dismissing out of hand the situation of those in need (and he was not), then for the position he is seeking, that would be an appropriate action. Not because their needs are not legitimate, but because federal assistance is not legitimate under our Constitution. And that is perfectly consistent with Mormon theology, so long as his personal efforts to assist the poor remain in place.
But what about the comments? Is there any basis to what Reid says? I don't think so. I'll tell you why. But, before I start, I think that when forming an opinion of something, looking at original sources is critical. Commentary is often useful and thought-provoking (I hope including this post!) but it's best to start with the original stuff whenever possible. To that end:
First, it's useful to look at the video of Romney's comments. You will likely find a transcript of the whole meeting useful; I did. The 47% comments -and their complete context- are approximately a quarter of the way down the page.
Next, for the other side of the story, read the whole blog post by one Gergory Prince, that Reid is agreeing with. I haven't been able to find a complete transcript of Mr. Reid's comments, so a news article summarizing them will have to do. I'll wait. It's a bit of reading and watching to get to this point, but it's best to have both sides of the story when trying to find the truth of any matter, and without the truth of what both sides are saying its impossible to come to a well-informed opinion.
Finally, I'll share my thoughts on the matter with you. Right up front, I'll say that I don't have a problem with Romney's comment.
Yeah. That's true. Mr. Obama has quite a few supporters, and many of them are simply not going to be persuaded to vote for anybody else. It's not going to happen.
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what.
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.
Now, I don't know that the whole 47% are actually dependent, but I do know there are a number of people of my acquaintance who, if they are not dependent themselves, feel that others are and that not only is that OK, but it's their Christian duty to support those folks who are less fortunate. And, between the two groups, yep, I think they are going to vote for this president, no matter what. (I believe that government is the wrong place to be doing charitable work, which I have blogged about here and here.)
Now here's the part that's got a lot of people up in arms:
And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.
According to Mr. Prince and Mr. Reid, this is absolutely terrible. But if you look at the context Mr. Romney is speaking in, he's talking about potential voters to be persuaded to his cause. If you look at that transcript, he's been talking about persuadable voters for quite some time prior to the "offensive" comment. The audience asks him what they can do to help his campaign, and that's what he's talking about. They address the persuadablilty of women voters, and how to reach out to Hispanic voters. He asks them for money, so that he can fight back against the anticipated character assassination attempts by Mr. Obama's team. (It is, after all, a fundraiser.) They talk about college students, and how they might reach them, and persuade them to vote for Mr. Romney. And that is the context of the comments: which voters are persuadable. Mr. Romney's assessment of the dependent voters is that they're never in a million years going to vote for him, and recognizing that, he's not going to put effort and funds into trying to reach them.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with charitable work in the first place! What they have done here is called a "Straw Man Fallacy." That is, Mr. Prince and Mr. Reid have set up something that is similar to but not actually what Mr. Romney was talking about, and then, rather than attacking what he actually said (47% of voters will never vote for me) they attack the "straw man" (Romney hates the poor). It's flawed reasoning, but American schools don't teach reasoning or logic any more, so the public falls for this sort of thing all the time. If Mr. Reid actually believes what he's saying, then we have a Senate Majority Leader who does not understand basic logic. If he is aware that this is flawed logic, and I'd like to give him that credit if for no other reason that I hate to think of a man in such an influential position being so vulnerable to bad arguments, then to make the argument that he's making is disingenuous at best and at worst, dishonest.
But, let's pretend for a minute, for the sake of argument, that it does mean that Mr. Romney is unconcerned about the poor. Then, we can give some critical attention to the comments made in Mr. Prince's post, and to the claims that Mr. Romney is out of step with Mormon theology.
At the outset, Mr. Prince is clear: this is a religious beef, not a political one that he's got with Mr. Romney's comments.
When the news of Mitt Romney's Florida video broke on Monday evening, I was incensed -- but not for its political implications. His arrogant and out-of-hand dismissal of half the population of this country struck me at a visceral level, for it sullied the religion that he and I share...
My guess is, that if he's responding that quickly, he didn't have the full transcript. And the comments, out of context, are easily to interpret in ways that Mr. Romney clearly didn't mean when you look at the larger context. And this clip isn't the only one that the Mother Jones YouTube folks have either removed from context or given sensationalist titles. But there are still things about his analysis of the situation that bother me, even if you assume that Mr. Romney is dismissing half the country out of hand.
That face of Mormonism is the one that calls on some of its members, particularly bishops and stake presidents, to devote as many hours gratis to their church jobs as they do to their professional jobs. It is the one that summons up extraordinary acts of love, compassion and generosity, often in response to the deepest tragedies of life -- and death.
But it is not the one that dismisses out-of-hand half the population of the United States by saying, "My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." As a bishop and stake president, Romney worried about those very people. Indeed, he worried far more about them, and spent far more time and means in assisting them, than the others in his flock who were more fortunate.
This section bothers me because Mr. Prince doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between the duties of a Bishop - a position that Mr. Romney is not currently serving in - and the duties of the President of the United States. The duties of those two positions are widely disparate, and it seems to me they have really very little overlap. Bishops duties are laid out in scripture, and include: to be "common judges in Israel" - which I understand to mean they assist repentant sinners in their repentance process and they deal with church discipline in the cases of unrepentant sinners. He is to use the Holy Spirit to discern spiritual gifts and prevent counterfeits leading his flock in the wrong direction. He is to "administer in all temporal things" which does, indeed, mean that he spends a great deal of time and effort in administering to needs of the poor. On the other hand, the President of the United States holds a secular position, and his duties are laid out in Article II Section 2, and include: being the Commander in Chief of the nation's military. He, with the advice of the Senate, makes treaties, appoints people to various national positions including in the judiciary and our ambassadors, he fills vacancies in the Senate, he periodically informs Congress as to the State of the Union, he may propose laws for Congress to consider, he receives ambassadors, oversees the execution of federal law, and commissions officers in our military.
I'm really not seeing any overlap in the duties of the two offices, and it makes perfect sense to me that there should be a sharp contrast between Bishop Romney and Candidate Romney. In fact, I submit that undue attention to the charitable efforts that Christian faith requires from its adherents would actually violate the Mormon faith's tenants. Let me explain:
First, we have scripture dealing with the Constitution:
That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.
And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.
For those readers not familiar with the LDS concept of "agency," it is basically freedom. We believe that the ability to choose, to determine our own fate, to live, to prosper, to fail, and so on, on the strength of our own choices is God's greatest gift to man, next to life itself. Thus, in the Mormon belief, to attack agency is a crime of similar magnitude to attacking a life.
We also have strong beliefs about the Constitution, and about the importance of the freedoms that it codifies, and the importance of upholding them. There is also quite a bit of commentary by the leaders of the Church on this topic. Here are a few representative quotes:
To every Latter-day Saint, we have a tremendous obligation to be good citizens, to uphold the Constitution of this land, to adhere to its basic concepts, to do all in our power to protect the freedoms and the liberties and the basic rights which are associated with citizenship. The Lord has said even in our day, through the Prophet Joseph Smith, that we have an obligation. He has not only spoken about the Constitution being inspired, He has said that if we are to be good Latter-day Saints, we also have to take an interest in this country in which we live and we are to see to it that good men are upheld and sustained in public office.
-Ezra Taft Benson, quoted in A Glorious Standard, page 96
We urge members of the Church and all Americans to begin now to reflect more intently on the meaning and importance of the Constitution, and of adherence to its principles.
-Harold B. Lee, IBID p. 93
Teachings and ideologies subversive to the fundamental principles of this great Republic, which are contrary to the Constitution of the United States... will be condemned, whether advocated by Republicans or Democrats.
-David O. McKay, IBID p. 82
Our wonderful Republic. May we revere our heaven-inspired Constitution and keep it foursquare with the plan of its inspired architects...
-Charles A. Callis, IBID p.90
So, what do those "inspired architects" say about charity in the federal government? They say it is unconstitutional.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
AND
"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
-James Madison
Thomas Jefferson commented on the practice of "redistributing" as well:
“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
While he was not a founder, President Franklin Pierce agreed that charity is outside the role of the federal government as described by the Constitution:
"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
-- President Franklin Pierce's 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill.
Though there are all sorts of "charitable" programs run by the government in our day, the Constitution has never been altered to allow it. The enumerated powers of Congress (Article I Section 8) do not include the power to take what one man has earned and give it to another who has not earned it. Just because it is done, and has been allowed, does not make it lawful or just. And, given the position of the Church on adhering to the Constitution, is not Mr. Romney required to acknowledge as well that these things belong, until We The People alter our Constitution, to the private sector? It is absolutely critical also to realize that saying, "Charity is the exclusive domain of the private sector," is not at all the same thing as, "Charity is unimportant." Far from it! Charitable acts are, as many have noted, critical to the Christian way of life. The Lord called upon individuals to care for those less fortunate many times during His ministry as recorded in the New Testament, but I cannot think of a single time where He called upon the government of Rome to perform that labor. It is the same in our day. When Mr. Romney was serving as a Bishop, coordinating his congregation's charitable acts in order to match service to needs was a very important part of his duties. But the office of the President of the United States is a whole different ball of wax, and to make charitable efforts part of his public work would be a violation of our Church's teachings. Which is not at all to say that he could not do for the poor on his own time, or that Mrs. Romney, acting as First Lady, would be out of line to continue in the tradition of service that is well established in our nation. Far from it!
Mr. Prince is correct when he says:
The very basis of Mormon community, stretching back to the earliest years of Mormonism nearly two centuries ago, is that the more able have a sacred obligation to assist the less able. That sense of physical community was institutionalized in the Church's Welfare Program, which sprang out of the Great Depression ... not only to give to those in need, but also to help them to help themselves. Any who have visited Welfare Square in Salt Lake City, as did the producers of a recent "Rock Center" documentary on MSNBC, cannot help but be impressed with what we have attempted, for over seven decades, to accomplish through what is now an international network of church facilities and volunteers.
Unfortunately, Mr. Prince and Mr. Reid both seem to have missed the differences between the services rendered by a Bishop and by the President of our nation. To everything there is a season, and not all of the Lord's servants serve in the same way at the same time; that would cause chaos! In my opinion, even if Mr. Romney had been dismissing out of hand the situation of those in need (and he was not), then for the position he is seeking, that would be an appropriate action. Not because their needs are not legitimate, but because federal assistance is not legitimate under our Constitution. And that is perfectly consistent with Mormon theology, so long as his personal efforts to assist the poor remain in place.
01 October 2012
Bookshelf Update
So far, to look at my books, you'd see a bigger mess than before. But I'm actually making some small progress. And, one nice thing about taking pictures of my shelves, it made me see that there is more empty space on there to work with than I thought. I probably don't need to buy more shelves as soon as I was thinking, even with a bunch of new school books on the way.
When I was reading this post, she talked about Guided Reading levels. I'd never heard of those before, and it turns out that they are NOT phonetic, but they do seem to do a pretty good job of separating the books out so that we can find some that are do-able. Schoolastic has a book wizard that you can look titles up, and there's lots of titles that are not levels for this Guided Reading, but I'm finding that some of our books are leveled, and so I'm pulling those out and putting them in a special place with stickers on the back of them so that he can easily tell what level they are at. I'm also hitting up my friends for empty cereal boxes so that I can create containers to put the various levels in. Kinda like the ones from that post I like so much. We usually get bagged cereal, so I have no boxes laying around, and even if we switch for a bit, it's going to take some time to get very many boxes. But if I hit my friends up for boxes I can probably get a few in pretty short order so that I can get started. Mom uses boxes, cut like magazine holders and covered with contact paper, in her classroom, and says that they hold up pretty well, so that's what I'm starting with.
The other exciting thing I've discovered since my first post about my books is an app for my iPhone that will help me to categorize my books and keep a list of what I do and don't have. I can tag them with multiple tags and then I'll have a list of what I already have when I'm book shopping. I've tried out the "lite" version and it's simple, easy, and quick to use. I can't wait to get the full version!
And, a little down the road when I've got my easy readers settled, I'll probably swipe Celestia's idea for organizing the school books. That's just what I need.
As much as I'd like to think otherwise, this is going to be a pretty long-term project. That much is becoming clear already. But, I'm starting to have a plan, and that's an important step!
When I was reading this post, she talked about Guided Reading levels. I'd never heard of those before, and it turns out that they are NOT phonetic, but they do seem to do a pretty good job of separating the books out so that we can find some that are do-able. Schoolastic has a book wizard that you can look titles up, and there's lots of titles that are not levels for this Guided Reading, but I'm finding that some of our books are leveled, and so I'm pulling those out and putting them in a special place with stickers on the back of them so that he can easily tell what level they are at. I'm also hitting up my friends for empty cereal boxes so that I can create containers to put the various levels in. Kinda like the ones from that post I like so much. We usually get bagged cereal, so I have no boxes laying around, and even if we switch for a bit, it's going to take some time to get very many boxes. But if I hit my friends up for boxes I can probably get a few in pretty short order so that I can get started. Mom uses boxes, cut like magazine holders and covered with contact paper, in her classroom, and says that they hold up pretty well, so that's what I'm starting with.
The other exciting thing I've discovered since my first post about my books is an app for my iPhone that will help me to categorize my books and keep a list of what I do and don't have. I can tag them with multiple tags and then I'll have a list of what I already have when I'm book shopping. I've tried out the "lite" version and it's simple, easy, and quick to use. I can't wait to get the full version!
And, a little down the road when I've got my easy readers settled, I'll probably swipe Celestia's idea for organizing the school books. That's just what I need.
As much as I'd like to think otherwise, this is going to be a pretty long-term project. That much is becoming clear already. But, I'm starting to have a plan, and that's an important step!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
