George Washington...a Hobbit?

George Washington…a Hobbit?

Great fiction writers have taught me that there may not be such a thing as fiction at all.  Great fiction – the stories that transcend generations – are just a new way of telling a true story – the story of the human condition.
 

J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, with its make-believe hobbits, wizards, dwarves, hellish orcs, and celestial elves, is just such a story. In the very real battle of good versus evil that each of us fight every day, here are just a few lessons we learn from this fantastical battle of good versus evil:

Evil never sleeps – not ever. If it looks like it’s been defeated, it just goes underground to build its strength back up, restructure, and resurface to fight again.

The war between good and evil is waged on two fronts: it seems to be perpetually  moving over broad, sweeping landscapes with legions of soldiers; but it always starts deep inside one individual heart at a time.

The good who fight evil are in many cases not the “most likely to’s”.  And yet, when you see the task at hand – what must be done to battle evil this time, the small, the weak, the “least of these” end up being not only the only choice, but very often, the inevitable, and best choice.

When it comes right down to it, good would rather not fight at all. Those who are good look desperately for anyone else – ANYONE ELSE – to fight evil for them. Or, when the battle du jour is won, forgetting the reality of Lesson Number One – that evil never sleeps - they just want to go home.  Like the hobbits that so sweetly portray the truly good in this world, those who are good mostly just want to stay home, visit with friends, bask in the sweetness of the shire, and, of course, have lunch…since it’s been clear since elevensies since anyone has eaten.

The person in history who really got me thinking about this was George Washington – the most anti-hobbit-built military hero ever to mount a horse.  Tall, handsome, disciplined – the man looked, sounded, and acted like a man who was born to be followed into battle.  But underneath his Aragorn exterior, beat the heart of a Frodo Baggins.

Washington continued to find himself at just the right place at the right time – or the wrong place, at the wrong time – depending on how you want to look at it. Because of his extraordinarily high character, he continued to be needed at critical moments of the beginnings of the new nation of the United States.

But…he didn’t want the ring!  After the French and Indian War, he just wanted to go home. After the Revolutionary War, he just wanted to go home. After the Constitutional Convention, he just wanted to go home.  And finally, after serving two terms as president, he just…wanted…to go…home.  

With all his years of public service, away from home, there was no place Washington wanted to be more than Mount Vernon.  It was most definitely his shire.  And in spite of his lifelong yearning to be there, he responded to the call to serve  – every single time.

Benjamin Rush, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, said this:

“’To do good’ is the business of life. ‘To enjoy rest’ is the happiness of heaven. We pluck premature for forbidden fruit when we grasp at rest on this side of the grave.”

Tolkien’s stories hold a beautiful analogy that affirms that reality about life: the shire is an almost Eden-like memory, and the beauty of Rivendell is a mere hint of a more heavenly future existence. 

George Washington possessed a nobility of character that instinctively seemed to know this.  He said:

“How, in the end, will we be able to live with ourselves when we weren’t our highest self and didn’t do the right thing in the first place?”

              Tolkien created 6-toed hobbits…but our country’s beginnings depended on a living, breathing, 6-foot tall hobbit.  Both teach me that the fight isn’t over in this life, and call for something higher in me to step up and out…of my shire.

I am for the UNcommon

          I wrote the essay, below, for an essay contest sponsored by Utahns Against Common Core.  It gave me the opportunity to highlight some of the glaring problems I have with the Common Core State Standards. More importantly, it gave me the opportunity to articulate what I am for.

I am for the UNcommon

          The Common Core State Standards have raised red flags to watchful parents across America, and awakened the most fearful creature in all of nature:  a parent who senses that the well-being of its offspring is at stake.  The red flags are daunting, because there are so many.  Here are a few:

            When parents can’t get anything more concrete from a teacher other than to call these standards “more rigorous”, that is a red flag.

            When teachers are afraid to speak against the Common Core standards for fear of losing their jobs, that is a red flag.

            When university education students are told that their professors don’t know what to teach them to qualify them as certified teachers, that is a red flag.

            When teachers skulkingly hand a parent a text book to help a child at home, as if that text book is contraband, that is a red flag.

            When a federal government, spending money from taxpayers who have not yet been born, bribes states to receive waivers from ridiculous practices or money to adopt untested, unused, unwritten standards, that is a red flag.

            When educrats advocate funneling a child into a system that will determine what that child will grow up to be, for the good of a global job market, which undermines the true self-determination that has been a prized value of liberty since this country’s beginnings, that is a red flag!

            It is at this point in the conversation that any good disciple of Saul Alinsky will hurl this question accusingly at the protective parent:  “so aren’t you for any standards in education?” 

            Parents: it is at this point that we must have an answer so ready, that it nearly bursts from us because it burns within us: I am for standards that are NOT common!

            Excellence is not common.  And rigorous does not equal excellence.  Rigorous is defined as “thorough, exhaustive, and accurate”.  Do we as parents want that kind of education for these beautiful, snowflake-like individuals, these magnificent children, who came to us – as Wordsworth said, “trailing clouds of glory from God, who is [their] home”?  Remember: the word ‘rigorous’ has the same Latin root as ‘rigor’ – as in ‘rigor mortis’ – the stiffening of muscles that follows death.  In the context of Common Core, I pray that ‘rigorous’ isn’t referring to stiffening that leads to the death of our children’s ability to imagine, dream, create, and think for themselves.

            We are for the uncommon, the excellent, the exceptional.

We are for the individual liberty of directing our children’s education – with decisions made locally in homes and local community schools and districts.

            We are for the individual liberty of local teachers – gifted and dedicated professionals who love and praise and encourage our children, who spend countless hours of personal time and too much unreimbursed personal funds on their students, and who often intuitively know – without multi-million dollar assessments – which of those students are struggling and how to adapt lessons to reach them.

We are for the privacy of our children as guaranteed to us by the 4^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

We are for our children having the once-in-a-lifetime experience of a protected childhood, of them having the freedom to succeed – and fail! - and through their experiences, gain the strength and wisdom to choose for themselves the path their lives will follow. 

I quote Dr. Everett Piper, president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University, who delivered a masterful speech last summer, on what he was for in education.  He said:

“The goal of good education should be the pursuit of what is good…and true…and just…and right…and REAL, not the protection or the propagation of what is COMMON.  Good education has never been about dumbing down the academy to a group of ideas that are agreed upon by the powerful and the popular.  The goal of the educator should be the pursuit of truth, not the construction of what is common.  Education should be about an open mind that challenges the consensus, rather than a set of closed constructs of commonality that capitulate to the mediocrity of the group, group think, and the collective opinion.”

He goes on to say:  “I am against Common Core because I believe in intellectual integrity – the integration of head, and heart, and fact, and faith that is directed by the student’s thirst for truth and not the state’s hunger for control.”

I stand for excellence, for local control, for privacy, for teachers, but first, last, and always, I stand for my children.

                                                   My UNcommon children

           

           

             

The Year of the Butterfly

It's taken quite a while to figure out what I want to do with this blog, but I was so happy to get on here this morning, look around at what I'd already put here, and realize that I knew, subliminally, at least, from the beginning.

I'm learning the importance of intent.  Too much living takes place unintentionally, and it's usually where we humans get ourselves in trouble.   When I taught YSA Institute a couple of years ago, the first semester's curriculum was entitled "The Gospel and the Productive Life".  That's when the notion of living with intent first started to percolate.  When I saw the lesson topics - ranging from paying tithing and living debt free to physical fitness and good health - it struck me how easy it is to slide into a path of least resistance, in almost every aspect of our daily living.  It became the connecting thread of the lessons for that semester in an attempt to paint a picture for the students:  living the gospel of Jesus Christ transforms a schlepping, scrubby Natural Man who is generally acted upon, into a true Saint - an agent who chooses to act, rather than wait to be acted upon - a Child of God who, because of conscious, intentional actions....IS, who steadily, daily practices and imitates developing the attributes of his Creator...the great I AM.

THAT...is some pretty high living.  No wonder it inspires so many of us to.....nap.

But yesterday, I came across a quote I had put in the front of my planner about 10 years ago.  It had great meaning for some major life changes and shifted a lot of negative energy to positive energy at the time.  It's from a sweet little book called Hope for the Flowers, by Trina Paulus:

"How does one become a butterfly?  You must want to be able to fly so much, that you are willing to give up being a caterpillar."

That really explains symbolically the purpose of this life:  we were born as the children of the Creator, and must go through a metamorphic process to go back to Him.  We work, and practice, and fail, and start over...and make progress, and backslide, and try again, and start over...and strive, and succeed, and fall again, and start over...and over...and over...and over...as we struggle to break free of the chrysalis that binds us.  It's easy, from the perspective of inside the chrysalis, to forget that the chrysalis is not all that there is to life.  There's soooo much more.  There. Is. FLYING.  

Being a butterfly is soooo much better than being a caterpillar, but it's easy to forget that the chrysalis, which feels so restrictive and binds us down, is the very thing that facilitates the change.  The work and intentional energy required to break free of it is the very process that makes the transformation from caterpillar to butterfly possible.

As you may or may not know, I am not Chinese. Nevertheless, I am dubbing 2014 The Year of the Butterfly. When my little scrubby self wants to keep crawling along its usual path of least resistance, the reminding, nagging, coaching, encouraging question must override:  

Would you rather crawl....or fly?

For, Not Against

In my last blog, I wrote about all the things I'd learned about Senator Hatch and why I wouldn't be supporting him.  A friend asked me why I was supporting Dan Liljenquist.  I felt quite chagrined that I had taken so much time in laying out my case against Hatch, without making my case for Liljenquist.  Thanks, RaeLynne, for the friendly question!

I was very impressed by Dan's open, straightforward manner; he actually answered questions!  When you go to hear the same candidate more than once, you start to get a sense of whether they're reciting talking points, or whether they're actually talking to you.  And while all candidates turn to talking points from time to time, Dan's answers were consistent and genuine.  While political campaigns so often focus on an opponent's record, I felt like I heard more about Dan's own record and goals than a typical campaign.  He has a concrete plan, based on the concrete plan he took the the Utah state senate, and he can articulate it clearly.  Two financial issues he was very concerned about upon entering the state senate were pensions for public employees and state Medicaid. 

At the debate at Juan Diego High School this spring, Hatch challenged Liljenquist on votes missed during sessions of the Utah state Senate, a major theme in many of Hatch's campaign ads.  Liljenquist was, once again, direct in answering:  "I'm glad you asked about that," he stated.  He went on to say that Hatch made it sound like he, Liljenquist, was out playing golf, rather than garnering bi-partisan support for his pension reform bill.  He was present at the capital every day of the legislative session, and came to vote on any crucial issues where his vote was needed.  When it wasn't needed, he continued to talk to legislators from both parties, convincing them the need to offer this bill to the governor with as much support as possible.

"As I met with state Democrats," Liljenquist said, "They would say, 'Dan, you have a majority; you don't need our vote.'  I would tell them, 'I know I don't need your vote; I want your vote.  This is not a bi-partisan issue; it is a reality issue.  We need to make the pensions sustainable.'"  Dan was able to get his bill passed unanimously, which was then signed by the governor. 

Ladies and gentlemen:  THAT is what reaching across the aisle looks like.  Rather than compromise your principles and vote for something you don't agree on, because the sponsor of the bill has stuck in a goodie for your state, SO that you can then stick a goodie into your bill for their state and have them vote for yours...IS NOT REACHING ACROSS THE AISLE.  It's crony politics at its worst, where career politicians have lost sight of voting for what is right, because it has become about parties and who can win.  If we have leaders in Washington who are so entrenched in that system, seeing it as simply "the ways things are done", and continue to partake of the spoils of the labor of the taxpayers, how are we ever going to get anything different from our leaders...unless we send new leaders?  

Dan also sponsored reforms to Utah's Medicaid system, which will save our state millions - nearly $1 billion - over the first seven years.  His goal was to make it more attractive for low-income earners to earn more, rather than stay earning a low wage so they could keep state welfare benefits of one kind or another. 

Other states - a dozen or more - have now been in contact with Dan to see how Utah has made some of these changes, as so many states are in financial trouble with these same problems.  He is working with legislators all over the country to consult and coach on the success he's experienced in Utah with these much needed reforms.

Dan has been successful in passing sweeping reform legislation on issues that are vital to the economic survival of the entire country.  He is ideally suited to replace Hatch.  If Hatch had stuck to his original plan and served 3 terms, I believe he would be a supporter of Liljenquist today.  He is a principled, honorable man.  He is highly qualified with a background in economics, law, and business.  He has actually done in our state what needs to be done on a national level, both in seeing the kind of legislation that can make real changes, and in working with both parties to bring it about.  Should Hatch win this election, six years from now, we may not have the chance to replace him with such a fine statesman as Dan Liljenquist, a man who is so uniquely qualified for the problems our country faces today.

Going Political

I got the chance to be a Republican state delegate for my voting precinct in April.  I learned a ton – mostly, that there is attendant responsibility to the rights and privileges of self-government:  “…the burden should come upon all the people that every man might bear his part.” (Mosiah 29:34)  In a free society, the people must bear the burden of government, and as we live in a democratic republic, that means becoming an informed voter.  Taking the time to vet candidates made me wonder why I had not been doing so all along.  I am now resolved to be a more informed citizen and voter.  I urge everyone to start their own journey of self-education, be sure you’re registered to vote, and VOTE!  This is how we bear the burden to keep our country free.  If knowing correct principles is, in fact, the way for us to be able to govern ourselves, it only stands to reason that ignorance is the greatest danger in a republic.

At our caucus, a large number of neighbors wanted Orrin Hatch to make it into a primary; they felt it was wrong that Bob Bennett never even made it out of the Republican convention in 2010.  The sentiment was that the public should have been the ones to decide.  At the time, that made sense, but as I’ve gone through my own process of self-education (which is by no means finished!), I realize that means a largely uninformed electorate would make that decision, possibly without being as fully aware of a candidate’s voting record as the delegates who attend the convention. 

Prior to the convention, I had just as many neighbors ask me not to vote for Hatch, as had asked me to vote for him the night of the caucus.  Last summer, before I even had an idea to be a delegate, I met Senator Hatch and got to talk to him.  He was extremely condescending, quick to give non-answers full of somewhat relevant details and minutia, or dismiss questions altogether, descending into folksy “rah-rah” rhetoric. 

Because of this, I already had a rather unfavorable impression of a man who had served in the Senate twice as long as the man he replaced – an incumbent, who, at the time, Hatch strongly criticized for his lengthy tenure.  Hatch’s campaign slogan in 1976 was: “What do you call a U.S. senator who has served for 18 years?.....You call him HOME.”    I ask:  what has changed in 36 years to compel us to send him for what would be a total of forty-two???  This is how we have unwittingly created an elite ruling class who nearly doesn’t answer to us any more for their behavior, and certainly does not play by the same rules we do. 

After listening to both Orrin Hatch and Dan Liljenquist in debates and cottage meetings, I’ve come to the conclusion that Hatch has no business serving a 7^th term.  The way he has handled the questions of his constituency, his voting record, his misrepresenting Liljenquist’s record, and his refusal to debate, have all weighed in my decision to support Dan Liljenquist.

My main reasons for not supporting Hatch are:

         

1.         He confirmed and/or didn’t appropriately vet – liberal presidential appointees such as Timothy Geithner, Cass Sunstein, and Eric Holder.  He confirmed liberal Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg – recommending Ginsburg.  In all fairness, Hatch has been responsible for approving some strong conservative Supreme Court justices as well.  But my biggest problem with his approval of such choices is his reason for doing so:

A former Hatch aid, Edward Whelan, described Hatch’s philosophy of presidential appointments (in particular reference to Justice Ginsburg’s appointment to the Supreme Court):  “Sen. Hatch and other Republicans voted to confirm her because they believed the president was entitled to considerable deference in selecting a Supreme Court Justice.”  A fellow state delegate said Hatch explained this as his reasoning for “non-cabinet” appointments (a.k.a. “czars”) by President Obama, and this was his reasoning behind his voting in favor of Obama’s “recess” appointments this past year.  This is the antithesis of Constitutional reasoning.  The purpose of Senate approval of presidential appointments is to provide checks and balances on power.  I believe that voting for something because it’s going to pass with a majority – in spite of his opposing vote – is strong evidence to show that Hatch has lost sight of his role as a member of Congress.  While it may be spun as “reaching across the aisle”, Hatch seems to have lost sight of the purpose of vetting appointments.

2.         He voted for the establishment of the Department of Education in 1979 – in his first term!   President Carter established this behemoth federal office to thank teacher unions for helping him get elected.  I had heard conflicting information about this, and as I did research to verify it, came across a video clip online of an interview Hatch did with Greta Van Sustern on Fox News.  He stated that he had opponents who claimed he had established the Department of Education, which was not true.  I was flabbergasted.  While technically true – he, himself, did not establish the Department of Education, he absolutely voted to approve its establishment! (www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/96-1979/s70)

Hatch supported Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” program, a grossly expensive expansion of the federal government.  Centralized education is another concept antithetical to limited government as set forth in the Constitution, and is far too expensive for our country to pay for when we are as far in debt as we are.

3.         His voting on many federal spending projects is anything but conservative.  Some of the largest debt increases he voted to approve were done during Republican presidential administrations, years when the Senate held a Republican majority, and/or during the time he spent on the Senate Finance Committee.  Among some of the most egregious:

 

·         TARP, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, and auto bailouts – all huge intrusions on the free market with staggering debt ramifications.

·         The Dream Act – tuition  credits for the children of illegal immigrants, which he co-sponsored.

·         SCHIP – government-sponsored child health care, which many consider a pre-cursor to Obamacare, and which he co-sponsored.

·         Medicare Part D – expansion of Medicare in prescription drugs which added trillions in unfunded liabilities to Medicare.

While all these things are well-meaning – they are financially irresponsible at our current rate of debt and spending, and were never intended purposes of the federal government as outlined in the Constitution. 

4.     He has voted to increase the debt ceiling 16 times. 

5.    He voted for the updated NDAA – National Defense Authorization Act – which includes new wording that grants the president overreaching authority to circumvent basic 5^th Amendment rights to U.S. citizens.  

6.    Hatch’s number one argument that he be elected for a 7^th term is his seniority.  He stoutly asserts that he is needed on the Senate Finance Committee, where he is in line to become the chairman.  He also insists that he is needed to keep Hill Air Force Base open. 

·         The man behind Hatch to head the Senate Finance Committee, Mike Crapo of Idaho, has a better conservative voting record than Hatch.

·         Several swing states will all have to elect Republicans instead of their currently serving Democrats.  While this is possible with the high dissatisfaction with Obama’s policies, Hatch chairing that committee is definitely not a sure thing, and should hardly be the trump card to secure him votes.

·         Recent policy changes have largely removed the politicizing from the decision-making process of military base closings.

7.     Hatch has misrepresented Liljenquist’s voting record in the Utah state senate while technically not lying about it, making missed votes look like irresponsibility.  Dan frankly explains that he was working on bi-partisan support for his award-winning legislation on pension and Medicaid reform, legislation that is garnering attention from at least a dozen other states in financial trouble, and could serve as a model for financial reform at a federal level.

8.    Hatch is 78 years old, and it is abundantly evident when you hear him speak.  His mental acuity is not what it was 18 years ago, the time when he said he would be done in the Senate.  If he is elected for a seventh term, he will be 84 years old at the end of his term.

9.     Hatch has been unwilling to face Dan Liljenquist in a public debate.  A radio debate, in the middle of the day, with an ally as the moderator is a lame concession at best.   

This race is garnering national attention; for just one example, see: http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2012/06/01/its_time_for_beltway_barnacle_orrin_hatch_to_go/page/full/.

I have arranged to have Dan Liljenquist speak in my neighborhood on Monday, June 18^th @ 6:30 p.m., at 741 East Litson Circle.  Please bring your questions and come meet him.  Dan would make an excellent replacement for Hatch.  He is an honorable man, a true statesman.  We may not be so lucky six years from now to have such a fine choice as an alternative.