A Declaration in the Midst

Thomas Jefferson. A founding father. The third president of the United States. Say his name and the American Revolution comes to mind. As the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, many are unaware that Jefferson’s articulate writing abilities were evident prior to the drafting of that famous document. In 1774, Jefferson earned his reputation as a skilled writer with his work, A Summary View of the Rights of British America.

Context

Before the Declaration of Independence was written, the Thirteen Colonies were still under British rule and facing many oppressions. This document goes into detail the rights that British America should have over the colonies and he argues that the colonies were founded independent of British America and have rights to be governed independently. This work in particular was presented to the First Continental Congress. Unfortunately, Congress was not convinced and the document was brushed aside until it was printed in pamphlet form and distributed throughout London, Philadelphia, and New York.

Logos, Pathos, Ethos

Overall, Jefferson plays most strongly to the idea of logos. He draws upon the past experiences of the Saxons breaking free from Northern Europe and eventually establishing their own rule to establish the logic behind why the Thirteen Colonies will eventually break free from British rule. His argument is very orderly and methodical, seamlessly flowing from one point to another. Jefferson also uses the idea of natural born rights to further establish his logical argument as to why Britain cannot maintain their power. Pathos is also used in the focus of the oppression of the Colonies to increase the emotional appeal as to why they needed to break free. Although ethos was not used in this document, it was this pamphlet that established Jefferson as an authority in the sector of political writing. This very document gave him to authority he needed to go on and publish the Declaration of Independence.

Past and Future Fact

One of Jefferson’s strong arguments is that of the Saxons. Prior to the establishment of Great Britain, the Saxon’s were ruled by Northern Europe. However, eventually, the Saxon’s separated themselves into new lands and Northern Europe lost their jurisdiction over them. Jefferson alludes to the past fact that this has happened before and the future fact that it will happen again. Looking on the past also helps Jefferson to understand how it can be done in the future as well. 

Stand For What You Believe In

In 1976, the Czech psychedelic rock band, the Plastic People of the Universe, were arrested and tried by the Czech Communist government. The government convicted the band for disturbing the peace, with the band members serving 8 to 18 month sentences. In response to the arrest of the band, a group of Czech artists, writers, and musicians, including Vaclav Havel, circulated a petition for their freedom, known as the Manifesto of Charter 77. Charter 77 was not a formal political party, but instead functioned as an advocacy group for human rights. In 1975, the Czech government had signed the Helsinki Declaration, which included guarantees of human rights and individual freedoms. However, the Charter states that these basic human rights exist on paper only. The Czechoslovak government condemned all of the signers of Charter 77, several of whom were tried and imprisoned. However, Charter 77 can be seen as the first public action of a move from communist regime to democratic rule.

The audience for Charter 77 can be seen as everyone in Czechoslovakia during that particular time. It was mainly to get the Government’s attention of what the people felt was happening with current rule, but also to inform the people themselves. The audience today can be anyone who feels they should stand up for what they believe in. It gives us hope that courage to express your views exists and can be successful.

The group of people who wrote/backed Charter 77 were blaming the current government system for not backing up their words with actions. This is evidence of vituperation. For example, in Article 13 of the Helsinki Declaration, it states that everyone has the right to education. But numerous times, children would be prevented from studying because of their views or their parents views. Lots of emotion was put into this document. It was technically illegal, but Vaclav and lots of others felt strongly about “freeing” themselves from this Government who would not allow the people the rights they deserved. Repetition is used throughout this document in the form of these kinds of examples that all point out these basic rights, and why the people deserve better.

I could see Vaclav reading this document as a firm, direct speech to whoever was willing to listen, which I would assume would be a lot. It is a call to change, and that is what he did. This document would eventually lead to an overthrow of communism at the end of 1989 and the election of Vaclav Havel as President of the new Czech Republic in 1990.

The Assembly of the Third Estate

A depiction of the Third Estate
carrying the other two on its back.

The Third Estate of France represented the lowest class. The first two estates represented the nobles and the clergy and they tended to exclude any representation from the Third Estate. To effectively "get back" at the other representatives, the Third Estate representatives held their own assembly. They, of course, invited the other representatives, but the first two estates again ignored them. The assembly was designed to give authenticity and power to the Third Estate so that they could have an influence in making laws.

Democracy isn't for Everything

On Tuesday I took a firm stand against an internet of open standards and consensual development of technologies. Corresponding with others has led me to refine my stance. I will explain why.

Don't Tell An Actuary He's "Too Smart"

            I never back down from a challenge. As expected I have received a lot of pushback to my new ideas surrounding the certification of actuaries from a couple of actuaries who have been around the block a few times. As I previously discussed in my last post, I feel that actuaries in general have a mentality about them that is almost unavoidable in feeling “smarter” than others. I have felt this in myself from time to time as I tirelessly work and sacrifice my time to pass actuarial exams. When I do pass them. I too can sometimes become “big-headed”. It is a vicious cycle that needs to be stopped.

            This semester I have had the opportunity to take a class from a visiting Actuary. His class is amazing and his insights are great, as there aren't any fellowship actuaries currently teaching at BYU. I asked him what he thought about the exams, and if this dogma of being “smarter” than others existed, and was leading to the difficulty of the exams. He quickly shot me down, and stated that the exams are not a product of a better-than-the-world mentality, and that they have to be difficult to ensure actuaries know what they are doing. A response I expected as Joe’s comment suggested.

            I also messaged an actuary on LinkedIn who is in a group with me titled, The Entry Level Actuary. He responded almost identically to my teacher, saying that no such dogma existed among professional actuaries, and that the exams should be harder if anything else.

            So was I completely wrong? Perhaps. But I think it is also fair to suggest that those I talked with about this issue have a skewed frame of reference in which they would be unlikely to respond in any other manner than in which the one they already have. These were two men who had sacrificed many hours to take 8-10 actuarial exams, sacrificing time from family, friends, work, and school work to accomplish professional goals. They aren't about to say that the exams they sacrificed over are too hard, and especially that they are hard because of some kind of poor mentality among actuaries.

            The world is changing, and because of this there are more people out there that could be actuaries but can't because of an outdated thought about the requirements. Actuaries of the future need to change their frame of reference and see that more can be done to allow those who are able to be actuaries to become certified. 

New Tolerance: Changing the Religious Education in America

      Earlier this week, I wrote a blog post that argued for an important change to be considered within America's education of religious tolerance (if you missed the post, please see the following link: Incurable Religion: Searching For Tolerance). After sharing the post with fellow students, I decided to engage over 1,500 individuals, individuals that I lovingly refer to as "Facebook friends," in this important dialogue. Surprisingly, the responses I received were focused, positive, and provided me with a thought-provoking analysis over the past few days.

      Zack Payne, an acquaintance that resides in North Carolina, brought up a key point.

Physical or Psychological? Whats worse?

My perspective has been enlarged greatly through communication with others. From conversation through social media to face to face interactions I have heard many people say they disagree with what is allowed on television but don’t think we can change anything.

Ya just gotta love what ya do

Work = Money. Money can provide virtually all you need. Though it may or may not be true, that was my though process as a child and growing up in America, I was convinced that many thought the same for we are taught to value work.

“Surely this guy has good ideas,” I thought when I saw what looked like a prominent business man approach the restaurant.  He was wearing a well-fitting suit and tie and driving a luxury brand car. Surely, he was well off.

Thinking of the American dogma that sacrificing time off to work will bring success, I was convinced talking to the business man would reveal the same truth I learned as a kid. Though vacations are nice, certainly this business man understood the value gain from working as hard as possible or he would at least have interesting views about work. “Why do you and other American’s work so hard? A lot of people sacrifice vacation because it could put them ahead. Don’t you value taking time off?” I asked.

At first, he seemed puzzled for surely the answer seemed obvious. “I work to provide for my family,” he said. “We live in a society where we can work. You ask the question as though every American is miserable about the job they do. The problem is not that American’s aren’t taking time off. The problem is that American’s are doing jobs they hate. You know the saying. If you do what you love, you’ll never work a day in your life.”

Thinking back to the enlightenment, people were working hard. Their work developed much innovation and set the stage for our time today. Yet for the most part, we assumed they enjoyed it. Maybe the dogma isn't that American’s shun vacation, maybe the true problem is that American’s stopped loving what they do.  

Not Everything on the Internet is True??

As I browsed various internet articles and their comment threads regarding the legitimacy of information gathered over the internet and how to personally verify the source of said information, it struck me as ironic that I was falling into the mindset I am arguing again by blindly trusting the opinion of anonymous strangers over the internet. After all, how credible are anonymous opinions about credibility on the internet?

The 4-hour Workweek

A 4-hour workweek. Can you imagine? That's like going to work Monday morning and starting your weekend Monday afternoon. What a dream. In my research online, I came across the book "The 4-Hour Workweek" by Tim Ferriss. He was a workaholic who took a three week sabbatical to Europe. In those three weeks, he developed a new system that boosted his productivity tenfold.

In the reviews I read about the book, one advocate (Joshua Steimle) even wrote a love letter on Forbes to Tim about how much this system had changed his life. I reached out to Joshua via Twitter, and we had a brief exchange about the idea of a new norm for a workweek. My question for Joshua was what it would take for corporate America to adopt a new (a 4-day workweek, for example). His response was whether we want a new norm, or if we want no norm at all.

This completely shifted my perspective. Wouldn't it be better to just abolish the idea of a workweek altogether? We can all work when we want, where we want, how we want as long as we accomplish our objectives. Why even try to redefine what a "workweek" is? Why not just move to a new paradigm shift completely? It does make me wonder what it would take for society to be comfortable with no workweek norm at all.

It makes me think of the "certainty unbound" theme we discussed. Perhaps to see what society would become without the strains of a workweek norm, we'd have to just take a leap of faith. We'd have to go with what Bacon believed about being okay with not having all the answers. Some companies may flourish and some may fail, but we could adjust and continue testing new norms (or no norms) to see how we could benefit from systems that move away from the 40 hour workweek. Only time will tell what the workweek will become.

Down The Rabbit Hole

In the search for how to make voting easier so that we will get a government that more fully represents the people, I looked into many ideas, including the good, the bad, and the outright radical.

In the search, I stumbled upon a journalist working in Detroit. When describing his feelings about voting on the internet, he expressed worry about what it could lead to, “#DownTheRabbitHole” has he put it. Opening voting up to the internet could easily lead to politicians taking control of the voting process. This is a valid concern, but is it all that different from the idea that there are politicians today tinkering with the voting process?

In communicating with an analyst in Denver, I discovered a much more radical solution. Dissolve the legislative branch of the government, and draw a random sample of citizens each year to fill those seats. Statisticians would love the idea, for this “sample” would be the best estimation of the “population” that is possible. If your name is drawn out of a randomization process, you go work for the government in deciding legislation.

This would lead to a government that, statistically speaking at least, would be a better representation of the people—which is exactly what we would be trying to do with enabling voting online. Its feasibility, however, remains an issue. What will the future hold? I suppose it is up to us, but we need to vote to make it happen.

Connected, But Alone

Has social media made us less social?

You would think ‘social’ media would include a lot more interacting and socializing, just over various media instead of in-person or other ways. But over the past few years, people of all ages and demographics have integrated their lives with social media and can be found spending lots of time on their phones or other devices. I desired to discuss this issue with others. In an online forum, I asked this very question and received some very good feedback and discussion.

One response I received that answered yes said, “People no longer need to be able to communicate properly with others due to the fact that the internet is doing it for them. The ability to use internet phones to check social media sights has turned places like coffee shops and cafes into non-social areas. Instead of approaching strangers to be entertained in new situations people are just pulling out their phones and checking their social media so that they can feel connected to others without actually being connected to others.”

Another response that answered no talked about how “[social media] helps us grow a better social understanding with each other.” He stated that we can get to know people better by seeing what they are up to all the time through pictures and other media, and helps us stay connected with them.

Overall, I received about 75% of responses that said yes it has made us less social, and 25% that said no it hasn't. One particular response that stuck out to me the most gave me a link to a TED talk by a woman named Sherry Turkle. She is an author who wrote a book called: “Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other.” I have posted the video below to this TED talk and it really hits home this idea to change the way we use and rely on technology/social media. It is great to be connected, but when your relationships are all online, we tend to actually feel alone and that is when it has to change.