Fact and Facetiousness

Whether or not our Founding Fathers could peer into the future, or
not, I would point out that these men were representative of the
Landed Gentry of the Colonies. The Constitution was written by and
for those who felt the oppression of the British Boot.
Over the ensuing 230 plus years changing social and economic
conditions as well as a fast growing migration and the growth of a new
industrial complex, brought about inclusions that had not been
intended by the Constitution's drafters.
Personally, while I find it interesting, we are wasting our time
attempting to figure out what the Founding Fathers meant, as it would
relate to today's nation. We just love to quibble over words, rather
than concepts. Even our esteemed Bible. What does a camel passing
through, or not being able to pass through the eye of a needle have to
do with today's world? But we have Bible Scholars researching and
analyzing these obscure examples in an attempt to show how they are
relevant today. How about coming up with rules and slogans that have
meaning for today's people.
What about the American People revisiting the entire Constitution and
drafting a new document that begins by including us, rather than
trying to fit us into a document meant for others.

Carl Jarvis


On 11/14/14, ted chittenden <tchittenden@cox.net> wrote:
> Hi to all.
>
> Some of what I said yesterday concerning the oil pipeline was fact and some
> was facetiousness. The allowance for the minimum wage to rise in return for
> letting the pipeline pass through the U.S. was pure facetiousness that had
> been originally been suggested by Bob. There is no evidence whatsoever that
> President Obama is even considering such a proposal. In fact, according to
> NPR this morning, the President seemed to be siding with the pipeline's
> opposition when he said in Miyanmar (where he was giving a press conference)
> that the only purpose of the pipeline was to transport oil from Canada to
> the Gulf of Mexico for sales outside of the U.S. President Obama is, if
> nothing else, a shrewd political operator and I think that whether he
> ultimately vetoes the pipeline proposal will depend entirely upon whether he
> believes he can make the veto stick.
>
> That said, my points about morality and how the victors in state and federal
> elections are chosen are quite factual. This is, in fact, how the U.S.
> constitution was set up, though I highly doubt that any of the people who
> set it up would realize how few people currently vote, especially in
> off-year elections, or how the system, through the use of money, could be
> manipulated. Finally, most people, whether they voted or not, tend to be
> more concerned with short term outcomes than long term ones. I suspect that
> this is part of the human survival mechanism that could very well ultimately
> destroy us.
> --
> Ted Chittenden
>
> Every story has at least two sides if not more.
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>