On Appreciating the Detail of Things

I'm feeling the impulse to make a comment on the need and value of 'looking at the detail of things', in the many ways of that sentiment. I'll start with spelling.

Spelling seems to have become a lost art. Well; strike that: It's more than an art. It has to do with our daily lives, and how we live them. Let me start this 'essay' into this area with an observation. I keep track of a lot of e-newsletters and blogs and their Comments threads, originating both in the US and here in the UK. And I am appalled at the level of what at least used to be called illiteracy. There are a number of strands to that condition - how to express oneself in sentence structure, etc etc - but the main piece of the pitiful picture is incorrect spelling.

It's obvious that much of this comes from a lack, in the schooling of the last generation or so, of a commitment to proper spelling. It's too widespread to be just a local phenomenon. To confirm that impression, I would love to visit some elementary schools, and see how much classroom time is dedicated to this aspect of learning how to use one's language to express oneself. I suspect the worst. Other subjects have been deemed more important. 'Oh well; they'll pick it up as they go along. The important thing is to let them express themselves in a way that's comfortable for them.' Well, no and no. They WON'T just 'pick it up'. That's the attitude that has resulted in far too many kids just sent on in their classes without a basic education, in learning to read, eg, or do 'rithmetic. Because they'll 'pick it up as they go along'. Sorry. Doesn't happen much. Too many other things to take up their time. 'They' have been deprived of a decent education, because of this attitude. And as for being 'comfortable': That would be fine if they didn't have to make their way in life with others - with others involved in their being vetted for jobs, say.

We don't live isolated in our own little bubbles. We live in a society, with others; interact with others. That requires some communication skills.

But let me get on with the main point I want to make about this matter. And that is to claim that: To learn how to spell correctly is to honour the value of looking at the detail of things.* It trains the mind. What am I talking about. I'm talking about the likes of 'the fine print' to contracts: needs an eye for the details. I'm talking about the laws of physics, and such. Equations that don't balance are NOT 'good enough'. Medicines (organic chemistry), inventions, hinge on details. 'Close enough' is good enough in washing a car, but not in designing one. It's like Robert Frost said of free verse: It's like playing tennis with the net down. I hope I've made my point. Poor spelling is indicative of, symptomatic of, sloppy thinking. Now, yes: the spelling of words can change over the years, via usage. But the process needs to be conscious. Not just from sloppy thinking, that it's 'close enough'...'good enough'...**

We come now to the further point I want to make with this. And that is to bring up the subject of the contractual nature of the U.S. Constitution. I will refer here specifically to the 14th Amendment, the 16th Amendment, and to Barack Obama's apparent ineligibility for the office of the president of the United States - due to 'the detail' of things like words and their meanings.

First, the 14th Amendment. Most people -and, apparently, including some constitutional scholars - don't realise how it has been perverted into turning the Constitution on its head, and changing it from a contractual document applying from the States to the federal government, into a wet noodle applying from the federal government to the States. Coming in the wake of the Civil War, it had a number of features. One was that it established that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This made full citizens of the former slaves, who did not have such full citizenry before this. The amendment goes on to say: "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." I submit that any commonsense reading of this clause would take it as meaning (and the 'original intention' can be checked on this) that the States could not treat their citizens (now citizens of the U.S. as well) arbitrarily, had to abide by the rule of law. But lo and behold, this clause has been used by liberal law-school professors and other likeminded people to drive a coach and horses through the Constitution: to create a 'doctrine' of what is called 'incorporation' - that is, that the terms of the Bill of Rights were now to apply, as I said above, from the federal government to the States; that the Bill of Rights was all 'incorporated' into/by this statement, thereby making the States subject to the rulings of the (federal) Supreme Court.

This is a nonsense. This is a playing with words, to make them come out to mean what the beholder wants them to mean. This is known as the Humpty Dumpty argument; who said: 'Words mean what I say they mean - neither more nor less." And thus has been born the rule of activist judges, interpreting the Constitution according to their personal sociopolitical proclivities.

Two things. (1) The necessity of looking at the detail of things has been perverted here, in a major way; and (2) It turns out that the 14th Amendment was never properly ratified anyway. So it is, according to the detail of things, null and void.

its pronouncements can, of course, be legalised - ironically, by "due process of law", to put the matter in the 14th's own words. Not in its manufactured meanings.

Next, the 16th Amendment, aka the 'Income Tax' Amendment. Neither was it properly ratified. That little detail needs revisiting as well; again, if we're going to live by the rule of law, rather than by the rule of tyrants.

And finally, the question of Barack Obama's eligibility to hold the highest office in the land. This little matter hinges on the definition of "a natural born citizen", as understood by the Framers of the Constitution.

What did it mean to them, in their minds. There are several historical clues to this, all leading to the most logical understanding that it meant that such a person/candidate had to be a citizen by 'blood' and by 'soil' - had to born on the soil (or its equivalent) by parents who were both citizens. That the person to hold that special and specific office could not have dual loyalties - and especially not to the British Empire, from whom they had just declared their independence.

It doesn't matter where, precisely, Obama was born, if words are to have any real meaning. If his father was, indeed, Barack Obama Sr., his eligibility for that office fell at that first hurdle.

And I say, 'If" here, because there is some question about his parentage, as passed down to him in oral history form from his mother and maternal grandparents. This anomaly in the story of his birth would account for why the Hawaiian authorities have been so 'legalistic' in their statements regarding his original, long-form birth certificate on file. Yes, they may have seen it. And yes, he may indeed be a "natural born citizen" - but of different parentage than we have all been led to believe.

And was it this that his maternal grandmother might have talked to him about, on her deathbed, when he visited her during his campaign for the office? And is this why he has refused to let his original birth record be made public? And why he has refused to let any of his other official records be made public - because they may also bring up questions about his eligibility, which investigation might all lead ineluctably back to his original birth certificate, and a serious questioning of who he is really? And perhaps also answer why Speaker of the House and Chair of the Democratic National Convention, Nancy Pelosi, made some curious statements on the nominating forms to the States, about this matter of his eligibility??

Things get curiouser, and curiouser, and curiouser, the more one goes down this rabbit hole -

the rabbit hole in particular of Obama's eligibility and background, and in general of what has been going down in America for some time, regarding the rule of law, and attention - or not - to detail..

Which brings me back to the bedrock of the matter: the Constitution of the United States, and the honoring thereof, as a legal document.

To sum up: How it is interpreted now is to miss the point. If you want to change the meaning of a legal contract, you must come to an agreement of the parties to the contract.

So, in sum: Yes, spelling of words can change over the years.

But the meaning stays the same.

Unless or until it is changed.

Legally. Or, in certain words: according to "due process".

Which has not been accorded to changes in the Constitution.

And needs to be.

Or we are living under the rule of tyrants.

Who must not be allowed to stand on our necks, any longer.

For we have a higher destiny to fulfill, than being their minions.

We have a change of consciousness to be ushered into consciousness.

In order that our potential can be fulfilled.

Our potential, as 'spiritual beings having a human experience'.

Paying attention to the detail of things.

Not simply accepting things as they are; as 'good enough'.

Or, like, not understanding what primarily has caused the breakdown of the nuclear family. Which was not because of the rise of 'feminism' (except tangentially, as part of the same agenda; of people who wanted more people to be taxed, so they could make more money off them, via the 16th Amendment, and its partner in crime, the concomitant establishing of the Federal Reserve System). But because of inflation. Causing the value of the money to be surreptitiously lowered. Aka stolen. By people who knew precisely what they were doing, and why.

And who got away with it, to the current point of - almost - collapse of the system; of the current paradigm (that does not give them all the power they would like to have; especially with that damnable Constitution in the way).

Because the public was lulled, by the opiate of entertainment, into not noticing what was going on, all around them.

Because they weren't paying enough attention to the detail of things.


Got your attention now, didn't they.

When it's almost - almost - too late.

Except that they have a surprise in store for them.

The surprise that God moves in mysterious ways.

And has a different outcome in store, for us all.

If we will choose it.

Which we have had all along.

Choice.

The choice to look at the detail of things - like life itself - or not.

And learn from our experiences.

Of life as a school.

The purpose being to graduate.

To learn our lessons. And move on.


A minor detail to some.

Obviously; the way they are acting.

And note the word, 'acting'.

As we are all playing parts, in a drama, created to catch our consciences.

Ultimately.

All.

As One.

And then we won't need things like written words to communicate with ourselves.

We will just Be.

Having - again; to underscore the point - learned our lessons.

And the biggest lesson of all.

That We Are All One.

A heckuva detail, that one.


---



* And I used the word 'honour' here on purpose, to acknowledge that there is a difference in spelling in the English language between the British version and the American version. But at least it's consistent; is not all over the place, just what seems to be good enough to convey one's point. Read on.


** I'm also aware of the research that has found that the human eye can 'read' a word if only the first and last letters are correct, and the middle is even gobbledegook (or, equally, gobbledygook). But that's also why so many children can't read: because they never learned, via the 'whole word' method of reading, to decipher the code of the alphabet, 'get' that a particular letter stands for a particular sound. This has also been a bane to our educational existence for some time now; kids having to (learn to) read by memorizing the shape of the word, rather than being able to sound it out for themselves, get it for themselves. I remember, when researching this whole business of Why Johnny Can't Read, reading a 'whole word' reading primer whereby the children were taught, eg, to recognise the word 'monkey' by a picture alongside the word showing a monkey hanging by its tail on the 'y' at the end. This is Egyptian pictography stuff; not civilization since the invention of the Arabic alphabet.***


*** There's more to this story than this; having to do with brain damage, primarily via vaccines, since the late 1940s-50s, leaving many children with such as dyslexia (and dyspraxia, and ADD, and ADHD, and...and.....). But that's another blog.