Now to really **** you off

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:55:02 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote:

On 13 Jul 2004 23:09:45 GMT, (Tom Littleton) wrote:

RDean notes:
IMO, therein lies the problem of bringing "the founding fathers" into
most arguments.

I think one also has to accept that the overall heading of "Founding Fathers"
encompassed a broad range of opinion for the time.

there is very little of what
goes on today that the "founding fathers" would have approved of ....

still, you are transposing the idea of these men frozen in 18th Century
realities and
base of knowledge. What one can credit the assembled group for is merely
creating a Framework. The system that they put in place turned out(by design
and by chance)
to be flexible enough to allow change without mass upheaval. It forced most
change to be slow and deliberate. It made fast, radical change very difficult.
These things make for a flexible, responsible mode of government over the long
haul. They did give such matters some thought.
Tom



I agree.

I think the flexibility that they engendered in the system was their
greatest accomplishment.


g.c.

And how did they allow for change? I refer you to Article 5, and then
to Article 1.

TC,
R

The ones I think little of are those that are of the "chicken little"
variety screaming that if we don't subscribe to their theory that we
are all doomed from item X.

Well, Allen, a lot of people thought Rachel Carson fit that
description.

Similar accusations were leveled at Frances Kelsey, who risked her
career trying to get Thalidomide off the market, and was villified
and crucified by the drug companies.

I had a Thalidomide baby in class some years ago. If I described her
to you, you would either think I was lying, or you would cry. And you
would probably want to kill the person responsible for her terrible
deformations.

History tells us of many scientists who martyred themselves by
fighting for a lunatic idea --- that turned out to be right. Ludwig
Semmelweis was hounded into an insane asylum for telling his fellow
MDs that they could prevent Childbed Fever, which was killing many new
mothers, by merely washing their hands before delivering babies.

And of course Galileo.

Yes, sometimes they're lunatics. But sometimes they're right.

A rule of thumb I use is
that the folks that are speaking at political rallies or as the
routinely invited "environmental"talking head on a network are likely
trying to push an agenda that is easily influenced by politics and I
trust them much less than scientist that have a solid record of
publishing in a variety of professional publications of careful
reasoned, bounded arguments.

There is certainly some merit in that rule, Allen.

Although this may seem to contradict my above remarks, I like the
prayer that goes, Lord, let me always walk with those who seek the
truth. But God, please spare me the company of those who have found
it!

vince

"Wolfgang" wrote in
:

I really do hope you know what you're nattering about. It seems to me
that if we're going to have an adult discussion, at least one of us
should.

Oh were we having a discussion?

I guess I do remember you. You're the guy who has mistaken vocabulary for
intelligence. A common enough mistake.

LOL

Flyfish

"Wolfgang" wrote in
:

I really do hope you know what you're nattering about. It seems to me
that if we're going to have an adult discussion, at least one of us
should.

Oh were we having a discussion?

I guess I do remember you. You're the guy who has mistaken vocabulary for
intelligence. A common enough mistake.

LOL

Flyfish

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:09:30 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:55:02 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote:

On 13 Jul 2004 23:09:45 GMT, (Tom Littleton) wrote:

RDean notes:
IMO, therein lies the problem of bringing "the founding fathers" into
most arguments.

I think one also has to accept that the overall heading of "Founding Fathers"
encompassed a broad range of opinion for the time.

there is very little of what
goes on today that the "founding fathers" would have approved of ....

still, you are transposing the idea of these men frozen in 18th Century
realities and
base of knowledge. What one can credit the assembled group for is merely
creating a Framework. The system that they put in place turned out(by design
and by chance)
to be flexible enough to allow change without mass upheaval. It forced most
change to be slow and deliberate. It made fast, radical change very difficult.
These things make for a flexible, responsible mode of government over the long
haul. They did give such matters some thought.
Tom



I agree.

I think the flexibility that they engendered in the system was their
greatest accomplishment.


g.c.

And how did they allow for change? I refer you to Article 5, and then
to Article 1.

TC,
R

John Jay and John Marshall also deserve more than a little credit.


g.c.

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:09:30 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:55:02 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote:

On 13 Jul 2004 23:09:45 GMT, (Tom Littleton) wrote:

RDean notes:
IMO, therein lies the problem of bringing "the founding fathers" into
most arguments.

I think one also has to accept that the overall heading of "Founding Fathers"
encompassed a broad range of opinion for the time.

there is very little of what
goes on today that the "founding fathers" would have approved of ....

still, you are transposing the idea of these men frozen in 18th Century
realities and
base of knowledge. What one can credit the assembled group for is merely
creating a Framework. The system that they put in place turned out(by design
and by chance)
to be flexible enough to allow change without mass upheaval. It forced most
change to be slow and deliberate. It made fast, radical change very difficult.
These things make for a flexible, responsible mode of government over the long
haul. They did give such matters some thought.
Tom



I agree.

I think the flexibility that they engendered in the system was their
greatest accomplishment.


g.c.

And how did they allow for change? I refer you to Article 5, and then
to Article 1.

TC,
R

John Jay and John Marshall also deserve more than a little credit.


g.c.

vincent p. norris wrote in
:


Similar accusations were leveled at Frances Kelsey, who risked her
career trying to get Thalidomide off the market, and was villified
and crucified by the drug companies.



Interesting history, there. Thalidomide was never "on the market" in the
US. It was approved as a sedative in Canada and Europe, but never got FDA
approval. When drug manufacturers distributed the drug to doctors in the
US, it was as an experimental drug (though the science sucked).

As a further aside, Thalidomide is available for use today for a limited
number of purposes that take advantage of the fact that it shrinks blood
vessels.

Scott

vincent p. norris wrote in
:


Similar accusations were leveled at Frances Kelsey, who risked her
career trying to get Thalidomide off the market, and was villified
and crucified by the drug companies.



Interesting history, there. Thalidomide was never "on the market" in the
US. It was approved as a sedative in Canada and Europe, but never got FDA
approval. When drug manufacturers distributed the drug to doctors in the
US, it was as an experimental drug (though the science sucked).

As a further aside, Thalidomide is available for use today for a limited
number of purposes that take advantage of the fact that it shrinks blood
vessels.

Scott

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 06:28:43 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote:

I think the flexibility that they engendered in the system was their
greatest accomplishment.
g.c.

And how did they allow for change? I refer you to Article 5, and then
to Article 1.

TC,
R

John Jay and John Marshall also deserve more than a little credit.
g.c.

Nope, sorry, only one vote per wealthy, white,
land-owning male. ---hint

HTH - really ----hint, hint...
R

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 06:28:43 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote:

I think the flexibility that they engendered in the system was their
greatest accomplishment.
g.c.

And how did they allow for change? I refer you to Article 5, and then
to Article 1.

TC,
R

John Jay and John Marshall also deserve more than a little credit.
g.c.

Nope, sorry, only one vote per wealthy, white,
land-owning male. ---hint

HTH - really ----hint, hint...
R