The reason I skipped over “Y” is because I like the letter “Z” better.
Using the same technique in another search engine (Bing) let’s see what we get.
ST = substitute teacher, Erik and Visitor Z
ST: If you don’t object, Erik, we’ll use the same method to find somebody obscure. One option is “unknown famous people in American history” well that’s such an oxymoron I’m tempted. What do you think?
Erik: Try it.
ST: [clicking mouse] 14 people show up; which one?
Erik: Pick number 8 from the top.
ST: Why #8?
Erik: No reason, sounds good. I’d bet there’s something about 8 associated with the person.
ST: #8 is DeWitt Clinton and it says “Long time power in New York where he served as Mayor of New York City and Governor of the State in sporadic terms stretching over 25 years. Important for introducing the 12th Amendment to the Constitution. Defeated on his run for President against James Madison, Clinton continued his role in politics and sponsored the Erie and other canals and was known as a major promoter of free public education.” Sounds impressive; I’ve never heard of him.
Erik: He qualifies; I’ll go get him!
ST: (Sidebar here; while Erik’s chasing Visitor Z, I should say he never texted me a photo of Dona Marina and worse, it started raining 5 minutes after he said it would NOT rain…..)
Erik: OK, he’s here.
ST: What does he look like?
Erik: He’s about 5 foot 8 inches (1m73 for the metric “preferers” [do you like that word, Erik?]) wearing a dark, almost black suit and vest and he has a beard and mustache. Looks serious but pleasant.
ST: Mr. Clinton, do you mind that we refer to you as Visitor Z?
Visitor Z: Not at all, it is amusing. That lifetime is over; the name only relevant on Earth during its duration. Please, you may.
ST: Thank you. I just thought of this; there are streets named Clinton in New York City, are any of them named for you?
Visitor Z: I believe there is one in Brooklyn; this surname was not rare and many places with the name derived it from other people.
ST: You introduced the 12th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Please explain the issue it was intended to address, what problem was it supposed to correct?
Visitor Z: There were several things many believed the Constitution did not adequately address, and the Bill of Rights was the first initiative to improve the Constitution, comprehensive as it was for the time. The 11th and then 12th continued in this spirit, as did many after them.
ST: (For readers unfamiliar with it [I am digging into school memory] the Constitution is a national charter. Soon after adoption, 10 amendments were added; today there are twenty some odd in total.) What changed as a result of it?
Visitor Z: It was preventive in nature, not corrective. Just as did prior amendments, they were not adopted to fix but rather prevent need for a fix. This is an area of disappointment somewhat.
ST: Disappointment because?
Visitor Z: Application of principles should be managed by laws, not under the Constitution, far easier to create and remove as conditions might change.
ST: What was done to the Constitution that you see as a disappointment?
Visitor Z: At the time there was much dissent to use of it to forbid alcoholic beverages; federal laws would have achieved this.
ST: It came well after your lifetime; you are aware of this part of US history?
Visitor Z: I am, certainly.
ST: Was this a good idea?
Visitor Z: Not in the least; the idea of a national charter is permanence; the idea of a law is flux. Changing a national charter this way meant beverages with alcohol would never be part of society? This was considered yet likely effects were overcome with desire becoming lust for control; imposition of authority for authority.
ST: Would the prohibition of alcohol have been shorter under a law?
Visitor Z: This is difficult to say; given the history of laws and enforcement, the conversion of business into a crime has produced different negative results.
ST Why negative?
Visitor Z: The ban did not, and could not, lower demand, the reason the business arose.
ST: Are there examples of this today?
Visitor Z: There is a recent law in the USA about medical treatment; the components of treatment, your nurses, doctors, clinics and hospitals, are not mentioned. Many material causes of problems the law sought to correct were not considered, just as demand for alcoholic beverages was not considered, only effects of excess.
ST: Is there a better approach?
Visitor Z: A common notion in other civilizations is to examine outcomes and include plans. Where results unintended and not able to be foreseen arise, the adoption of rules and procedures includes a plan to reduce or extinguish; to begin “run off” as might be said.
ST: This idea is not common on Earth.
Visitor Z: The limits of your dimensions create this; ideas of permanence are brief as your lives end and cover but brief intervals. A business does not provide for its demise from its outset; this notion expands across all collective activity; it is seen as prediction of failure to plan for it. Curiously there is an aspect of truth in this, as thoughts create reality. Against a larger view of one of your societies, it is seen no activity is permanent, only your souls are forever. Your positive thoughts are what matter.
ST: What was different, if anything, about your 12th Amendment?
Visitor Z: It did not impose change or require performance; it set a standard, included a concept to be observed. This is the better use of a charter.
ST: Given your experience during vigorous early development, what challenges do you see unresolved today with government in the USA?
Visitor Z: I would not say there are unresolved challenges; there is continuing, vigorous debate and this was always present, and should be.
ST: How about around the world? Do political systems function well, better than should be expected or is there still ground to make up?
Visitor Z: Political systems always represent people involved, but you on Earth all know this. Dictators appear where they are able, with insufficient opposition. What is believed benevolent also results from the active or passive decisions.
ST: There is no shortage of talk about a shift to higher consciousness on Earth, even by me on these pages. One big change is localized government; waning influence of a larger centralized authority to favor a smaller, closer one. Is this also what you see?
Visitor Z: Yes, certainly.
ST: How will this happen?
Visitor Z: Removal of requirements; governments should prevent, not require. Free will is two way; where a decision affects another against their will, this decision is often better curtailed. This approach has always existed; correction through punishment is an interesting yet erratic component. Where a central authority compels performance, it enters the areas dictatorial. Human nature rejects this.
ST: Strong arguments support compelling performance for the greater good.
Visitor Z: This characteristic soon fades from Earth consciousness, so it need not be discussed.
ST: Well, blow me down! That’s an answer I did not expect.
Visitor Z: The greater good only means all benefit, on Earth the concept of “zero sum”, where all values added will equal zero, is accepted. It makes two flawed assumptions; that values in numerical terms can be assigned and that a gain in one place requires loss from another. These ideas are captive to your Earth existence, in what are the three dimensions Earth beings describe.
ST: Numerologists would argue that numerical value can be assigned to anything. I confess fascination with it.
Visitor Z: Numerical value? I would say, in Earth English, numerical figures are assigned, for arrangement. The value a thing might have is not numerical; and cannot be.
ST: So what about gain from take?
Visitor Z: This ignores “create” which operates everywhere in the universe. Taking creates loss larger than the take. Creation multiplies goodness for all.
ST: How would a government function without taxes?
Visitor Z: Much better than is imagined and soon this will be.
ST: So no taxes will be taken?
Visitor Z: Taxes are but an agreement; agreement to follow a system, to place authority with chosen people, on methods. In some points-of-view, confiscation replaces contribution; resistance arises.
ST: So why will this change?
Visitor Z: Life on Earth and exchange is not zero sum; this view is necessary for the system as it now operates; it will change.
ST: What will the new view be?
Visitor Z: A stronger feeling of support will be felt as less thought and attention will be given to this process. Your place on Earth is not to organize lives of people you do not know and will never come to know. This is not possible anywhere in the universe; one idea of organization is not of another. The would-be organizer on Earth will soon see more clearly how the would-be organized, the object, does not welcome it. This is belief, which are only adopted voluntarily.
ST: What was your view of the USA when you became part of the political system and what do you see now?
Visitor Z: It was a young nation with great hopes; many ways realized, sometimes surpassed. Today the time draws to a close for this and all nations of Earth, as this phase will not be the platform for humanity. Lessons to be learned will be new. The USA’s role of today will change in the world; yet no nation will replace. Little effect is to be felt in the smaller and in the larger, little regret is to be sensed. Benefits and purposes of global trade and development a large nation might promote will not drive human activity in this new time. Regret or sorrow from a diminished place will not come about; ranking and influence will not be important.
ST: Erik, anything to add or ask of Mr. Clinton?
Erik: Do you regret not becoming president?
Visitor Z: My namesake did much later, so I felt a kinship and sense of success, yet no regret I felt in my time. Disappointment at a failed effort passed soon enough.
ST: Mr. Clinton, many thanks for your time.
Visitor Z: A pleasure and honor, it was both. Good day!
