What is Wealth? Part 1: The Lure of the Hamster Wheel

Susan Boskey

"The first wealth is health." - Ralph Waldo Emerson 

Spinning on the hamster wheel of progress, burdened by the stress of over-commitment, debt, sleeplessness, and concerns about the future, we soldier on the best we can. Such is the commonly told back-story of modern life. Who knew the price of gaining the supposed good things in life would ultimately come at the cost of spiritual, emotional, mental, and/or physical well-being? The thought of stepping off the wheel may be scary, but for those who sincerely want to take back their life, tangible steps abound to help them regain priceless quality of life. 

Millennials, Stress, and Making Ends Meet

Dees Illustration

Susan Boskey

People only see what they are prepared to see. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson 

A new survey provides yet another window into the challenges faced by the Millennial generation, (currently 18-33 years old). In December 2014, the U.S. Census told us that 1 in 5 Millennials live below the poverty line and have lower rates of employment compared to their Baby Boomer parents of a similar age. In February 2015, the American Psychological Association (APA) piled on with their own survey and report, "Stress in America: Missing the Health Care Connection."

The report bestowed Millennials with the dubious distinction as “the most stressed-out generation.” Four generations were surveyed to find out what stressed them and how much:

• Matures (67+)
• Boomers (48-to-66)
• Gen Xers (34-to-47)
• Millennials (18-to-33)

Dictator Rising but Don’t Blame the President

image source

Susan Boskey

In his address to the nation, September 10 2013, President Obama backed off on attacking Syria but still reserves the right to do so if diplomacy fails.

…I'm also the President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. So even though I possess the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take this debate to Congress.

Like President Bush before him, President Obama makes it easy to blame him. Maybe it just takes too much effort to recall that nothing happens in a vacuum including presidents whose actions don’t reflect the will of the people. Events in nature and the world of humans are always informed by what came before. What came before in America are event after event resulting in the consolidation of power in the hands of a few.

Social Contract Part II: The Loss of Checks and Balances

Anthony Freda Art

Susan Boskey

The House of Representatives on July 24, 2013 rejected by a 12-point margin an amendment to limit NSA surveillance via data collection on Americans. The rejection allows the NSA with unlimited access to spy on American’s private information. How exactly, you might ask, does this jive with the social contract that assumes the people will hold up their end of the bargain because government exists only to serve the “general will?”

One is left to wonder. Earlier this month prior to the NSA amendment vote, Democrat John Conyers pointed out that the NSA had already violated the law because the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects Americans from unreasonable search and seizure. Rep. Spencer Bachus, Republican, also chimed in to liken the NSA surveillance to the 17th century English Court of the Star Chamber. Popular early-on with the people, it ended up as a political tool the king used for retribution. The Court of the Star Chamber was finally abolished in 1641 due to flagrant abuse of power.

In my last article, Social Contract: Exceptions to the Rule, July 17, I included the definition of social contract: an obligatory agreement the people of a nation make voluntarily with government for their mutual benefit and reciprocity. The underlying premise for its need was that individuals will only focus on themselves and their own self-interest when left to their own devices.

The social contract, however, is but one political philosophy and part of history’s ongoing debate: How do individuals function the best in a group, i.e. society. At the bottom of this debate is one contentious question, whom or what has the final say over the individual in society? The State? The community? The individual? The Creator?

Social Contract: The Exceptions to the Rule

individual rights are sacrificed so an elite "vanguard" can take more power to itself. ~anon

The Social Contract
Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Susan Boskey

What do the September 2013 completion of the mega NSA data and surveillance center in Bluffdale Utah, federalized SWAT teams smashing down homeowners' front doors, and the July 2013 acceptance of the Obama Administration’s appeal to retain portions of the NDAA for the indefinite detention of Americans have in common? For those who are not in denial, these three facts alone point to the breach of Americans’ social contract with the U.S. Government, making it effectively null and void.

Did you know that if you are an American you are considered to be under a social contract with the US Government? Apparently, this all began with the Greek philosopher, Plato (427 BC-347 BC). I will explain.

Declaration 2.0: A Fresh Start for America

Susan Boskey

Declaration 2.0, July 4, 2013, is an idea whose time has come. It addresses many of today’s grievances held by the American people and, as such, echoes the original July 4, 1776 Declaration of Independence from the British monarchy.

Declaration 2.0 only changes original phrasing when necessary to make specific grievances relevant to today and uses the original format and capitalization style. It is a declaration to free Americans from the statutory-law U.S. Government that has “become destructive,” no longer “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

The phrase “free inhabitant(s)” refers to how early Americans were identified in the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, the country’s first constitution, ratified 1781 by 13 states.

The bold assertions made in Declaration 2.0 are based on deep research for the book, Beyond the National Myth: waking up in the land of the free. The hope is that someone or an organization will take it upon themselves to begin the process of gathering millions of signatures. There is no fixing what we already have. America and her people need a fresh start.

Of Whistleblowers and Free Inhabitants

Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it. ―Leo Tolstoy, A Confession, 1879Susan Boskey

Lately, we are hearing a whole lot about whistleblowers, especially NSA whistleblowers and Edward Snowden. Those who see something, say something but just not quite the way Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano had imagined it. Despite supposed federal whistleblower protections, President Obama has the dubious distinction of persecuting more whistleblowers than all other presidents combined. Okay, you get that, but what is a free inhabitant?

Free inhabitants are a portion of Americans that the efforts of whistleblowers are unwittingly helping to liberate. How so? Someone blows the whistle to expose crimes, corruption and conspiracies in the high places of government and commerce, now pretty much one and the same thing. Their revelations open up the public dialogue where previously none existed. Best-case scenario, that dialogue leads to ever-deeper inquiry and new levels of truthful information previously kept from the unwashed masses.

Ready? Here goes.

How the Declaration of Independence got Hijacked

Susan Boskey

This July 4th Americans celebrate their 237th Independence Day. The Declaration of Independence, signed during the midst of the American Revolution in 1776, was not just a statement of grievances against the British monarchy but also a declaration of freedom from it, citing unalienable rights of self-governance. I said un-alienable, not in-alienable rights. Most believe there is no real difference between the two words. But not so fast. When unalienable was replaced with inalienable it diminished the original intention of personal rights; among which are “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

The Declaration of Independence begins with the reason for the colonists’ separation from the Monarchy; a separation stated to be entitled by “the Laws of Nature and nature’s God.” (Capitalization and lack of capitalization is original.) It continues:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed , that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…

In spite of the fact at the time of the Declaration unalienable rights were considered to be for white men only, the word, unalienable, refers to rights inherent to all humans, no matter gender or race. I find it interesting how the word unalienable is rarely used anymore and that modern versions of the Declaration now use the word inalienable. Even President Obama uses the word inalienable. What’s up with that?