18 JULY 2008
HAPPY 90TH BIRTHDAY NELSON MANDELA!
A few weeks ago I decided to stop worrying that my blog, SHIFT OF POWER, was not attracting tons of readers, and to stop being frustrated that no one who had read it felt compelled to make a comment. I determined to be patient and returned to the original purpose for creating SHIFT OF POWER, which is to introduce, define and explain Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government of Common Sense, by Common People, for Common Good. A new political philosophy and concept of government I developed over the past thirty-odd years. I have completed work on the original manuscript and, after having several people read it and offer suggestions, am almost finished with my third re-write. It is my intention and hope that I will be able to offer it for sale in the very near future.
In the mean time, I am using this blog to bring it to your attention by explaining the principles, reasoning, and ideas of Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government; what it is, how it works, and what it will mean to the United States of America. I firmly believe that our nation is at a point where Revolution, that is, removing our current corrupt and ineffectual government and replacing it with one that is better, more effective and humane is not only absolutely necessary, but that it is entirely possible to do. And that is essentially why I decided to return to my point of origin and patiently, methodically lay out the facts and purpose regarding Humanistic Equalism from the beginning.
So far I have explained the definition, philosophy and principles; what it means, the reasoning that it is based on, what the purpose and objective is, and the process that makes Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government practicable. Let's review.
The philosophical foundation is HUMANISM, however, replacing the suffix "ism" with the suffix "istic" implies adherence to the active promotion and advancement of Human concerns regarding progress, prosperity, and happiness as the only reason and purpose of government. The principles it is based on are Human value and dignity, factual liberty, and absolutely equal status, privileges, and rights for ALL citizens by the ethical conduct of government. The process that makes Humanistic Equalism work is a Three-question Test process that I described (for the second time) in my last post (12 July 2008). I will now demonstrate how this process works as I promised to do.
Most everyone agrees the American system of politics is the so-called ‘Art’ of compromise. I concur. I would argue that the United States is the product of compromise. It is a point of pride among Americans. We are a reasonable people we are always willing to compromise.
I believe the growth and maturity of the United States; its industrialization, inestimable wealth, and nuclear domination of the planet are all the product of compromise. I believe just as strongly that our immediate and increasing plight of dysfunction, deterioration, and decline are the result of government by compromise. Compromise made the United States what it is, and what it is not.
Compromise is anathema to government function and policy. Compromise is legislative heroin distributed by elected representatives. It reinforces an addiction and feeds a dependency on the status quo among citizens. All this goes to the purpose and function of the Three-question Test process necessary to engage and utilize Humanistic Equalism. A process, by the way, that is applicable to any existing system of government that permits citizen involvement, uses representatives, or makes decision by committee.
It is a process that serves to make citizens the primary object and beneficiary of the eternal and unbreakable chain of cause and effect; and to determine a course that will cause the best effect for every living citizen. Vigorous debate and heated argument can and should remain integral to the process of legislating and policy making. When debate and argument are finished and the time to decide is at hand the Three-question Test process should be applied. Compromise is antithetical to the ends of human progress, prosperity, happiness, equality and ethics. Consequently, no compromise regarding such matters is acceptable.
To further illustrate how this process will change the manner in which government functions is an example of how a legislative proposal would be put to the test. I have chosen to use the issue of same-sex marriage. I chose it because it is one of the so-called "hot-button" issues used for years to keep us divided and therefore more easily manipulated. It is also an issue that reveals the ignorance of many in our country, as well as, the poisonous and deleterious influence that religion insinuates upon government.
It is proposed that same-sex marriage should be permitted.
The first question is asked: Will permitting same-sex marriage cause ruinous harm to the dignity, value, happiness, and progress of citizens’ lives?
We are all familiar with the arguments about the sanctity of the institution of marriage between a man and woman. An institution, by the way, that is so sacred it currently boasts a failure rate of more than fifty (50%) percent. It is also adamantly argued that same-sex marriage is unnatural; that it is an abomination; that marriage has always been between a man and woman (a claim that has no truth in fact). Or, if same-sex marriage is permitted it will not be long before people will want to marry members of their family, or in extreme cases, a beloved farm animal. This, and all "slippery slope" arguments, is the last refuge of ignorance. It is essentially an argument designed to create fear and division. I sincerely believe there is no possible way a person with even marginal intelligence and capacity to reason could, without pressure from some religious element, accept any of these arguments. Therefore, the answer to the first question must be, No.
What about the second question?
Will permitting same-sex marriage secure without exception absolutely equal status, privileges, and rights of every citizen? Since that is the reason for allowing same-sex marriage the only possible answer is, Yes.
Finally, the third question.
Will permitting same-sex marriage require and guarantee, without exception, equitable, impartial, and just application and enforcement to every citizen?
Again, since permitting same-sex marriage would include all those who choose that life-style and are currently excluded from equitable, impartial, and just application and enforcement with regard to marriage the only answer is, Yes.
Using this process to apply the principles of Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government to the issue of same-sex marriage will mean that citizens who are now ostracized and excluded from living as our Constitution expressly intended will finally be permitted to experience living freely in the pursuit of happiness. Subsequently all those people will feel a greater affinity, take a greater interest, and be more likely to actively support and participate in the growth, maintenance, and prosperity of the nation. When citizens are happy and satisfied with our nation’s laws the United States of America reaps all the benefits of that happiness. One can clearly see from this example how the process of applying the philosophy, principles and process of Humanistic Equalism will work.
Give Peace a chance.
James B. Tinsley, B.A.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Saturday, July 12, 2008
FANNIE MAE-TONY SNOW-BEAR MARKET-PHIL GRAMM-UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS
12 July 2008
Recently I received an email from Carly Scott asking if I would be amenable to write about, take action on behalf of, and place a link to www.theelders.org here at Shift of Power. Ms. Scott explained that in 2007 Nelson Mandela convened a group of senior power players affectionately referred to as The Elders. Together they concluded to organize and carry out a campaign to recall and celebrate the 60th anniversary since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights called EVERY HUMAN HAS RIGHTS.
I am happy to do what little I can. The fact is this blog, created to introduce, define and explain Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government is fundamentally about how to achieve and establish Human Rights. By experience, observation, and reason I have come to believe without any doubt that the United States, indeed the entire civilized world, has only one hope.
It is the hope that citizens of all nations will realize that they, not governments, are the sole source of all value and all power. Until now there has not been a well-reasoned workable philosophy, system or process to construct a Human Rights oriented government upon. However, with Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government as the foundation, human value and dignity, as well as, improving the condition, prosperity, and happiness of all citizens through absolutely equal status, privileges, and rights with ethical government Universal Human Rights will be fully realized.
Humanistic Equalism will transform the purpose and function of government in a variety of ways. All of which will be addressed over time. For the moment, I want to begin with the way it will affect the manner of decision making, enacting legislation, and taking action. Within my own mind, at least, it is extremely clear that the so-called Art of Compromise, in so far as it concerns the function of government, is the first step leading to corruption and eventually Human Rights abuse.
Since I have devoted two postings (see 25 and 30 April 2008) exposing the fallacy and destructive nature of compromise within the context of government, I will only remark on it briefly. Compromise can be a useful strategy and tool when buying a vehicle, working out a divorce settlement, or closing a business deal. But, when the issue is whether children have adequate food and health care, starting or continuing to fund war, building fighter jets or nuclear submarines; when the issue is bailing out investment banks and hedge funds, giving tax breaks to the super rich while cutting funding for food stamps, or refusing to extend unemployment benefits for those that are unable to find work; when the issue is one of human need vs. property, profit, power, or position, compromise is an unacceptable solution.
Our government was conceived, formed, and has developed from compromise. The United States of America is the epitome of compromise, its best student and most avid supporter. For this reason it will be practically impossible for most Americans to even begin to imagine that government can function without it. How in the world could the United States Federal Government accomplish anything at all without relying on compromise? I readily admit it will be unnatural, frustrating, and excruciatingly difficult, at first. It is, however, within the realm of possibility to accomplish.
In Part II of my previous discussion regarding compromise (30 April 2008), I introduce and briefly describe a method that will, for the most part, eliminate it. The method is a Three-question Test process. This process is the most important element in putting Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government into practice, for applying theory to real-world circumstances. It is the key process not found in any philosophy or system of government that exists today, or has ever existed in human civilization. The Three-question Test process makes Universal Human Rights the natural primary purpose of government.
Recently I received an email from Carly Scott asking if I would be amenable to write about, take action on behalf of, and place a link to www.theelders.org here at Shift of Power. Ms. Scott explained that in 2007 Nelson Mandela convened a group of senior power players affectionately referred to as The Elders. Together they concluded to organize and carry out a campaign to recall and celebrate the 60th anniversary since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights called EVERY HUMAN HAS RIGHTS.
I am happy to do what little I can. The fact is this blog, created to introduce, define and explain Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government is fundamentally about how to achieve and establish Human Rights. By experience, observation, and reason I have come to believe without any doubt that the United States, indeed the entire civilized world, has only one hope.
It is the hope that citizens of all nations will realize that they, not governments, are the sole source of all value and all power. Until now there has not been a well-reasoned workable philosophy, system or process to construct a Human Rights oriented government upon. However, with Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government as the foundation, human value and dignity, as well as, improving the condition, prosperity, and happiness of all citizens through absolutely equal status, privileges, and rights with ethical government Universal Human Rights will be fully realized.
Humanistic Equalism will transform the purpose and function of government in a variety of ways. All of which will be addressed over time. For the moment, I want to begin with the way it will affect the manner of decision making, enacting legislation, and taking action. Within my own mind, at least, it is extremely clear that the so-called Art of Compromise, in so far as it concerns the function of government, is the first step leading to corruption and eventually Human Rights abuse.
Since I have devoted two postings (see 25 and 30 April 2008) exposing the fallacy and destructive nature of compromise within the context of government, I will only remark on it briefly. Compromise can be a useful strategy and tool when buying a vehicle, working out a divorce settlement, or closing a business deal. But, when the issue is whether children have adequate food and health care, starting or continuing to fund war, building fighter jets or nuclear submarines; when the issue is bailing out investment banks and hedge funds, giving tax breaks to the super rich while cutting funding for food stamps, or refusing to extend unemployment benefits for those that are unable to find work; when the issue is one of human need vs. property, profit, power, or position, compromise is an unacceptable solution.
Our government was conceived, formed, and has developed from compromise. The United States of America is the epitome of compromise, its best student and most avid supporter. For this reason it will be practically impossible for most Americans to even begin to imagine that government can function without it. How in the world could the United States Federal Government accomplish anything at all without relying on compromise? I readily admit it will be unnatural, frustrating, and excruciatingly difficult, at first. It is, however, within the realm of possibility to accomplish.
In Part II of my previous discussion regarding compromise (30 April 2008), I introduce and briefly describe a method that will, for the most part, eliminate it. The method is a Three-question Test process. This process is the most important element in putting Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government into practice, for applying theory to real-world circumstances. It is the key process not found in any philosophy or system of government that exists today, or has ever existed in human civilization. The Three-question Test process makes Universal Human Rights the natural primary purpose of government.
Three-Question Test
1. Will this action or function cause ruinous harm to the dignity, value, happiness and progress of citizens' lives?
2. Will this action or function secure, without exception, absolutely equal status, privileges, and rights of every citizen?
3. Will this action or function require and guarantee, without exception, equitable, impartial application and enforcement to every citizen?
The answer to the first question must be NO; questions two and three must be YES. Each answer must be unequivocal, unqualified, and unambiguous. If the answer to any of the three questions requires special circumstances, treatment, or has exceptions, then the action or function is to be rejected as presented. When any legislation, action, or function under consideration by our government is constructed, written, or undertaken so as to strictly comply with the requirements mandated by the Three-question Test process, only then can it be passed, acted on, or enforced.
So how exactly will this Three-question Test work; how will it succeed in altering the course and current decline of the United States? Why is it the ultimate guarantor of Universal Human Rights? Read my next post and find out. Give Peace a chance.
James B. Tinsley, B. A.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
INDEPENDENCE DAY-FIREWORKS-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES-GAS PRICES-RECESSION
5 July 2008
Two hundred thirty-two years ago a small minority faction of elite Caucasian Protestant men, most of them wealthy and in positions of power, declared that the inhabitants of this continent had the right and ought to be free and independent from their sovereign. This elite minority faction effectively declared war on the most expansive, well armed and powerful empire on earth. They did this in the name of, and on behalf of all the people; all the natives, the indentured, the enslaved, the poor, the farmers, craftsmen, laborers, seamen, traders and women. They did it knowing full well that it would be them, the common people, that would have to do the actual fighting and dying. In fact if the American Revolution had depended upon the wealthy and powerful it never would have happened.
Yet, in spite of its truthful expression of human rights and rhetorical beauty; regardless of its rightful claims, its artful and well-founded argument, the Declaration of Independence is a useless and empty document. And even though it is truly inspirational, a logical and high-minded statement of human hopes, desires and ideals the Declaration of Independence is, quite frankly, a political tool employed by a wealthy and powerful minority faction to manipulate the common people; it is the nation's first use of the chimera known today as "National Security."
The first thing one must always remember and keep in mind when reading the Declaration of Independence-and I believe without any doubt that every citizen of the United States should read it at least once a year-it has no authority or power. The Declaration of Independence is just that-a declaration, a statement of grievances. It is not a legal document or binding agreement; nor is it an enforceable contract. The United States Declaration of Independence is simply a well-written rhetorically inspirational statement, an argumentative and idealistic essay.
After returning from an early morning bicycle ride and listening to "Morning Edition" on National Public Radio (N.P.R.) I was surprised to hear the N.P.R. on-air staff read the full text of the Declaration of Independence during one of the segments of the show. It is a rare occurrence to hear it spoken aloud in its entirety. Most Americans have never even read the whole thing from beginning to end. As I listened I experienced, with a notable increase in emotional intensity, all the feelings that I usually have whenever I read through it. The pride and righteousness of cause; the thrill and excitement of standing up for what is right, good, and common to all people, the invincibility of youth, and the satisfaction of telling truth to power. Then there is the inevitable feeling of sadness. The disappointment of deceit and empty unfulfilled promises as reality returns.
Our Declaration of Independence was, and still is, touted as one of the greatest political documents ever recorded. Consider the following excerpts which are some of my favorites.
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,... requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation...--that all men are created equal,...with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...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 abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ... all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing the same Object reduces them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. ... Such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
These claims are followed by a brilliantly constructed list of injuries and actions committed by the King of England and Parliament. Towards the end, in the final statement and actual declaration of their separation from Great Britain we find the following logical conclusion to the Colonists argument and reasoning.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people...We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.--...In the Name, and by Authority of the good people of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Abolished from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved...
Please take fifteen or twenty minutes sometime soon to read the Declaration of Independence from beginning to end. Read it to your family. Compare what the Colonists were going through with what we, in 2008, are being subjected to by our current Federal Government. In two hundred thirty-two years the United States Federal Government has become the same Despot, the same Tyrant, the same inflicter of injury and usurper of rights as the King and Parliament we threw off in 1776.
What I find to be so sad, so disappointing, so truly heartbreaking, is that the ideals, hopes, desires, and dreams evoked by this great piece of political posturing were abandoned almost immediately upon the cessation of hostilities. Not one of the ideals or principles outlined in our Declaration of Independence were enacted into law or incorporated in the legal framework of our original United States Constitution. And all those that have been added as Amendments have either been distorted and perverted by the Supreme Court, or ignored by those in power.
The Declaration of Independence is a Humanistic writing that recognizes the Human Condition and extols Equality. Our Constitution, on the other hand, is a legal, binding and enforceable Social Contract designed to protect property, profit, power, and position. The Declaration of Independence is about Human progress and happiness; whereas the Constitution is about power, authority and force; it establishes the foundation of the Status Quo to be controlled and manipulated by the ruling class elite minority faction in lieu of protecting and improving the lives of American citizens.
I submit that in 2008, as Citizens of the United States, we have the same right, the same obligation as our forebears to declare the despotism, the tyranny and the failure of our Federal Government as unacceptable. It is without doubt our responsibility to undertake to overthrow the current power structure and replace our Bad Government with one that is better and more effective for ALL Citizens. I believe with my entire being that we, the people, the governed, from which our government derives all its just powers must institute the philosophy and process of Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government of Common Sense, by Common People, for Common Good.
How will Humanistic Equalism change America? How will it effect the purpose and function of our government? In my next posting I will begin to address these questions. If you have a comment please make it, use the link below to email this to a friend or an enemy, add "Shift of Power" to your "favorites" or "Bookmarks" and if you have a moment rate this blog using the button located at the bottom of the right panel. Give peace a chance.
James B. Tinsley, B.A.
Two hundred thirty-two years ago a small minority faction of elite Caucasian Protestant men, most of them wealthy and in positions of power, declared that the inhabitants of this continent had the right and ought to be free and independent from their sovereign. This elite minority faction effectively declared war on the most expansive, well armed and powerful empire on earth. They did this in the name of, and on behalf of all the people; all the natives, the indentured, the enslaved, the poor, the farmers, craftsmen, laborers, seamen, traders and women. They did it knowing full well that it would be them, the common people, that would have to do the actual fighting and dying. In fact if the American Revolution had depended upon the wealthy and powerful it never would have happened.
Yet, in spite of its truthful expression of human rights and rhetorical beauty; regardless of its rightful claims, its artful and well-founded argument, the Declaration of Independence is a useless and empty document. And even though it is truly inspirational, a logical and high-minded statement of human hopes, desires and ideals the Declaration of Independence is, quite frankly, a political tool employed by a wealthy and powerful minority faction to manipulate the common people; it is the nation's first use of the chimera known today as "National Security."
The first thing one must always remember and keep in mind when reading the Declaration of Independence-and I believe without any doubt that every citizen of the United States should read it at least once a year-it has no authority or power. The Declaration of Independence is just that-a declaration, a statement of grievances. It is not a legal document or binding agreement; nor is it an enforceable contract. The United States Declaration of Independence is simply a well-written rhetorically inspirational statement, an argumentative and idealistic essay.
After returning from an early morning bicycle ride and listening to "Morning Edition" on National Public Radio (N.P.R.) I was surprised to hear the N.P.R. on-air staff read the full text of the Declaration of Independence during one of the segments of the show. It is a rare occurrence to hear it spoken aloud in its entirety. Most Americans have never even read the whole thing from beginning to end. As I listened I experienced, with a notable increase in emotional intensity, all the feelings that I usually have whenever I read through it. The pride and righteousness of cause; the thrill and excitement of standing up for what is right, good, and common to all people, the invincibility of youth, and the satisfaction of telling truth to power. Then there is the inevitable feeling of sadness. The disappointment of deceit and empty unfulfilled promises as reality returns.
Our Declaration of Independence was, and still is, touted as one of the greatest political documents ever recorded. Consider the following excerpts which are some of my favorites.
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,... requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation...--that all men are created equal,...with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...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 abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ... all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing the same Object reduces them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. ... Such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
These claims are followed by a brilliantly constructed list of injuries and actions committed by the King of England and Parliament. Towards the end, in the final statement and actual declaration of their separation from Great Britain we find the following logical conclusion to the Colonists argument and reasoning.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people...We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.--...In the Name, and by Authority of the good people of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Abolished from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved...
Please take fifteen or twenty minutes sometime soon to read the Declaration of Independence from beginning to end. Read it to your family. Compare what the Colonists were going through with what we, in 2008, are being subjected to by our current Federal Government. In two hundred thirty-two years the United States Federal Government has become the same Despot, the same Tyrant, the same inflicter of injury and usurper of rights as the King and Parliament we threw off in 1776.
What I find to be so sad, so disappointing, so truly heartbreaking, is that the ideals, hopes, desires, and dreams evoked by this great piece of political posturing were abandoned almost immediately upon the cessation of hostilities. Not one of the ideals or principles outlined in our Declaration of Independence were enacted into law or incorporated in the legal framework of our original United States Constitution. And all those that have been added as Amendments have either been distorted and perverted by the Supreme Court, or ignored by those in power.
The Declaration of Independence is a Humanistic writing that recognizes the Human Condition and extols Equality. Our Constitution, on the other hand, is a legal, binding and enforceable Social Contract designed to protect property, profit, power, and position. The Declaration of Independence is about Human progress and happiness; whereas the Constitution is about power, authority and force; it establishes the foundation of the Status Quo to be controlled and manipulated by the ruling class elite minority faction in lieu of protecting and improving the lives of American citizens.
I submit that in 2008, as Citizens of the United States, we have the same right, the same obligation as our forebears to declare the despotism, the tyranny and the failure of our Federal Government as unacceptable. It is without doubt our responsibility to undertake to overthrow the current power structure and replace our Bad Government with one that is better and more effective for ALL Citizens. I believe with my entire being that we, the people, the governed, from which our government derives all its just powers must institute the philosophy and process of Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government of Common Sense, by Common People, for Common Good.
How will Humanistic Equalism change America? How will it effect the purpose and function of our government? In my next posting I will begin to address these questions. If you have a comment please make it, use the link below to email this to a friend or an enemy, add "Shift of Power" to your "favorites" or "Bookmarks" and if you have a moment rate this blog using the button located at the bottom of the right panel. Give peace a chance.
James B. Tinsley, B.A.
Friday, June 27, 2008
UNITED STATES ECONOMY-RECORD OIL AND GAS PRICES-ZIMBABWE-TORTURE-WAR FUNDING
27 June 2008
Due to the recent sudden death of long time close friend Dennis Fecher I have been doing battle with depression in addition to working through the usual grieving process. As a result I have found it difficult to write or do much of anything for very long...I keep thinking "what is the point?" Singer/songwriter Tom Waits, my favorite living recording artist, observes in one of his songs that (I am paraphrasing), "all the good in the world can be placed inside a thimble and there would still be room for you and me," and, "there is one thing you can say about mankind; there is nothing kind about man." This is precisely how I have been feeling lately. But, the truth is that if I am going to continue living, as long as I am alive and cognizant, it is my human obligation to do what little I can to make every possible effort and use any limited ability that I may possess to promote and enable human happiness and progress. With this thought in mind it is time to continue exposing and explaining Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government.
In 1792 French philosopher, C. F. Volney, published the conclusions of his exhaustive multi-year research and study regarding what makes a nation or empire strong, healthy, and prosperous, and what brings about decline and dissolution. In his work entitled, The Ruins of Empires, Volney writes:
"And this spirit of egotism and usurpation produced two effects equally operative and fatal. One is a division and subdivision of societies into their smallest fractions. The other a pressuring tendency to concentrate power in a single hand. ..This has in all instances been the constant progress of societies."
In other words, according to observable and verifiable historical evidence, as leadership and government become increasingly egotistical and arrogant ultimately seizing power by force and denying citizens their rights, there are always two fatal results; the people are divided against each other and this creates pressure to give all control to a small elite minority faction. This ruling minority is usually the super-rich and powerful. This process has been constant and consistent throughout the history of human civilization and continues today, even at this very moment.
What is the driving force of this process? What is it that creates the condition for and causes nations and empires to always progress in this manner, to always decline, ultimately fail and fade from prominence?
In my original manuscript, Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government of Common Sense, by Common People, for Common Good, I state unequivocally that, "Religion and its influence are the source of failure for all governments, and all nations." I realize this statement sounds way over the top, outlandish and too simplistic for most people to accept. However, I believe it is true and that I can prove it. At least I can prove it logically, but because I want to use this posting to delve deeper into the rationale for the development of Humanistic Equalism and begin laying the foundation of my overall argument, I will not present the proof of my reasoning at this time.
First, concerning the rationale for Humanistic Equalism. It is undeniably obvious that there have been, and are, two fundamental and tremendously import elements or qualities that the United States of America lacks; humanness and equality. By that I mean that for all the rhetoric one hears, in spite of the extensive effort by historians, and more than two hundred years of exhaustive education about America as the "shining city on the hill"- a new and different system of government, an experiment in democracy of, by and for the people-the truth is that the United States system of government is an instrument of the wealthy and powerful elite minority faction. Yes, there have been very brief periods when a seemingly overwhelming majority of citizens came together for the benefit of common working people and the poor. But all such movements ultimately failed because from the time of the Constitutional Convention until today the ruling faction has given just enough rights, liberty and benefit to enough of the so-called middle-class so as to garner support, maintain the Status Quo and quash widespread demand for radical change. The United States is, in effect, no different than any type or system of government that has ever existed.
Again, a statement that at first glance appears to be without merit and ridiculous. I guess in some limited ways it might be, but when examined honestly and in detail the overall conclusion must be that when one gets to the bottom line citizens in America are only as "free" as the government allows us to be. There is no doubt that even a poor common person can become wealthy and powerful in America given the right circumstances, but the same has been, and is, true in all nations and under all systems of government. Regardless of whether that government is theocracy, divine monarchy, anarchy, despotism, tyranny, dictator, fascist, socialist, or communist. Given the right set of circumstances a poor Jewish Austrian can rise to near world domination and an average peanut farmer from Georgia can become president of the United States. The point is that, regarding our nations lack of humanness, America, like every nation that has ever come to power subjugates and exploits the average citizen, the poor, the immigrant and the displaced in favor of property, profit, power and position.
Since I have already written several posts concerning equality, that is to say, absolutely equal status, privileges, and rights for all citizens and will undoubtedly devote much more attention to it over time, I will only say here that true equality has never been any part of life in America. Although I do find it very interesting that equality is so closely associated with and related to the United States. Not only in its teaching of American history but around the world. Or, at least it was until the administration of Bush II.
So, after nearly thirty years of reading, research, discussion and debate, it became unmistakeably clear that in order to fundamentally change America and its future, in order to stop our country's inexorable progress towards decline and eventual failure requires a system and process of government predicated strictly and foremost on its living citizens and absolutely equal status, privileges, and rights for ALL citizens without exception; thus, Humanistic Equalism. Therefore, I will argue that our only best hope going forward is to overthrow the present broken and corrupt body of government in America, and institute the system and process described by Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government.
Please, let me know any thoughts you may have. Send this post to a friend or enemy using the link below, and if there is time in your schedule rate this page by clicking the button at the bottom of the right panel. I am feeling somewhat better after communicating with you and look forward to continuing soon. Give Peace a chance.
James B. Tinsley, B.A.
Due to the recent sudden death of long time close friend Dennis Fecher I have been doing battle with depression in addition to working through the usual grieving process. As a result I have found it difficult to write or do much of anything for very long...I keep thinking "what is the point?" Singer/songwriter Tom Waits, my favorite living recording artist, observes in one of his songs that (I am paraphrasing), "all the good in the world can be placed inside a thimble and there would still be room for you and me," and, "there is one thing you can say about mankind; there is nothing kind about man." This is precisely how I have been feeling lately. But, the truth is that if I am going to continue living, as long as I am alive and cognizant, it is my human obligation to do what little I can to make every possible effort and use any limited ability that I may possess to promote and enable human happiness and progress. With this thought in mind it is time to continue exposing and explaining Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government.
In 1792 French philosopher, C. F. Volney, published the conclusions of his exhaustive multi-year research and study regarding what makes a nation or empire strong, healthy, and prosperous, and what brings about decline and dissolution. In his work entitled, The Ruins of Empires, Volney writes:
"And this spirit of egotism and usurpation produced two effects equally operative and fatal. One is a division and subdivision of societies into their smallest fractions. The other a pressuring tendency to concentrate power in a single hand. ..This has in all instances been the constant progress of societies."
In other words, according to observable and verifiable historical evidence, as leadership and government become increasingly egotistical and arrogant ultimately seizing power by force and denying citizens their rights, there are always two fatal results; the people are divided against each other and this creates pressure to give all control to a small elite minority faction. This ruling minority is usually the super-rich and powerful. This process has been constant and consistent throughout the history of human civilization and continues today, even at this very moment.
What is the driving force of this process? What is it that creates the condition for and causes nations and empires to always progress in this manner, to always decline, ultimately fail and fade from prominence?
In my original manuscript, Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government of Common Sense, by Common People, for Common Good, I state unequivocally that, "Religion and its influence are the source of failure for all governments, and all nations." I realize this statement sounds way over the top, outlandish and too simplistic for most people to accept. However, I believe it is true and that I can prove it. At least I can prove it logically, but because I want to use this posting to delve deeper into the rationale for the development of Humanistic Equalism and begin laying the foundation of my overall argument, I will not present the proof of my reasoning at this time.
First, concerning the rationale for Humanistic Equalism. It is undeniably obvious that there have been, and are, two fundamental and tremendously import elements or qualities that the United States of America lacks; humanness and equality. By that I mean that for all the rhetoric one hears, in spite of the extensive effort by historians, and more than two hundred years of exhaustive education about America as the "shining city on the hill"- a new and different system of government, an experiment in democracy of, by and for the people-the truth is that the United States system of government is an instrument of the wealthy and powerful elite minority faction. Yes, there have been very brief periods when a seemingly overwhelming majority of citizens came together for the benefit of common working people and the poor. But all such movements ultimately failed because from the time of the Constitutional Convention until today the ruling faction has given just enough rights, liberty and benefit to enough of the so-called middle-class so as to garner support, maintain the Status Quo and quash widespread demand for radical change. The United States is, in effect, no different than any type or system of government that has ever existed.
Again, a statement that at first glance appears to be without merit and ridiculous. I guess in some limited ways it might be, but when examined honestly and in detail the overall conclusion must be that when one gets to the bottom line citizens in America are only as "free" as the government allows us to be. There is no doubt that even a poor common person can become wealthy and powerful in America given the right circumstances, but the same has been, and is, true in all nations and under all systems of government. Regardless of whether that government is theocracy, divine monarchy, anarchy, despotism, tyranny, dictator, fascist, socialist, or communist. Given the right set of circumstances a poor Jewish Austrian can rise to near world domination and an average peanut farmer from Georgia can become president of the United States. The point is that, regarding our nations lack of humanness, America, like every nation that has ever come to power subjugates and exploits the average citizen, the poor, the immigrant and the displaced in favor of property, profit, power and position.
Since I have already written several posts concerning equality, that is to say, absolutely equal status, privileges, and rights for all citizens and will undoubtedly devote much more attention to it over time, I will only say here that true equality has never been any part of life in America. Although I do find it very interesting that equality is so closely associated with and related to the United States. Not only in its teaching of American history but around the world. Or, at least it was until the administration of Bush II.
So, after nearly thirty years of reading, research, discussion and debate, it became unmistakeably clear that in order to fundamentally change America and its future, in order to stop our country's inexorable progress towards decline and eventual failure requires a system and process of government predicated strictly and foremost on its living citizens and absolutely equal status, privileges, and rights for ALL citizens without exception; thus, Humanistic Equalism. Therefore, I will argue that our only best hope going forward is to overthrow the present broken and corrupt body of government in America, and institute the system and process described by Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government.
Please, let me know any thoughts you may have. Send this post to a friend or enemy using the link below, and if there is time in your schedule rate this page by clicking the button at the bottom of the right panel. I am feeling somewhat better after communicating with you and look forward to continuing soon. Give Peace a chance.
James B. Tinsley, B.A.
Monday, June 16, 2008
WHAT IS THE PURPOSEOF HUMAN LIFE? LIVING AND BEING HAPPY.
16 June 2008
And so it goes. This past weekend(13 June-thru 15 June 2008) two men I thought of as friends died. NBC "Meet The Press" anchor, Tim Russert, experienced a fatal heart attack; Dr. Dennis Fecher was diagnosed with lung cancer in November 2007. One friend, Dennis Fecher, I knew intimately and for nearly thirty years; the other, Tim Russert, I knew only as millions of viewers over the past seventeen years have known him, as an honest reliable man. Dennis Fecher was a person of great intellect, of science and reason; Tim Russert also possessed a high degree of intellect, was a man of religious faith and reason. I will miss them both for vastly different reasons; one I only met with vicariously, the other I hugged goodbye when parting company last Saturday afternoon 14 June 2008. Because both of these men were an ongoing source of inspiration, encouragement, and challenge, because both men were given to promote human progress, the improvement of government and life, and most importantly, to a better quality of living; because the people that know these two men testify as to their exuberance for family, work and to living every minute of evry day, I wish to dedicate this posting regarding the definition of Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government.
In loving memory of Dr. Dennis R. Fecher and Tim Russert.
HUMANISTIC EQUALISM:(noun) Philosophy, system, and process concerning the ethical conduct of government within society arising from the intrinsic inherent value and dignity of human life conjoined with absolute equality.
A philosophy of politics and government reasoned as follows:
Given that, within a societal context, the value and dignity of citizens' lives are intrinsic, inherent and inarguable. And, given that within the same societal context, the benefit gained and value added by guaranteeing absolutely equal status, privileges, and rights to all citizens is undeniable. It may therefore be concluded that a philosophy, system, and process of government based exclusively on human progress and absolute equality must of necessity be an ethical government.
In other words, if the philosophical underpinnings of a government system and process are focused entirely on that which will enhance and improve the lives and living conditions of all citizens; and if government "sees" and deals with every citizen absolutely equally, then the end result must be a government that is truly ethical in all its function, activity and conduct.
I realize that it is hard to believe, but in all of human history there has never been a government system or any kind of controlling authority or body created and instituted based first and foremost on people and equality. No known government in all the annals of mankind ever elevated the people over property, profit, power, and position. Not one.
Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government is a genuinely new proposal for politics and government. Others, such as Locke, Hume, and Rousseau, assert the "social contract," the citizens' real value, and the need for those governed to give consent along with the tremendous amount of power they possess; but none go so far as to say that the only acceptable reason for and purpose of government is the progress and prosperity of its citizens. And I have not found any evidence that guaranteeing absolutely equal status, privileges, and rights to ALL citizens has ever been seriously discussed with regard to the way government treats the people it serves. In fact, the idea of government serving citizens in any form or fashion is only as old as the United States of America.
I submit that Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government is the next logical adaptation in the evolutionary process concerning systems of government. I would like to know any thoughts someone may have and encourage all to make a comment. More to come soon. Give Peace a chance.
James B. Tinsley, B.A.
And so it goes. This past weekend(13 June-thru 15 June 2008) two men I thought of as friends died. NBC "Meet The Press" anchor, Tim Russert, experienced a fatal heart attack; Dr. Dennis Fecher was diagnosed with lung cancer in November 2007. One friend, Dennis Fecher, I knew intimately and for nearly thirty years; the other, Tim Russert, I knew only as millions of viewers over the past seventeen years have known him, as an honest reliable man. Dennis Fecher was a person of great intellect, of science and reason; Tim Russert also possessed a high degree of intellect, was a man of religious faith and reason. I will miss them both for vastly different reasons; one I only met with vicariously, the other I hugged goodbye when parting company last Saturday afternoon 14 June 2008. Because both of these men were an ongoing source of inspiration, encouragement, and challenge, because both men were given to promote human progress, the improvement of government and life, and most importantly, to a better quality of living; because the people that know these two men testify as to their exuberance for family, work and to living every minute of evry day, I wish to dedicate this posting regarding the definition of Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government.
In loving memory of Dr. Dennis R. Fecher and Tim Russert.
HUMANISTIC EQUALISM:(noun) Philosophy, system, and process concerning the ethical conduct of government within society arising from the intrinsic inherent value and dignity of human life conjoined with absolute equality.
A philosophy of politics and government reasoned as follows:
Given that, within a societal context, the value and dignity of citizens' lives are intrinsic, inherent and inarguable. And, given that within the same societal context, the benefit gained and value added by guaranteeing absolutely equal status, privileges, and rights to all citizens is undeniable. It may therefore be concluded that a philosophy, system, and process of government based exclusively on human progress and absolute equality must of necessity be an ethical government.
In other words, if the philosophical underpinnings of a government system and process are focused entirely on that which will enhance and improve the lives and living conditions of all citizens; and if government "sees" and deals with every citizen absolutely equally, then the end result must be a government that is truly ethical in all its function, activity and conduct.
I realize that it is hard to believe, but in all of human history there has never been a government system or any kind of controlling authority or body created and instituted based first and foremost on people and equality. No known government in all the annals of mankind ever elevated the people over property, profit, power, and position. Not one.
Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government is a genuinely new proposal for politics and government. Others, such as Locke, Hume, and Rousseau, assert the "social contract," the citizens' real value, and the need for those governed to give consent along with the tremendous amount of power they possess; but none go so far as to say that the only acceptable reason for and purpose of government is the progress and prosperity of its citizens. And I have not found any evidence that guaranteeing absolutely equal status, privileges, and rights to ALL citizens has ever been seriously discussed with regard to the way government treats the people it serves. In fact, the idea of government serving citizens in any form or fashion is only as old as the United States of America.
I submit that Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government is the next logical adaptation in the evolutionary process concerning systems of government. I would like to know any thoughts someone may have and encourage all to make a comment. More to come soon. Give Peace a chance.
James B. Tinsley, B.A.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
POINT OF ORIGIN
11 June 2008
When I find myself wandering around my mind, unsure about which direction to go or what exactly I should, or need, to do next I usually return to the point of origin. Well, I realized recently that I was out there wandering aimlessly around my mind so I am now returning to my original point. I began recording this blog, Shift Of Power, in early April 2008 in order to inform, explain, provoke and promote.
I developed and committed to the written word what I believe to be a new philosophy for politics and government, Humanitstic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government of Common Sense, by Common People, for Common Good. (All rights reserved, 2007.) Due to circumstance of birth, decisions made, and the realities of life at the beginning of the 21st century it occurred to me that there was little if any possibility these ideas, this philosophy and unique new approach to politics and the conduct of government could be or, would be, injected into the vein of public discourse and debate. In other words because I am poor, unknown and without "connections"; because the ideas are disturbingly radical, the premise sound and reasoning rational, and finally because everything that Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government implies represents a genuine threat to promoters and defenders of the Status Quo, this new plan with potential would remain nothing more than a madman's exhortation into the wind. Ah, but vanity is a powerful stimulant while need necessitates invention and creation. Thus, Shift Of Power came to be.
In my mind I envision this blog as the means by which I can put Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government on the public record within the market place of ideas. I can use the blog to inform anyone that may be interested about the philosophy's existence, explain it, and provoke disagreement, discussion and debate in an effort to further refine the philosophy, system, and process as a result of readers input over time. I imagined that if the blog was successful I could somehow find a way of publishing or having published my original manuscript, then after twelve or fourteen months of exchange with blog readers, of making my argument and taking yours into consideration, would then re-write Humanistic Equalism and issue a second edition with revisions based on readers input.
Obviously I was idealistically and blissfully ignorant about the realities regarding the universe of websites and blogosphere. It is a lot tougher out here than I thought or would have believed it to be. Even though at times I struggle against the youthful forces of impatience and impetuosity, still think that I am a young raging bull wanting everything to happen right now. I am fully aware that I am an old bull-oh, I still want everything that I want, only now I know the most action, most success and satisfaction is simply a matter of time. As the southern rockers, Little Feat, said, "Thing happen in their own sweet time." All I have, all any of us really ever truly have that is ours and ours alone is time and that which we love.
The point I am making is that by returning to the origin of Shift Of Power, by exercising patience and by doing what I want to do for as long as it takes or until I die, which ever comes first. Eventually the idea and meaning, the truthfulness and possibilities espoused and revealed by Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government will become known. I know that if it is what I am convinced that it is-the next logical adaptation in the evolution of government, the first new type and approach to the institution and conduct of government system and process offered in more than five thousand years- if Huanistic Equalism is true and valid it will be adopted at some point in time. If it is not what I think that it is, it will be exposed, discarded, and disappear.
In a few days I will present the "official" definition of Huamnistic Equalism and begin explaining the premise and reasoning that the philosophy, as well, subsequent system and process for Humanistic Equalism government is based. Until then feel free to leave a comment, email this blog to a friend or enemy, rate this blog, and save it to your favorites or bookmarks. Remember, the mind necessarily clings to old ideas until prepared for the new. Give Peace a chance.
James B. Tinsley, B.A.
When I find myself wandering around my mind, unsure about which direction to go or what exactly I should, or need, to do next I usually return to the point of origin. Well, I realized recently that I was out there wandering aimlessly around my mind so I am now returning to my original point. I began recording this blog, Shift Of Power, in early April 2008 in order to inform, explain, provoke and promote.
I developed and committed to the written word what I believe to be a new philosophy for politics and government, Humanitstic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government of Common Sense, by Common People, for Common Good. (All rights reserved, 2007.) Due to circumstance of birth, decisions made, and the realities of life at the beginning of the 21st century it occurred to me that there was little if any possibility these ideas, this philosophy and unique new approach to politics and the conduct of government could be or, would be, injected into the vein of public discourse and debate. In other words because I am poor, unknown and without "connections"; because the ideas are disturbingly radical, the premise sound and reasoning rational, and finally because everything that Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government implies represents a genuine threat to promoters and defenders of the Status Quo, this new plan with potential would remain nothing more than a madman's exhortation into the wind. Ah, but vanity is a powerful stimulant while need necessitates invention and creation. Thus, Shift Of Power came to be.
In my mind I envision this blog as the means by which I can put Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government on the public record within the market place of ideas. I can use the blog to inform anyone that may be interested about the philosophy's existence, explain it, and provoke disagreement, discussion and debate in an effort to further refine the philosophy, system, and process as a result of readers input over time. I imagined that if the blog was successful I could somehow find a way of publishing or having published my original manuscript, then after twelve or fourteen months of exchange with blog readers, of making my argument and taking yours into consideration, would then re-write Humanistic Equalism and issue a second edition with revisions based on readers input.
Obviously I was idealistically and blissfully ignorant about the realities regarding the universe of websites and blogosphere. It is a lot tougher out here than I thought or would have believed it to be. Even though at times I struggle against the youthful forces of impatience and impetuosity, still think that I am a young raging bull wanting everything to happen right now. I am fully aware that I am an old bull-oh, I still want everything that I want, only now I know the most action, most success and satisfaction is simply a matter of time. As the southern rockers, Little Feat, said, "Thing happen in their own sweet time." All I have, all any of us really ever truly have that is ours and ours alone is time and that which we love.
The point I am making is that by returning to the origin of Shift Of Power, by exercising patience and by doing what I want to do for as long as it takes or until I die, which ever comes first. Eventually the idea and meaning, the truthfulness and possibilities espoused and revealed by Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government will become known. I know that if it is what I am convinced that it is-the next logical adaptation in the evolution of government, the first new type and approach to the institution and conduct of government system and process offered in more than five thousand years- if Huanistic Equalism is true and valid it will be adopted at some point in time. If it is not what I think that it is, it will be exposed, discarded, and disappear.
In a few days I will present the "official" definition of Huamnistic Equalism and begin explaining the premise and reasoning that the philosophy, as well, subsequent system and process for Humanistic Equalism government is based. Until then feel free to leave a comment, email this blog to a friend or enemy, rate this blog, and save it to your favorites or bookmarks. Remember, the mind necessarily clings to old ideas until prepared for the new. Give Peace a chance.
James B. Tinsley, B.A.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
YALE GRADUATE REMAINS STUPID
5 June 2008
Happy Birthday to Teri Barber Sharum!
Bobby Kennedy was assassinated, Los Angeles, Ca. 1968
The cycle rolls on.
I believe myself to be a person of reason. I believe that anger is a waste of time and energy, that lamenting about wouldda, shouldda, couldda issues are self-serving rationalization and destructively distracting. I abhor ad homonym language and commentary, character assault and stupidity. It is a rare moment when I will engage in making an outright blatant and unreasonable remark about another person. This is, unfortunately, such a moment.
George W. Bush, president of the United States and Yale University graduate is too stupid. Yes, I know that he is not, generally speaking, STUPID; and knowing that is what makes my calling him too stupid an unreasonable statement- one that is not based upon reason. After all he was smart enough to hire Karl Rove, Al Gonzales, Condi Rice, et al. So the question to be answered is, why would a person of reason that knows better, say something like this?
My sources for news and information on a daily basis are at present BBC World Source, NPR "Morning Edition", Democracy Now "The War and Peace Report- all at my computer; on television, PBS-The News Hour. So, the other night(on or about 1 or 2 June)I am watching The News Hour, the story is about Bush II declaring that he will veto a "Carbon Emissions-Cap and Trade" bill currently be debated in congress. They cut to a sound-bite of Bush II speaking before some group and the president remarks that (and I must paraphrase),he will veto the legislation because of the amount of debt it would create, that he just could not justify putting that kind of a burden on future generations- he said that he simply will not do it.
The first thing out my my mouth was, "man, this guy is just too stupid!" I am continually amazed at this man-our president- and his adeptness at being stupid. It is almost like he is a stupid-savant, someone born possessing an extraordinary natural talent or gift for stupid. One of the gifted-stupid. It is certainly fortunate he was born Caucasian and to a wealthy family. If he had been poor white-trash, white working class or black he would just be thought of as another dumb red-neck, or stupid
ni--er. Like that commercial says,"a little tweak can make a world of difference." Rich and stupid, no limit; poor and stupid, tuff luck.
What so enraged me is that Bush II adamantly declares his opposition to a bill that is at least an effort to acknowledge the issue of climate change and create debate and discussion by congress. Something that, as anyone knows, it has until recently refused to do. The primary reason he gives is one that feigns concern for future generations being strapped with unnecessary and burdensome debt. What makes me call him too stupid, is the fact that he and his administration have cheerfully, willingly and proudly already borrowed the complete up-front cost of our war against terrorism, civil and human rights in Afghanistan, Iraq, the United States, and other parts of the world. Nearly one TRILLION dollars at the end of FY2007. And that is just the amount that can be found in public records.
According to various sources such as War Resistance, the Seattle Times and others, as of the end of 2007 right at one trillion dollars had been borrowed to finance America's fear, defense industry and security contractors. If the interest payment is added to the amount borrowed so far every person in the United States currently starts every day nearly $500.00 in debt. It does not sound like much, but just take a minute and think. EVERYONE-every man, woman and child, every newborn, every person about to die, CEO's and junkies, Beauty Queens, feminists and hookers. Everybody starts every day and, as a citizen, owes $500.00 for money our government borrowed and spent.
Money spent on something that is impossible to achieve and is in reality an illusion; security. Security, like God, like Heaven and eternal life and promises of mercy and forgiveness; like miracle and the inspired "word of God"; like hell and demons and Armageddon, the Rapture, Allah and Mohammed's dreams. All this crap is an illusion created by the fear in our minds, by our imagination, by fraud and by lies. So, for Bush II to proclaim his determined opposition to anything due to a concern about the burdens of excessive debt on future generations is, in my humble opinion, too stupid. Go Yale...
Do not forget to email this to a friend or enemy using the link below, save this blog in your favorites or bookmarks, rate this blog bottom right hand panel, and leave a comment. More soon...Give Peace a chance.
James B. Tinsley, B.A.
Happy Birthday to Teri Barber Sharum!
Bobby Kennedy was assassinated, Los Angeles, Ca. 1968
The cycle rolls on.
I believe myself to be a person of reason. I believe that anger is a waste of time and energy, that lamenting about wouldda, shouldda, couldda issues are self-serving rationalization and destructively distracting. I abhor ad homonym language and commentary, character assault and stupidity. It is a rare moment when I will engage in making an outright blatant and unreasonable remark about another person. This is, unfortunately, such a moment.
George W. Bush, president of the United States and Yale University graduate is too stupid. Yes, I know that he is not, generally speaking, STUPID; and knowing that is what makes my calling him too stupid an unreasonable statement- one that is not based upon reason. After all he was smart enough to hire Karl Rove, Al Gonzales, Condi Rice, et al. So the question to be answered is, why would a person of reason that knows better, say something like this?
My sources for news and information on a daily basis are at present BBC World Source, NPR "Morning Edition", Democracy Now "The War and Peace Report- all at my computer; on television, PBS-The News Hour. So, the other night(on or about 1 or 2 June)I am watching The News Hour, the story is about Bush II declaring that he will veto a "Carbon Emissions-Cap and Trade" bill currently be debated in congress. They cut to a sound-bite of Bush II speaking before some group and the president remarks that (and I must paraphrase),he will veto the legislation because of the amount of debt it would create, that he just could not justify putting that kind of a burden on future generations- he said that he simply will not do it.
The first thing out my my mouth was, "man, this guy is just too stupid!" I am continually amazed at this man-our president- and his adeptness at being stupid. It is almost like he is a stupid-savant, someone born possessing an extraordinary natural talent or gift for stupid. One of the gifted-stupid. It is certainly fortunate he was born Caucasian and to a wealthy family. If he had been poor white-trash, white working class or black he would just be thought of as another dumb red-neck, or stupid
ni--er. Like that commercial says,"a little tweak can make a world of difference." Rich and stupid, no limit; poor and stupid, tuff luck.
What so enraged me is that Bush II adamantly declares his opposition to a bill that is at least an effort to acknowledge the issue of climate change and create debate and discussion by congress. Something that, as anyone knows, it has until recently refused to do. The primary reason he gives is one that feigns concern for future generations being strapped with unnecessary and burdensome debt. What makes me call him too stupid, is the fact that he and his administration have cheerfully, willingly and proudly already borrowed the complete up-front cost of our war against terrorism, civil and human rights in Afghanistan, Iraq, the United States, and other parts of the world. Nearly one TRILLION dollars at the end of FY2007. And that is just the amount that can be found in public records.
According to various sources such as War Resistance, the Seattle Times and others, as of the end of 2007 right at one trillion dollars had been borrowed to finance America's fear, defense industry and security contractors. If the interest payment is added to the amount borrowed so far every person in the United States currently starts every day nearly $500.00 in debt. It does not sound like much, but just take a minute and think. EVERYONE-every man, woman and child, every newborn, every person about to die, CEO's and junkies, Beauty Queens, feminists and hookers. Everybody starts every day and, as a citizen, owes $500.00 for money our government borrowed and spent.
Money spent on something that is impossible to achieve and is in reality an illusion; security. Security, like God, like Heaven and eternal life and promises of mercy and forgiveness; like miracle and the inspired "word of God"; like hell and demons and Armageddon, the Rapture, Allah and Mohammed's dreams. All this crap is an illusion created by the fear in our minds, by our imagination, by fraud and by lies. So, for Bush II to proclaim his determined opposition to anything due to a concern about the burdens of excessive debt on future generations is, in my humble opinion, too stupid. Go Yale...
Do not forget to email this to a friend or enemy using the link below, save this blog in your favorites or bookmarks, rate this blog bottom right hand panel, and leave a comment. More soon...Give Peace a chance.
James B. Tinsley, B.A.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
