Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Whatever
Indeed, in the Bay Area we have folks who are really nothing more than would-be sex therapists claiming to be tantrics. I have a feeling that Turq would probably like to be of that order. :-D On 12/07/2013 04:02 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: Since when is Turq an actual, real Tantrika? Freddy was Mr. B.S. Guru ... so he doesn't count. As far as represented, Turq is a TINO, Tantric in Name Only. If a real Tantrika, I have some of the standard questions: Who was or is his teacher/lineage? What teachings did he receive which he still practices? What do you know that makes you think he is a real Tantrika?
[FairfieldLife] RE: Whatever
---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: emptybill, what is the ESSSENCE of being a tantrika? IMO it's being at home with good and bad. I think turq has that. Of course I could be wrong about that. And everything else! So what?! Oh dear, let me count the ways... On Saturday, December 7, 2013 6:02 PM, "emptybill@..." wrote: Since when is Turq an actual, real Tantrika? Freddy was Mr. B.S. Guru ... so he doesn't count. As far as represented, Turq is a TINO, Tantric in Name Only. If a real Tantrika, I have some of the standard questions: Who was or is his teacher/lineage? What teachings did he receive which he still practices? What do you know that makes you think he is a real Tantrika?
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Whatever
emptybill, what is the ESSSENCE of being a tantrika? IMO it's being at home with good and bad. I think turq has that. Of course I could be wrong about that. And everything else! So what?! On Saturday, December 7, 2013 6:02 PM, "emptyb...@yahoo.com" wrote: Since when is Turq an actual, real Tantrika? Freddy was Mr. B.S. Guru ... so he doesn't count. As far as represented, Turq is a TINO, Tantric in Name Only. If a real Tantrika, I have some of the standard questions: Who was or is his teacher/lineage? What teachings did he receive which he still practices? What do you know that makes you think he is a real Tantrika?
[FairfieldLife] RE: Whatever
Since when is Turq an actual, real Tantrika? Freddy was Mr. B.S. Guru ... so he doesn't count. As far as represented, Turq is a TINO, Tantric in Name Only. If a real Tantrika, I have some of the standard questions: Who was or is his teacher/lineage? What teachings did he receive which he still practices? What do you know that makes you think he is a real Tantrika?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Whatever
turq, probably it'll be a mix of good and bad. But I'm sure being a tantric, you'll make the most of both (-: Internet down at home. Am at library catching up. Battery to fiber optic gizmo might not be fixed til Monday! Bye for now... On Saturday, December 7, 2013 7:22 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > thanks, turq, I love this, had some good LOLs watching the different > reactions. The little kids are especially wonderful. How about Maya? Did she > like? I won't know until I get home next Friday. But then I'll be home for good. Or bad. Your call. :-) > On Saturday, December 7, 2013 4:26 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: > > If ever there were a link that deserved the new Net Acronym I thought up the > other day, it's this one: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjSkfSDF6Oo >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Whatever
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > thanks, turq, I love this, had some good LOLs watching the different reactions. The little kids are especially wonderful. How about Maya? Did she like? I won't know until I get home next Friday. But then I'll be home for good. Or bad. Your call. :-) > On Saturday, December 7, 2013 4:26 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: > > If ever there were a link that deserved the new Net Acronym I thought up the other day, it's this one: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjSkfSDF6Oo >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Whatever Wednesday
Oh, and here's an update on the guy: http://www.times-standard.com/breakingnews/ci_21896914/humboldt-shark-attack-victim-punched-shark-rode-wave *** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "marekreavis" wrote: > > Thank you, Laughinggull108, I try to be prudent and careful. And, amazingly, > the young man is listed in fair condition notwithstanding the apparent > severity of the wounds. > > *** > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 wrote: > > > > Sending out healing thoughts to the victim. And please be careful Marek. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "marekreavis" wrote: > > > > > > For what it's worth, the original suggestion was, for just one day of the > > > week, to post something/anything that wasn't a comment *about* another > > > poster, whether positive or negative. > > > > > > This happened yesterday around noon at one of our regular and favorite > > > breaks. I surfed there Saturday, both in the morning and again in the > > > afternoon. > > > > > > http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_21894367/surfer-fair-condition-after-shark-attack-witness-ive > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Whatever Wednesday
Thank you, Laughinggull108, I try to be prudent and careful. And, amazingly, the young man is listed in fair condition notwithstanding the apparent severity of the wounds. *** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 wrote: > > Sending out healing thoughts to the victim. And please be careful Marek. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "marekreavis" wrote: > > > > For what it's worth, the original suggestion was, for just one day of the > > week, to post something/anything that wasn't a comment *about* another > > poster, whether positive or negative. > > > > This happened yesterday around noon at one of our regular and favorite > > breaks. I surfed there Saturday, both in the morning and again in the > > afternoon. > > > > http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_21894367/surfer-fair-condition-after-shark-attack-witness-ive > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Whatever Wednesday
Sending out healing thoughts to the victim. And please be careful Marek. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "marekreavis" wrote: > > For what it's worth, the original suggestion was, for just one day of the > week, to post something/anything that wasn't a comment *about* another > poster, whether positive or negative. > > This happened yesterday around noon at one of our regular and favorite > breaks. I surfed there Saturday, both in the morning and again in the > afternoon. > > http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_21894367/surfer-fair-condition-after-shark-attack-witness-ive >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Whatever Wednesday
It's true, surfing provides the most extraordinary pay-off, unparalleld in my experience. The risk of an attack, though real, is nonetheless, relatively small. Here is the list of all shark attacks on the Pacific coast of the U.S. since 2000: http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/2000.htm So, all things considered, the likelihood of it happening to any particular surfer isn't great. Not that I don't think of it from time to time, and I was bumped once in 2009 at a different surfbreak, but car accidents and lightning strikes are more frequent causes of injury and death than shark attacks. *** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: > > The possibility of a shark attack adds a hefty element of risk in my view. > Â Surfing must provide a heck-of-a-payoff. Â > > > > From: marekreavis > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:11 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Whatever Wednesday > > > Â > For what it's worth, the original suggestion was, for just one day of the > week, to post something/anything that wasn't a comment *about* another > poster, whether positive or negative. > > This happened yesterday around noon at one of our regular and favorite > breaks. I surfed there Saturday, both in the morning and again in the > afternoon. > > http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_21894367/surfer-fair-condition-after-shark-attack-witness-ive >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Whatever Wednesday
--- "marekreavis" wrote: > > For what it's worth, the original suggestion was, for just one day of the week, to post something/anything that wasn't a comment *about* another poster, whether positive or negative. > > This happened yesterday around noon at one of our regular and favorite breaks. I surfed there Saturday, both in the morning and again in the afternoon. > > http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_21894367/surfer-fair-conditio\ n-after-shark-attack-witness-ive > Share and Raunchy might like the concept mentioned in this comic.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Whatever Happened to Reagan'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, scienceofabundance wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > > > I was just thinkin'... > > Reagan was really senile, for really a long time... > > Poor guy. > > I heard that Bush was behind the assassination attempt on him... > > In '80... > > > Heh, Robert. Regarding Regan, Bush et al., I hope that you are better at > predicting the past than the future > I think I heard someone say that on the radio... But, I forget the reason why the guy wanted to shoot Reagan... Then someone got the Pope too, around that time... Then Reagan and The Pope, worked together, because they both felt, That they were both saved from death, and they formed an alliance against the Soviet Union... I guess Bush wasn't behind anything, really... It's all just Maya... r.g.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Whatever Happened to Reagan'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > I was just thinkin'... > Reagan was really senile, for really a long time... > Poor guy. > I heard that Bush was behind the assassination attempt on him... > In '80... Heh, Robert. Regarding Regan, Bush et al., I hope that you are better at predicting the past than the future
[FairfieldLife] Re: Whatever is done by Brahma is done by you
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "turiya89" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yogavasistha > > > > > > Manu: > > > > > > "Know that whatever is done by Brahma or Vishnu or Shiva is > > > done by you." > > > > > > > > > Great! Who is then to blame for everything an whom should we > > forgive? Only ourselves > > > "One of the annoying things about believing in free > will and individual responsibility is the difficulty > of finding somebody to blame your problems on. And > when you do find somebody, it's remarkable how often > his picture turns up on your driver's license." > - P. J. O'Rourke Only in your oneness with the almighty Brahman, as in the context of the Self or the, 'That Thou Art' (Tat Tvam Asi). As MMY said, "thou art the 10th". However, it would be presumptuous to assume one's ego could be God, in any fashion, though I understand some so-called Gurus like to claim that title.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Whatever is done by Brahma is done by you
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "turiya89" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante > wrote: > > > > > > Yogavasistha > > > > Manu: > > > > "Know that whatever is done by Brahma or Vishnu or Shiva is > > done by you." > > > > > Great! Who is then to blame for everything an whom should we > forgive? Only ourselves "One of the annoying things about believing in free will and individual responsibility is the difficulty of finding somebody to blame your problems on. And when you do find somebody, it's remarkable how often his picture turns up on your driver's license." - P. J. O'Rourke
[FairfieldLife] Re: Whatever is done by Brahma is done by you
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante wrote: > > > Yogavasistha > > Manu: > > "Know that whatever is done by Brahma or Vishnu or Shiva is done by > you." > Great! Who is then to blame for everything an whom should we forgive? Only ourselves
[FairfieldLife] Re: Whatever did become of Jerry Jarvis?
Tom, that's my take on Jerry, too. He was a very effective and important role model for me when I was a young man in the movement. Although I've only spoken with him a few times I'm awfully fond of him. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My limited experience was different. His sense of humor was strong and contagious. His > lectures were long and detailed but he had a very powerful Gyani yogi thing going. I > found him sincere, humble, and self effacing. Only one mans view I guess. To my > knowledge, he had no official position with the movement at the time. I had been > meditating maybe 14 years and had taken several advanced techniques and his words > resonated well. > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "The Secret" wrote: > > > > Jerry Jarvis came to my university while he and Maharishi were touring > > Boston and Cambridge, MA. He filled a 2000 seat lecture hall. He was > > giggling so much that most people, myself included, decided that > > surely this meditation was not for us. He was the guest speaker in > > Mount Eagle, TN on a residence course where the sidhas got together > > and did their rounds, not sanctioned by the sidhi administrators. > > Man, what a boring dude. Those were my only two encounters with Jerry > > and they were not positive. If someone else had given the intro > > lecture to TM, perhaps 1,500 people would have started. Out of the > > 2,000 assembled, not a single one decided that TM was serious. > > Jerry's giggling prevented me from starting TM for 3 years. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Whatever did become of Jerry Jarvis?
My limited experience was different. His sense of humor was strong and contagious. His lectures were long and detailed but he had a very powerful Gyani yogi thing going. I found him sincere, humble, and self effacing. Only one mans view I guess. To my knowledge, he had no official position with the movement at the time. I had been meditating maybe 14 years and had taken several advanced techniques and his words resonated well. -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "The Secret" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jerry Jarvis came to my university while he and Maharishi were touring > Boston and Cambridge, MA. He filled a 2000 seat lecture hall. He was > giggling so much that most people, myself included, decided that > surely this meditation was not for us. He was the guest speaker in > Mount Eagle, TN on a residence course where the sidhas got together > and did their rounds, not sanctioned by the sidhi administrators. > Man, what a boring dude. Those were my only two encounters with Jerry > and they were not positive. If someone else had given the intro > lecture to TM, perhaps 1,500 people would have started. Out of the > 2,000 assembled, not a single one decided that TM was serious. > Jerry's giggling prevented me from starting TM for 3 years. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Whatever did become of Jerry Jarvis?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boyboy_8 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > boy, I have not thought of him in a long time. All I heard was all many > times removed so it's probably all garbagecan someone tell me what > happened to him? > > Regards, > > Fred > Someone identified as "Jerry Jarvis, started meditation in 1961," appears on the History Channel documentary about MMY that came out recently. You can find it on youtube. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Whatever did become of Jerry Jarvis?
Jerry Jarvis came to my university while he and Maharishi were touring Boston and Cambridge, MA. He filled a 2000 seat lecture hall. He was giggling so much that most people, myself included, decided that surely this meditation was not for us. He was the guest speaker in Mount Eagle, TN on a residence course where the sidhas got together and did their rounds, not sanctioned by the sidhi administrators. Man, what a boring dude. Those were my only two encounters with Jerry and they were not positive. If someone else had given the intro lecture to TM, perhaps 1,500 people would have started. Out of the 2,000 assembled, not a single one decided that TM was serious. Jerry's giggling prevented me from starting TM for 3 years.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Whatever did become of Jerry Jarvis?
The last time I saw him he had a business card that read, if I remember correctly, "Advanced Research Institute". He was lecturing at a "Knowledge" course in Arizona in either the late 80's or early 90's. Thoroughly enjoyed his lectures. Always struck me as a great guy. I never did learn why and how he and the "movement" seemed to part ways. Azgrey -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "matrixmonitor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ---Still lives in Malibu, has an interest in the typical TMO > sponsored projects, as well as some non-official goings-on. (a prison > project to teach TM to prisoners). > One of his goals is to entice one of the billionaires into allowing > the Prison Project to "make use" of 100 million dollars. > Has an interest in the Pundits, in Brahasthan (Spiritual Center of > the US), Yagyas; etc; but doesn't seem to consider himself > anymore "out" of the TMO than during the early 70's. He still thinks > the TM Movement is going strong, and when I mentioned the > Fairfieldlife forum some time ago as being one of the last > strongholds of a "remnant" of TM practitioners (but with a different > perspective than Bevan and Hagelin); he laughed at the term "remnant". > > In other words, nothing's amiss. It's still 1974 in his mind. > Haven't heard from him re: MMY's demise. > He mentioned a meeting with Hagelin and Bevan in NY some time ago. > Some money gathering venture. > Still refuses to access any non-TMO sources of information on > Movement News. > > > In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boyboy_8 wrote: > > > > boy, I have not thought of him in a long time. All I heard was all > many > > times removed so it's probably all garbagecan someone tell me > what > > happened to him? > > > > Regards, > > > > Fred > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Whatever did become of Jerry Jarvis?
---Still lives in Malibu, has an interest in the typical TMO sponsored projects, as well as some non-official goings-on. (a prison project to teach TM to prisoners). One of his goals is to entice one of the billionaires into allowing the Prison Project to "make use" of 100 million dollars. Has an interest in the Pundits, in Brahasthan (Spiritual Center of the US), Yagyas; etc; but doesn't seem to consider himself anymore "out" of the TMO than during the early 70's. He still thinks the TM Movement is going strong, and when I mentioned the Fairfieldlife forum some time ago as being one of the last strongholds of a "remnant" of TM practitioners (but with a different perspective than Bevan and Hagelin); he laughed at the term "remnant". In other words, nothing's amiss. It's still 1974 in his mind. Haven't heard from him re: MMY's demise. He mentioned a meeting with Hagelin and Bevan in NY some time ago. Some money gathering venture. Still refuses to access any non-TMO sources of information on Movement News. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boyboy_8 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > boy, I have not thought of him in a long time. All I heard was all many > times removed so it's probably all garbagecan someone tell me what > happened to him? > > Regards, > > Fred >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Whatever Happened to 'We the People'?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" wrote: > Whatever Happened to 'We the People'? > > Lurk: > We became "wee" the people. And our handlers are pushing "Wii" for > the people to keep us distracted. Do they French see this happening? > And, to add insult to injury, "GyPSee" is now "GyPSii"! :(
[FairfieldLife] Re: Whatever Happened to 'We the People'?
In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" wrote: Whatever Happened to 'We the People'? Lurk: We became "wee" the people. And our handlers are pushing "Wii" for the people to keep us distracted. Do they French see this happening?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Whatever Happened to 'We the People'?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" wrote: > > > > > > > > Whatever Happened to 'We the People'? > > > They went to live in Brazil. Dodging the issues again, eh? Predictable. Hey, Magoo, how about that great right winger economy? Are you and your wacko wingnut pals still bragging about BushCo policies now? Consider: The stock market has given up all its gains for the year; the S&P500 is now down 0.11%. A barrel of oil is about $100; the price of a gallon of gas is well over $3.00/gallon. The housing market is in the worst condition it's been in since the Great Depression. Delinquencies on mortgages, credit cards, and even auto loans are growing. Financial companies are in severe distress; worse is to come; we've not seen the bulk of ARM resets. Home foreclosures are soaring, literally rising at unprecedented rates. Real income has only recently begun to grow (at a glacial pace). Consumer confidence numbers have plummeted to recessionary levels. The dollar is at record lows despite the happy talk from administration bobbleheads about a "strong dollar" policy. There is no easy fix (and not even many hard ones) for all of the above. Corporate profits (the economy's "mother's milk") for the third quarter were actually down from last year's third quarter. All links here: http://www.blah3.com/article.php?story=20071122162101836
[FairfieldLife] Re: Whatever Happened to 'We the People'?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Whatever Happened to 'We the People'? They went to live in Brazil.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Whatever Happened to 'We the People'?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Whatever Happened to 'We the People'?>> Call Dr. Ron Paul to revive the patient: http://tinyurl.com/2frtdf OffWorld > > By Thom Hartmann > Alternet, November 23, 2007 > http://www.alternet.org/story/67944/ > > > We the people > > The traditional American liberal story is the story of We the People. > > As Americans, the most important part of our social identity is our > role as citizens. To be a citizen means to be part of, and a defender > of, the commons of our nation. The water we drink, the air we breathe, > the streets we drive on, the schools that we use, the departments that > protect us -- these are all the physical commons. > > And there are also the cultural commons -- the stories we tell > ourselves, our histories, our religions, and our notions of ourselves. > And there are the commons of our power systems (in the majority of > American communities), our health-care system (stolen from us and > privatized over the past twenty-five years, our hospitals in > particular used to be mostly nonprofit or run by mostly city or county > governments), and the electronic commons of our radio and TV spectrum > and the Internet. > > Most important for citizenship is the commons of government -- the > creation and the servant of We the People. > > Franklin D. Roosevelt understood this commons. In his "Four Freedoms" > speech, he said, "Necessitous men are not free men." Hungry people > aren't free people, no matter what you want to call them. Hungry > people can't be good citizens: they're too busy taking care of the > hungry part of themselves to care about the citizen part. > > > ~~ Republicans don't want to fund FDR's social safety net > because they fundamentally do not believe in the concept of We the > People collectively protecting all of us in anything other than a > military/police way. They don't believe that "the rabble" should run > the country. They want big corporations to run the commons of our > nation, and they think that the most appropriate role for citizens is > that of infantilized consumers -- of both commercial products and > commercially produced political packaging. ~~ > > > This is the fundamental debate in our society: Are we a nation of > citizens or a nation of consumers? Are we a democracy run by citizens, > or are we a corporatocracy that holds consumers locked in dependency > by virtue of their consumption? > > Consumerism appeals to the greedy and selfish child part of us, the > infantilized part that just wants someone else to take care of us. The > core message of most commercials is that "you are the most important > person in the world." Commercial advertising almost never mentions > "we" or "us." > > What is at stake today is the very future of our democratic republic. > If we accept an identity as fearful, infantilized consumers, we will > be acting from our baby part and allowing corporate America and an > increasingly authoritarian government to fill the role of a parent part. > > The story we are told is that we should surrender all of our power to > corporations and just let them govern us because a mystical but > all-knowing godlike force called "the free market" will eventually > solve all of our problems. > > That story fits in very well with the conservatives' other story: that > we are children who need to be protected from evil humans; and because > corporations are amoral and not human, they are intrinsically and > morally superior to evil humans. > > To save democracy we must crack that code and bring back the code so > well understood by the Founders of this nation: that we're a country > of barn-builders, of communities, of intrinsically good people who > work together for the common good and the common wealth. > > We begin this process by speaking to the responsible part of us, the > part that enjoys being grown up and socially responsible. > > The story we have to tell is the story of citizenship derived from our > best and most noble parts. It's the story of We the People. > > We talk a lot about the features of citizenship, like the right to > vote, but we sometimes forget what the benefits are. The main benefit > of citizenship is freedom -- not freedom from external or internal > dangers (although that is included in the package, it's only one of > the six purposes listed in the Preamble to the Constitution) that > conservatives obsess on, but freedom to think as we want, to pray as > we want, to say what we want, and to live as we want to fulfill our > true potential as humans (the other five things listed in the Preamble). > > The question, ultimately, is whether our nation will continue to stand > for the values on which it was founded. > > Early American conservatives suggested that democracy was so > ultimately weak it couldn't withstand the assault of newspaper editors > and citizens who spoke out agains
[FairfieldLife] Re: Whatever Happened to 'We the People'?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Whatever Happened to 'We the People'?>> CALL DR. RON PAUL to revive the patient: [http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1363/909256900_50edce3132.jpg?v=0] OffWorld > > By Thom Hartmann > Alternet, November 23, 2007 > http://www.alternet.org/story/67944/ > > > We the people > > The traditional American liberal story is the story of We the People. > > As Americans, the most important part of our social identity is our > role as citizens. To be a citizen means to be part of, and a defender > of, the commons of our nation. The water we drink, the air we breathe, > the streets we drive on, the schools that we use, the departments that > protect us -- these are all the physical commons. > > And there are also the cultural commons -- the stories we tell > ourselves, our histories, our religions, and our notions of ourselves. > And there are the commons of our power systems (in the majority of > American communities), our health-care system (stolen from us and > privatized over the past twenty-five years, our hospitals in > particular used to be mostly nonprofit or run by mostly city or county > governments), and the electronic commons of our radio and TV spectrum > and the Internet. > > Most important for citizenship is the commons of government -- the > creation and the servant of We the People. > > Franklin D. Roosevelt understood this commons. In his "Four Freedoms" > speech, he said, "Necessitous men are not free men." Hungry people > aren't free people, no matter what you want to call them. Hungry > people can't be good citizens: they're too busy taking care of the > hungry part of themselves to care about the citizen part. > > > ~~ Republicans don't want to fund FDR's social safety net > because they fundamentally do not believe in the concept of We the > People collectively protecting all of us in anything other than a > military/police way. They don't believe that "the rabble" should run > the country. They want big corporations to run the commons of our > nation, and they think that the most appropriate role for citizens is > that of infantilized consumers -- of both commercial products and > commercially produced political packaging. ~~ > > > This is the fundamental debate in our society: Are we a nation of > citizens or a nation of consumers? Are we a democracy run by citizens, > or are we a corporatocracy that holds consumers locked in dependency > by virtue of their consumption? > > Consumerism appeals to the greedy and selfish child part of us, the > infantilized part that just wants someone else to take care of us. The > core message of most commercials is that "you are the most important > person in the world." Commercial advertising almost never mentions > "we" or "us." > > What is at stake today is the very future of our democratic republic. > If we accept an identity as fearful, infantilized consumers, we will > be acting from our baby part and allowing corporate America and an > increasingly authoritarian government to fill the role of a parent part. > > The story we are told is that we should surrender all of our power to > corporations and just let them govern us because a mystical but > all-knowing godlike force called "the free market" will eventually > solve all of our problems. > > That story fits in very well with the conservatives' other story: that > we are children who need to be protected from evil humans; and because > corporations are amoral and not human, they are intrinsically and > morally superior to evil humans. > > To save democracy we must crack that code and bring back the code so > well understood by the Founders of this nation: that we're a country > of barn-builders, of communities, of intrinsically good people who > work together for the common good and the common wealth. > > We begin this process by speaking to the responsible part of us, the > part that enjoys being grown up and socially responsible. > > The story we have to tell is the story of citizenship derived from our > best and most noble parts. It's the story of We the People. > > We talk a lot about the features of citizenship, like the right to > vote, but we sometimes forget what the benefits are. The main benefit > of citizenship is freedom -- not freedom from external or internal > dangers (although that is included in the package, it's only one of > the six purposes listed in the Preamble to the Constitution) that > conservatives obsess on, but freedom to think as we want, to pray as > we want, to say what we want, and to live as we want to fulfill our > true potential as humans (the other five things listed in the Preamble). > > The question, ultimately, is whether our nation will continue to stand > for the values on which it was founded. > > Early American conservatives suggested that democracy was so > ultimately weak it couldn't withstand the assault of newspaper editors > and citizens who spoke out agains
