(With sincere thanks to Raj Ayyar for posting this on FB)
Start seeing everything as God. But keep it a secret!
Become awestruck and nourished, listening to a nightingale singing in a beautiful foreign tongue, while God nests invisibly on its tongue.
Hafiz, when a dog runs up to you and wags its ecstatic tail,
you lean down and whisper in its ear,
'Beloved, I am so glad you are happy to see ...me.
Beloved, I am so glad You have come.'
--Hafiz.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Gnosis is the Same for Everyone
Repeated here without change or alteration from:
This Way; The Dharma of Gnosis
( http://dharmagnosis.wordpress.com/ )
Gnosis is the Same for Everyone
May 27, 2010 in A Thing
There’s a massive misunderstanding about gnosis going around– a conception exists which says that “gnosis is different for everyone,” that everyone’s experience of gnosis is different and that gnosis is a malleable state, devoid of ontological substance. This is Relativist Gnosis, and it’s incorrect.
The experience of gnosis is the same for everyone who has it. Gnosis is Objective Truth. It is a cultivated experience derived from the inbreaking of the Pleroma, or True Reality, into the World of Forms, or Illusion. As an experience of Truth, it is the exact same experience for everyone. If the experience were relative, it wouldn’t be Truth, and if it wasn’t Truth, it couldn’t be gnosis.
Now, here’s the rub: objectivity appears as subjectivity when filtered through the lens of existence in the World of Forms. Our experiences of gnosis must be identical. However, as we are trapped in this World of Limitations, our ability to describe this experience must also be limited. These descriptions are what makes gnosis seem subjective, or different from person to person. “Everyone has his or her own gnosis” is false. The correct statement should be, “everyone has his or her own description of gnosis.” It’s a subtle distinction, but very important.
There is the Experiencer (the Spiritual Seed– Humanity) which is trapped within the World of Forms. Then, there is the Experienced– Truth, or The Father, or The Limitless Light or what have you. Gnosis is the intersection of the two, a combination of the Logos, or Word, and Sophia, or Wisdom, and Epiphany, or Awakening (see “The Way“). Now, the Gospel of Philip says that, “Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images.” The only possible way Truth can be expressed in the World, by itself or by others, is in “types and images”– imperfect copies of itself. However, it also says (emph. mine) that “….Truth brought names into existence in the world for our sakes, because it is not possible to learn it (truth) without these names. Truth is one single thing; it is many things and for our sakes to teach about this one thing in love through many things.” As gnosis is the perception of this “one single thing,” I believe that gnosis requires the “many things” described above — Logos, Sophia, Awakening– to truly be Gnosis. And, these “many things” may take different external forms, but internally, the connection between the Experiencer and the Experienced *must* be identical for anyone who has the experience.
So, the worldly information that contains and expresses gnosis may have some variation, but the experience underneath this containment and expression is the same. The textual evidence may be different– On the Origin of the World versus The Gospel of Truth, say — but the experiences of gnosis underlying these texts is identical. A drop of wine is different than a chalice full, but both are still 80% water, 13% ethanol and 7% other stuff.
We might describe what happened to us during an epiphanic event. We may create myths or participate in rituals designed as an attempt to communicate this indescribable Knowledge. The Knowledge itself, however, exists behind the epiphany, the rituals and the myths, and if it is not the same for each of us, we have nothing that binds us to the Truth.
A dog, a cat, a mouse, a cow and a donkey, all starving, comiserated together in a stable during a time of famine. The dog said, “Our problem is that we have no meat to eat.” The cat shook his head, and answered, “foolish dog. Obviously we suffer due to a lack of fish.” “You are both incorrect,” said the mouse, “as cheese is the solution to our misery.” “Not cheese, but grass, would make us happiest,” mooed the cow. “Stupid animals,” thought the donkey. “None of them realize that we would all be better off with piles and piles of delicious oats.”
This Way; The Dharma of Gnosis
( http://dharmagnosis.wordpress.com/ )
Gnosis is the Same for Everyone
May 27, 2010 in A Thing
There’s a massive misunderstanding about gnosis going around– a conception exists which says that “gnosis is different for everyone,” that everyone’s experience of gnosis is different and that gnosis is a malleable state, devoid of ontological substance. This is Relativist Gnosis, and it’s incorrect.
The experience of gnosis is the same for everyone who has it. Gnosis is Objective Truth. It is a cultivated experience derived from the inbreaking of the Pleroma, or True Reality, into the World of Forms, or Illusion. As an experience of Truth, it is the exact same experience for everyone. If the experience were relative, it wouldn’t be Truth, and if it wasn’t Truth, it couldn’t be gnosis.
Now, here’s the rub: objectivity appears as subjectivity when filtered through the lens of existence in the World of Forms. Our experiences of gnosis must be identical. However, as we are trapped in this World of Limitations, our ability to describe this experience must also be limited. These descriptions are what makes gnosis seem subjective, or different from person to person. “Everyone has his or her own gnosis” is false. The correct statement should be, “everyone has his or her own description of gnosis.” It’s a subtle distinction, but very important.
There is the Experiencer (the Spiritual Seed– Humanity) which is trapped within the World of Forms. Then, there is the Experienced– Truth, or The Father, or The Limitless Light or what have you. Gnosis is the intersection of the two, a combination of the Logos, or Word, and Sophia, or Wisdom, and Epiphany, or Awakening (see “The Way“). Now, the Gospel of Philip says that, “Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images.” The only possible way Truth can be expressed in the World, by itself or by others, is in “types and images”– imperfect copies of itself. However, it also says (emph. mine) that “….Truth brought names into existence in the world for our sakes, because it is not possible to learn it (truth) without these names. Truth is one single thing; it is many things and for our sakes to teach about this one thing in love through many things.” As gnosis is the perception of this “one single thing,” I believe that gnosis requires the “many things” described above — Logos, Sophia, Awakening– to truly be Gnosis. And, these “many things” may take different external forms, but internally, the connection between the Experiencer and the Experienced *must* be identical for anyone who has the experience.
So, the worldly information that contains and expresses gnosis may have some variation, but the experience underneath this containment and expression is the same. The textual evidence may be different– On the Origin of the World versus The Gospel of Truth, say — but the experiences of gnosis underlying these texts is identical. A drop of wine is different than a chalice full, but both are still 80% water, 13% ethanol and 7% other stuff.
We might describe what happened to us during an epiphanic event. We may create myths or participate in rituals designed as an attempt to communicate this indescribable Knowledge. The Knowledge itself, however, exists behind the epiphany, the rituals and the myths, and if it is not the same for each of us, we have nothing that binds us to the Truth.
A dog, a cat, a mouse, a cow and a donkey, all starving, comiserated together in a stable during a time of famine. The dog said, “Our problem is that we have no meat to eat.” The cat shook his head, and answered, “foolish dog. Obviously we suffer due to a lack of fish.” “You are both incorrect,” said the mouse, “as cheese is the solution to our misery.” “Not cheese, but grass, would make us happiest,” mooed the cow. “Stupid animals,” thought the donkey. “None of them realize that we would all be better off with piles and piles of delicious oats.”
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
What’s Up with the Gospel of Thomas?
This article is borrowed "shamelessly and wholesale" from: Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR 36:01, Jan/Feb 2010 )
What’s Up with the Gospel of Thomas?
By Dr. April D. DeConick
New manuscript discoveries continually expand our knowledge of what was actually going on in antiquity. The accommodation of this new knowledge can sometimes require us to create new histories. Yet as a Biblical scholar, I am constantly faced with the fact that our old academic models die hard. Why? Because there is a general resistance to changing previous understandings of the Bible based on the discovery of “new” nonbiblical manuscripts. For one thing, the religious view that the Bible is old, trustworthy and sacred has become a cultural icon in our society. Second, not only are believers invested in maintaining traditional faith, but scholars are invested in maintaining their previous academic opinions.
I have noticed that new manuscript discoveries are often labeled in a way that diminishes their importance, both in religious communities and in the academy. Scholars determine that these manuscripts “post-date” the Bible, allowing them to be tabled. They are called “Gnostic,” by which these scholars mean that they were written by “heretics” who corrupted the scripture and were purged from the Church because they refused to worship the creator god YHWH and instead turned to pay homage to the “one god” who they believed existed beyond the universe.a They are thought of as “forgeries,” a legal term that identifies their authors as criminals who falsely assumed apostolic identities. What this might mean for 2 Thessalonians, Colossians or Ephesians (all claiming Paul’s authorship but likely not written by Paul) rarely crosses our minds, because Biblical letters can’t be forgeries. They are either “anonymous” or “pseudonymous.”
Largely because of this resistance, it can take scholars decades to figure out what a manuscript means and put in place a new model that makes sense of the new evidence. It can take even longer for this new model to become common knowledge, distributed outside the academy.
A case in point is the Gospel of Thomas. It was one of more than 50 texts that were discovered in 1945 by Bedouin in the Egyptian desert and came to be known as the Nag Hammadi codices.b Unlike the canonical gospels, it does not contain a narrative of Jesus’ life and ministry but rather is a collection of Jesus’ sayings, some of which are also recorded in the canonical gospels. It was immediately labeled Gnostic, late, secondary, Biblically dependent and inauthentic. Just as old models die hard, so, too, do first impressions last; today, if you open up almost any general book on the Gospel of Thomas, you will see that this is how it is still described. Yet during the intervening 50 years since it was first published, we have worked very hard to understand this text. We struggled with the Gnostic label for a long time until we realized that the Gnostics weren’t a single group and that the Gospel of Thomas represents none of the various types that did exist (Sethian, Valentinian or any other Gnostic Christian community) because it lacks references to distinctive Gnostic mythologies, including the hallmark feature that the God of worship is not the creator god YHWH, but a god beyond our universe.
If it isn’t Gnostic, then how do we explain the fact that the text has an esoteric orientation, is pro-celibacy, demands that the faithful remain unmarried, and favors a view of the end of the world as “realized” (as many Gnostic texts do)? The Kingdom and the New World are not events of the future, but have already come without anyone noticing.1 So the disciples ask Jesus, “When will the dead rest, and when will the new world come?” Jesus replies, “What you look for has come, but you have not perceived it” (Thomas 51).2 As in the Gospel of John, Jesus has already cast the fires of judgment upon the world.3 Jesus demands that his followers seek visions of God before their deaths in order to have immortality, saying, “Gaze upon the Living One while you are alive, in case you die and (then) seek to see him, and you will not be able to see (him)” (Thomas 59).
Believers will not see Jesus coming with the clouds, as was taught by other Christians. Rather, he would appear to those who remake themselves as children—unafraid and shameless:
His disciples said, “When will you appear to us? When will we see you?” Jesus said, “When you strip naked without shame, take your garments, put them under your feet like little children, and trample on them. Then [you will see] the Son of the Living One and you will not be afraid” (Thomas 37).
This teaching invokes the Genesis story in which Adam was viewed as a child before the Fall. In the Gospel of Thomas, to return to the garden as a primordial Adam meant that you had to renounce your body and embrace celibacy. The ideal state necessary for visions of Jesus is a retooled state of the individual, not of the cosmos.
The type of religiosity found in the Gospel of Thomas is not all that unusual. You can find references to it in Biblical and non-biblical literature. It is nothing more than an early Christian expression of mysticism that developed out of an earlier, apocalyptically oriented Christianity that wished for the immediate end of the world. When the end didn’t happen, the Christians were forced to rethink and rewrite their cherished apocalyptic teachings.
Texts like Luke-Acts (Acts 1: 6-8) show us that some Christians chose to delay the end indefinitely by creating a lengthy period of the church and its ministry before the end would be able to come. Other texts like Matthew’s gospel 924:36) rationalized that the end would come, but not even the Son knows when. Still others like John and Thomas collapsed the end into the present, so that the old world ended with the end of Jesus’ life, and the new world began with the church, which was now experiencing all the promises of the kingdom. In the case of the Gospel of Thomas, the Christians were trying to live as they thought they would at the end of time—like the angels in heaven. So they gave up marriage and sex and believed that their bodies were already being transformed into the glorified spiritual bodies of the resurrection. Intimacy with God, visions of Jesus, equal status with angels, the new world, life-beyond-death were already theirs.
We can even locate this mystical form of Christianity historically. It is a form that developed in eastern Syria in the late first and early second centuries, a form of Christianity that was an heir to early Jewish mystical traditions and a precursor to later Eastern Orthodoxy. I think that Thomas’ “place” in early Christianity was misidentified originally not because it represents a type of Christianity unfamiliar to the canonical tradition or deviant from it. The Gospel of Thomas was wrongly identified at first because Western theological interests controlled its interpretation within a Western Christian framework that could not explain its unfamiliar, mystical structure. Yet we now know—in part from manuscript discoveries like the Nag Hammadi collection—that there was a multiplicity of groups, beliefs and traditions in the diverse early Christian communities. Scholars who misunderstood the Gospel of Thomas mislabeled it as Gnostic in order to lump it together with other traditions they thought to be strange, heretical and late.
Old models die hard, but die they must.
Author’s Note: This column is based on Dr. April DeConick's research: Seek to See Him (Leiden: Brill, 1996); Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas (New York: T&T Clark, 2005); “The Gospel of Thomas,” Expository Times 118 (2007), pp. 469–479; “Mysticism and the Gospel of Thomas,” in Jörg Frey, Enno Edzard Popkes and Jens Schröter, eds., Das Thomasevangelium (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), pp. 206–221.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Remembering The Forgotten
Did you wonder "Whatever became of..." (fill in the name of one of our number, one of the easily forgotten).?
I have. It troubles me at times. They were so easily written-off. Whatever became of...
Thomas West. He wore the same blue gown that we all wore (the fellows, that is... the girls wore white). He graduated with us. Although originally a member of the Class of '61, for our last 3 years at MCHS, he was one of us. We all knew Tom had quit school to join the Navy, and had then left the Navy and returned to MCHS, eventually graduating as a member of the Class of '62. He was an "okay guy", but none of us ever went out of our way to make him feel "welcome" as a member of our class. I know I didn't. A few days before graduation I decided to walk home from school, instead of riding the bus. Tom was walking in the same direction, so we walked together...and talked a bit. Shortly, Tom said "This is where I live...with my Dad". I suddenly understood more about Tom than I had learned in the years we had sat in class together. ..and I felt very ashamed. Ashamed that I had so much...my own room, a fairly big home...two parents. And others had so little. And I hadn't even noticed.
Whatever became of Martin Murphy? He too was a member of our class toward the end.
Along with many other classmates, I was guilty of "poking fun" at Marty...for his gullibility...for his social awkwardness (as if I had room to talk!).
Whatever became of Kenny Shields? He was placed in our class, sometime around 1957
(I think), after being held back in elementary school. Kenny's claim-to-fame was that he could belch smoke "at will", having been an habitual smoker since 2nd grade.
I always thought Kenny "looked odd"...almost as if he were of Chinese descent.
From today's perspective, I believe I can recognize in his facial structure the hallmarks
of fetal alcohol syndrome. Most likely, Kenny never had a fighting chance.
Looking back from the perspective of six decades and then some, I wonder what I "saw" then, why I did the things I did, and why I wasn't a bit more kind. How about you?
I have. It troubles me at times. They were so easily written-off. Whatever became of...
Thomas West. He wore the same blue gown that we all wore (the fellows, that is... the girls wore white). He graduated with us. Although originally a member of the Class of '61, for our last 3 years at MCHS, he was one of us. We all knew Tom had quit school to join the Navy, and had then left the Navy and returned to MCHS, eventually graduating as a member of the Class of '62. He was an "okay guy", but none of us ever went out of our way to make him feel "welcome" as a member of our class. I know I didn't. A few days before graduation I decided to walk home from school, instead of riding the bus. Tom was walking in the same direction, so we walked together...and talked a bit. Shortly, Tom said "This is where I live...with my Dad". I suddenly understood more about Tom than I had learned in the years we had sat in class together. ..and I felt very ashamed. Ashamed that I had so much...my own room, a fairly big home...two parents. And others had so little. And I hadn't even noticed.
Whatever became of Martin Murphy? He too was a member of our class toward the end.
Along with many other classmates, I was guilty of "poking fun" at Marty...for his gullibility...for his social awkwardness (as if I had room to talk!).
Whatever became of Kenny Shields? He was placed in our class, sometime around 1957
(I think), after being held back in elementary school. Kenny's claim-to-fame was that he could belch smoke "at will", having been an habitual smoker since 2nd grade.
I always thought Kenny "looked odd"...almost as if he were of Chinese descent.
From today's perspective, I believe I can recognize in his facial structure the hallmarks
of fetal alcohol syndrome. Most likely, Kenny never had a fighting chance.
Looking back from the perspective of six decades and then some, I wonder what I "saw" then, why I did the things I did, and why I wasn't a bit more kind. How about you?
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Christianity Without God
The following was posted today (28 January 2010) on AlterNet by fellow blogger, "christianhumanist"
I think that it is very good, and am re-posting it here, without change or addendum:
Christianity Without God by christianhumanist
There is no serious doubt among contemporary historians regardless of their religious faith that Jesus was a real person who lived in Palestine in the First Century. Historians agree that Jesus was an itinerant Jewish teacher who traveled and taught throughout Palestine, gathering disciples around him through the force of his personality and the compelling nature of his message. There is general agreement that Jesus was perceived by the Roman occupiers of Palestine as a dangerous religious radical and a disturber of the peace in consequence of which he was arrested by the local authorities and summarily executed by the Romans by public crucifixion, the standard method used by the Romans to deal with political troublemakers.
There is considerable disagreement among historians about how much of the New Testament record can be relied upon as history in the ordinary sense in which we understand history, given the fact that a fairly long time passed from the days in which Jesus lived and taught in Palestine until the traditional stories about him and his teachings began to be collected from the oral tradition and eventually acquired their present form as the gospels of the New Testament.
It is clear from the surviving historical record that something happened following the crucifixion of Jesus that led his followers to continue his message and teachings. When their leader was arrested and executed by the Roman authorities Jesus’ followers were discouraged, disappointed and frightened. They feared for their safety as they contemplated the fact that they too might be arrested and executed. They abandoned Jesus to his fate and ran. However sometime after his arrest and crucifixion, the crushing sense of disappointment, frustration and defeat the disciples experienced at the death of their leader suddenly gave way in the face of what is called “the Easter Event.”
That “something” that “happened” after the crucifixion is described in the Gospels in mythological terms as Resurrection. We have learned to demythologize these accounts so that we can understand and interpret their significance to us. Once we get beyond the mythological language, it is clear that the disciples had a life-transforming experience that resulted in a re-ordering of their priorities and a new way of thinking about what was seriously important that led to their commitment to carry on with Jesus’ teachings.
They interpreted this life-transforming experience to mean that the spirit of Jesus did not die with him but was alive in them challenging them to continue what he had started. It was a life-transforming awareness. They understood this to mean two things: they were to model their lives after his life and they were to carry on his teaching.
Once we have worked our way through the mythological and theological baggage that has accumulated through the ages, we are left with a fundamentally important truth that those who met this itinerant teacher and who heard his teaching were sufficiently captivated by his personality and his message that they were compelled to follow him and his teaching. At its core, being a “Christian” means exactly the same thing for us as it meant to his first disciples: consciously choosing to be a follower of Jesus and his teachings. It does not necessarily involve a belief in gods so much as it involves commitment to the values of Jesus. It means to live as Jesus lived and to teach as he taught, to honor truth and show compassion, to stand with the victims of this world against their oppressors, to stand with the weak and the powerless against the abusers and the comfortably powerful, and to maintain one’s integrity no matter the cost. In short being a follower of Jesus meant then and now to be faithful to the spirit of Jesus and his teachings.
I think that it is very good, and am re-posting it here, without change or addendum:
Christianity Without God by christianhumanist
There is no serious doubt among contemporary historians regardless of their religious faith that Jesus was a real person who lived in Palestine in the First Century. Historians agree that Jesus was an itinerant Jewish teacher who traveled and taught throughout Palestine, gathering disciples around him through the force of his personality and the compelling nature of his message. There is general agreement that Jesus was perceived by the Roman occupiers of Palestine as a dangerous religious radical and a disturber of the peace in consequence of which he was arrested by the local authorities and summarily executed by the Romans by public crucifixion, the standard method used by the Romans to deal with political troublemakers.
There is considerable disagreement among historians about how much of the New Testament record can be relied upon as history in the ordinary sense in which we understand history, given the fact that a fairly long time passed from the days in which Jesus lived and taught in Palestine until the traditional stories about him and his teachings began to be collected from the oral tradition and eventually acquired their present form as the gospels of the New Testament.
It is clear from the surviving historical record that something happened following the crucifixion of Jesus that led his followers to continue his message and teachings. When their leader was arrested and executed by the Roman authorities Jesus’ followers were discouraged, disappointed and frightened. They feared for their safety as they contemplated the fact that they too might be arrested and executed. They abandoned Jesus to his fate and ran. However sometime after his arrest and crucifixion, the crushing sense of disappointment, frustration and defeat the disciples experienced at the death of their leader suddenly gave way in the face of what is called “the Easter Event.”
That “something” that “happened” after the crucifixion is described in the Gospels in mythological terms as Resurrection. We have learned to demythologize these accounts so that we can understand and interpret their significance to us. Once we get beyond the mythological language, it is clear that the disciples had a life-transforming experience that resulted in a re-ordering of their priorities and a new way of thinking about what was seriously important that led to their commitment to carry on with Jesus’ teachings.
They interpreted this life-transforming experience to mean that the spirit of Jesus did not die with him but was alive in them challenging them to continue what he had started. It was a life-transforming awareness. They understood this to mean two things: they were to model their lives after his life and they were to carry on his teaching.
Once we have worked our way through the mythological and theological baggage that has accumulated through the ages, we are left with a fundamentally important truth that those who met this itinerant teacher and who heard his teaching were sufficiently captivated by his personality and his message that they were compelled to follow him and his teaching. At its core, being a “Christian” means exactly the same thing for us as it meant to his first disciples: consciously choosing to be a follower of Jesus and his teachings. It does not necessarily involve a belief in gods so much as it involves commitment to the values of Jesus. It means to live as Jesus lived and to teach as he taught, to honor truth and show compassion, to stand with the victims of this world against their oppressors, to stand with the weak and the powerless against the abusers and the comfortably powerful, and to maintain one’s integrity no matter the cost. In short being a follower of Jesus meant then and now to be faithful to the spirit of Jesus and his teachings.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Hey Democratic Party..... Remember Us?
I don't like to dabble in politics on this blog, but our country is at a rather crucial juncture just now, and I would like to discuss some of the implications thereof. There just might possibly be a "silver lining" for the Democratic Party in its loss of Ted Kennedy's senate seat. Having "only" fifty-nine seats in the senate may be "just what the doctor ordered"; an opportunity for the Democratic Party to re-connect with its base, and to part ways with all those well-healed industry lobbyists that it has been assiduously courting on its merry way to a Health Care Bill. We shall see:
The current Democratic administration has "lost the base". In pandering to the demands of Big Money (Wall St. Bail-out) Big Insurance, and Big Pharma, it has no room on its plate for Little Old Us. If Obama wants any chance at a second term, he better mend fences with the little people, and fast. We couldn't have a Public Option (for the little guy) because the Insurance Industry objected. We can't negotiate the price of pharmaceuticals (downward) because big drug companies wouldn't like that. We could bail-out the "too big to fail", but there is no money for helping out people who are upside-down on mortgages for the house that they live in...mortgages that "made sense" before the bubble burst.. (I am not talking about sub-prime...that's a whole 'nuther problem of "fraud" that needs investigating). And there is no “stimulus/rescue program” from the Small Business Administration that would "do something" for the small businesses that big banks currently aren’t lending to.
So, Democratic Party, if you want to remain in office, wise-up. Pander to the voters for a change. Give us a Health Care Bill that contains only the following:
A robust Public Option; a Medicare Buy-In for 55 and older would be nice, with a Medicaid Buy-In for the working poor, regardless of age, who make a tad too much for "free Medicaid". And give us a Public Pharmaceuticals Option that would allow us to buy our drugs from Uncle (from the VA, perhaps?) at “big discount pricing” based on Uncle's negotiating muscle. And let us buy our drugs from Canada if we want to.
And don't offer anything to the Insurance Industry lobbyists.
Don't offer anything to the Pharmaceutical Industry lobbyists. Just go after “51 votes in the Senate”, forcing anyone who wants to block “People Power” to read phone books into the Congressional Record...in public...televised. Maybe then you will be deserving of re-election. In any event, the Democratic Party will have reclaimed its base.
The current Democratic administration has "lost the base". In pandering to the demands of Big Money (Wall St. Bail-out) Big Insurance, and Big Pharma, it has no room on its plate for Little Old Us. If Obama wants any chance at a second term, he better mend fences with the little people, and fast. We couldn't have a Public Option (for the little guy) because the Insurance Industry objected. We can't negotiate the price of pharmaceuticals (downward) because big drug companies wouldn't like that. We could bail-out the "too big to fail", but there is no money for helping out people who are upside-down on mortgages for the house that they live in...mortgages that "made sense" before the bubble burst.. (I am not talking about sub-prime...that's a whole 'nuther problem of "fraud" that needs investigating). And there is no “stimulus/rescue program” from the Small Business Administration that would "do something" for the small businesses that big banks currently aren’t lending to.
So, Democratic Party, if you want to remain in office, wise-up. Pander to the voters for a change. Give us a Health Care Bill that contains only the following:
A robust Public Option; a Medicare Buy-In for 55 and older would be nice, with a Medicaid Buy-In for the working poor, regardless of age, who make a tad too much for "free Medicaid". And give us a Public Pharmaceuticals Option that would allow us to buy our drugs from Uncle (from the VA, perhaps?) at “big discount pricing” based on Uncle's negotiating muscle. And let us buy our drugs from Canada if we want to.
And don't offer anything to the Insurance Industry lobbyists.
Don't offer anything to the Pharmaceutical Industry lobbyists. Just go after “51 votes in the Senate”, forcing anyone who wants to block “People Power” to read phone books into the Congressional Record...in public...televised. Maybe then you will be deserving of re-election. In any event, the Democratic Party will have reclaimed its base.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
