Thanks Jane. As you point out, it’s one of many tools. It’s critical imho that we force the oligarchs to play defense along a wider front. I hope “Just Say Now,” is another successful cooperation.

It has been. And increasingly, the wars.

How about we have some transpartisan internet votes on some transpartisan big corp. boycott targets?

I think the shared agenda has to come first. Toward what end?

Were you and Peterr collaborating on subject matter today, Jane?

Anyway, alliances on specific issues, where we and other political factions share a common interest, seem like a good way to get some things done. Progressives are neither numerous nor cohesive enough these days to make much of anything happen on our own.

Tranpartisan

The Left and the Right hate the Wars mutual ground here

1
What about un-fair trade?
The right does not know that OBAMA Jobs Czar is GE chief and he loves sending jobs to China?
2
Obama cutting Social Security and Medicare
may be an issue that a lot of right will not like

3
We know the Left and Right hate the individual mandate

4
Obama is spying on Americans?
the left and right hate this

the left and right both have issues they dis-like a lot, they may hate them for different reasons, but the goal is the same, get rid of the issue

I like it

I recall Cenk being fairly relentless in his criticism of the tea party for not protesting on Wall Street, of course most progressives have a genetic predisposition against actually marching around carrying signs. But it would seem like everyone should be demanding massive prosecutions of Wall Street and the mortgage fraud. Civil suits are crawling around relating to cloudy titles, but I see very little in actual criminal charges being filed.

The right vs. left, GOP vs. Dem, con vs. lib, etc. is all bullshit, contrived kabuki that is nothing more than the plutocracy’s divide and conquer strategy. Behind the curtain the 2 parties are really one, serving common campaign contributors while laughing their nuts off at how stupid the sheeple are for buying into their “2 party” con job

Partisanship results in gridlock and ineffective governance and should be relegated to political campaigning. Effective governance that benefits the masses is best achieved through working for the common good, whether one labels it “transpartisan” or “nonpartisan”, unfortunately the current crop of selected representatives aren’t “statesmen”, but opportunists.

Progressives are neither numerous nor cohesive enough these days to make much of anything happen on our own.

Not to mention working at odds with the very public figurehead who supposedly represents us.

The end is a functioning democracy, but the means are fighting on turf where we have a chance to win. We have virtually no chance in our very compromised electoral system, but we do have a chance where big corps. are hoping to avoid being the next big boycott target.

I recall Cenk being fairly relentless in his criticism of the tea party for not protesting on Wall Street, of course most progressives have a genetic predisposition against actually marching around carrying signs. But it would seem like everyone should be demanding massive prosecutions of Wall Street and the mortgage fraud.

Actually it was the TARP bailout and the AIG bonuses that gave the initial fuel to the Tea Party in early 2009. Since then, not so much. There has been almost no meaningful mass activism against Wall Street on the left, but individual efforts like SEIU’s against Bank of America (which forced Ken Lewis out) were well targeted and had success.

I agree about the mortgage fraud, though. The things being contemplated to get the banks out of their robosigning mess undermine the entire legal foundation for private property, and that will certainly bug those on the right.

The end is a functioning democracy, but the means are fighting on turf where we have a chance to win. We have virtually no chance in our very compromised electoral system, but we do have a chance where big corps. are hoping to avoid being the next big boycott target.

So what’s the “ask?”

If you go around just randomly boycotting corporations with no explicit demand that they do something (or stop doing something), there’s nothing they can do to avoid becoming “the next big boycott target.”

I believe the most important national issue to derail the bipartisan alliance that is screwing the economy, ignoring jobs, bypassing democratic accountability and ignoring broad based public demands. The current process has become illegitimate. So the transpartisan issue s govt legitimacy.

The vehicle for that at the moment is the debt bill framework which focuses on near term cuts when we need spending, that focuses on deficits when we need jobs and state support, and that avoided accountability through the Super Committee.

So the agenda needs to focus on derailing this mechanism. Not influencing its choices,but denying its legitimacy. Not to make the Committee fail, because that just invokes the trigger, which is also bad. We need to derail the whole framework. Organize around the idea that the framework needs to be overturned or redirected to focus on jobs now, recovery now, rescue now, and debt reduction only after the economy is fully recovered. Put up a different agenda,and say, reverse the bills logic. Make implementing the bill toxic as anti jobs, anti recovery, unConstitutional, pro Wall Street, anti people.

How do you move in that direction? Because just protecting SS and MM doesn’t get you there. And there are probably six Dem votes to cut them anyway.

Not sure where the $16 trillion comes from – a search of the document does not find the phrase “16 trillion”. It does say auction loans were for 28 days. Some were overnight.

I suspect it is the total when one adds up each 28 day or less loan.

They do say the balance sheet never had more than a trillion as being loaned out.

The reason for the lack of attention to Sanders “16 trillion” may be that the media feels it can lead to mis-understandings.

As to the point of the post “Transpartisan alliances are one of the most powerful organizing tools available to activists today” I totally agree.

Indeed without the audit we would not have known that Germany took $30 billion from the US for the German banks and now looks down on the Greek banks because they asked for help.

There is a proposal to defund the machine. boycott all national political contributions. Of course, this may appeal more to those on the left, but so what. That puts the pressure on the corrupt complicit.

Corps. are targeted for the most egregious government manipulation on their own behalf. Trash the democracy, reap the windfall, hurt people and we will hurt you back.

So the agenda needs to focus on derailing this mechanism. Not influencing its choices,but denying its legitimacy. Not to make the Committee fail, because that just invokes the trigger, which is also bad. We need to derail the whole framework. Organize around the idea that the framework needs to be overturned or redirected to focus on jobs now, recovery now, rescue now, and debt reduction only after the economy is fully recovered. Put up a different agenda,and say, reverse the bills logic. Make implementing the bill toxic as anti jobs, anti recovery, unConstitutional, pro Wall Street, anti people.

There is considerable opposition to the legitimacy of the committee on the right. Definitely a possibility. You won’t get consensus on the rest of it, though. You just have to accept that most transpartisan alliances aren’t going to be built around advancing either side’s theory of an ideal solution, but rather insuring a fair playing field.

Indeed without the audit we would not have known that Germany took $30 billion from the US for the German banks and now looks down on the Greek banks because they asked for help.

Good point.

Progressives are neither numerous nor cohesive enough these days to make much of anything happen on our own

Agree on the lack of cohesion but I have to disagree on numerous. We are numerous, certainly in terms of what people believe in, just not represented.

I have been obsessed with studying that bill. Coming to roughly the same conclusion; it needs to be trashed, but it really is a matter of “how.”

I literally have laid awake some nights thinking about that.

A weak idea, but an idea, is something like Alex Lawson on steroids. I think a mass of people, barricading the meeting room entrance so they could NOT meet as a committee could be one thing.

I would add that for every big corp. boycott target, we offer a co-op alternative though this is obviously a bit idealistic and perhaps not very transpartisan. Though really, what good objection would a right leaning transpartisan have to people owning capital vs. government manipulating capitalists?

How about demanding the resignations of all political leaders not on the super committee since their super committee makes them superfluous.

Well, notice that after the leadership all voted for this undemocratic committee, they all came out and said it’s meetings should be transparent. That only legitimizes the structure. if they succeed, we lose. If they fail, we lose. We have to change the deal by demanding structure that can produce a win.

So first task is to delegitimize the framework.

I like that idea. (If it gets implemented, next thing you know, they’ll be meeting in Tierra del Fuego.)

In a similar vein, it’s possible to have mass inundation of the 12, to encourage them, individually not to meet. E.g. they’ll have lobbyist money, but their voters will be targeted.

This is a great post Jane. I’m about a quarter through the video. Michael is awesome. I’m loving it so far.

For good old fashion American Journalism I go directly to Al Jazeera (The Island) http://english.aljazeera.net/. You see, ever since Corporations became people, (actually even before then) those very same corporations have started dictating what news I can and cannot get.

Sorry, I forgot to mention FDL which, almost as often, is as far as I need to go.

I kind of like scarecrow’s idea. We use a process argument to delegitimize both sides. We talk about personal responsibility, meaning that we elected these people to act on our behalf, not to surrender meekly to some concoction worked out behind closed doors.

The chips fall where they may on our near term issues. It looks like there is a majority in both parties supporting massive budget cutting, which will, I fear, lead into the depths of a Lesser Depression. That is a reality we have to face as we look at the mess Obama has made of the differences between the parties, and the existing format guarantees something like that.

If all of those cowards have to take personal responsibility, both parties will have to face both sides at the polls when the economy heads into the depths.

The fact the members are raising money is an advantage, . . . .for attacking the credibility of the whole framework. That’s a transpartisan issue that has the interesting feature of undermining the link between the funders and their tools. .

Some sort if Indictment I guess. A “99 Theses” kind of thing?

I’m really at a loss as to “how.”

Transpartisanship is the only thing I can figure that will stave off the fascism the MOTU’s are bringing about.

We can agree on ending the wars, reducing corporate dominance in decision-making, making sure the rich&powerful are brought to justice, and most importantly, jobs. Left and right working class hate trade deals.

We should also really bring it on things we can do without government help. That fits into the right’s culture, and government-as-is will never work for liberals. For instance, everybody hated BP. Boycott their asses into BK. I promise if a working class coalition brings down a few transnationals, we will have more influence than we will get in Congress anytime soon.

No point in expecting the right to change on cultural issues and I would not waste one second trying to convince them. I will point out the most tolerant societies are also the most economically egalitarian. As I interpret Maslow’s hierarchy, an equitable society is a precursor to tolerance.

Look around the world. The most repressive societies have the most income inequity. The most tolerant are equitable. Look at the loss of civil rights in this country the past 40 years. Does it not correspond with rising inequity?

Righting that, Jane, is a life’s work. You are onto the one thing needed most.

Oooooh like your new handle Unconventional One!

Really well said. Bookmarked to counter the stupid tribalism among Obama supporters at Daily Kos, which is so often directed at you. It is unjustified in my view. If you can get Grover Norquist behind an objective that you perceive as desirable, why wouldn’t you do it? If the only explanation is political cooties, it’s not good enough.

The hallmark of the American Middle Class is its acceptance of responsibility. We are responsible for ourselves, and for our families. We all work with others, and we take responsibility for our share of that work, and a bit more. Some of us take on even more responsibility, firefighters, police, nurses, EMTs, all reach out to take responsibility for the lives of others. Lawyers and judges at least at the local level, take responsibility for preserving law and order in our communities.

We know that when people reach out to take responsibility, they have a duty to do their best.

What part of that doesn’t Congress get? Those jerks in both parties begged us to vote them into office. They actively sought responsibility to govern. Why aren’t they doing it? Why are they failing to exercise that responsibility? Why are they hiding behind closed doors and letting a rump group of 12 make the decisions they agreed to make?

Close down this charade of government. If you can’t handle responsibility, quit. Let someone take your place who is willing to act and vote in public.

Audit the Fed would not have happened without Grover. If someone wants to make an argument that it was a bad thing we worked together to pass it, and the world would be a better place if we hadn’t, I’d like to hear it. Nobody has. It’s just tribalistic nonsense working in opposition to the public interest, no different or less irrational than what we decried on the right in “what’s the matter with Kansas” during the Bush years.

If you can’t handle responsibility, quit. Let someone take your place who is willing to act and vote in public.

Amen to that. Anybody who voted to give the power vested in them by their constituents over to a “Super Congress” doesn’t like their job very much. Time for a collective Jack Welsh moment — do them a favor by giving them the opportunity to do something else.

Table 8, Page 131, GAO-11-696, GAO Report to Congressional Addressees, FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Policies and Processes for Managing Emergency Assistance:

16,115 Billion Dollars

Report is here:

http://sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO%20Fed%20Investigation.pdf

Franklin, once a loyalist, confronted an oligarchic worldview that we now confront today. It made him an American Revolutionary, rather than the corrupt little tool that they had intended him to be:

Benjamin Franklin

To Joshua Babcock

Dear Sir, London, Jan. 13. 1772

….

I have lately made a Tour thro’ Ireland and Scotland. In these Countries a small Part of the Society are Landlords, great Noblemen and Gentlemen, extreamly opulent, living in the highest Affluence and Magnificence: The Bulk of the People Tenants, extreamly poor, living in the most sordid Wretchedness in dirty Hovels of Mud and Straw, and cloathed only in Rags. I thought often of the Happiness of New England, where every Man is a Freeholder, has a Vote in publick Affairs, lives in a tidy warm House, has plenty of good Food and Fewel, with whole Cloaths from Head to Foot, the Manufactury perhaps of his own Family. Long may they continue in this Situation! But if they should ever envy the Trade of these Countries, I can put them in a Way to obtain a Share of it. Let them with three fourths of the People of Ireland, live the Year round on Potatoes and Butter milk, without Shirts, then may their Merchants export Beef, Butter and Linnen. Let them with the Generality of the Common People of Scotland go Barefoot, then may they make large Exports in Shoes and Stockings: And if they will be content to wear Rags like the Spinners and Weavers of England, they may make Cloths and Stuffs for all Parts of the World. Farther, if my Countrymen should ever wish for the Honour of having among them a Gentry enormously wealthy, let them sell their Farms and pay rack’d Rents; the Scale of the Landlords will rise as that of the Tenants is depress’d who will soon become poor, tattered, dirty, and abject in Spirit. Had I never been in the American Colonies, but was to form my Judgment of Civil Society by what I have lately seen, I should never advise a Nation of Savages to admit of Civilisation: For I assure you, that in the Possession and Enjoyment of the various Comforts of Life, compar’d to these People every Indian is a Gentleman: And the Effect of this kind of Civil Society seems only to be, the depressing Multitudes below the Savage State that a few may be rais’d above it.”

“We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” Franklin at the Signing of the Declaration of Independence

“We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” Franklin at the Signing of the Declaration of Independence

I think of that quote every time I’m pulling arrows out of my back. ;)

As one person, I already hold my black lacquer bowl upside down.

You’re in good company Jane, and I like to think that somehow, their spirits are with you.

Great post Jane. I remember when Congressman Alan Grayson grilled Bernanke over the coals, asking him over and over again, ‘Who got the money?’ Which is probably why Grayson was taken out of the ‘big boy’s club.’

Grayson knew more about how Wall St/the Federal Reserve (one in the same) work than anyone else, and I wish to god Grayson would primary Obama’s ass.

I’m new to FDL, but I have been a long time admirer of yours. I used to go under the name of Badabing at DailyKos, but that website simply disgusts me with the insane hero worship going on there. Keep up the great work Jane.

Transpartisan alliances are one of the most powerful organizing tools available to activists today, and perhaps the only one that can force
elected officials to become responsive to the will of the people on broadly popular issues

thankyou.

Welcome to The Lake, bettedavis.

Now if you could just translate transpartisanship into electoral politics — !

That’s kind of what I was thinking of, though without the word, in the Matt Damon-Michael Moore discussion that came out of the DIY 2012 webinar with Michael Moore and Daniel Ellsberg. The options considered, as I understand them, and pardon my attempt at outline form:

• form a third party and run an outside candidate
— only competing in non-swing states so as not to be a spoiler, and to position for 2016, because
—— there really is such a thing as more and less evil in Rs and Ds, and
—— there really is such a thing as Nader Hell, and
—— until we have instant runoff voting third parties are screwed
— if the Tea Party splits off from Rs and runs an outside candidate, then it’s a four-candidate level playing field that we can win, so run all-out everywhere

or

• form an insurgent wing within the Democratic Party and run an inside candidate
— primary Obama and take over the party

and what to name the party? (I heard “New Democrats, Roosevelt Party, something catchy” from Michael Moore, “Progressive Party, People’s Progress Party or something, whatever” from Dan Ellsberg, and New Progressive Alliance already here… There’s no consensus favorite, and there’s something about doing that now that troubles me. Now Jane is putting it into focus for me.

I like the names Jane has been calling her postings. I like DIY 2012. I like transpartisan. I like the idea of not narrowing ourselves down to a sliver of a pie, us and them tribes. “Transpartisanism is the opposite of tribalism.” That’s it.

I also like considering the idea of not identifying ourselves as a party, but instead as — maybe an ethic? You can be whatever party you want, but bloom where you’re planted and vote the ethic — and here I’d look to Jane to describe it, but to me it pretty much means cherinshing our differences and reasoning with each other openly and vigorously — not in back rooms, not in corporate deals, not bought. We are all rowing this boat together, Rs, Ds and whatnots alike. I loved Dylan Ratigan’s Howard Beale moment. Damn right! And something else I like about thinking of Matt Damon as that candidate is that the office of president is or really can be above parties. There’s only one president, leading and working with everyone.

Also, if this was my script to write and all these were my paper dolls to play with, I’d have Matt Damon out there talking right now as if he were a candidate, or as a nonpartisan/transpartisan/apartisan/suprapartisan candidate — above all that, great for these toxopartisan times. I’m thinking back to Mike Gravel’s 2008 candidacy. Those first Democratic debates where he participated were fabulous. The time he was given was so short, but he cut to the quick and he went there (“our soldiers in Vietnam died in vain“) and he was very effective in criticizing the frontrunners — especially Hillary, but also Obama and Edwards. Remember Hillary laughing? For a while there it was her tactic. Ask her a tough question, you’d get a laugh in response. There was one Sunday where she laughed her way all through Meet the Press, Face the Nation, This Week, all of them. Well when Gravel pointed her out for voting yes on an Iran resolution that was the same as the Iraq resolution giving Bush all the power he needed to invade again, and her response was laughter — omg FAIL. That 3 am moment when the phone rings? President Hillary would pick up and laugh. He got her, and we never saw Gravel again in a televised debate; Chuck Todd at NBC-GE excluded him from the next one. But Gravel still kept at it — when they had televised debates, he’d “join” via ustream online. I wish he had kept going, I wish he had gone farther, but when he joined the Libertarian party to be their candidate, it all slipped away.

That’s a question I would have loved to hear Daniel Ellsberg speak on — Gravel’s candidacy, given their history together with the Pentagon Papers.

What I’m trying to think of here is how to get my paper doll candidate Matt Damon into the debates — or better yet transcend the debates when NBC won’t let him in. Because I think that’s where it’s at, right now. And he doesn’t have to have all the answers. And all his “lacks” are his strengths: He just needs to be open to hear possibilities and empowered to let right things grow. That was what he was saying at the teacher speech, that teaching to the test is such a fail and a shame and he wants all kids to have the opportunity to be taught like he was, NOT to the test, but to explore and think and play and create. My paper doll Matt says “We can disagree and like each other and work together. We’re not cardboard tribes and the answers aren’t in cards given to us. And that’s what’s missing and what we need now.” And my paper doll audience cheers.

Thanks very much mzchief, very kind of you to say so. (So many great writers here). Ms. B.

This is pure gold Jane. This is leadership. Thank you.

Pragmaticism, aka transpartisanship, is the obvious logical response when clashing ideologies have totally corrupted and stalemated the system. Pragmaticism makes even more sense when, of those two clashing ideologies, yours is the one that has been getting its ass thoroughly kicked for decades. Plus, the issues that can gain transpartisan support, because they are so clearly pragmatic, have the huge added bonus of being the ones that will clearly reflect the will of the majority, and therefore the consent of the governed, which should be the bedrock for everything in a democratic society. Jane was a genius (again!) for tumbling to this truth long ago, and we should all enthusiastically embrace this tactic wherever possible, IMHO. When the far right corporatocracy is winning all battles on all fronts, as they have been for a long time, responsible adults should embrace this kind of genuine “centrism” as the best goal that is achieveable from where we are now.

You are welcome. “Ba da bing” and “ba da boom” (usually they come together) have a special place in my heart as well as this amusingly unconventional take on “Bam.” ;-)

trying to force them out of the policy making process. They fund lobbyists and think tanks, that have a more or less cohesive neoliberal agneda – constant tax cuts , unquestioning support for isreal and agressive american wars, “free trade” treaties that reward them for expropriating american wealth and stashing it all over the world, and the removal of safety and environmental regulations…all of our political and policy evils of the past 35 years flow from this broad (yet integrated) and MASSSIVELY FUNDED right wing agenda.

based on this agenda i think thats where serious problems with ‘transpartisanship” will come up…where alliances are possible they should be exploited, but dont forget that most of the right wing activists are deeply commited to inflaming the problem

Transpartisanship is literal pragmatism that was created as a philosophical theory by Dewey and James as a means of allowing strong-willed people to find practical ground on which solutions could be found without compromising principles.Pragmatism never envisioned itself being owned by the virulent political constuctt of centrism,which is the bipartisan accommodation that accepts they are all owned by Wall St. and any adult solution must entail compromise that appeases their royalist paymasters.

I was away for awhile, sorry to be long in responding. The words I used were “numerous … enough”, which based on recent experience I’d say is true. When 86 percent of liberals give Obama a favorable rating, that tells me we either need a lot more liberals, or better ones, before we’re going to have an effect on policy.

Perhaps it’s just semantics, but let’s try to be clear about what we mean. The political centrism, currently sold as bipartisanship, to which you refer does indeed suck. However, centrism as I used it in my comment #48 above, refers to the centrism reflected in the non-ideological preferences of the majority of the populace, and is much more legitimate and desirable. Many here over the years have shown a disappointing tendency to immediately assume that “centrism” means an adherence to the wishes of the corporatocracy, especially since that is how the corporate media invariably frames it, but I believe that is a distortion of the true and proper construction of the term. Aristotle said, “Moderation in all things,” and I’m OK with that, and think most reasonable people should be. It bewilders me how anybody who lives at either extreme of the political spectrum would ever think they have the right to demand that their exact worldview should be imposed on the majority. Authoritarian oppression from the left should be viewed as being just as illegitimate as authoritarian oppression from the right. The plain fact is that most Americans find their greatest political comfort level somewhere in the middle. Not to mention that we on the left side clearly lack the power and ability to get anything close to socialism as an immediate destination from where we are now.

well we can always use more and better liberals but the polling racket relies entirely on the language chosen by the pollster and they choose language which a defines a class based on ?what?. im guessing that here “liberal” is defined as registered democrats, or its self defined, by the (voluntary) respondents. polls conducted even by reputable and rigorous impartial agencies are dull instruments. Polls conducted by network media outlets or even worse, polls commisioned by partisan political groups and then given to media outlets, are little more illuminating than celebrity press releases.

Ergo help Ron Paul win the Republican Primary.

Every poll I’ve seen lately has shown similar results, whether it was favorable/unfavorable, approve/disapprove, whatever. If the poll population was divided up by self-identified political philosophy, then that’s been the result. That’s just the latest one. If you want to see for yourself, go over to Talking Points Memo’s polltracker, and start looking at the results for Obama.

Cripes, I wasn’t born yesterday.

Anyway, the approval is fairly overwhelming, particularly compared to the other groups (“moderates”, or whatever, and conservatives usually). Anyone who concludes that Obama’s policies are liberal policies has some ammunition there, I’m afraid.

Hey realitycheck,@53,How did you infer that strong-willed and principled equal authoritarian rule.Since your call for moderation reflects being a defender of the corrupt status quo,I can see why you might be a tad sensitive,but maybe that requires some need for a moral compass that is alien to moderates.Moreover,I don’t give a fuck about about what most Americans say they want.Were these people asked whether they prefer a moderate or a strong leader to fight for their needs and aspirations ?That you would inject public opinion to make your case,reveals you either have no capacity for independent thought or you are a White House operative.

I’m sorry I missed this post. I think transpartisan is the only we we can fight ourselves out of the Corporate States of America. I believe two important initiatives that should be transpartisan is publicly-funded campaigns and a constitutional amendment defining corporations as non-persons and explicitly enumerating the rights of corporations to be taxed. What ‘real’ human would argue a corporation is a person?

Thanks bettedavis, good to see you again.

That comment reveals that you need to turn your defroster on. How you get a “defender of the status quo” from my comments is a deep mystery. The status quo in no way reflects the will of a majority of Americans. Get a grip!!! In fact, I used to get in trouble here for insisting that a philosophical discussion of actual revolution was clearly in order, and continually citing the Declaration of Independence. Then I got in trouble for insisting that a third party was a necessity. Very status quo lol. I guess you are one of those reflexive types I was deploring in my comment. My reflexes are still pretty good, but unlike you, I prefer to think a bit before launching an all-out attack on an ally. I wish you had. As to “authoritarianism,” imposing any ideas on people who don’t share them is, by definition, authoritarian. By definition, anti-democratic. I’d be ashamed to make the argument you made. Maybe you should be. Your money quote: ‘I don’t give a fuck about what Americans say they want.” Maybe you should have that one bronzed, Fogster.

Oh, forgive me, I left out the “most” Americans part. Just makes it worse. Like you think you should be King of the World.

Badabing! Hello! I read you at Daily Kos, could not believe what happened. Did you see that Meteor Blades left? World upside down…glad to see you here. The video in your last diary was great.

Hey reality.yesterday you were making an argument for being a moderate who should appease the comfort zone of majoritarian rule,and today you need to be a revolutionary.If I;m your ally, why did you attack me in the first place by using sophistry to frame a straw demon with your fictionalized knowledge of my beliefs,intentions, and character. That’s a pretty vicious rant after saying initially are differences might be semantic.Your comment about me imposing ideas on people is authoritarian is so bizarre that it makes me believe you might need clinical intervention.Otherwise you must have the world’s most fragile ego and thought , incorrectly , that my first comment was made after reading the scroll.Some of us,regrettably, don’t have that much time .I hope you realize nobody wants to read our worthless squabbling in real time,,and if I further engage you,that would be evidence of me being as troubled as you.In the future why don;t we just ignore each other .I feel your psyche needs the last word so go for it.Have a wonderful Sunday.

You obviously need to learn to read more carefully. And how to play nicely with others. I’ll be happy to ignore you if, in return, you will refrain from saying stupid stuff and directing it to me specifically. Deal? And maybe you should learn to read the scroll before you prematurely ejaculate a nonsense attack.

Love to see the great transpartisan ideas coming out of Rutherford Institute! We all need to unite against the evil in our political system since both democrats and republicans have sold their souls. This administration is completely out of touch with traditional American values and I hate to say it but we are headed towards a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah.

I agree with your essay, Jane. Transpartisanship could be defined as coming together for the public good, transcending divisions on a higher level of justice and truth. It might only work now in transparency and accountability issues, but it’s an important tool and concept. Ethnocentricity (including covert and overt racism) and division are the hallmarks of the conservatives, and FAKED liberalism and economic equality ideals are the ones of the corporatist neoliberals.