Are Politicians Honest Enough to Sell Used Cars?

My Party needs no ethics

This morning a headline caught my eye while I was browsing through the HuffPo politics section;  the article was not at all what I expected.  I suppose if a person read it without bothering to actually think about anything it said one might find it inspiring despite its sneering tone and total lack of logic, internal or otherwise.  Personally, I can’t even see the point of publishing it in a national online magazine.  Even with all benefit of the doubt regarding content the issues addressed belong in some high-level Democrat Party memorandum instead of a public polemic.

Let’s take it apart piece by piece and see what holds it all together.

Why Don’t Democrats Vote? I’ll Tell You Why.

 – U.S. Congressman for Florida’s 9th District

As you may have heard, Democratic turnout dropped off a cliff again last year, just like it did in 2010. I was wondering why, so I asked. I polled Florida non-voters. I found that the main reason why they didn’t vote last year was simple: They couldn’t see any difference between the candidates. When there is no difference between the candidates, Democrats don’t vote, and Democrats lose.

Take note of the phrases I have added emphasis to; we don’t need them yet, but keep them in mind.

I will skip over a wholesale and retail demonetization of Republicans plus a conflating of national and local politics.

The Democratic nominee was Charlie Crist, a REPUBLICAN former governor. Crist was so far to the right that he was known as “Chain-Gang Charlie.” In 2010, when Scott was first elected, Crist killed the Democrat’s chances for a US Senate seat from Florida by dropping out of his own Republican primary, where he was 25 points down, and running as an “independent.” That “stinking maneuver” (as Yitzhak Rabin would have put it) made Marco Rubio the junior senator from Florida.

Here is where anyone bold enough to actually attempt to think about what the kindly Rep. is saying will start getting very confused.  If Crist was the Democratic nominee would that not make him a former Republican as well as a former governor; why not just say former Republican governor?  Or is it Rep. Grayson’s contention that Crist retained his Republican identity and merely concealed it in order to conduct 5th column activity?  Does he have evidence of this, or is this insinuation as mean-spirited and sense-free as the rest of his polemic?

Even more nonsensical is the notion that, (according to Rep. Grayson), a far right, conservative candidate dropping out of the Republican primary to run in the general election as an Independent somehow split the DEMOCRATIC vote to allow the remaining Republican to win.  To put it mildly – this does not compute.  Instead, it gives the impression that the Democratic vote was so light that even with the Republican vote split the Democratic candidate was defeated in the general election.  It would be interesting to look up articles from just after Crist went Independent; I would not be surprised to see that the Democratic reaction was actually glee at facing a split conservative electorate.

Rather than shunning Crist for blowing that 2010 Senate race for the Democrats, the Democrats actually recruited him. They crowned someone who was a Republican just a few years earlier, and a conservative Republican at that, as the “Democratic” nominee for governor.

So, either the Florida Democrats are incredibly stupid, or their leadership thinks that they are, or maybe Crist was not seen by Florida voters as quite the Right-Wing dragon that the Good Rep. Grayson wants the rest of us to think he was.

Political strategists called this a brilliant move by the Democratic Party. And Democratic voters were appalled, as my own little poll showed. Democratic voters stayed home in droves, and the Democrats lost.

I wonder, did Grayson want the nomination only to be rebuffed?  As I said at the start, this whole article should have been addressed to the Party’s insiders instead of the voting public, unless part of his intent is of spanking Floridians for not nominating and electing him?

…We offered the non-voters 12 different reasons to explain why they hadn’t voted. Reason #1, the most “popular,” was that “people did not like either choice for Governor.” Forty-one percent of the Democratic non-voters said that this was the main reason why people didn’t vote.

Remember the emphasized phrases from the beginning that you were asked to remember?  I think Rep. Grayson had hoped that you wouldn’t because his own memory seems to be a bit faded, or maybe just a tad adjusted, like recalcitrant weather data in a report on global warming.

What was it he said?  Oh, yes, he said that voters felt there was no difference between the candidates.  But the actual response only said that the non-voters did not like either candidate for what I assume to be a wide range of unspecified reasons.  To claim that “Don’t like either” is identical with “There is no difference between them” is not just disingenuous, it is dishonest!

By the way, the non-voters were overwhelmingly Democratic, whether or not they were registered as such. When asked whom they had had favored in the 2012 Presidential race, they chose Obama over Romney by 17 points. President Obama won Florida — among the actual voters — by less than one point.

I honestly don’t think that the honorable State Representative understood that this statement destroys his entire thesis regarding Democrats staying home because the candidates are too similar.  Clearly, the Democratic presidential voters in Florida failed to turn out in numbers that reflected poll results, but Grayson thinks that this was because Romney and Obama were too similar?  Seriously?  Or is he just running his mouth to score emotional points without paying attention to how much damage each new point might do to his main thesis?  Is he that dumb, or does he really believe, and act as though the voters are even dumber?

So, let’s be honest. When we put up a pseudo-Democrat or a neo-Democrat or a quasi-Democrat or a semi-Democrat for Team Blue, our voters are not amused. They are not fooled. And we only hurt ourselves.

The voters deserve a choice. In fact, they insist on it. Or they simply won’t vote.

Once again it is clear that this is not a message meant for the ears of voters.  It is the adult conversation meant to be overheard by the children to reassure them that at least one of a pair of combative parents really cares.  Or maybe he is just primping for the next run for governor?


Rep. Alan Grayson

P.S. Big news tomorrow.

Another chance at a run for governor?  I never would have guessed!


“All Muslims are potential terrorists”, “Islam is a religion of peace”, “the Religious Right is as bad as any terrorist”, “Islam is evil”, “Christian violence is worse than Islamic violence”. All of these statements can be seen, quite validly, by some people as blatant lies. On the other hand, depending on context, the opposite is true; all of these statements can be seen as arguably true. Put aside partisan reflexes and “certainty” for a moment and just ‘Imagine’ how such a paradox would be explained.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. That is not seen as too great of a tragedy by most of the people who make statements like these; the words are slogans or arrows aimed at an enemy, rarely are they sincere efforts to express actual thoughts, feelings or intents. In the light of this sad truth is becomes easier to see how pundits on all sides routinely conflate many effects, motives, natures and “reasons” in anything as dark and subtlety tangled as humanity’s tendency/habit/nature for killing other people “in the name of God”.

The two major elements in conflict in the statements in the first paragraph are:

  1. The nature of humans
  2. The nature of doctrinal scriptures in any particular human religion

“All Muslims are potential terrorists” – Actually, all humans with deep convictions are potential “terrorists”; it comes down to what moral choices a too rigid code of behavior “ordained by God” can put before a person. Anyone with a sincere understanding of the inescapable reality of “I COULD be wrong” is incapable of committing any great harm for their faith.

“Islam is a religion of peace” – Before I get hanged, drowned, burnt at the stake or pressed to death let me explain. The religious/semantic concepts here are familiar to both fundamentalist preacher and Soviet Commissar. In this case ‘peace’ is a word like ‘true’, (Pravda) that has one meaning to the speaker and another to un-indoctrinated listeners. The concept of “peace” in Islam comes down to everyone in reach being happily Muslim or inoffensively and impotently submissive to Muslims. It should also be pointed out that while the it’s scriptures consistently extol individual efforts toward peace, harmony and justice Christian doctrine, also based in scripture, does not even admit the concept of “peace” on Earth until after an apocalyptic Armageddon.

“The religious right are as bad as any terrorist” – O. K., but you have to ignore the massive social, cultural and scriptural differences that make the actual EXPRESSION of the “Our scripture says we are good and just to do (fill in the blank with the heinous crime of your choice), and there is NOTHING you can say or do to change that reality” attitude that many dogmatic religions share a difference between being a ‘pain in the neck’ and cutting someone poor f***’s head off.

“Islam is evil” – It certainly can be; so can total honesty, cheesecake and any given PTA. The one thing that pundits and apologists on all sides seem to selectively mis-remember is that even religions we do not like are protected by the 1st Amendment. Our dilemma, the problem that civil society OUGHT to be trying desperately to solve is how to dispassionately apply the Constitution so as to both preserve the 1st Amendment and rein in Islamic fundamentalists’ ability to “act out” in ways that “break someone’s leg or pick their pocket”. One part of any solution is that any and all laws and rules must be equally applicable and enforceable on any and all religious offenders of secular law who followed their faith into committing positive harm on another person.

“Christian violence is worse than Islamic violence” – That depends on where you are sitting. To the victims over the last 3 hundred years this statement is insultingly false. At the same time, when viewed through the lens of the expected attitudes, actions and reactions for someone desiring to be any accepted form of good Christian the statement is valid; any violence committed is a falling away from the strict path. The core texts of Christianity contain little to no material to stoke the fires of self-righteous human violence in the name of God; that even Christianity and Buddhism have violent pasts says more about human nature than about doctrines that seeks to transcend the darker parts of that nature. Islamic doctrine on the other hand is practically designed to be aggressively self-promoting in an earthly and social as well as religious sense giving freer rein to those who seek justification for their most evil tendencies.

Was that so bad? If anyone’s head exploded I either missed it or they fled to the lobby in time before their PC self-destruct countdown reached zero.

We have a problem people. Let’s stop pretending that we can only operate in the box, or out of the box; THERE IS NO BOX. There is reality, life and hope; patterns to perceive and problems to be solved.

America is not a zero-sum equation!


  1. S. Dear reader, did anyone notice that the terms conservative, liberal, progressive, democrat, republican, Obama, Palin, Sharpton, Limbaugh, MSM, Fox, tea bagger, left-wing and right-wing are missing from this piece?

It is almost as if, now tell me if I am wrong, as if those terms, those ‘boxes’, are useless in such a conversation. Who knows, they might even get in the way of first understanding actual problems and then solving those issues to the general satisfaction of reality, the Constitution and the public, (or republic if you are finicky) for which it stands.

The Law of Control and Responsibility in a Limited Time-Frame


The Law of Control and Responsibility in a Limited Time-Frame

Immediacy – I(d) – expressed as a maximum number of days to make a decision and take action upon that decision.

Number of decision makers – Nd – represents the maximum number of people that can make effective choices in the specified timeframe and act upon them in a meaningful and effective fashion.

I(d)=1 represents a crucial decision to be made and acted upon within a one day window for it to be meaningful, let alone effective.

Nd = I(d) x cube root of pi

Political Issues Poll


Let your voice be heard in this Heretical new non-partisan poll on current political issues!

No Registration or email address required.

Please enter the security code:
security code
Security Code (lowercase letters):


Global Warming by Dummies


So much for the integrity of the Right over the Left in regards to self-serving negative characterization of the opposition and paranoid, reactionary delusions. Too bad that American Thinker has chosen to pander to partisans and religious zealots instead of sensible, moderate patriotic ideologues.

Climate Change or Global Warming is rather easy to debate once you take the time to learn a few basic facts and comprehend some elementary geophysics. Unfortunately the author of this piece seems to have skipped those steps and leaped directly into making an ass of his entire party. Instead of a rallying cry he has provided aid and comfort to the enemy. Maybe someone can persuade him to to change to the other party?

Criminalizing Weather-related Fatalities

Deaths from natural disasters are traditionally considered “acts of God,” or “acts of nature,” beyond human control. This view is being challenged in a French trial where prosecutors have charged a small-town mayor with manslaughter for deaths caused by storm flooding. The precedent of criminalizing weather-related deaths would delight climate-change activists who increasingly call for criminal trials of anyone skeptical of their agenda.

Right up front we see that the author is hunting snark; the entire piece is a poster-child for projecting thoughts and intentions into someone’s mind for the sole purpose of declaring those thoughts dangerous and threatening. With that said the other obvious point should be made: it’s the FRENCH! The only time the French do anything sensible is when you least expect it; the rest of the time, “ONLY the French!” seems to be a fairly common reaction to their antics, foreign and domestic. U. N. debates and Resolutions are one thing, the three-ring circus of French jurisprudence are quite another.

The mayor, Réné Marratier, was arrested after Cyclone Xynthia hit the French Atlantic coast in February 2010. The French State is seeking a four-year jail sentence for the drowning deaths of twenty-nine people in his town of La Faute-sur-Mer. The mayor’s lawyers describe the proposed sentence as “unprecedented and disproportionate.” After Hurricane Katrina, in comparison, no one suggested that Mayor Ray Nagin was criminally responsible for 1,800 deaths.

Mr. Wilson, I survived Hurricane Katrina. I knew Hurricane Katrina. Hurricane Katrina changed my life. Mr. Wilson, you’re no Katrina survivor. There actually were a few criminal investigations and prosecutions relating to outrageous misbehavior by city and parish officials. A strong case could be made for the same at the State AND Federal levels.

In the early 1990s, Mayor Marratier approved building permits for housing developments on a spit of sand between the Atlantic Ocean and the Lay River Estuary. The area is at or below sea level, protected by dunes and sea walls. According to a report from the Storm Surges Congress, the region historically had “low frequencies of storm surge related floods… and low levels of mortality.”

More evidence that the author has trouble relating to the idea of a flood zone. The problem that he fails to see is with modern, rather than pre-1950, residential construction.  A city like Miami planned and built today would be a criminal enterprise by any sensible standard. The entire core of the city sits on an artificial “island” that is a few feet above high tide, (some peripheral gutters flood twice a day.), at best. Eventually, Global Warming or no, a hurricane of at least force 3 will run right over that glorified sand-bar and Miami will simply cease to exist as a human habitation. If those hypothetical modern developers were still living afterwards I think that a criminal dock is the best place they could hope to wind up.

Vesuvius is always smoking, and the people never want to move. How does that make it a bad idea to use our understanding of the effects of weather and geology in preventing an endless succession of Pompeis and Herculaneums? If a Southern Californian Mayor approved an expansion of his town onto a hillside with “low” probability of a land-slip in “normal” extremes of weather said Mayor should be prosecuted if she is still around when the inevitable happens and a couple blocks of housing vanishes; even if the residents have time to evacuate, which is a game of Russian Roulette with 2 empty barrels in a seven shot revolver.

Furthermore, although the mayor had initial jurisdiction over building permits, the final stamp of approval was given by the Direction Départementale de l’équipement (DDE) in Paris. At the trial, the mayor’s lawyer asked indignantly how the prosecution could reproach his client, a small-town mayor with no expertise in coastal defense engineering, “for not having reviewed the work of specialists who have made it their career.”

Once again, please be patient; they’re FRENCH.

The fact that the houses were built in a low-lying area does not prove that the mayor showed disregard for the life and safety of the residents. 26% of the Netherlands is below sea level, land that is home to 60% of the population. The Dutch government constantly monitors dikes with high-tech equipment and satellites, repairing and improving them as needed.

In contrast, the dikes in La Faute-sur-Mer have been poorly maintained since Napoleon built them two centuries ago. The French government was aware of the weakness of their coastal defenses and after a smaller 1999 flood, funds were allocated to modernize and raise all dikes by one meter. Eleven years later only half the money had been spent, and 1,000 kilometers of dikes were known to be unsafe. The parallel to Hurricane Katrina, when the Army Corps of Engineers never performed work funded by Congress to improve levies in New Orleans, is striking.

Really? The facts say that the dikes and locks were stopped by continuous legal resistance by environmentalists.

Another factor that led to the high death count was the inappropriate design of the houses in the development. Until 1980, houses on the French coast had their living areas elevated by a few meters, as is common in many beach communities. The builders in La Faute-sur-mer, however, constructed single-story houses at ground level, responding to the needs of their clients, who preferred living on a single level without staircases. As flood waters rose, residents were unable to escape to upper floors.

It gets even more macabre: insurance companies offered rebates for the installation of metal shutters on the windows and doors to protect from wind damage. The elderly residents preferred shutters with electric motors over manual shutters. Apparently it didn’t occur to anyone that electric shutters don’t work during a power outage. When the flooding from Xynthia cut off power, people were trapped in their homes as water rose to the ceilings.

Finally, Meteo France, the equivalent of the National Weather Service, broadcast high wind warnings as Xynthia approached, encouraging residents to close the deadly shutters. The broadcast indicated potential flood danger with a small symbol on the television screen, which most viewers did not notice. Despite this flood warning, national and regional authorities did not issue an order to evacuate, leaving the decision to local officials.

In the aftermath of the storm, a proposal from the French State to bulldoze 674 homes in flood-prone areas was met with strong local resistance, evidence of support for the mayor’s pro-development stance.

Re-read the section above and try to be gentle. Remember, they’re French.

In sum, Mayor Marratier had opportunities to prevent the 29 deaths, but many other parties share responsibility. The prosecution, however, argues that the mayor’s failure to take appropriate action constitutes the crime of “involuntary manslaughter by criminal negligence,” defined in American law as follows:

Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so… which leads to a death. The existence of the duty is essential because the law does not impose criminal liability for a failure to act unless a specific duty is owed to the victim.

How about the text of the FRENCH law? That seems to me to be a tad more relevant to this issue.

A duty to act was established when “authorities” warned the mayor about flooding danger. France 24 summarizes: The mayor “is accused of ignoring warnings from the regional authorities by allowing construction in the low-lying area.” As we hear repeatedly, the science is settled; global warming causes rising sea levels, more extreme weather events and increased flooding.

Yes, Ladies and Gentlemen, this whole screed was just so the author could ring in his theory about the ultimately nefarious intentions the Global Warming forces have furthered by way of the French being inimitably French.

In this case, the “regional authorities” acted correctly. Adaptation measures like improving dikes and rewriting building codes are entirely sensible, and should have been done. But this does not mitigate the danger of making it a crime to ignore the warnings of mid-level bureaucrats and climate activists. The potential for abuse is enormous. Warnings about global warming are often motivated by anti-capitalism and utopianism. If “authorities” warn that burning fossil fuels will lead to millions of deaths, will it be a crime to oppose a solar energy mandate? Even questioning the science of “anthropogenic climate disruption”, as it is now called, could be a criminal act since it influences politicians to vote against climate legislation.

If this sounds farfetched, consider a small sample of the totalitarian invective coming from mainstream climate-change figures:

  • George Mason University Professor Robert Nadeau writes in his essay, “Crimes Against Humanity: The Genocidal Campaign of the Climate Change Contrarians”: “There is no doubt that the Big Lies told by the contrarians about climate science constitute a ‘widespread and systematic attack against’ all of humanity.”
  • Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: “Those who contend that global warming ‘does not exist… are guilty of ‘a criminal offense — and they ought to be serving time for it.’”
  • David Suzuki wants climate skeptics to be “thrown in the slammer.”
  • James Hansen wants to put oil executives on trial for “high crimes against humanity.”
  • David Roberts wrote at Grist, “we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

(Note the ratcheting up of the vilifications: skeptics are no longer simply “deniers” of the climate Holocaust, but active participants in a Nazi-like genocide.)

The “Call out the Climate Change Deniers” campaign created by Barack Obama’s Organizing for Action identifies 141 members of Congress who made public statements questioning global warming. If climate zealots adapt Xynthia tactics, these statements could become evidence for the prosecution.

Peter, Peter, they’re French, and your list of tin-hat wearers fails to justify your own aluminum headgear.

Partisans: Always Righteous, Seldom Right.


Here we go again. The conservatives are seeing the tide begin to turn regarding public opinion on a couple of the issues that they have been harping on over the last few years. From climate change to jihadists to Leftist bias in the educational system, more and more of the moderate majority are nodding their heads instead of shaking them when Right-of-Center pundits and pols make certain points. They are also shaking more and nodding less to the self-serving ‘narratives’ of the Left.

So, of course the Conservatives(tm) are now required to shift from being somewhat right to being altogether self-righteous. As far as I can tell this is so that everybody in the vast middle who has started nodding will immediately begin ignoring them with great disdain once again. I swear to you, partisan insecurity will be the death of us all; the only question is from which side the final blow will come.

If you want to make a difference as a conservative please, put down the Jesus and step away from the Bible talk. If you express your ideas in terms that even a, shudder, non-Christian can understand more people will give you the chance to finish expressing them. They might even deign to think about those ideas, possibly even agree with them, if you refrain from throwing your righteousness in the eyes of your Lord at them in every paragraph!!!



The Field Guide to Right-winged Nuthatches and Left-winged Loons

What's wrong with this picture?

Politically Correct = Reality Challenged part 3

What is the difference between the two kinds of partisan, can either be trusted to babysit your yak? Not much, and heck no are the answers that ring in the ear of anyone with a partisan-free outlook.

Again and again it will be seen that both sides share common mental frameworks and have preconceptions and presumptions that are essentially the same. There are, however, differences in how they see themselves, as rebels to the system of values by which they were raised, (or mis-raised) or as a defender of that same, or a purer, system. In other words the Right works the system and the Left games it but, they both are justifying their black and white, dissent-denouncing tactics by resorting to some ultimate authority whether it is a blatantly human-created set of “values” to be rigidly adhered to or a “sacred and revealed” text direct from God commanding obedience to various tribal codes to avoid divine retribution.

by both self-delusion and pathological self-interest is this mythical authority that can be verified by none but the faithful spread, entrenched and enforced be it laws closing businesses on Sunday or one demanding dogs not be walked on the street in front of a mosque, or laws to prevent public expression of religion and laws that seek to “pick someone’s pocket or break their leg” for the “good of all”, or even a few; all of these are in the partisan’s Box of Pandora.

Both sides seek to use their authority’s ultimate nature as a lever against any and all dissent or opposition. Regulations, whether secular or theological in nature abound and censorship along orthodox lines is promoted as a penultimate virtue, the greatest virtue being faith that any abuse that the partisan becomes aware of is a sadly necessary price on the road to Utopia*/Salvation/Nirvana.

*Utopia is a word as well as a fictional nation embodying the word. The meaning of the word is “No Where.”

Politically Correct = Reality Challenged – Part 2

My Party needs no ethics

The first step in being able to recognize the dysfunctions of partisans on both sides of the spectrum is to know what it means to be non-partisan. IIIB DFI / IIIB FI is the basic DNA of the moderate political viewpoint. (I)f (I)t (A)in’t (B)roke (D)on’t (F)ix (I)t coupled with (I)f (I)t (I)s (B)roke, (F)ix (I)t .The moderate mind has no ax to grind on the back of the rest of society. They respect traditions that are respectful of individuals who do not choose to follow them as well as those who do. They look at problems that consistently vex any part of society and seek solutions that remove both the present problem and the broken social compacts involved from all sides. In criminal law the ultimate rule they follow is one at the heart of our Constitutional system of laws and legislation and was best enshrined in words by Thomas Jefferson when he declared issues that neither picked his pocket nor broke his leg as being outside the authority of the law.

This is not as radical as it might sound. Even in this lawyer-plagued age the majority of American law still comes down to there being a need for economic damage or personal injury of a definable sort for there to be a criminal matter at hand. Granted that there have been far too many decisions that have hinged upon “injury” that was, at best, a pleasant figment of the plaintiff’s imagination this is still the hard core; it is time that we stripped away the dross and remembered it, purified it, made it enduring once again. With more and more moderate viewpoints this self-reinforcing foundation of U. S. legislation will assume the prominence that Jefferson would have wanted to see.

There is no crime more partisan in nature than to declare yourself “harmed” by the expression of an opinion that disagrees with your own. Because of this a reliable self-check on the peer-induced pull of a slide back into a partisan mindset is to force yourself to ask “what’s in this for me?” If you answer “nothing”, then you are either lying to yourself, or you have no reason to think the solution or change you desire would be good for anyone, let alone everyone. If you answer honestly and, after examining your own self-interest in the matter, would still publicly endorse it including the fact of your own lack of “altruism” then you have passed your self-check with flying colors. This is all that is needed. A willful process for denying yourself the luxury of self-deceit. Self-deceit, cognitive dissonance and and group-think are the flying monkeys of partisan thought; they will not only get your little dog they will feed him to their cats for his own good.


Rabid Partisan Idiots, Left and Right, Made Easy

Politically correct = reality challenged

Unless one has been brought up in a political vacuum it is hard to avoid spending at least part of your lifetime enmeshed in the folds of one partisan group or another. Many people are so over exposed to a polarized viewpoint that they jump to the other party in a fashion that is often as polarized as their parents’ if not more so. The majority of both these parentaly wound-up rebels and those who retain their parents polarization tend to mellow with time; the non-rebels more likely than not to find peace with the angers of partisan zeal at an earlier age. Then there are those who never really feel passionate about either “choice” of viewpoints, the black or the white. These folks usually blend in with the soft and fuzzy “middle” end of the party’s spectrum from rabidity through hardliners and moderates and are little more to the various political leaders than empty votes to be herded with nightmares and platitudes into one camp or the other during the end game of the election. That is the reality of those who control our society.

What of ideology you say? What of the Left and the Right? What of them comes the answer from the voice of present-day politics. Partisanship has always played a part in human politics. I could go on for pages on the roots and changes, the evolutions, and revolutions in political thought but it all can be summed up very simply; partisan = tribal. Any division of “us” and “them” that is not agreed to by all parties involved is tribalism whether you call it that or nepotism or Left-wing or Right-wing. In other words, even if it makes you feel like someone broke your dolly to hear it, partisan politics is always wrong when applied to a constitutional republic such as the U.S. or to Western democracy in general.

Now let us be clear on this definition. If something is Bad(tm), it means that anyone who insists on doing it, well they are part of the problem instead of part of any defense against or solving of; deal with it.

What good does that do us, the moderate majority asks, much more than you are doing now, says the voice of the Ghost of Reality That Can Be.

The first step is to recognize a partisan when you see them. Next you must apply their own misconceptions against them, making them out to non-partisan eyes as the fools and or tools that they are. Then you must offer a viewpoint that ignores completely the rhetoric and rancor of either side while laying out a ‘triage’ of the particular subject being misused by the partisan for their own benefit. Only then can common-sense and compassion, love and reason all co-exist within one, commonly held “platform”. The chaos of partisan push-and-pull laws and regulations will dwindle over the years and decades to a Constitutionally sound minimum of ‘solutions’ to commonly recognized needs, problems and aspirations.