have their heads stuck up their asses, possibly irretrievably.

Fracking Fluid.
Petroleum distillates
Crude oil
Discarded pharmaceuticals
Radioactive particles from Chernobyl and Fukushima
Aluminum dust from chemtrails
Particulate pollution
Depleted Uranium munitions dust
Pesticides
Fertilizers
Asbestos dust from automotive brakes
Concrete dust from our disintegrating pavements
.
.
.

Excellent parody! Would sound great recorded.

Does yours? And why do you have to be condescending to anyone who doesn't absolutely agree with you.

Greens platform contains most of the things I want to see.

And Pricknick is right, your reply is very condescending the way you put it.

blown strategy. Nor do I think we're going to develop one while we are only connected digitally. It is easier to do these things face-to-face, in small or medium-sized groups, (either with each group tackling a piece of the problem, or with each group tackling the problem writ large) and then come together and discuss proposals for action.

I have a few ideas; they are feeble shoots poking up toward the surface. In other words, I see a few steps that have to be taken in order for anything larger or grander to happen.

The best I can do for a large-scale strategy at the moment is that we could do worse than to study the behavior of the Black Panthers back in the 60s and 70s. They had a political arm, but electoral politics was far from the only thing they did. They were concerned with the basic needs of the community. In our time, that would include, obviously, water, food, basic health care, all of which are overly controlled by the ugly, corrupt, power structure. It might also include lodging and a few gestures toward more independent local energy systems.

But to do any of this we have to be willing to form communities and act together, as opposed to acting as individuals or individual families. And before long, we're going to have to face the question of guns and money. Money, as in, they control the money supply and as long as we're trapped in their financial/economic system, we're at their mercy; guns, as in, if we get successful at all, they will likely respond in an ugly fashion.

Despite this rather disheartening response on my part (I wish I had a great strategy in my back pocket that would set everything right), I applaud your continued attempt to get us to build a new paradigm.

Think Black Panthers. Or, I'd say, Sinn Fein, but they've also
got some ugly baggage.

That's an occupational hazard of:

A "party" that is working primarily with communities of people to help them get what they need (food, water, basic health care, lodging, indie energy, land) and to defend them (things can get dicey here), but that also has a political arm which represents those aims in a larger culture, and sometimes runs candidates for office.

Once you get into the "defend them" territory, the ugly baggage always appears. That's because those who benefit from the status quo are always all too willing to employ their access to legally approved violence to prevent change, and asymmetrical warfare is always a very evil, nasty business. Hence Sinn Fein's baggage -- and doubtless that of the Islamic "terrorists" as well. Sow to oppression (the wind), reap nasty asymmetrical warfare (the whirlwind).

But no requirement exists to resort to violence here. Long ago, just within the memories of the oldest living Americans, both political parties employed "ward heelers" whose job it was to keep the constituent masses happy (and happy to vote for their party and politicians). You had almost any sort of life problem, the ward heelers had help available for you. I've actually seen the term spelled "ward healers" in writing; in fact, I didn't know the "ward heeler" spelling was correct until I was in high school. (My maternal grandparents, who taught me all about them, used the alternative spelling.) But the fact remains: once upon a time, both American major political parties did this, did what you suggest, actually treat the common people as if they mattered by helping them get what they needed.

Cass is definitely right about one thing; if you don't want a party, you're going to have to come up with another form of social organization to do whatever work you want done.

More to the point, "to do whatever work" society needs done. Which, of course, is why the objections in the first place; the people's work is definitely not getting done.

Or, you can go the route libertarians and some forms of anarchist go, and just advocate for individual freedom and take unscripted, individual, spontaneous actions, but if you're going that route, I won't be going with you.

There are other sorts of anarchists besides the American-style "libertarians" (who really are nothing of the kind). Anarchosocialists and anarchomutualists (most of whom/which are the same people) maintain that a society can be organized and meet the needs of the society and all its individual members without requiring any to lord it over the others.

It appears anarchopedia dot org is down again. Elsewise I would send you there to check it out. But some asshole(s) seem to have it out for the site for some reason. (dammit!)

One phenomenon I've observed during my lifetime: As the profession of politics has become progressively more lucrative, we're seeing a lot fewer of the plain-spoken Midwestern types like Harry Truman, and a lot more of the Ivy League hustlers like the Clintons and Barack Obama. They don't come to serve, they come to cash in. And of course power and fame also have their own seductive appeal.

According to this CNN piece from 2/5/2016, the Clintons managed to pull down over $153 million over a roughly 15 year period, solely from paid speeches. Needless to say, if those at the top of the food chain are being compensated this generously, it's a safe bet that even the small fry are doing very well for themselves.

(CNN)Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.

In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks.

The analysis was made at a time when Hillary Clinton has been under scrutiny for her ties to Wall Street, which has been a major focus of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on the campaign trail.

"What being part of the establishment is, is in the last quarter, having a super PAC that raised $15 million from Wall Street, that throughout one's life raised a whole lot of money from the drug companies and other special interests," Sanders said at Thursday's Democratic debate hosted by MSNBC.

The former secretary of state testily responded to Sanders' charges.

"Time and time again, by innuendo, by insinuation, there is this attack that he is putting forth which really comes down to, you know, anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought. And I just absolutely reject that, senator, and I really don't think these kinds of attacks by insinuation are worthy of you. And enough is enough," Clinton said.

She then challenged him: "If you've got something to say, say it directly, but you will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation I ever received."

Jeez, love her or hate her, you gotta admire that gal's spunk! And who could possibly believe that just because a handful of fat cats pushed your net worth into nine figure territory, that would have even the slightest impact on opinions you might hold, or policy initiatives you might pursue?