The Dream Party: Soulful Bedfellows, Anyone?

At a time when almost every poet inevitably reminds us of others we have already read, Blaise Cendrars’ work appears to us solitary, isolated, like one of those distant islands of which he likes to speak, an island of a single owner, where no one before him ever landed.
— Ferreira de Castro speaking about the author’s father with words which , hopefully, set an appropriate tone for this article

Things might change when we have a politician who’s a poet. — Henry Miller

One premise: One must try to work within the electoral system in place, but following a new paradigm for doing so. The fact that many machines may be rigged, many citizens have given up on voting, and the historical record for politicians is pathetic should be neither here nor there. There is room for tweaking the system so that it serves our purposes. Without support from the media, and virtually without fundraising.

What are “our purposes”? Before addressing that, permit me to underscore a few myths/habits that have us in their grips.

One, the notion that any major presidential candidate for any of the major parties will make significant inroads regarding the main issues of our time is foolish. We have been under the delusion that “success” was at hand with this or that politician for far too long. Mavericks have not planted seeds that have borne significant enough fruit, either because they have been assassinated, co-opted, or disingenuous. And their “colleagues” can undermine the best of intentions far too easily.

Two, the notion that we don’t have to work more expeditiously than we are doing at present/than we have in the past is greatly mistaken. A greater sense of urgency in all we do is of paramount importance. Something new must be done immediately on a grand scale. An undertaking of some singular scope, complication and risk. Or we are doomed.

Three, the notion that traditional models for generating voter registration/citizen participation can continue without detracting from the possibility of coming up with new, efficacious approaches is wrong. We all have only so many heartbeats with which to work. And the time/energy of activists (which must be channeled onto fresh roads) can only be utilized effectively once obsolete methods for creating solidarity are discarded. There are many areas of activity to which this applies … to a significant degree.

Four, violence –in any form– must be rejected out of hand. The historical record shows that “the balance sheet” for revolutions worldwide has not been worth the candle. And even if one disagrees with that assessment, certainly we are obliged to exhaust all peaceful means which remain at our disposal. This goes hand in hand with holding back from creating martyrs for a given cause. For now, we do not need to/cannot afford to have any more activists jailed, tortured or eliminated. We must seriously pause before subjecting ourselves to easy arrest and/or emulating self-sacrificing souls from the past. To be “taken out of the loop” in dramatic fashion generates publicity, for sure, but the value of “playing the lamb” is greatly exaggerated these days. Seeds are planted and people inspired, BUT… it all represents an old paradigm for protest, not leading to a significant enough impact on the powers that be.

Five, An undertaking of some singular scope, complication and risk must be embraced. Or we are doomed.

Six, it is not necessary for a political candidate to take a stand on ALL issues. Certain issues must be placed on a lower rung for starters. That’s not to assert that a given issue is not of monumental importance, but rather is meant to clear the ground for initial prioritizing. For instance, voters concerned with gender-related issues must take a back seat temporarily perhaps to setting an Afghanistan/Iraq pullout timetable.

Seven, there is much more of a need to reach people on an emotional/spiritual level than on any intellectual plane. Rather than emphasize “a platform,” we’d do well to let that evolve once people get excited about being “involved” once again.

Eight, “other” parties are doomed — as they stand, playing their cards according to outworn notions — by virtue of having been marginalized permanently, easily. One cannot win or plant significant seeds even if one is allowed into debate settings as long as mainstream media outlets spin as per the interests of the status quo powers.

There are other myths/habits which need to be delineated, but I am obliged to address, as promised, “our purposes” at this juncture…attention span being what it seems to be these days.

In no special order, let’s list a few stances — most negotiable — which should serve well in lieu of a platform:

1. Moratorium on the death penalty.
2. Reduction of military bases abroad. Starting with Afghanistan/Iraq.
3. Immediate elimination of 50% of our “foreign aid” to Columbia, Egypt and Israel. Sounds of disinvestment down the hall?
4. Using Mark Zepezauer’s Take the Rich Off Welfare as a point of departure, tax those who can afford it (to a greater degree) so as to provide decent health coverage for one and all within our borders, including ALL immigrants. While undermining Big Pharma.
5. No support whatsoever for any walls being constructed anywhere on earth.
6. Movement towards making oil spills impossible. Highly suggestive here, yes?
7. Deal a death blow to aspects of Agribusiness…immediately.
8. ‘Cross the board “confrontation” with ALL sweatshops.

C’mon, you get the idea, I’m sure. I could go on and on, of course. And discuss the devilish details. But the point here is that there is plenty to get down with immediately, plenty that one would get plenty of support for ‘cross the board among the electorate. Even for that which doesn’t fall within the purview of our Governor. The aim should not be to attract as many voters as possible. No, the focus should only be to delineate stances which dance with one’s spirit.

Which brings me to the soul of The Dream Party.

This whole enterprise should not be viewed with the caution or calculation of old. It should literally incorporate poetry, song and dance…and other arts…in a significant, singular way. The day for NOT following one’s dreams is over.

Cynics and know-it-alls stand aside. We’re about to give another listen to John Lennon’s “Imagine,” to John Fogerty’s “Don’t You Wish It Were True”:

“I dreamed I walked in Heaven
Just the other night
There was so much beauty
So much light….”

Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” is NOT dead.

Sure, there is much to discuss vis-a-vis Joseph Campbell’s injunction to “follow your bliss.” But you can kiss it all good-bye unless you embrace what you know is necessary in the political realm first: a radical change. With all due respect to Harold Bloom, there’s not a helluva lot of room these days for artists as quietists. And any reservations anyone has about sticking to one’s heartfelt guns (and not compromising) are no longer relevant. Shakespeare never faced the challenges that now envelope our traumatized, ecocidal age. And there is no place any longer for opportunistic takes on what to do. All we are left with is what our soul tells us.

When Emiliano Zapata gathered his cohorts together to battle the powers that ruled — and were ruining — Mexico, he appealed to the farmers’ love of their land. He was honest about his Plan of Ayala. And it resonated as an organizing principle in his patria chica. He didn’t try to appeal to fence-sitters or the large numbers of undecided individuals outside of his immediate area as the Mexican Revolution took shape.

It doesn’t matter that one can easily argue that his revolution failed. That’s neither here nor there with regard to my purposes here. I bring up events of a century ago at this juncture to underscore that we no longer have a land base that the populace can relate to, love.

All that remains for us is the potential appeal to the land base that resides in the souls of citizens.

And it is to that individual realm in each voter which I want to appeal.

Not on a national level at first, but in the more modest political demographic contained in California. Zapata’s refusal to take the reins on a national level was the reductio ad absurdum of the patria chica mentality. However, there’s no parallel with that today… for the purposes of this article. Rather, one is forced to focus on the “little homeland” of California because of two reasons: a) it is a manageable unit on the electoral level (replete with disgruntled, “experienced”/dissenting citizens) and b) it is capable of having not only a national, but international impact.

I love Zapata for much of the same reasons that I respect John Brown. But, for now, we must divert our eyes elsewhere. For one, they were too violent. Again –before I trudge on– I’m talking about NOW. The likes of them would be eliminated today, as everyone will acknowledge, faster than you can say Martin Luther King, yes?

I want to be spiritually sane, but spot-on-target practical if possible. In California.

Warped, but Spot-on-Target “Syllogism”:

A. Any mainstream governor is unlikely to give you half of what’s promised, that being no more than a tenth of what you desire, deserve.

B. A typical “third party” can’t get elected.1

C. Therefore, any Dream Party candidate should deliver…infinitely more, making voting worthwhile.

Where to start? When? We go for the gubernatorial race in 2010 California. We begin immediately to implement the suggestions below to put OUR CANDIDATE in the Sacramento seat.

Your homework — and we all should start doing some hands-on here, and stop talking/writing (so much) soon — is to first check out the powers which the Governor of California has in her/his hands. Review, then study. It’s impressive.
I’m talking about what the governor can do unilaterally, whether or not he/she can work well with a given set of legislators. Like actions that can be taken vis-a-vis capital punishment, parole, pardons, the militia, state emergencies, line-item veto power, a say as a full member among the Regents of the University of California, etc.

None of that, however, can hold a candle to the fact that any sincere/knowledgeable/clever governor can command daily press conferences on radio and television. Imagine being able to circumvent the spins of mainstream news outlets. Daily delivery of “news” from our heartfelt governor’s angle — if legitimately/primarily concerned with citizens’ interests — would be tantamount to replacing our present major sources for current events information.

Humane, sane news in lieu of distraction, misinformation?

Once you get a handle on what’s at stake here, you and a lot of people you talk to will get motivated really fast. Remember, I’m highlighting what can be done unilaterally. And if a given governor is not arrogant about what’s being done, impeachment or recall are unlikely. Don’t forget that many legislators still have souls deserving of the name…which can be tapped into. Keep the faith, brothers and sisters.

Who would be an ideal candidate? A lot of people who are honest, incorruptible. Who would not be career politicians, not emulate Zapata’s hated, opportunistic cabrones. It would be icing on the cake to have someone who could sing and/or dance and/or play an instrument. And I’m not talking about the kind of stint/stunt which Bill Clinton had televised during one of his runs. I’m talking about a talent like Alicia Keys.

That would carry much more weight than political experience. Think about it for a moment. Use your imagination, without having to have me spell out the possible scenarios for you. The vast number of opportunities with such a personality. Especially if a “running mate” in the form of a compatible Lieutenant Governor candidate joined in. I mean, if one is putting a governor in office…why not do the same for another in the same election? It would be a potent duo. Solidarity doesn’t hurt here.

But one doesn’t get such a person (or such people) in office easily. I should say not at all. Except for the fact that I’ve come up with a new paradigm for doing so.

And, again, a campaign can be waged without success being contingent upon cooperation with the mainstream media outlets… which are guaranteed to spin whatever an honest party is putting on the table for public consumption. It should be noted — big time — that to accomplish our goal without resort to media support in and of itself would be an historic accomplishment.

Furthermore, and much more important, is the fact that no money is required for the campaign. I mean, aside from that which is demanded by the state to register, to be formally on the ballot. Individual Dream Party people are not going to have to shell out anything. And they are not going to be expected to raise any funds whatsoever.

To quote that silly Kevin Costner movie, “Build it, and they will come.” Tweaking that spot-on-target sentiment I say, appeal to the soul in citizens and the necessary funds will flow. Still, I want to reiterate that one needs absolutely no budget to proceed. That should tell you volumes about what historic ripples the Dream Party will set in motion.

Can or will set in motion?

I’m convinced that victory is within our grasp, being able to get almost a three-year jump on 2010. However, even if the Dream Party was nudged out by one of the major parties, an historic precedent/an unprecedented inspiration will have been established/created. Just imagine what it would mean to everyone if — with virtually no forewarning — an unfunded, unpublicized party beat out one of the major political parties. Overnight.

How is that possible? How do we go about this MIRACLE?

It is unnecessary to reveal that at this juncture. And it would be unwise to do so. The element of surprise — so dear to, so fundamental for the wagers of war — is of a paramount importance. If can’t get a few people to respond to a posting of this piece in confidence… all of this is probably dead in the dissenting waters. At a certain point, it won’t matter if the word gets out, so to speak. But –for starters– I should think that the above is intriguing enough to warrant at least a bakers dozen worth of inquiries on the sly. Out of the public eye. For now.

I was angsting over the idea of registering “Dream Party” before using it as the point of departure for initial presentation of this proposal in public. But all that was uncalled for. If my plan touches the soul, we can call it whatever we want. “Drum Party” or “Dumb Party” wouldn’t matter much. In fact, “Pajama Party” isn’t bad. We don’t want to leave out humor. I understand that Zapata wasn’t much on that count, but we can certainly make use of the ha-ha element for sweet souls.

It should be loads of fun, by the way, to be in on the ground floor…involved in scouring the Golden State for candidates, for advisers (a Dream Team?) who will provide the most socially/environmentally conscious support in the world. Yum, yum, yes?

This is California sushi for starters, folks. I want residents of the state to contact me asap. Short of that, perhaps readers have friends or acquaintances who live near me. That might work.

The point here is that what people are doing isn’t working. And people have nothing to lose by dreaming…on a different pillow…in a new bed.

  1. Peter (Camejo) The Great Green garnered only 5% of the vote in “sensitive” Santa Cruz last time out. See the author for a thousand other such examples. []
Marcelle Cendrars, freelancing daughter of Blaise Cendrars, can be reached at: bcendra@yahoo.com. She is the "Provost" of San Jose, California's Free Underground College to Kindergarten Educational Retreat, a home school network of dissenting citizens who encourage parents to have their children drop out of mainstream institutions, and make use of alternative educational options. Read other articles by Marcelle, or visit Marcelle's website.

39 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Marcelle Cendrars said on December 10th, 2007 at 9:08am #

    To clarify, Gerald, the “purpose” has a lot to do with trying to encourage meeting in secret to discuss a matter of activism which cannot be divulged in public forums such as this, only hinted at. — Marcelle P.S. I would like those who are writing to me privately to voice their opinions here too.

  2. Deadbeat said on December 10th, 2007 at 10:02am #

    I would include in your “policy” list is a 25 to 50% reduction in military spending and all “military” spending that is spread out in the budget such as military spending that is part of the Energy Dept. The key point here is that if you raise taxes on the rich you want that money to get to the people in the form of social and needs spending. The right will attack any increase of taxes on the rich being redistributed to the middle class and poor and will favor “paying off the debt” and balancing the budget. Which will only redistribute money to bond holders meaning taxing the rich to pay off the rich.

    While I understand your desire to “inspire” people a clear platform is very much necessary so that you can articulate that inspiration and also to rhetorically defend that platform from your foes.

  3. Deadbeat said on December 10th, 2007 at 10:21am #

    I’m confused. The Green Party has been via for the governorship. If the “Dream Party” is going to challenge for the governorship then they have to be in accordance of all the electoral laws and the “Dream Party” will not get any air time. In fact the “Dream Party” will weaken the Green Party because they will attract folks having similar affinity.

    The Green Party has internal problems much of that being they way the dilute represent by population via representation by state. This was used by the “Demo-Greens” to promote the scurrilous, David Cobb.

    I can understand the focus and formulation in California yet you are critical of Cindy Sheehan’s challenge to Nancy Palosi. It would seem to be that should Sheehan defeat Palosi that would be a huge victory and it would be a more manageable challenge. A Palosi defeat would certainly inspire participants to the next step.

    Can you explain how the “Dream Party” would differ from the existing Green Party and why not you would not want to work with the Greens and see the need of having to build a new party?

  4. Tony Andrade said on December 10th, 2007 at 10:46am #

    When the Electoral Reform Initiativepasses the Green Party,
    Libertarian Party,minor parties and progressives will win 5 electoral votes, 4 Greens along the coast, and
    one Libertarian in a foothill district.
    Minor parties will get a jump start and will be motivated.
    ElectoralReformCalifornia.com is the website.
    What is important is EVERYONE’S vote will matter and everyone will know it.
    California’s electoral votes will no longer ALL be controlled by the big city political machines (LA/SF) and the major market
    conservative/liberal media.
    California will become competitive again.
    Presidential candidates will have to campaign for your vote – in suburbs, small towns and rural areas.
    Today the California Political System is Broken!
    Right now a presidential candidate who wins in Los Angeles
    County gets all 55 state wide electoral votes.
    This is not democratic and is not fair.
    In 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004 national candidates did not campaign in California. They ignored us.
    Yet California has 10% of the nation’selectors.
    They treat us like an “ATM”. They take our money and disappeared.
    Today, voter apathy is prevalent. People don’t care.
    Why? Because California voters do not believe their vote counts.
    In 1920 women finally won the right to vote.
    In 1965 the Voting Rights Act helped to reduce obstacles preventing minorities from exercising their right to vote.
    In 2008 we also want our vote to count.
    In 2004 5.5 million votes were wasted.
    How will the initiative affect California?
    The entire voice of California will be heard from the suburbs to small towns and rural areas – not just the voice emanating from the Los Angeles area.
    California will become competitive again.

  5. gerald spezio said on December 10th, 2007 at 1:40pm #

    Marcelle, what do think of Cindy Sheehan’s dream?

  6. Marcelle Cendrars said on December 10th, 2007 at 3:12pm #

    Concerning the two “Deadbeat” entries just above my last contribution in the commentary, please note that “plaform” related issues would certainly be discussed in-depth once people got together…in confidence. Here, for reasons that I hope the article makes clear, I cannot discuss stances comprehensively…and part of the whole idea is to make sure that all involved have a very good shot at creating (ongoing) in put, having a direct influence. As per the second “Deadbeat” rundown, for whatever reason (my writing and/or your reading) you’re missing the point about the primary difference between Dream Party and the likes of Green Party parties. ALL traditional parties go through the usual channels in the “normal” ways…and so…they are doomed to fail because of the “grip” that the two major parties will not give up. Any party which announces its platform in full will give the major parties an opportunity to battle it successfully. AND give the mainstream media the op to spin to their hearts content…as per the article. Nothing will come of the efforts of parties going about things as per old paradigms. That’s partly why, btw, Cindy’s replacement of Pelosi –sd it happen– will not lead to very much. Something, but not nearly enough. Nothing to be compared to the immediate power delineated vis-a-vis a governor’s position, of course. How to go about all this is, as previously noted in the article, something to discuss in private. Obviously, if one had a desirable platform headed by a desirable candidate it would get nipped in the bud if it were all laid out prematurely. Money is not needed. That can’t be said for the Green Party as it stands. Ditto for The Media dependence. There would be no competition between parties. The idea is to have a “lock” on the election before anyone in power knows what hit them. That’s the surprise element. I am not surprised, btw, that much of this brings out doubts. But those doubts –and the devlish details– can be outlined in person. And only in person. Loving best in solidarity, Marcelle P.S. Did I address all?

  7. dan elliott said on December 10th, 2007 at 3:18pm #

    Hello Marcelle,

    I promist to append a comment to this if DV published it, so I’d better say sthg I guess, even if I have nothing to say. Hmm.

    Well, lemme try a lil textual aikydidio: I’ll comment right after you deal with Deadbeat’s comments?

    Hehe;) —
    sneeky dan

  8. Marcelle Cendrars said on December 10th, 2007 at 3:21pm #

    To Gerald: I think you deserve a special note here…even though I may have answered your question in my entry directly above to Deadbeat. Above and beyond what I’ve noted in the article and in commentary here, Cindy’s dream deserves “support” to some degree, but only if the energy devoted doesn’t preclude being involved in giving support in other quarters. It is very much like reminding people that they have your blessings if they’re going to go out and vote for anyone, BUT…not to have illusions about what electoral politics –as it stands, as the game is usually played– will achieve…if it’s participated in…in lieu of taking OTHER action. The Dream concept provides a way –albeit one that needs further explanation to DVoice readers– to play the electoral game in such a way as to be efficacious (in a truly historic way) without much extra-electoral effort to speak of…for starters. One does not want to subject the general public to yet another downer experience of seeing MLK eliminated…as he was once he spoke out about Vietnam and the poor…in a relatively fresh way. If that happened to Cindy mid-stream…if she could even manage to garner sufficient attention, provide significant impact (once in office)…it might be more discouraging than encouraging. Remember, as things stand the powers of be could literally cut the throat of, say, Amy Goodman on the tube…and the response would be –nationwide– tepid. These days it certainly wouldn’t bring about something like the Watts riots. And, btw, what was accomplished in that quarter? Best, Marcelle

  9. dan elliott said on December 10th, 2007 at 3:40pm #

    Okay, ya got me, Ms. fastest draw in the west:) Beat me to the punch, had me covered before I finished typing. So I guess I have to come clean:

    My considered opinion, after carefully reading the entire rap last night, line by line: TOTAL NONSENSE.

    I’m only taking the time to say that because something… maybe it’s your eagerness, part of it’s the name, partly also fascination w/the period your father was part of… for some reason there’s something appealing… who knows, jump to the bottom line:

    I’m wasting time. Your intentions may be the best, but the tiny nuggets of creative thinking you occasionally come up with are not worth the time I’ve wasted.

    I suppose I could explain why I was susceptible to your fantasy, but who cares? Other than you of course: any attention is good, even if it’s negative, right? Nothing you’d like better than to keep me hung up trying to dissect your nonsense. So it turns out that you’re doing the same thing as Mr. “Kneel”: all you can to distract people from what needs to be thought about & done about.

    “Go Back: You Are Going The Wrong Way”

  10. Marcelle Cendrars said on December 10th, 2007 at 3:49pm #

    Let me recommend to Dan: I think there might be a chance of advancing in this dialogue if you could see your way to condensing one objection that you have into one clear sentence. Then we won’t be all over the place…and too vague. And I promise, then, to address whatever is clarified. — Marcelle P.S. I do hope that all who read this will at least submit something for feedback, etc.

  11. Marcelle Cendrars said on December 10th, 2007 at 6:36pm #

    Dear Tony: What leads you to believe that the two “major” parties will allow the Initiative to pass? Am I missing something here? — Marcelle

  12. Sunil Sharma said on December 10th, 2007 at 9:51pm #

    Dan,

    You’ve always been a friend to DV, but here you really do need to concretely spell out what your objections to Marcelle’s article are rather than poke fun but not make any points.

    Cheers,

    — Sunil

  13. Deadbeat said on December 11th, 2007 at 1:46am #

    Actually I seem to understand and agree with Dan. I don’t think he is “poking” fun. I think he is clearly address the extreme lack of clarity in Ms. Cendrars article. At the end of the day in order for the Dream Party to win the governorship they have to deliver more VOTES than the duopoly and all other third party candidates.

    Also secrecy will not work. Secrecy is why the Green Party faltered in 2004. Secrecy leads to suspicions, skepticism, distrust and betrayal.

    Also Ms. Cendrars’ prose read more like a “self-help” spirituality rant rather than a coherent strategy and plan. For example …

    appeal to the soul in citizens and the necessary funds will flow.

    This appeal to soul was a tactic used during the Civil Right movement to appeal to whites. Since then this tactic has been used very ineffectively by Liberals as foes found ways to rhetorically ridicule it. For example, the U.S. is no closer to national health care despite Michael Moore quite moving film “SiCKo”. In fact, IMO, a demand for national health care is a rather weak demand because it omits people such as the homeless who have far greater needs for housing. My point is that the demand has to be much GREATER, BROADER and MORE COMPREHENSIVE than a laundry list of stances.

    IMO the missing component is the lack of solidarity and cohesion among citizens. Many citizens are not aware of working class ideology and in fact many see working class ideology as repugnant. In other words they reject what’s should be in their interest.

    Article on this board are a clear example of the lack of cohesion when we see “leftist” authors obfuscating important and crucial issues of race and class. Identity politics has also split the left which is another topic that is taboo for the left.

    So if the left has been unable to find solidarity in public it is doubtful that the left will achieve solidarity in private.

    Unless this plan call for a coup or civil unrest there is no way the Dream Party is going to win votes operating in secret. Because to win votes mean playing the game by the rules set by the system.

  14. Marcelle Cendrars said on December 11th, 2007 at 9:23am #

    Thanks to Sunil for making this opportunity possible…encouraging Deadbeat to get down with details.

    1. Lack of clarity? That’s intentional, obviously…as per the article.
    2. Secrecy didn’t work with the Green Party? I don’t know in what way you think that the GP worked in secrecy? Virtually nothing was done in confidence; their model for action followed very traditional lines.
    3. Appeal to soul? Perhaps we have a need here for definition. In my sense, you can journey all the way back to John Brown, way before the Civil Rights times. As per the article, for the present I reject anything violent. However, the way in which Brown appealed to the “soul” in others is what I’m after with Dream Party. The appeal, again, must be on a one-by-one basis, not utilizing the “broad” means which one and all now use routinely, unthinkingly…like flyers, ads, and the like. Broad following would be generated from a much more personal approach…and as numbers grew…THEY WOULD NOT BE ADVERTISED…so as to alert opposition. Even with “rigged” machines…so much of the downfall there is made possible by virtue of the fact that the demographics are transparent.
    4. Stances? The ones listed here are only examples given to provide a general sense. The article underscores that specifics would be drawn up…would evolve through private, personal contact…giving participants a true sense of participation in creating a platform.

    I don’t understand the points made here about working class or identity politics.

    The Left has worked predictably and uncreatively in public. People in our quarter have made all the mundane debates useless, all the differences divisive…much to the cheer of the opposition. Because we cannot get far in public, airing dirty laundry and egos, I thought it might be productive to see what could be agreed upon…in private…one on one. What’s the basis for “doubt” in that context? — Marcelle…loving best in solidarity

  15. Marcelle Cendrars said on December 11th, 2007 at 1:48pm #

    What are you labeling an “abject farce,” Gerald? And…why? All are striving for solidarity in some form, or should be…if you’ll permit me to say so. New paradigm? An unattractive concept? The idea is for it to be better than the “old” models, yes? So…unless one has given up one’s own potential for creativity and/or given up on all others…yes, a “new paradigm” is possible. I think I have a handle on one that simply needs sharing in private to get off the ground. It should be infectitious…once it is understood in the kind of detail that can’t be provided in this pubilc forum. Blessings to all — Marcelle

  16. gerald spezio said on December 11th, 2007 at 3:08pm #

    Sunil, your response to dan elliott above would indicate that you openly encourage and/or endorse Marcelle’s phantasmagorical antics.

  17. Marcelle Cendrars said on December 11th, 2007 at 5:27pm #

    Instead of going through another door…which, btw, I don’t think there’s any reason to assume is labeled “Endorsement,” why not respond to my previous questions, Gerald? That would be good for one and all, I should think. And if you follow my lead here…perhaps you’ll clarify why you’re using the word “phantasmagorical” in relation to my “antics.” Good fortune, Marcelle

  18. Lloyd Rowsey said on December 11th, 2007 at 8:06pm #

    Are you an energy sink, Marcelle?

    http://denali.phys.uniroma1.it/~puglisi/thesis/node40.html

    It’s like the Roach Motel, reading your replies to posted critiques….Energy from the poor commentators checks in, but nothing checks out.

  19. Marcelle Cendrars said on December 11th, 2007 at 10:26pm #

    I love Lloyd’s take. It’s soooooooooo spot-on-target. And funny/sad. But…still…let’s trust that something is seeping through somewhere. –Marcelle P.S. This isn’t what it means to be atomized, right?

  20. Lloyd Rowsey said on December 12th, 2007 at 8:52am #

    Well, my problem with The Dream Party is that even when you’re superficial, preachy although uninformed about history, patronizing, sycophantic, presumptuous, and a few other things, I know that after requiring me to “clarify” this problem, your response will read much better than my clarification read. In short, you’re the tar baby in Uncle Remus, and I’ll be surprised if any established “luminaries on the left” come out to bite. Still and all, you are a genius; it’s clear from your article that you are on to something; and I believe very strongly that there should be two, three, many oppositions. Bottom line, Marcelle: Keep up the good work.
    – Lloyd Rowsey

  21. Marcelle Cendrars said on December 12th, 2007 at 10:04am #

    Open Letter to Lloyd (and All Others): I promise to reread your latest entry a couple of more times…to make sure that I understand ALL of it. For now, I am obliged to say that I want you to know how deeply appreciative I am of your show of appreciation here. I will get much mileage from it personally, I assure you. And I trust that others will too…in some way…at some juncture. Loving best in solidarity, Marcelle Cendrars

  22. Sunil Sharma said on December 12th, 2007 at 10:33am #

    Gerald Spezio wrote: “Sunil, your response to dan elliott above would indicate that you openly encourage and/or endorse Marcelle’s phantasmagorical antics.”

    No, not necessarily. My point is that simply saying Marcelle’s article is “total nonsense” and that the time he spent reading it was a waste without offering any specifics isn’t good form.

  23. Marcelle Cendrars said on December 12th, 2007 at 10:49am #

    Sunil just made clear what I tried to communicate to Gerald and others…respecting his earlier response. Good. Now that Sunil’s made appearance here again…the window seems to be open for me to encourage Sunil, Joshua, Kim, Ron Jacobs and like-minded others to jump in with a constructive word or two…a personal take…on the little I’ve delineated regarding the Dream Party idea…so that I can get some truly intelligent feedback. Some stuff can be aired in public, and it would be very sweet if more people take the opportunity to take advanatage of this forum…now….before the article disappears. It’s very interesting to me –to cite just one of many such examples– that Death Penalty in Focus did not respond whatsoever to my submitting the Dream Party blah blah to them. The piece obviously is greatly concerned with their specific agenda –having listed death penalty moratorium as a priority of sorts in the article– but my attempted contact with SEVERAL members at DPIF produced a zero response. What gives? Best to all regardless, Marcelle

  24. gerald spezio said on December 12th, 2007 at 11:06am #

    dan elliott called Marcelle’s work “nonsense.”

    He also said;

    “Nothing you’d like better than to keep me hung up trying to dissect your nonsense. So it turns out that you’re doing the same thing as Mr. “Kneel”: all you can to distract people from what needs to be thought about & done about.”

    I also cannot see anything worthy of comment in Marcelle’s “work.”

    Her work is farcial on its face.

    Space aliens are not the cause of the ongoing Iraq and Palestinian genocide.

    Most importantly, what are your reasons for publishing it?

  25. Marcelle Cendrars said on December 12th, 2007 at 8:15pm #

    Again, “lack of clarity” on my part is by design for “clearly stated” reasons in the article. I think the last question above is worth commenting on. What are my reasons for “publishing” the piece? I trust that my answer will be interesting to all the people ranting about wanting to do something about Israel’s atrocities. For one, it wouldn’t hurt the cause of Palestinians for YOUR Governor of California…commanding media attention virtually without media spin daily…to speak on behalf of the “plight” of the Palestinians. That’s one “reason” behind my interest in having the article posted. To provide the suggestion of a way in which our mutual interests could be addressed in a new way. You’re jumping the gun, so to speak, if you try to figure out how YOUR Guv can get in office. That’s for private discussion as per the article. It shouldn’t be too hard to imagine the value of YOUR Guv’s press conferences AND self-directed messages to the public (unedited), however, once in office. Here’s to your creativity in dealing with this, Marcelle

  26. gerald spezio said on December 13th, 2007 at 6:57am #

    Marcelle “clearly stated” a – “lack of clarity.”

  27. gerald spezio said on December 13th, 2007 at 8:00am #

    Imagine some peeyar yuppies in an LA office smirking and guffawing at the responses to Marcelle’s hints.

    It is enough to make you remember how grad students in English Lit would have belly laughs over the inanities in Freshman literature papers.

  28. Marcelle Cendrars said on December 13th, 2007 at 8:56am #

    For clarity, Gerald…please note that the article “clearly states” that there must be a “lack of clarity” in public forums such as these at this juncture. — Marcelle

  29. Lloyd Rowsey said on December 13th, 2007 at 8:59am #

    Ahhh, gs, I think I caught you. You write that “space aliens are not the cause of the ongoing Iraq and Palestinian genocide.” (I’m pretty sure I agree with you there. :>) Yet, are you not also the well-known, knee-jerk defender of Israel and the Israeli Mafia (as it were) in America? And doesn’t the very term “Palestinian Genocide” imply at least some (teeny weenie) responsibility on the part of Israel and Mafia in America?
    Don’t feel like you should reply to my compound question unless you also are feeling “truly intelligent” – “like Sunil, Joshua, Kim, Ron Jacobs and like-minded others” — and you are fully prepared to convince at least two editors at Dissident Voice that your entire take on the Israel-US-relationship-and-the-Iraq-Palestinian-Genocides-issue deserves to be put up here as an article, if that is, they are agreeable with your article’s stating to DV’s readers that any “lack of clarity” on the your part is due to your having withheld some vital but secret information.
    Got it?

  30. gerald spezio said on December 13th, 2007 at 9:12am #

    Clarity?
    I’m for clarity at any juncture , apex, or crotch.
    Clarity is good.

  31. Marcelle Cendrars said on December 13th, 2007 at 9:39am #

    Again, it would be good if people tried to “do” something about what they perceive is…awful. Something hands-on, not just talk…not just baiting. In a realm where silly puns don’t matter. Where the fun of verbal play takes a backseat to being immersed in their own humanity with others. — Blessings, Marcelle

  32. Lloyd Rowsey said on December 13th, 2007 at 9:28pm #

    Marcelle. You frustrate people and make them angry, with your writing. Failure-to-responds are a consequence of readers’ frustration; but of course, what you see and have to deal with is the disrespect and derision which are consequences of readers’ anger. In regard to anger, in your 12.13-9:39 AM post you said that you want “hands-on” comments, not just talk. Do you simply not care that Gerald Spezio may be angry precisely because he feels that giving you “hands-on” comments would make him look like a fool?

    I think you would be wise to not trivialize or dismiss derisive and disrespectful reactions. You may be making the rules, and your first rule may be: only substantive, analytical responses count. But certainly you must see that the negative reactions which you have ruled “out of order” presage if not your project’s failure, at least its being in serious trouble.

    At some point, Marcelle, you have to ask yourself if you are satisfied with how the project is going; correct me if I’m mistaken, but Dissident Voice must represent a milestone of free publicity for it. Sunil and Joshua and Kim and Ron, “and like-minded others,” may jump into the thread tomorrow with “some truly intelligent feedback.” (Both quotations from your 12.12-10:49 AM post.) I sincerely hope they do.

  33. Marcelle Cendrars said on December 14th, 2007 at 9:08am #

    Thanks VERY MUCH for this, Lloyd. I’m not sure I understand the point being made with regard to the likes of Gerald. I don’t know how I’m being off-putting, if that’s what you’re saying. Please elaborate simply for my simple mind. I do think it’s instructive that I’m not getting intelligent feedback. This is a good window of opportunity for that…one would think. I am sending out a special letter to an influential celebrity this morning…as per The Dream Party stuff. Wish me luck. PLEASE, you editors, jump in here with a word or two, if you will. Best, MC

  34. Marcelle Cendrars said on December 15th, 2007 at 9:38am #

    I have a friend who once got a free full-page ad from a major alternative publication for an event he was producing…and received no response –except for one “nutcase” reaction– to the ad’s appeal for attendance. The event was “free” for those who could not pay. Yet no response to this ad in a prestigious alternative rag. No one reading this is in a position to second-guess why. However, when something like that happens…it begs one and all to review the power of trying to appeal to the public through a particular outlet. Here at DVoice…to receive so little feedback…so little follow-through on an attempt to introduce something fresh should be quite instructive to readers. The person above who said something about Dream Party stuff detracting from the Green Party’s agenda should be instructive too. For it represents a typical take here. Specifically, a reader isn’t “getting” the thrust of what this DParty angle is all about if they’re worried about such matters. One of the main premises in the article is that traditional third parties HAVE NO FUTURE as it stands. They will be marginalized on an ongoing basis. If readers can’t get the article’s major premises…seems like they don’t have any more potential to stir things up than the publication I referred to above. The question, it appears, is what strengths lie in DVoice as it stands. Why would not more souls jump in here? Blame some on the presentation, but not all, please. Dig deeper than that. To ask for specific verbalized contributions in public the way I have is not, to my mind, elitist…but, rather, an attempt to generate dialogue above and beyond the simplistic, often irrelevant commentary herein. — Marcelle

  35. gerald spezio said on December 15th, 2007 at 1:54pm #

    All these continual references to “thrusting” and “getting the thrust” is going to make people who know their psychology think that Marcelle could be a prevert or even a crypto-prevert which is preversion to the max.

  36. Marcelle Cendrars said on December 15th, 2007 at 2:09pm #

    Yes, well…I guess there’s no question that that’s the definitive, intelligent response to the points I’m trying to make, the theme of the DParty stuff. Oh, I forgot, filled with compassion too, infused with interest in solidarity, contributing to positive change. Again, where are “other types” of responses? — Marcelle

  37. gerald spezio said on December 15th, 2007 at 2:12pm #

    Marcelle; a pistol-packing-Mama went to the bar-room to even up with her cheatin-no-good lover man.

    When the Mama shot out the lights and blew holes in the bar-room door, grown men “jumped out” of the windows.

    Nobody jumped in!

  38. Marcelle Cendrars said on December 16th, 2007 at 11:29am #

    There are other bars. — Marcelle

  39. Marcelle Cendrars said on December 16th, 2007 at 3:36pm #

    Thanks, Cassandra. Anyway, I meant not just toxic watering holes and like-minded hangouts for hangovers, but “standards” too…. Bye, Marcelle