The claim of partisanship is an outright falsehood. The partisanship is in Chris Anderson's reason for not distributing the talk, not the talk itself. He is making it partisan, by cowing to that which we call partisanship, a thing he must surely take for granted. Maybe he is evil, too.
There is nothing partisan about it. The 1% are not a party, any more than a single senator is a party. The ability of the Corporate Rich to spin the public argument, and make it seem like there is a split conflict, that is the root of what we "end-users" perceive as partisanship. In this case, they have spun & won. The public discussion about this talk is partisanship, not the issue itself.
And Hanauer points this out. The spin of the conversation is influencing the outcome of policy. This is not new under the sun, but it is an idea worth spreading.
There is nothing partisan about it. The 1% are not a party, any more than a single senator is a party. The ability of the Corporate Rich to spin the public argument, and make it seem like there is a split conflict, that is the root of what we "end-users" perceive as partisanship. In this case, they have spun & won. The public discussion about this talk is partisanship, not the issue itself.
And Hanauer points this out. The spin of the conversation is influencing the outcome of policy. This is not new under the sun, but it is an idea worth spreading.