Reading between the lines isn't necessary. Today, Kyrsten Sinema bailed on her commitment to the voters who put her in office. SHE KNOWS there is no path for her re-election in which she'd have to face Democratic primary voters in Arizona. She rationalized her way to leaving her legitimate base without so much as a goodbye kiss.
Now, to take the bypass route directly to the general election ballot in 2024, she'll need more signatures from voters, but she'll likely have plenty of campaign cash hoping to get them.
Of ALL of the commentators talking about this decision by Sinema today, MSNBC's Alex Wagner NAILED it better, more directly, and more dead on Bull's eye, that anyone else. Sinema's been planning this day for at least two years.
For perspective on where we (mainly but not only Arizona Democratic voters) go from here, I recommend Michael Moore's podcast.
This is probably also a good time to call attention to the fact stochastic terrorism is REAL. A documented fact. From a paper published in October 2021 by Molly Amman and J. Reid Meloy.
Stochastic terrorism has been bandied about in recent public discourse. However, it has received little scholarly attention, particularly in understanding its mechanics and the deeper psychological context in which it might flourish. The history and phenomenology of the term are elaborated upon, and its psychological meaning is explored through the application of linguistic pragmatics, the psychoanalysis of large group regression—what we term “poliregression”—and terrorism risk assessment. The January 6 Capitol siege and other historical events are used as illustrations.
“Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?” These infamous words, attributed to Henry II of England, ominously preceded the Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett’s murder in 1170. To be clear, the king neither participated in, nor ordered, the notorious assassination, yet he is widely accepted as being largely responsible for it. Historical accounts reveal that Beckett, in a long-running disagreement with King Henry II, had recently excommunicated bishops supportive of Henry II, infuriating the king. Variations of the saying differ slightly, but Henry II is quoted as having said in full, “[w]hat miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric! Will none of these lazy insignificant persons, whom I maintain, deliver me from this turbulent priest?”
The king’s implication was clear—failure to support his desires through action would amount to treason in his mind. Ostensibly upon hearing their king’s thoughts—directed at his own household, no less—four of his knights formed a plan and traveled to Canterbury. Lyttleton chronicled an original intention of confronting the archbishop and perhaps kidnapping him, but they ultimately killed Beckett when he resisted their attempts at arrest.
There has never been a credible suggestion that Henry II ordered violence against the archbishop. What his speech did, however, was trigger a chain of events directly ending in murder and making that result much more likely to occur than if he had never spoken.
Former Trump fixer Michael Cohen. who served time in prison as a result of crimes he committed at the implied suggestion of now former President Trump has extensively shed light on how the former president "gives orders." Patterns Cohen described follow with exquisite precision that contained in retired FBI profiler Amman and Professor of Psychiatry Meloy detailed from more than history, 852 years ago in England.
If, like me, you get to vote in AZ Congressional District 1, I'm confident you will want to see THIS eye opening and newly candid look at the person ostensibly representing me (us) in Congress right now.
By the way, in case you want to see what he tweets, David Schweikert goes by the Twitter handle, @RepDavid.
However, in a much more candid moment than he's had with voters in eons (roughly 10 years), today (October 17, 2022) the following video appeared on Twitter and YouTube.
Additionally, Dave was found (not just accused of, but actually determined, in the summer of 2020, to have committed numerous ethics and federal law violations by the House (bipartisan) Ethics Committee. From the (NOT liberal-leaning) Washington Examiner:
The House by voice vote Friday reprimanded Rep. David Schweikert after an investigation found a series of campaign finance irregularities.
The House Ethics Committee announced Thursday that the Arizona Republican admitted to 11 rules violations, and agreed to pay a $50,000 fine, after the panel found he "violated House Rules, the Code of Ethics for Government Service, federal laws and other applicable standards in connection with: campaign finance violations."
That includes "misuse of his Members’ Representational Allowance for unofficial purposes; pressuring official staff to perform campaign work; and his lack of candor and due diligence during the investigation."
The violations happened between 2010 and 2018. The House Ethics Committee noted that Schweikert, who was first elected to the House in 2010, used several delaying and evasive tactics to avoid more stringent penalties.
The Ethics Investigative Subcommittee found that Schweikert “erroneously disclosed or failed to disclose” $305,000 in loans or repayment of loans "made or obtained for the benefit of his congressional campaigns" from July 2010 to December 2017. He also failed to report "at least $25,000 in disbursements made by his campaigns; failed to report more than $140,000 in contributions received by his campaigns; and falsely reported making disbursements totaling $100,000."
Allegations of Schweikert's misspending initially surfaced back in 2017 when the Washington Examiner's Philip Wegmann broke the story.
The last member of Congress to be reprimanded on the House floor was California Democrat Laura Richardson in 2012 for forcing her congressional staff to do campaign work and violating codes of conduct for government service.
As you can easily see in the video of Schweikert from a local GOP function in Arizona over the last weekend, he had NO trouble exercising (in?)appropriate candor in the hot mic/hot camera interview shown in the second video above.
You may ask why the reprimand didn't keep him from being ousted in 2020? Perhaps the pandemic prevented any candidate from adequately preparing a successful campaign against Schweikert.
The Arizona Eagletarian will publish arguments for and against ballot measures between now and November 8, 2022. Some of those arguments will be taken directly from the AZ Secretary of State's publicity pamphlet for this election. However, this blog will annotate as necessary to editorially amplify or rebut positions in such arguments, as the publisher (me) deems fit. First off, two arguments FOR Prop 211, the Voters' Right to Know, and one argument against, and then another argument FOR Prop211, which directly rebuts the anti-disclosure argument.
Please share these blog posts far and wide with Arizona voters and beyond, by social media and sending the link by email to your friends, family and neighbors.
-----
I have been active in both partisan and nonpartisan organizations in AZ since I moved here in 1966.
I have volunteered on
many campaigns, both on behalf of candidates and initiatives, some of which were successful and others not.
However, I
don’t think I’ve volunteered for one campaign where there is as much support – across party lines, age, gender, race, and
any other category you can think of -- as for Voters’ Right to Know.
The clarity and simplicity of this Initiative requires
almost no ‘persuasion’ on my part when I have knocked on doors & gone to events to collect signatures.
AZ voters I’ve
talked to all agree there should be transparency regarding campaign donations regardless of which type of legal entity to which you donate, as long as that entity is actively involved in campaigning for or against a candidate or ballot measure.
Dark money is NOT acceptable to most Republicans, Independents, Democrats, young & first time voters, folks my age (I’m
84), pro lifers and pro choice folks, etc. They have all told me “put your name where your money goes.” Please vote YES on
Voters’ Right to Know.
Rivko Knox, Phoenix
Four score and seven years ago our forefathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and
dedicated to the proposition that all men (and women) are created equal. – Abraham Lincoln
Now we are engaged in a great... contest over who gets heard and whose interests matter in making and carrying out laws in
Arizona.
Will we allow Dark Money special interests to continue to drown out the voice of the PEOPLE?
The world might little note, nor long remember what we each say on our sacred and secret ballots.
But we have a chance to
make sure the world can never forget when Arizona voters enact into law the Stop Dark Money aka The People’s Right to
Know initiative.
It is for us, the civic minded voters of Arizona, to dedicate ourselves to the proposition that our children and grandchildren
will be able to know by experience what Lincoln meant (and I paraphrase) when he closed the Gettysburg address declaring we now emphatically resolve that this nation and state, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—that government
of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Further, as Suffragette Susan B. Anthony, whose passion and perseverance was rewarded finally when the 19th Amendment
was ratified in 1920, 20 years after her death, stated – Wherever women gather together failure is impossible.
Let your action in this election be a tribute to both Anthony and Lincoln.
Steve Muratore, Publisher, Arizona Eagletarian (blog), Scottsdale
And then there's the weak sauce offered by Cathy Herrod, apparently a-skeered her inordinate influence on public policy and lawmaking in Arizona will be suppressed:
Don’t let the title fool you; this initiative is about bullying some citizens out of campaign involvement. Proponents of the
“Voter’s Right to Know Act” would like you to think deep pockets on only one side of an issue or one party are funding
campaigns. In truth, folks ["folks," isn't that quaint? Just like when Southerners say "Bless your heart." A folksy effort at dismissiveness toward the real underlying concerns of REAL American citizens] [By the way, I'm pretty sure Ms. Herrod NEVER signed on as a spokesperson for the Voter's Right to Know campaign. So, why does she try to convince you she KNOWS what the dedicated, concerned citizens who have--because of the pandemic--been working on this citizen-initiated legislation for several years now actually intended?] on all sides exercise their free speech rights by contributing to campaigns with which they agree.
The difference is how some want to name the contributors in an effort to force a boycott, bully, and otherwise silence the
speech of those with whom they disagree. [How would Herrod have come to that understanding? Could it be because she has engaged in those very tactics for years?]
The desired effect is to scare contributors out of donating to campaigns [but, but, but... IF the Dark Money donors are afraid they might be found out, aren't they already scared?] , while
their own donors virtue signal by touting their donations to woke causes [Oh, look, Herrod knows how to blow the dog whistle to reactionary factions and voters].
The hypocritical nature of this initiative is apparent in the fact that it demands disclosure from private groups, but big tech,
corporate media, and labor unions are all exempt. Ironic that all those exempted favor one party over the other. [Again, Herrod engages in verbal sleight of hand. IF, Big Tech, Corporate Media or labor unions give to a Dark Money non-profit, to engage in a pernicious shell game to hide the fact that they might be the original donor, that "exemption" goes away, otherwise, ads they place will ALREADY disclose the original donor... DUH!] All citizens should be free to put their money and effort behind campaigns they support without the risk of conspired
retaliation by those in opposition. [See Ken Clark's statement, below.] The measure is also likely unconstitutional. [That's nothing but code for a threat that Dark Money groups might challenge it in court.] The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that campaign contributions are free
speech. [And the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia (notably one of Herrod's heroes) apparently, ironically emphasized when addressing that very point, he was in favor of the disclosure Herrod so emphatically finds anathema.] Please vote NO.
Cathi Herrod, President, Center for Arizona Policy Action, Phoenix
And finally (for this post anyway), former state representative Ken Clark effectively rebuts Herrod:
Fellow Voters;
Please vote YES on the Voters’ Right to Know Act.
You will hear some weak arguments [one of which is included above] from pro-dark money groups about their desire to hide their corrupting campaign
spending.
Dark money spending has never been a tradition in Americaand only those who want to [continue to] rig our political system argue for it
today.
They, for instance, [may] point to a Supreme Court case called NAACP v Alabama to argue that people should hide their money
in political campaigns in order to protect themselves from threats and intimidation.
That is not what that case was about. That case was about keeping membership lists private, not political contributions.
Further, even our conservative Supreme Court has continued to uphold the right of public disclosure in political campaigns.
As the very conservative Justice Scalia said, “There are laws against threats and intimidation; and harsh criticism, short of
unlawful action, is a price our people have traditionally been willing to pay for self-governance. Requiring people to stand
up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.”
He continued, “For my part, I do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns
anonymously and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden from public scrutiny and
protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave.”
The real intimidation to our democracy is coming from dark money. When I was a lawmaker, fellow legislators told me
personally how they had been threatened with dark money if they did not vote a certain way on legislation. [THIS phenomenon itself should be enough to start thinking outside of the proverbial box when it comes to how society develops laws and public policy]
Voting in favor of this Proposition is the first step to begin to repair the wounds inflicted by an acidic political system.
We're ONE step closer today, since Stop Dark Money has been certified for the 2022 Arizona general election ballot as Prop 211. Please Vote YES on Prop 211!
Three major elections on the same Sunday in June — in France, Colombia and Spain — tell the fundamental story of democracy in our era: the continuous disaffection with government, the collapse of traditionally dominant parties and figures, and the constant search for alternatives — which is quickly followed by yet more disaffection and the search for yet other alternatives. This is no longer a narrative of dysfunction distinctive to one country, if it ever was. The Conservative Party in Britain is now scrambling to find a new prime minister; the government in Italy is near collapse. The nature of political authority has fundamentally changed. Political power has become fragmented, as voters abandon traditional parties and turn to upstart, insurgent parties or independent, free agent politicians from across the political spectrum.
In multiparty democracies, such as the three that held elections last month, the fragmentation of political power makes it more difficult to form governments, causes those governments to be fragile and prone to collapse, and weakens their capacity to deliver effective policies. Politics in the United States, with our well-entrenched two-party system, are nonetheless being shaped by similar forces — although here fragmentation means the Democratic and Republican parties are torn by internal factional conflicts that party leaders struggle to surmount.
People in "Western democracies" are sensing the archaic, anachronistic, power structures which are clearly antagonistic to the foundation of self-determination. Could this be the root of political polarization?
When the original 13 colonies formed in the New World, what did telecommunications look or sound like?
In 1787, with adoption of the US Constitution, wasn't it all about self-determination.
For some anyway? Who the Constitution covers, as citizens (who get to vote), has expanded greatly. Rightfully so.
Has Congress experimented with long-distance voting? Have any of the state legislatures? Have Congress and state legislatures been able to solve the problem of Big Money and the pernicious impact it has obviously had throughout the nation?
Are Congress and state legislatures stuck in a time warp?
Humanity today is nothing if not about INNOVATION.
Innovate your way out of this, Western Democracies. Including the no longer very United States of America.
The Arizona Constitution makes clear that elected officials are NOT "our leaders," which if they were would imply they are our RULERS... rather, they are our employees, our REPRESENTATIVES. Those who are supposed to be bound by a Social Contract to make decisions Res Publica, or for the good of the republic. Anyone paying attention knows that's not what really happens.
Why not?
Arizona Constitution Article 2, Section 2 states: All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.
1. Derive their JUST powers from the consent of the governed. This is not simply a formality. It's the mindset our elected officials/representatives MUST always operate from and with.
2. Why do we delegate our sovereign authority to elected officials? To protect and maintain individual rights.
In Common Sense, 18th Century pamphleteer Thomas Paine wrote a stirring (long) essay which states, "We have it in our power to begin the world over again." Paine's essay sparked the American Revolution. The SPIRIT of that revolution needs to be refreshed.
I've said for some time that Direct Democracy is our SUPERPOWER. For nearly four years now, I've been active to get the Outlaw Dirty Money and its successor, Stop Dark Money citizen initiatives on the ballot for voters to consider. ODM was stymied by the pandemic in 2020. Stop Dark Money is now facing resistance that feels like what Stephen King wrote about in his novel 11.22.63 (view the limited series on Hulu)
Dark Money interests have challenged SDM in court. WE won the first round. The suit is now in front of the Arizona Supreme Court. Read the latest filing by the good guys. This is a response to amicus brief filed by Rusty (formerly, for a short time, a good guy) Bowers, Karen Fann, and Doug Ducey. The trio now fancy themselves rulers rather than servants of the PEOPLE. Bowers, Fann, and Ducey seem to think they're a BFD and are trying to get the hard work the PEOPLE have put in completely invalidated.
There is a press conference scheduled for Tuesday morning (August 23, 2022) at 11:00. Location: Outlier office complex 668 North 44th Street, Phoenix. That's between Van Buren St and Loop 202.
My vision is ultimately (who knows how long it will take?) to see an advanced form of Direct Democracy replace the state legislature to more fairly and accurately aggregate the WILL of the PEOPLE.
The members of Lost, Not Stolen remind the public that accusations such as this are “deadly serious” and should only be made if substantial evidence comes to light. This report is a compilation of every claim of fraud made by Donald Trump and his supporters in these six U.S. states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The report concludes that the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election between Donald Trump and Joseph Biden Jr. was fairly decided. In spite of this, there have been severe consequences of these false claims, including 30 percent of the country now lacking faith in the election process.
The report document contains 72 pages. Anyone clicking the link is authorized to view and read the document but not to edit it. I include on this blog post, the Introduction and the Executive Summary.
One of the members/signers of the report, retired Judge J. Michael Luttig, testified publicly before the January 6 committee on June 16, 2022. The video is a portion of his testimony and closing statement. Judge Luttig clearly and emphatically labels Trump, his allies, and his supporters as a Clear and Present Danger to American Democracy.
All the money in the world raised and spent to advertise on social or corporate media couldn't have overcome the former guy's thousands of lies, massive emotional insecurity, and sinister self-dealing. Remember Abraham Lincoln's famous quote:
“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”
When The Washington Post Fact Checker team first started cataloguing President Donald Trump’s false or misleading claims, we recorded 492 suspect claims in the first 100 days of his presidency. On Nov. 2 alone, the day before the 2020 vote, Trump made 503 false or misleading claims as he barnstormed across the country in a desperate effort to win reelection.
This astonishing jump in falsehoods is the story of Trump’s tumultuous reign. By the end of his term, Trump had accumulated 30,573 untruths during his presidency — averaging about 21 erroneous claims a day.
What is especially striking is how the tsunami of untruths kept rising the longer he served as president and became increasingly unmoored from the truth.
This (below, excerpted from pages 43-44 of The Power Paradox by Dacher Keltner) may be the most succinct explanation for why the former president lost the election in 2020.
... your ability to make a difference in the world is shaped by what other people think of you. Your capacity to alter the state of others depends on their trust in you. Your ability to empower others depends on their willingness to be influenced by you. Your power is constructed in the judgments and actions of others. This idea distills down to four principles:
Numerous natural state experiments demonstrate that Jack's [from Lord of the Flies] strategies of bullying, coercion, and violence do not prevail; rather, groups demonstrate an instinctive tendency to give power to individuals who bring the greatest benefit and least harm to individuals, to those who advance the greater good (Power Principle 5). To make abuses of power less likely, groups shape people's capacity to influence by constructing their reputations, which track their contributions to the greater good (Principle 6). Groups reward those who are good for the groups by affording them elevated status and esteem (Principle 7). And when an individual acts in ways that violate the greater good--the group's sense of its collective welfare--the group will resort to gossip and other reputational damage to diminish the influence of that individual (Principle 8).
These four principles center on a concept known as the greater good. This idea emerged from the eighteenth-century philosophical movement know as utilitarianism... to define what makes an action a good one to take. Their answer: an action is good to the degree that it advances the greater good, or what we might today call the collective well-being of a social network or, more broadly, the trust or strength of a society. Or..."The action is best, which procures the greatest happiness for the greatest numbers, and that worst which, in like manner, occasions misery."
In November 2016, too many people were fooled.
In November 2020, enough people spoke with One VOICE and removed the power granted to him four years earlier, which he, every single damn day, abused to the overall detriment to the country and to the world. Like a three-year old toddler throwing a PROLONGED tantrum, the guy who never learned how to cope with being told no has not ended his tantrum and likely will not stop until society succeeds in isolating him in a 6 by 6 cell surrounded by concrete walls.
The Prince offers a philosophy of power suitable to such violent times, treating power in its purest form as "force and fraud." We gain and keep such power by committing coercive and unpredictable acts that are impetuous, fierce, and violent. We hold onto such power by appearing virtuous even though we harbor other intentions. This kind of power quiets (or kills) rivals and critics, inspires allegiances, and mutes the masses. Through coercive force and fraud, we dominate.
But counterexamples to this conception of power readily come to mind. Many of the most significant changes in our history--the adoption of women's suffrage, civil rights legislation, the free speech movement and its influence upon the protests against the Vietnam War, the overthrow of apartheid, the rise of gay rights--were brought about by people who lacked economic, political, and military might; they changed the world without coercive force.
One recent study examined 323 opposition movements from 1900 to 2006, in places ranging from East Timor to countries of the former Soviet bloc. Some of these movements used the tactics of coercive force--bombs, assassinations, beheadings, torture, and civilian killings. Others relied on nonviolent tactics--marches, vigils, petitions, and boycotts. The latter were twice as likely (53 percent versus 26 percent) to lead to achieving gains in political power, winning broad support from citizens, and contributing to the fall of oppressive regimes.
People resort to coercive force when their power is actually slipping. In our professional lives, people who endorse Machiavellian strategies to social life--lying, manipulating, and stepping on others to rise in the ranks--actually report experiencing less power and influence than the average person.
I have been on both sides of the equation, as an activist (who has hit the proverbial wall a few times), to having failed in a marriage relationship (which nevertheless eventually produced a well-adjusted adult daughter).
Not only that, in a fundamentalist Christian sect (which had some nationalistic ambitions for a while), I witnessed first hand what Professor Keltner notes as four of his 20 principles of power. The four he categorizes as abuses of power.
Power leads to empathy deficits and diminished moral sentiments
Power leads to self-serving impulsivity
Power leads to incivility and disrespect
Power leads to narratives of exceptionalism
We have VERY recent history with ALL four of those abuse of power principles in the former president. EVERYthing about how he conducted himself before taking office, while in office and since having to have been pried out of the Oval Office with a metaphoric crowbar demonstrates abuse of power,
In Arizona, we've had Ev Mecham, Andrew Peyton Thomas, Russell Pearce, Susan Bitter Smith... each of whom suffered self-induced downfalls due to abuse of power in one way or another.. But Doug Ducey, currently in the last six months of his second (and final) term as governor, has been far more savvy than many.
He rules heavy handedly, but has a knack for staying away from scandal. Until now, perhaps.
Since the beginning of his first term, he has been in cahoots with a Christian Nationalist with too much influence at the state capitol, Cathi Herrod. Apparently, Ms Herrod, head of Center for Arizona Policy, and wife of a Maricopa County Superior Court judge, has had Ducey's back.
Two of her signature efforts have been to undermine public k-12 education and eliminate the personal sovereignty and bodily autonomy of half the population of the state. "Extreme court" Justice Alito and his five friends killed Roe v Wade. And Ducey just recently signed a universal school voucher bill which will undermine our public schools and provide education-based oligarchs with a rich vane of gold to skim off the top of taxpayer funds that should instead be laser-focused on providing better pay for public school educators.
Speaking of the paradox of power, Republican Congressional Representatives from Arizona have quite a dubious reputation lately. One of them, Paul Gosar, running for re-election in the redistricted CD9 doesn't think he'll have any general election opponent.
CD9 Democratic primary voters can change that by writing in David Lucier's name on their ballots for that seat in Congress. Lucier has a very long record of service in Arizona and has registered as a write-in candidate, so votes for him will be counted. David Lucier has my full endorsement.
"We are impelled to relieve the sufferings of another," wrote Darwin, "in order that our own painful feelings may at the same time be relieved."
For Darwin, says Keltner, "survival of the kindest" would have been a better moniker. Darwin was a gentle and melancholic soul, a doting husband and adoring father of ten, deeply in love with nature from earliest childhood.
Better than more common expression, attributed to Darwin, "survival of the fittest," that is.
One of the most important contemporary examples to illustrate and demonstrate the POWER of nonviolent struggle and starkly contrast it with violence was Bloody Sunday in March 1965.
On March 7, 1965, police, state troopers, and a citizen “posse” violently attacked civil rights marchers attempting to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, United States. More than 15 marchers were hospitalized for injuries suffered in an event known as “Bloody Sunday.”
Americans across the nation watched footage of peaceful protesters beaten until they were bloody, injured, and, as in the case of legendary SNCC activist John Lewis, suffered concussions.
Days later, after a second attempted march (“Turnaround Tuesday”), a white minister died from injuries suffered. This media attention galvanized the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. A third march, led by Lewis, Ralph Abernathy, and Martin Luther King, Jr., reached Montgomery on March 25, 1965.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed five months later. Lewis remembers, "President [Lyndon] Johnson signed that Act, but it was written by the people of Selma."
Among the things Civil Rights hero John Lewis taught us,
“Get in good trouble, necessary trouble, andredeem the soul of America.” John Lewis made this statement on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama on March 1, 2020 commemorating the tragic events of Bloody Sunday. Bloody Sunday occurred on March 7, 1965 as peaceful protesters were beaten by law enforcement officers for crossing the bridge. Lewis and others like Amelia Boynton Robinson were beaten so badly they were hospitalized.
Diane Nash is a founding member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee who organized some of the most important civil rights campaigns of the 20th century. Nash worked closely with Martin Luther King, who described her as the “driving spirit in the nonviolent assault on segregation at lunch counters.”
Who will be the Diane Nash of the movement to establish the personal sovereignty (and hence, the bodily autonomy) of women in 2022?
Joy is the gift of love. Grief is the price of love. Anger is the force that protects that which is loved. We cannot access the depth of loving ourselves or others without our rage.
It occurs to me that the pain imposed upon all American women, especially of childbearing age (and younger) by the Trump Court is at least as sharp and as egregious as if all of the hair on my (hairy) torso were to be covered with a giant band-aid and yanked off all at once. Enduring such a procedure would leave my skin raw, likely for days. The RAGE caused by stripping away women's personal sovereignty and bodily autonomy will last even longer.
However, I foresee a great and long enduring movement in which women will lead gigantic social change. Tens and hundreds of million women. Hundreds and thousands with incredible leadership and artistic talent who will erase every last drop of Christian Nationalism and Dominionism from our shores. Writers. Singer songwriters. Actors, playwriters and screenwriters. Painters and sculptors and mixed media artists. All expressing with keen insight and exquisite passion a vision that will take what was expressed in the Preamble to the US Constitution and make it come alive in ways heretofore rarely even imagined.
But first, direct action is immediately necessary to reclaim the nation for her people. Here are excerpts from resources containing some of the insight I have found over the last few years. By no means are any of these sufficient in themselves. They are just samples.
Sharp wrote that “some conflicts do not yield to compromise and can be resolved only through struggle.”
“Regular institutional procedures are rarely available” to solve “conflicts that, in one way or another, involve the fundamental principles of a society, of independence, of self-respect, or of people’s capacity to determine their own future.”
Traditionally, it is believed that in those conflicts there exist only two alternative ways of acting: passive submission or violent action. There is, however, a third alternative: struggle by means of nonviolent action.
The basic concept and the foundation for political struggle by means of nonviolent action rest on the belief that “the exercise of power depends on the consent of the ruled who, by withdrawing that consent, can control and even destroy the power of their opponents. ”
“Nonviolent action is a technique used to control, combat, and destroy the opponents’ power by nonviolent means of wielding power.
Frequently it is presumed that “power flows from violence and can only be controlled by greater violence.” In fact, “power derives from sources within society that people can restrict or cut off by withdrawing their cooperation.
The political power of governments can indeed be very fragile. Even the power of dictatorships can be destroyed by the withdrawal of the human help that makes the existence of the regime possible.”
Political struggle by means of nonviolent action is based on this observation. In this work, “the basic characteristics of nonviolent struggle are described, misperceptions are corrected, and there is an account of some of the features of its vast history. It is the history of actions performed by ordinary people—not pacifists or saints—struggling imperfectly for a variety of causes.
Using nonviolent action, people have achieved higher wages, broken social barriers, changed government policies...
*****
(1) The indirect approach to the opponents’ power. Even in military conflicts, argued Liddell Hart, generally effective results have followed when the plan of action has had “such indirectness as to ensure the opponents’ non-readiness to meet it.” It is important “to nullify opposition by paralyzing the power to oppose” and to make “the enemy do something wrong,” Liddell Hart wrote. Against opponents using military means, always confront them indirectly by nonviolent means, so that their repression can be made to rebound against them to undermine their power position. Finally, the sources of the opponents’ power are reduced or removed without being confronted by military means.
(2) Psychological elements. These operate both within the opponent group and among the resisters. The effect of surprise in war is the incapability of the opponents to react effectively. In nonviolent struggle this incapability is produced not by secrecy but instead by the nonviolent resisters’ reliance on nonviolent means. At times, surprise in nonviolent action may weaken its effectiveness. Open announcement of the intention to use nonviolent methods may reduce nervousness among troops, make more severe repression less probable, and increase the chances of inducing disaffection.
Morale among the resisters is also important. It is crucial that the population understands that the opponents’ military might does not give them either control or victory. The resisters’ confidence in nonviolent action is fundamental, along with skill, endurance, and enthusiasm.
(3) Geographical and physical elements. The physical possession of particular locations is of secondary importance to the fulfillment of the conditions which make possible the operation of the mechanisms of change in nonviolent action. Neither possession of, nor gaining of control over, particular places is regarded as extremely important because the operation of the technique of nonviolent action depends primarily upon the will and actions of human beings. Particular places may become important if they have high symbolic value. In such cases, the methods of nonviolent obstruction, nonviolent raids, and nonviolent invasion are possible methods to be applied. The place at which a crucial resistance action is to be taken will need to be chosen carefully. At times it will also be necessary to arrange places to hold support services, such as hospitals, camps, kitchens, and the like. [...]
(6) The issue and concentration of strength. Wise strategy and tactics require a careful selection of the points on which to fight. This can only be done by taking into consideration the political, psychological, social, and economic factors of the struggle. There is no substitute for genuine strength in nonviolent action. It is impossible to be too strong at the decisive point. To be effective, nonviolent action needs to be concentrated at crucial points, as already discussed in this chapter. These points are selected after consideration of one’s own strength, weaknesses, and resources; the objectives, position, strengths, and weaknesses of the opponents; the importance of the issue itself; and the probable consequences of defeat or success. “Adjust your end to your means,” wrote Liddell Hart. It is necessary to be realistic without losing faith. Avoid exhausting confidence or the capacities of others in vain efforts where you cannot win. In special circumstances it may be necessary to act despite weaknesses. If so, a realistic assessment of the situation is still required. The development of strategy and tactics should be based on an assessment of how one’s existing strength can be used to best advantage and how one’s weaknesses can be bypassed or corrected.
In the struggle to attain freedom, it is necessary to behave like free people.
Strategy is at least as important in nonviolent action as it is in military action. It is important to choose the course of action and carry it out carefully and intelligently. It is quite inadequate simply to say that one will be moral and do what is right. There may be several courses of action which are all morally “right.” What is “right” may involve maintaining or creating maximum opposition to “evil.” If so, the problem is how to do this in order to meet one’s moral responsibility and maximize the effects of one’s actions. Those actions must be carefully chosen and carried out at the right time. The better the strategy, the easier you will gain the upper hand, and the less it will cost you. As in war, strategy and tactics are used in nonviolent action so that the courage, sacrifice, and numbers of the nonviolent resisters may make the greatest possible impact. The specific acts of protest, noncooperation and intervention will be most effective if they fit together as parts of a comprehensive whole, so that each specific action contributes to success. It is also important to have acceptance by the grievance group of the strategy for the struggle in order to avoid divisions.
#1 NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER - A clear-eyed account of learning how to lead in a chaotic world, by General Jim Mattis--the former Secretary of Defense and one of the most formidable strategic thinkers of our time--and Bing West, a former assistant secretary of defense and combat Marine.
"A four-star general's five-star memoir."--The Wall Street Journal
You make mistakes, or life knocks you down; either way, you get up and get on with it. You deal with life. You don’t whine about it.
You don’t always control your circumstances, but you can always control your response.
My early years with my Marines taught me leadership fundamentals, summed up in the three Cs.
The first is competence. Be brilliant in the basics. Don’t dabble in your job; you must master it.
Second, caring. To quote Teddy Roosevelt, “Nobody cares how much you know, until they know how much you care.”
In a family, you watch out for your younger brother. You’re interested in him—how he grows, how he learns, who he wants to be. When your Marines know you care about them, then you can speak bluntly when they disappoint you.
Third, conviction. This is harder and deeper than physical courage. Your peers are the first to know what you will stand for and, more important, what you won’t stand for. Your troops catch on fast. State your flat-ass rules and stick to them. They shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. At the same time, leaven your professional passion with personal humility and compassion for your troops. Remember: As an officer, you need to win only one battle—for the hearts of your troops. Win their hearts and they will win the fights. Competence, caring, and conviction combine to form a fundamental element—shaping the fighting spirit of your troops. Leadership means reaching the souls of your troops, instilling a sense of commitment and purpose in the face of challenges so severe that they cannot be put into words.
The Marine philosophy is to recruit for attitude and train for skills. Marines believe that attitude is a weapon system. We searched for intangible character traits: a quest for adventure, a desire to serve with the elite, and the intention to be in top physical condition.
“I’ll tell you what leadership is,” he said. “It’s persuasion and conciliation and education and patience. It’s long, slow, tough work. That’s the only kind of leadership I know.”
Keep training and encouraging local forces. Stay professional and polite. Whenever you show anger or disgust toward civilians, it’s a victory for the insurgents. Victory is not an abstraction. We will train Iraqi forces and patrol until the last terrorist is dead.
READ, READ, READ
Several years later, I was training in the jungles of northern Okinawa when, without warning, I was temporarily put in command of a 180-man company. On a Saturday morning, the sergeant major requested that I drop by for a quiet discussion. Technically, I outranked him, but no lieutenant with his wits about him is slow to respond when his top noncommissioned offer wants to talk with him alone. “You are a very persuasive young man,” he said, handing me a book about a Roman centurion, “but it would be best if you did your homework first.” Before going into battle, you can learn by asking veterans about their experiences and by reading relentlessly. Lieutenants come to grasp the elements of battle, while senior officers learn how to outwit their opponents.
By studying how others have dealt with similar circumstances, I became exposed to leadership examples that accelerated my expanding understanding of combat.
In the year 170, at night in his tent on the front lines of the war in Germania, Marcus Aurelius, the emperor of the Roman Empire, sat down to write... what he wrote is undoubtedly one of history’s most effective formulas for overcoming every negative situation we may encounter in life. A formula for thriving not just in spite of whatever happens but because of it.
The impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way.
In Marcus’s words is the secret to an art known as turning obstacles upside down. To act with “a reverse clause,” so there is always a way out or another route to get to where you need to go. So that setbacks or problems are always expected and never permanent. Making certain that what impedes us can empower us. Coming from this particular man, these were not idle words. In his own reign of some nineteen years, he would experience nearly constant war, a horrific plague, possible infidelity, an attempt at the throne by one of his closest allies, repeated and arduous travel across the empire—from Asia Minor to Syria, Egypt, Greece, and Austria—a rapidly depleting treasury, an incompetent and greedy stepbrother as co-emperor, and on and on and on. And from what we know, he truly saw each and every one of these obstacles as an opportunity to practice some virtue: patience, courage, humility, resourcefulness, reason, justice, and creativity. The power he held never seemed to go to his head—neither did the stress or burden. He rarely rose to excess or anger, and never to hatred or bitterness.
Whatever we face, we have a choice: Will we be blocked by obstacles, or will we advance through and over them?
That the challenge makes them better than if they’d never faced the adversity at all. Now it’s your turn to see if you’re one of them, if you’ll join their company. This book will show you the way.
What blocks us is clear. Systemic: decaying institutions, rising unemployment, skyrocketing costs of education, and technological disruption. Individual: too short, too old, too scared, too poor, too stressed, no access, no backers, no confidence. How skilled we are at cataloging what holds us back! Every obstacle is unique to each of us. But the responses they elicit are the same: Fear. Frustration. Confusion. Helplessness. Depression. Anger.
What do these figures have that we lack? What are we missing? It’s simple: a method and a framework for understanding, appreciating, and acting upon the obstacles life throws at us. John D. Rockefeller had it—for him it was cool headedness and self-discipline.
As it turns out, this is one thing all great men and women of history have in common. Like oxygen to a fire, obstacles became fuel for the blaze that was their ambition. Nothing could stop them, they were (and continue to be) impossible to discourage or contain. Every impediment only served to make the inferno within them burn with greater ferocity.
This book will share with you their collective wisdom in order to help you accomplish the very specific and increasingly urgent goal we all share: overcoming obstacles. Mental obstacles. Physical obstacles. Emotional obstacles. Perceived obstacles. We face them every day and our society is collectively paralyzed by this.
So this will be a book of ruthless pragmatism and stories from history that illustrate the arts of relentless persistence and indefatigable ingenuity. It teaches you how to get unstuck, unfucked, and unleashed.
Lincoln, a man who taught himself military strategy by poring over books he checked out from the Library of Congress, laid out a map across a big table and pointed instead to Vicksburg, Mississippi, a little city deep in Southern territory. It was a fortified town high on the bluffs of the Mississippi River, held by the toughest rebel troops. Not only did it control navigation of that important waterway, but it was a juncture for a number of other important tributaries, as well as rail lines that supplied Confederate armies and enormous slave plantations across the South.
“Vicksburg is the key,” he told the crowd with the certainty of a man who had studied a matter so intensely that he could express it in the simplest of terms. “The war can never be brought to a close until that key is in our pocket.” As it happened, Lincoln turned out to be exactly right.
It would take years, it would take incredible equanimity and patience, as well as ferocious commitment to his cause, but the strategy laid out in that room was what won the war and ended slavery in America forever. Every other important victory in the Civil War—from Gettysburg to Sherman’s March to the Sea to Lee’s surrender—was made possible because at Lincoln’s instruction Ulysses S. Grant laid siege to Vicksburg in 1863, and by taking the city split the South in two and gained control of that important waterway.
In his reflective, intuitive manner, without being rushed or distracted, Lincoln had seen (and held fast to) what his own advisors, and even his enemy, had missed. Because he possessed the key that unlocked victory from the rancor and folly of all those early competing plans.
It’s a type of storytelling in which eventually your talent becomes your identity and your accomplishments become your worth. But a story like this is never honest or helpful. In my retelling to you just now, I left a lot out. Conveniently omitted were the stresses and temptations; the stomach-turning drops and the mistakes—all the mistakes—were left on the cutting-room floor in favor of the highlight reel. They are the times I would rather not discuss: A public evisceration by someone I looked up to, which so crushed me at the time that I was later taken to the emergency room. The day I lost my nerve, walked into my boss’s office, and told him I couldn’t cut it and was going back to school—and meant it. The ephemeral nature of best-sellerdom, and how short it actually was (a week). The book signing that one person showed up at. The company I founded tearing itself to pieces and having to rebuild it. Twice. These are just some of the moments that get nicely edited out.
In this timely, highly original, and controversial narrative, New York Times bestselling author Mark Kurlansky discusses nonviolence as a distinct entity, a course of action, rather than a mere state of mind. Nonviolence can and should be a technique for overcoming social injustice and ending wars, he asserts, which is why it is the preferred method of those who speak truth to power.
Nonviolence is a sweeping yet concise history that moves from ancient Hindu times to present-day conflicts raging in the Middle East and elsewhere. Kurlansky also brings into focus just why nonviolence is a “dangerous” idea, and asks such provocative questions as: Is there such a thing as a “just war”? Could nonviolence have worked against even the most evil regimes in history?
In 1931 Gandhi wrote, “Whether mankind will consciously follow the law of love, I do not know. But that need not perturb us. The law will work, just as the law of gravitation will work whether we accept it or not. And just as a scientist will work wonders out of various applications of the laws of nature, even so a man [in 1931, even Gandhi apparently wasn't even thinking in terms of women who lead, but it still applies] who applies the law of love with scientific precision can work great wonders.”
A book I have only just begun to read. It was written 30 years ago or so but was prescient. In other words, Octavia Butler had incredible insight and vision. All of human life is about stories. Here's what Goodreads' blurb says:
In 2025, with the world descending into madness and anarchy, one woman begins a fateful journey toward a better future.
Lauren Olamina and her family live in one of the only safe neighborhoods remaining on the outskirts of Los Angeles. Behind the walls of their defended enclave, Lauren’s father, a preacher, and a handful of other citizens try to salvage what remains of a culture that has been destroyed by drugs, disease, war, and chronic water shortages. While her father tries to lead people on the righteous path, Lauren struggles with hyperempathy, a condition that makes her extraordinarily sensitive to the pain of others.
When fire destroys their compound, Lauren’s family is killed and she is forced out into a world that is fraught with danger. With a handful of other refugees, Lauren must make her way north to safety, along the way conceiving a revolutionary idea that may mean salvation for all mankind.
Women may not want to hear a lot of what I have to say. But I hope they enthusiastically read and digest what visionary women leaders like Valarie Kaur and Octavia Butler have written and have to say, as well as leaders and philosophers such as Jim Mattis, Ryan Holiday and Mohandas K Gandhi have had to say about fighting (nonviolently) and winning.
There are now, at this time, some key women running for offices in Arizona which will have dramatic impact on matters of personal sovereignty and bodily autonomy.
When Republican Maricopa County Attorney Alistair Adel resigned a few months ago, Democrat Julie Gunnigle, who had narrowly lost to Adel in the 2020 election, declared her intent to run again for the position. Because Arizona allows candidates for elected office to collect nominating petition signatures online, Gunnigle qualified for the primary election ballot in ONE day, garnering thousands of signatures. Julie is clear and emphatic in declaring she would not prosecute anyone for any alleged violation of abortion-related laws. Julie will be on the general election ballot (no primary election opposition).
Additionally, two excellent, strong women candidates are running for statewide office this year in important races for women's rights in Arizona. Katie Hobbs (incumbent Democratic Secretary of State, running for governor) and Kris Mayes, a former chair of the Arizona Corporation Commission (which regulates utilities among other responsibilities) is the sole Democrat running for Arizona Attorney General.
Speaking of the Arizona Corporation Commission, two more strong, visionary and brilliant women I know are running for the two open seats on said commission this year. Sandra Kennedy (incumbent, running for re-election) and outgoing (well, she IS outgoing, but her multiple term tenure on the council is also coming to an end) Tempe City Council member Lauren Kuby. I support ALL of these women candidates.
Not to be overlooked, matters of direct democracy are on the front burner this very day. Several citizen initiatives are still (until July 7th, next week) collecting signatures to be put on the general election ballot this year. Just today (Tuesday), I found the closest location where the initiative petitions to guarantee women's healthcare rights (including the right to decide what to do when facing pregnancy) could be signed by registered voters. So, I went there and was delighted to see a steady line of citizens signing them.
If all of the locations have been and are likewise busy with signers, there's a great chance we will be able to obviate the sinister Dominionist effort unleashed last week by Trump's court. Find a location near you with a petition to sign.
Last but not least, the Stop Dark Money initiative will be key to minimizing the influence of the Dominionists/Christian Nationalists and other nefarious influences which currently drown out the Voice of the People.
Let's get (or stay) busy working to get these women and these initiative measures on the ballot, passed and permanently into law for ourselves, our children and grandchildren!
Direct democracy is OUR SUPERPOWER! For the next few days, imagine (and work toward) the seemingly impossible and make it possible. The linked page lists Arizona locations with petitions for the Reproductive Freedom initiative. Please sign it and send your friends.
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; . . . who at best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly.” —Theodore Roosevelt
Every day we experience the uncertainty, risks, and emotional exposure that define what it means to be vulnerable, or to dare greatly. Whether the arena is a new relationship, an important meeting, our creative process, or a difficult family conversation, we must find the courage to walk into vulnerability and engage with our whole hearts.
In Daring Greatly, Dr. Brown challenges everything we think we know about vulnerability. Based on twelve years of research, she argues that vulnerability is not weakness, but rather our clearest path to courage, engagement, and meaningful connection.
We herd sheep, we drive cattle, we lead people. Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way.
