Sunday, November 5, 2017

Paganism Has a Creepy Guy Problem

Paganism has a creepy guy problem….and we need to face and address it.  This is a call for looking in the mirror and then having productive conversations.  So, let me talk about what I see, how I understand it, and also my hope.

First, I should be clear that I am talking about men in the Pagan community who are attracted to women.  I don’t know if this situation is also present in men who are attracted to men.  Even if so, it is likely that the dynamics are a bit different.

I believe that Paganism, writ large, is an audacious project…one in which we are establishing the nascent foundations of alternative cultures that are meant to challenge the dominant culture in which we are embedded.  We are striving to re-enchant the world.  We are trying to create ways of living that build positive, caring and meaningful relationships with beings who are non-human (including invisible/spirit beings) and all of the natural world.  We are creating traditions and structures that encourage the development of human potential at all levels of being and inculcating an orientation that holds all aspects of human nature as having sacred value.  We are developing alternatives to the dominant culture that challenge not only gender roles, but the valuation of those roles.  We want to create alternative cultures in which human beings can embrace and develop their full natures and thrive. 

Paganism provides a strong corrective to values in the dominant culture that simultaneously cast sexuality as something morally negative and use a “market” approach to sexuality that leads to objectification of humans, especially (but not exclusively) women.  Paganism has an extraordinary degree of sexual openness.  Within Pagan circles, there is a high level of acceptance of LGBTQ members of the community.  A broad range of sexual orientations and practices are accepted and celebrated as part of human experience.  If it is safe, sane, and between consenting adults, Pagans are generally fine with almost anything.  Female sexuality is fully accepted as a valuable part of human experience and women are supported in claiming and developing their sexuality in a positive way.  Given the misogyny of the dominant culture, this is revolutionary.  In general, Pagans have a strong desire to be sex-positive.

Here’s the bad.  Sexual permissiveness is not inherently sex-positive.  Sexual positivity, at its foundation, requires full consent of all partners.  Any form of coercion is antithetical.  While it is critically important that Pagan women can be fully sexual beings, this can morph into an expectation that they are always going to be sexual.  There seems to be an expectation on the part of some Pagan men that Pagan women are always open to being hit on.  This is a huge problem.  I cannot even count the number of Pagan women who have complained to me about unwanted sexual attention to the point of relentlessness.  And it isn’t just at parties.  Sex is appropriately seen as sacred, but this belief can morph into obnoxious to oppressive behavior when every moment and every context is seen as an opportunity to hit on women. 

Now, there are bad guys who I suspect are drawn to Paganism because they can get away with things in their constant prospecting for women in Pagan circles that they can’t get away with in the dominant culture.  These are the ones who know full well that their attention is unwanted and are doing it anyway.  These people need to be shamed and shunned.  If they’ve been called out and continue, they are not unaware.  But getting rid of these blights would not fix the problem.  I think that a good portion of the instances that I hear about are from men who would be horrified if they understood that their behavior was creeping/freaking women out.

I think a significant root of the problem is that they are not understanding the experiences of women or what we are bringing with us into our interactions in the Pagan community.  First, as the #MeToo campaign made glaringly apparent, there are barely any women in this culture who HAVE NOT been sexually assaulted and/or harassed.  That is part of our lived experience.  For pretty much any woman you are dealing with, you can expect that she has memories of gendered/sexual violence that make up part of her psyche.  Secondly, no matter how “nice” a guy you think you are, all Pagan women are embedded in the dominant culture also and what we know with absolute certainty is that we are all in far more danger from men we know than from strangers.  Violence against women is an epidemic….virtually all of us experience it and we all have mechanisms of trying to protect ourselves. 

So, our histories and our experiences teach virtually all women several things.  Women are in danger from men.  That is not an exaggeration--that is real.  I think most Pagan men want to change that.  Good.  We need your help.  Secondly, much like the most dangerous time for the victim of domestic violence is the moment an abuser realizes his/her victim is going to leave, the most dangerous moment for any woman is when the man who is hitting on her realizes she is not going to have sex with him.  That is when, as a woman, your risk of being assaulted sky-rockets.  It means that for most of us when you are hit on and not interested, it is a fraught exchange and this anxiety is often invisible to men. 

What does that mean?  There are a bunch of tactics that most women know and use to lessen that risk…most of which have to do with indirect ways of communicating a lack of interest/consent.  We try to keep things kind of superficial and flirtatious and avoid having them advance to a real proposition, sometimes by trying to get a third party present or involved.  We try to disentangle without having to directly say “no” to somebody because it is often fraught and frightening to get to the point where you have to be that direct.  (I know some women don't have anxiety being that direct, but many do).  One of the most time-honored and effective but nauseatingly oppressive methods is to assert that you “belong” to some other man (my husband, my boyfriend, see my wedding ring) because it is a proven fact that men will respect the property-rights of other men more than they will respect the autonomy, sovereignty and basic human rights of a woman.  (Just typing this sentence and knowing it is true almost made me vomit and cry simultaneously).  It also means that we psychologically rely on some of the divisions about when we expect to be in contexts where we may be hit on (like at a party or a bar, or going out to dinner with someone), and when we do not expect to be hit on (like at work, or in the grocery, or walking down the street, or in a class on divination, or getting ready for a ritual).  When we are suddenly put in a position where we are dealing with sexual advances in contexts for which we are not prepared, that is often disturbing if not frightening. 

So, suddenly, in a Pagan context, all of the indirect ways of communicating fail.  Even the time honored “I have a boyfriend” doesn’t work because the acceptance of polyamory frequently morphs into an expectation that the woman might be into it.  The expectation is that a woman who is not interested should just say “no,” but that doesn’t take into account all of our experiences, not just in the past, but as soon as we walk out of Pagan spaces.  It doesn’t take into account how much that really requires of many women and the anxiety-load it creates.  And for people who think that it is only men in the dominant culture who react badly and get scary when a woman doesn’t want to have sex with them…dream on.  I’ve seen it.  Additionally, there is not as clear a division about when it is and is not appropriate to hit on somebody, which also increases the anxiety load.  Plus, what many men, including many Pagan men, never seem to understand is the extreme cognitive dissonance that many women live with in which it is flattering to be told that you are attractive and also terrifying…in the same moment.  This is especially important when you consider how the dominant culture trains us to believe that our value is dependent upon being attractive to the same population who will use that attractiveness as an excuse to degrade and assault us.  That’s just a part of the lived reality of being female in this culture.

I believe that most Pagan men don’t want this for any women, especially for their Pagan sisters.  I believe that they, far more than most men, want to see the patriarchy overturned and an end to misogyny.  I think most Pagan men are aware that women are suffering and don’t want that.  I don’t have answers, but I hope that we can have some real conversations that are not about blame, but are about finding ways we can turn Pagan culture into a truly sex-positive culture and maybe provide models beyond ourselves.  Here are some ideas for future thinking.

1.  We need to kill out language and thought patterns of rejection.  The language of rejection suggests that if someone does not want to have sex with you, it is because you are less valuable and in some way it hurts you.  Instead, the default expectation should be that people do not want to have sex with you and if they do, it is because they want to share something with you.   It is easy to say this, but it is harder, in the moment, to stand strong in your center.  As Pagans, I think we need to build and strengthen the understanding that the worth of each human being is not conditional and that we are strong in our center and self-worth.  [As a related project, I think we need to be developing models of intimate relationships that are not erotic because if you are ONLY intimate with people you are sexually involved with, then there is no way to address the issue of feeling like a lack of sexual interest is a rejection of your worth].   

    2.  We need to set up some contextual understandings about when it is and is not appropriate to be hitting on each other.  Much like the Dwayne “the Rock” Johnson exercise for the workplace (imagine you are talking to Dwayne “the Rock” Johnson and treat your female colleague like you would him) we need to set up some shared understanding about what behavior is appropriate when. 
3.  We need to find ways to make it safe for people to express desire and facilitate hooking up, but in ways that don’t require women to use behaviors that are potentially dangerous.  Again, putting women in situations where they have to say “no” is potentially threatening.  It also doesn’t take into account a common adrenaline response, which is to freeze.  Not saying “no” is never the same thing as saying “yes.”  I think we need to have some conversations about how we can get assent in ways that are not threatening…especially in situations in which people are likely to remain in community with each other.

EDITED TO ADD:  Based on comments in the Facebook feeds, I want to make a couple of clarifying points.  First, I am not saying that women are not also sometimes creepy...but I am not assuming that the dynamic would be the same, so that is not my topic.  Out of scope is not the same the same thing as denying it occurs.  Point two is similar.  Yes, the world has a creepy guy problem.  Many other contexts have a creepy people problem.  I am Pagan.  I am interested in having the conversations about  how to make the interactions between men and women in Paganism healthier for all parties.  Point three...if your comment in any way resembles, "Not me!  I am shy and afraid of being humiliated!  How DARE you talk about this!  Violence against women is overblown!  What do you mean by creepy any way, feminist."  Your answer...creepy. And I'm not sure you aren't a Russian bot anyway.

In the interest of trying to move things along in a more productive vein.  If any women are willing to put some ideas in the comments.  What would a GOOD exchange look like if a guy was hitting on you and you were not interested?  What would feel safe that does not require the guy to be a full-blown telepath?  

Saturday, August 12, 2017

What if Reincarnation is Real?

This post is a contemplation concerning the practical ramifications of reincarnation and how it should affect our priorities if we take it seriously.

Saturday, May 13, 2017

We are not in a failed state...yet. May it never be so.

I am seeing a lot of posts from friends and articles written for the left that are essentially declaring us a failed state and that our democracy is over.  Donald Trump is a Tyrant and we can't rescue the system, seems to be the gist of these posts and articles.  
While I understand the despair from whence this comes and I DO NOT want us to fail to realize the seriousness of the danger we are in, because we are in the balance and close to falling into authoritarianism, we haven't lost yet.  We are not yet in a failed state.  

Donald Trump has all of the characteristics of a tyrant and is causing constitutional crises (plural).  But we have not yet lost and that is important because if we believe that we have, prematurely, it hands him the victory.  

It took a while for Nixon to get ousted and, although it looks and is really bad (worse than Nixon) things are moving in that direction. It was always political pressure that did it. The reigning party must be more afraid of the voters than anything else. Of course, we have terrible gerrymandering and this is all desperately dangerous...I am in NO WAY trying to get us to think we are safer than we are, but we also need to avoid freezing in despair and proclaiming it to be over....or being too fast to throw our system overboard - although we clearly see places where it has to be strengthened.

Trump has the lowest approval ratings of any President at this point in time.  We have a couple of gerrymandering cases that could dramatically change things in 2018.  We have some of the biggest enemies in Congress and in government who are weakened.  The courts are upholding the constitution.

Yes…there are really horrible things happening and McConnell has done more to undermine our democracy than virtually anyone in our history.  But just because he and his cronies have blocked a special prosecutor and independent commission right now, doesn’t mean that this is over.  First of all…did people really think he was just going to turn around and do it?  If so, you had different expectations than me.  I expect us to have to put pressure on EVERY DAY for six months at minimum to get it.  If we do it and do it right, we will destroy McConnell in the process…which is a worthy goal because he has shown himself to be quite willing to re-write the rules for his own success regardless of their impact on generations to come.  He is unworthy of office.  We need to make this as much about him as about Trump.  I am going on the assumption that he may be implicated.  

McConnell and Sessions need to be as strongly targeted as Trump.  There is reason to believe that they may be implicated.  We know Sessions lied under oath about Russia.  He is supposed to recuse himself and has not.

So, when do we give up?  When do we proclaim that our democracy is over and it is no longer worth trying to fight for the system?  (And I believe it is important for us to fight for our system both to prove to ourselves it can work and to prove to the world…we are the oldest democratic system standing…we owe it to the world to try with everything we have to make it survive.  And all of you radicals who want socialism or some such?  The dangers from a GOVERNMENTAL perspective are the same, so we have to survive to prove it is possible).

These are the four things I am looking for:
  1. 1. Trump suspends the government for some sort of emergency (a Reichstag fire) and is not immediately deposed.
  2. 2.  The 2018 elections fail to meet the standard for fair and free elections (and with voter suppression…we are more dangerously close there than most of our citizens realize).
  3. 3.  The courts block Trump and he refuses to abide by their ruling, using the executive branch power to ignore them.  If he is not virtually immediately removed…we are a failed state.
  4. 4.   He orders our military to act against our citizens and is obeyed.
If these things happen, we are in a failed state.  The fifth, which is a little slippery in terms of when to call it, is the suppression of the press.
We edge closer and closer to it the more Trump flouts rule of law (over and over again) and is not checked by Congress.  If the GOP does not check him and then the Dems do not regain control after 2018, we will have to re-evaluate from there.
But, again, I would expect us to have to scream CONSISTENTLY about the need for a special prosecutor and to start implicating McConnell and Sessions for six months or so to get action.  Part of our problem is that these four months have felt like a decade and people are tiring out and giving up.  That is what they are expecting.  We have to remain focused.  

And then, when we win, we’ve got to very seriously revisit our form of government and see how to strengthen the protections.  Unfortunately, in any system, a huge amount of it is always upheld by societal norms.  Society is always a compact.  It just always is.  And our system is grossly imperfect and there are things we can do to tweak it.  But the biggest problem is that any democratic form of government is prone to what we are currently facing because people can be ignorant, hateful, tribal, and downright stupid.  That’s a human condition problem.  There are other forms of government that would theoretically be better, (the old meaning of aristocracy means rule by the best…which is not supposed to be hereditary, oligarchy just claims that you are ruling according to who has the most wealth which is usually hereditary, but can let new wealth in) but they tend to degenerate rapidly into rule by hereditary lineage.  The dangers of socialism as a form of government are essentially the same as a democracy.  
Until we all manage to achieve enlightenment…some form of democracy is probably best for us.  

My conclusions.  
  1. We are in real, serious danger…do not forget that and resist with everything you have got.
  2. We are not yet in a failed state, so don’t give up in despair and it is not yet time to chuck the system.  That hands the victory to the enemies of Democracy – which includes Trump, it includes the oligarch funders of the GOP, and it includes the oligarchs in Russia.  Don’t do it.
  3. We need to scream EVERY DAY for the next six months at minimum for a special prosecutor and special independent bi-partisan commission to investigate whether there was collusion with the Trump campaign and Russia and whether there IS a cover-up or continued collusion.  Don’t let the narrative wander (the media will let it wander if they don’t think it will sell).
  4. McConnell and Sessions are working to block a reasonable investigation – we very publicly ask the questions about whether they are implicated.
  5. Work very hard beginning now on 2018.  And this is about the survival of our democracy.  We must elect people who will be willing to stand up to the executive branch, if necessary…even against their own party.  Frankly, if this was a Democrat doing the same, we need to be willing to be as vigilant and outraged.  It is unlikely to be since Democrats tend to work for the system and the GOP has been trying to undermine it since the oligarchs have gotten control of their party…but our loyalty should be to the system, not the party.
  6. Anything that starts to slide on any of the four pathways to a failed state…we have got to be immediately up in arms. 
  7. We have to fight with everything we’ve got against suppression of the free press.

There are a lot of issues.  Tons of them…overwhelming us and overwhelming the narrative so that we don’t stay focused.  But the Russia issue, we need to get to the bottom of it.  At this point, if we don't want to lose our form of government entirely and end up in civil war, we focus on protecting the Constitution...just like every government employee, including every member of the military, has sworn to do.  May the oath breakers be held to account.

Monday, May 8, 2017

Some thoughts on healthcare

I am rethinking how I am going to talk about healthcare with people.  I think that it is important that we fight what is, essentially, a repeal of the ACA, but recognize that the ACA is a woefully imperfect bill.  I think we need to force the discourse to move in a different direction and be careful about how we do it.

One thing that is dangerous is debating pieces of Trumpcare - although we can point some of it out.  I'd really rather have us just start talking very differently about our entire healthcare system.  Take the debate where we want it to go rather than being on the defensive.  

To me, the real question--and it is a moral question--is, should profit-making motives have anything to do with healthcare?  Do we really want a system of healthcare that is designed to generate profit for corporations?

The reason that we have governments is that there are times in which "the market" is the wrong instrument for social organization.  There are many reasons why this might be the case.  Sometimes they are social "goods" that are just never going to make a profit, but that we recognize as contributing to society in important ways, so want to support them.  Sometimes it is because if the services were run like a business, it would be dangerous for society - imagine if the military was not a government entity, but was loyal to companies and shareholders - we would be back in the days of warring petite fiefdoms.  I believe that healthcare is one of these instances in which the market is just the absolute wrong instrument for healthcare.  The goal of healthcare is to prevent illness, heal the sick and the injured, ease the suffering of the dying, and to help the members of the society thrive.  As such, there needs to be enough money in the system to fairly compensate all those who work in healthcare, to ensure that facilities are top notch, and to encourage continued research and development into new treatments, but they should not be about profit.  And I'm going to point out that I know A LOT of people who work in the medical professions, and not a one of them got into healthcare with profit as their main motive.  They got into healthcare because they wanted to serve humanity as healers....because they care about people.

The ACA was an attempt to move the needle, but it was a compromise, and not a very good one.  What we really need is to get medical care free of the insurance companies by moving to single payer - to Medicare for all.  This would cut way down on the administrative burden.  A huge amount of the business that doctor's offices have to deal with is trying to get claims paid.  Medicare for all would dramatically simplify that.  With all the population in the pool - it would balance out the younger and healthier balancing the older and sicker.  Rather than returning to the horror-show of pre-existing conditions exclusions, Medicare for all would eliminate the terrible risks to people who have employer paid insurance if they lose or change jobs.  The government could negotiate for actually reasonable drug prices.  We could kill the UCR tables where every bill I ever get from a doctor says things like "Hospital services, amount charged $39,541.60, Allowed amount $4,466.50, Amount paid, $4,466.50."  (This was from my surgery).  So, what this says to me is that my surgery costs around $4500, but in order to get that amount, they jacked up the price by almost $35,000 and if I didn't have insurance...I'd be paying almost $40,000 for the surgery I just had...which means I wouldn't be having that surgery because I don't have $40,000.  I mean, who does?  What reality are we living in?  I guess I'd just continue to go through life with sinus troubles and not being able to breathe.  I suspect that if we had single payer, they could negotiate what they are going to pay and there would be no more of this crazy math.  And before anyone says, "But wait! SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!!!"  That is a red-herring.  Nobody says in hysterical tones, "SOCIALIZED STOPLIGHTS!!!"  There are things that it makes more sense if they are run through the government rather than the market.  Medical care is one of them.

So now, I want to wind the clock back to before the ACA and talk about what I DO NOT want to go back to...and what I believe Trumpcare could re-create.

Obviously, there were a lot of uninsured people who would go to emergency rooms for everything because they didn't have care and you can't get turned away from an emergency room.  We will have a lot of people who will lose their insurance.  But, at the moment, I'm going to speak from the position of someone who works as a manager in an organization that has employer-provided healthcare because I want to point out several ways that tying employment to healthcare makes NO SENSE.

Without laws making it illegal to exclude pre-existing conditions, depending on how large and aggressive your company is in negotiations, you may or may not have a plan that has pre-existing conditions exclusions.  Now, this doesn't necessarily keep you from getting "care," it just means that the plan is not going to cover conditions that you had prior to being covered by that plan.  So, let's say you are in the job and you have something that you are concerned might be serious or chronic.  If you knew that no matter what you would be covered, you would go get the diagnostic tests as soon as you were worried about it...possibly catching a situation early, when it is easier to treat.  But instead, you think..."well...I may want to change jobs in a couple of years and if it is something chronic, then if I switched insurers, they might not cover me and I think in the long-run, I'm not likely to be at this job in ten years.  Maybe I should just wait and see if it goes away."

This kind of thinking is really common.  It keeps people from getting checked out when things can often be dealt with more safely and cheaply and then they finally end up in the doctor's office when it is really bad and much more expensive to treat.  This is one of the reasons why our healthcare costs were so ungodly high.

Another scenario goes like this.  You know you have a chronic condition that needs to be managed and that if you left your job, would be uncovered.  Maybe you need a drug that costs $200 a month for the rest of your life, a liver test that costs $1500 annually, and if anything ever went wrong with it, it could be quite expensive.  You hate your job and you feel trapped, but you don't dare leave.  On the other hand, you are a good twenty years from retirement.  Every day, you get up, feeling trapped and resentful.  You carry that into the workplace where you are angry, ready to take offense, frustrated in general and are a morale dark hole.  You are totally toxic in your workplace, but are not going anywhere.  You do your job well enough to not get fired, but negatively affect everyone around you.  Another variant is that instead of being angry, you are a hyper-anxious mess about the possibility of getting fired and losing your coverage...which is also a seriously negative hit on productivity and morale.  These were really common and are devastatingly bad to an organization.

Maybe you have an entrepreneurial spirit and would really like to try starting your own business.  Or you are an artist and can support yourself, living frugally, on your art and a part-time job.  Except you can't, because you can't get health insurance that would actually cover anything at a price you can afford.  So, instead, you never strike out and, instead, stay at a full-time job that does not allow you to take a chance on your innovation.  Is this good for our country?  I don't think so.

Finally, you have employer-related insurance for your children.  You have a teen that is showing some signs of a potentially chronic condition.  They are going to be off your coverage you wait on seeking a diagnosis and medical care in the hope that they can make it until they get a job that they will then be tied to?  Do you get them the care and then hope that they will be able to get into a job that is both large enough and has been able to negotiate strongly enough that they don't have pre-existing conditions exclusions...but what if they don't?  What do you do?  If it's a mental illness, you only have until they are eighteen where you can force them to get help, but then you set them up to be potentially without care the rest of their lives.  Yay.  This totally sucks and there is no good conclusion without pre-existing conditions being illegal.

We need, we absolutely need, the requirement that companies must cover pre-existing conditions and that those with pre-existing conditions should not be isolated into their own "high risk" pool.  What will happen if they are isolated is that they will be given an "opportunity" to buy health insurance that will be so cost prohibitive that no one who is not wealthy will be able to afford it.  That isn't "access" to health care.  That is a "bare opportunity."

Again, I think we need to step back and ask ourselves why we have for-profit health insurance companies.  Unlike, say, fire insurance - health problems happen to all of us.  It is part of the human condition.  There isn't anyone who is not going to get sick, get hurt, get old, and eventually die.  So, it isn't like the statistical odds of various forms of accident or fire insurance where you are paying a bit into the kitty on the off-chance that you are the one who will need it...but you may never.  You WILL need healthcare.  You will probably need health care at some point this year.  You SHOULD probably at least get screenings for something so that you can stay healthy.  Insurance is not the way to deal with this.

The clear solution is Medicare for All.

Tuesday, April 18, 2017


One of the things that happens to me sometimes is that poetry comes through my pen really quickly without my real thought.   Mostly it is Apollon, but this one is from a God about whom I knew virtually nothing at the time this appeared on this paper.  It is about 6 years old.

The river runs through the mountain.
The river flows through the sea.
Of all the lore forgotten
How could you forget me?
I am the breeze in the morning.
I am the world's last breath.
I count your length and rhythm,
I'll leave you at your death.
The starlight is my stallion,
The blood flows at my whim.
I mediate your spirit.
I sing your life's great hymn.
I am Shu, I am Shu, I am Shu.

Saturday, March 4, 2017

Demanding a Special Prosecutor

Hello Everyone

I have not had the chance to write much, but I have been quite busy.  It is clear that we need a special prosecutor and a bi-partisan investigatory committee to investigate the connection between President Trump, his campaign, his surrogates and the Russians and whether or not there was collusion and/or cover-up about the Russian interference in our elections with the intention of aiding President Trump.

The Justice Department is supposed to appoint a special prosecutor whenever there is a conflict of interest or unusual circumstances.  Given that Jeff Sessions, the head of the Department of Justice, was a Trump surrogate and lied about his conversations with Russia and the FBI is supposed to be investigating both Sessions and Trump, among others, there are CLEARLY conflicts of interest.  A special prosecutor is a necessity.

This is my postcard text:  We need a special prosecutor [as per 28CFR 600.1] and a bi-partisan investigatory committee.  Given what we know right now, refusal to allow proper investigation looks suspicious.

Paul Ryan
1233 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Mitch McConnell
317 Russell Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

GOP members of the House Oversight Committee
Jason Chaffetz
2236 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Trey Gowdy
2418 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Blake Farenhold
1027 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Virginia Foxx
2350 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Thomas Massie
2453 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Mark Meadows
1024 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Ron DeSantis
1524 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dennis A. Ross
436 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Mark Walker
1305 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Rod Blum
1108 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Jody Hice
324 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Steve Russell
128 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Glenn Grothman
1217 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Will Hurd
317 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Gary Palmer
330 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515

James Comer
1513 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Neal Dunn
423 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Clay Higgins
1711 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Scott DesJarlais
413 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Paul Gosar
504 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Justin Amash
114 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Mark Sanford
2211 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Jim Jordan
1524 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Darrell Issa
2347 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Jimmy Duncan
2207 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Senate Select Intelligence Committee GOP members

Jim Cornyn
517 Hart Bldg
Washington, DC 20510

Tom Cotton
124 Russell Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

James Lankford
1015 N. Broadway Ave. Ste 310
Oklahoma City, OK 73102

Roy Blunt
260 Russell Bldg
Washington, DC 20510

Susan Collins
413 Dirksen Bldg
Washington, DC 20510

Marco Rubio
284 Russell Bldg
Washington, DC 20510

Jim Risch
438 Russell Bldg
Washington, DC 20510

Richard Burr
217 Russell Bldg
Washington, DC 20510

John McCain
218 Russell Bldg
Washington, DC 20510

I am specifically thanking: 
John McCain and

Lindsey Graham 
290 Russell Bldg
Washington, DC 20510 

Sunday, February 5, 2017

Forming a Resistance Group - Do it

One of the things that I have done since 11/9 that has been most important to me is that, in December, I founded The Symposia of the Resistance.  This is NOT a Facebook group or a virtual group.  It is face to face.

One of the things that I strongly believe is that no small part of our culture's current weakness and danger is our social isolation and that, although I love social media, it is not a replacement for real, face to face, support.  On November 17th, I wrote a post about the Resistance and part of that, an essential part, is that this is a marathon, not a we must build into our daily lives ways to increase our own resilience and capacity and the resilience and capacity of our communities.  In order to do that, we must meet in community face to face.

Based on this, I founded the Symposia of the Resistance shortly after that post.  For me, it has been an essential support and I have had others tell me that it is for them as well.  These are my guidelines for such a group:

1.  Schedule it on a regularly recurring rotation so that people can plan for it.  Not everyone will make it every time, but everyone will know when it is happening.
2.  Make it EASY to host - potluck, order a pizza, pick up a rotisserie chicken or something - don't overcomplicate.  I kind of pick up my house, and maybe run the vacuum and wipe down the bathroom sink - but the main thing I am doing is giving people a place to come.  I don't really clean for the group.  I lived in a studio for years - if you can't host, choose a restaurant.
3.  Name it.  This will help everyone remember that it is a Resistance Group. We talk about the Resistance.  We talk about Resisting.  As long as it stays on related topics, that is fine.  But don't let it devolve into a regular social group that has no purpose.
4.  No prep work!  I do have a component (a book) that is helping build our capacity BUT we have one copy, we read aloud and discuss as we go, meaning that there is NO pre-work.  We all have too much to do and I want people to spend their free-time outside of the Symposia actually resisting and keeping updated on the relevant topics, not preparing for the Symposium.  Besides, this is, actually, how we used to run symposia - there was no mass production of texts.  We sat and read aloud together and discussed.  Reading can be incredibly social and it becomes much more awesome that way.

Basically, what I do is that every other Friday, I open my home, I always have something easy to eat (pasta, rotisserie chicken, pre-made pot pie) and people bring food.  I always have some wine and people have been bringing some other drinks if they want them.  And we get together for a few hours and talk about the Resistance.  I have a book that is on a topic useful to the resistance (right now it is Don't Think of an Elephant by Lakoff) that we are passing around the room, reading aloud to the group, and discussing.  Now, honestly, after about 15 or more hours of the Symposia, we are on page 12, so, clearly that is not mostly what we are doing.  However, several of us have said how even those 12 pages are shaping how we are doing some things and that we are consciously thinking about framing (the topic of the book).

Mostly what we are really doing is:

  • Processing the events and sharing information
  • Sharing analysis and strategic areas to watch and areas of our individual interests, such as information about Whitford v. Gill, in depth information about the Russian connection, environmental information, data security, etc.
  • Sharing our various experiences in Resistance - what we are doing, what effects we are seeing, and reflecting on them
  • Sharing opportunities - such as information about making calls for special elections, including local state legislature elections in red and purple areas
  • Sharing resources (e.g. this is the best place to buy pocket constitutions, it is cheaper to order a ton of post-cards to send to Congress and local representatives than to buy them or print yourself)
  • Sharing information from other groups that are engaged in the Resistance and linking people up to training, opportunities, or others who have special knowledge, skills, connections
  • Strategizing and trying to think through short and long-term priorities
  • Reaffirming our patriotism, our love and care for our communities, our nation, the earth, the vulnerable, and our willingness to STAND UP in their defense
  • Communal, social, human support.  This is huge.  We are talking openly about our fears, our wounds from past oppression, our hopes, our dreams and all of this, ALL OF THIS, openly discussed in a group of people who are also part of the Resistance fortifies our resolve in profound ways.
Now, in the Symposia of the Resistance, we are not, at least at this point, taking specific action TOGETHER.  We have a bunch of people who are involved in a bunch of actions, who are involved with other groups, and there are subgroups of us are working together on specific actions.  However, in your group, you could decide that you are strategically planning and taking action as a group. We are beginning to consider if we want to link up with a Sister District in a purple or red area:  

Call to Action
If you are not in a group like this, really, consider creating one.  It will help your resilience, it will build resilience in others, it will strengthen your community, and all of that is needful work.