People are usually a huge disappointment to me, and a royal pain in my ass.
But then there's this, and the night seems a bit brighter.
Showing posts with label resistance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label resistance. Show all posts
Nov 21, 2025
Nov 6, 2025
The Republican Message
(Yeah, yeah - it's a redux. Sue me)
"I'm gonna keep fucking you up
until you give me permission
to fuck you up.
And then I'm gonna
fuck you up."
Oct 22, 2025
Find Out What They Want
In sales, you need to figure out what your prospect wants, and then figure out how to get it for him, without giving away the whole store.
In this resistance movement thing, we need to figure out what the other guy wants, and then figure out how to deprive him of it, without dying on a hill that doesn't really matter.
Oct 16, 2025
Oct 12, 2025
Oct 9, 2025
The Resistance
- Are we united in this effort?
- Is the movement growing?
- Are our tactics proliferating?
- Is disapproval of the regime increasing?
Sep 30, 2025
Sep 20, 2025
Get up And Go
Resistance in a "this is democracy" kinda way is usually not a big and flashy thing. The same as one guy voting out of 150 million people voting isn't big and flashy in itself.
Huge anti-authoritarian demonstrations that fill the streets in Belgrade or Tblisi look amazing, but this not Serbia or Georgia.
The US has a third of a billion people occupying the third largest geography in the world. Not even Moses could get all that many of us together for a protest at a given place, at a given time.
But big and flashy things can come - are starting to come - from millions of barely-visible circles of friends who're doing what they can do, with what they've got, where they are.
Sep 3, 2025
Resist
An important ally makes a public statement about POTUS acting in the interests of Moscow, and we just kinda shrug and blow it off?
Aug 25, 2025
Understanding The Assignment
When it comes to burning the flag - my flag - I'm against it - in general.
But I think judgement has to be measured. It has to depend on which flag we're talking about.
If it's the flag that rallies honest citizens to resist fascist wannabes - leave my flag alone.
If it's the flag that the Jan6 assholes wrapped their treachery in - fuck that flag.
Aug 24, 2025
An Anthem
We need songs. I'm not all that crazy about the style, but this thing carries the spirit of defiance that has to be there.
Steel-toed boots and a heavy heart, but I keep my head held high
Down the line, the bosses whisper ‘bout fortunes that ain’t mine
But these calloused hands and a soul of pride, ain’t gonna toe their line
So stand tall, brother, we’re stronger than they know
Can’t crush the working spirit, they'll reap what they sow
The truth is in our voices, in the mud beneath our feet
We’re the backbone of this country, and we won’t accept defeat
See those suits in the towers, counting cash on their golden thrones
Making laws to keep us down, while they worship what they own
But I see hope in the union hall, feel the fire in the street
‘Cause every time they push us down, we get back on our feet
Stand tall, sister, don’t you let them steal your song
Raise your fists up high and tell them they were wrong
They can choke us with their power, try to cage a wild heart
But the thunder’s rolling closer, and we’ll tear it all apart
They build their fuckin' walls, but we got truth and grit
We all stand together, we ain't taking no more shit
So light the torch of freedom, let the river wash us clean
We’re the sons and daughters rising, tearing through the machine
Stand tall, brother, side by side we march along
With love for one another, we’re unbreakable, we’re strong
We’re the blood that runs this engine, we’re the hands that sow the seeds
Let the leaders hear our thunder, hear the working people’s creed
Aug 19, 2025
A Small Bright Spot
...which could turn into a big blazing beacon - if we can keep any kind of spotlight on it, which fortunately, Trump is helping us with.
It seems like he thinks he can do this National Guard thing bit by bit, and get us used to the presence of US Military on the streets of our cities, so we'll just let it slide when he decides to do whatever really shitty thing he has in mind.
So we have to stay active and push back against every move. Because when confronted often enough with a particular question of ethics, most people will eventually come down on the side of justice.
The question here will revolve around whether or not enough people can be convinced that their neighbors don't make up the majority of the problem.
With his Aug. 11, 2025, announcement that he was sending the National Guard – along with federal law enforcement – into Washington, D.C. to fight crime, President Donald Trump edged U.S. troops closer to the kind of military-civilian confrontations that can cross ethical and legal lines.
Indeed, since Trump returned to office, many of his actions have alarmed international human rights observers. His administration has deported immigrants without due process, held detainees in inhumane conditions, threatened the forcible removal of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and deployed both the National Guard and federal military troops to Los Angeles to quell largely peaceful protests.
When a sitting commander in chief authorizes acts like these, which many assert are clear violations of the law, men and women in uniform face an ethical dilemma: How should they respond to an order they believe is illegal?
The question may already be affecting troop morale. “The moral injuries of this operation, I think, will be enduring,” a National Guard member who had been deployed to quell public unrest over immigration arrests in Los Angeles told The New York Times. “This is not what the military of our country was designed to do, at all.”
Troops who are ordered to do something illegal are put in a bind – so much so that some argue that troops themselves are harmed when given such orders. They are not trained in legal nuances, and they are conditioned to obey. Yet if they obey “manifestly unlawful” orders, they can be prosecuted. Some analysts fear that U.S. troops are ill-equipped to recognize this threshold.
We are scholars of international relations and international law. We conducted survey research at the University of Massachusetts Amherst’s Human Security Lab and discovered that many service members do understand the distinction between legal and illegal orders, the duty to disobey certain orders, and when they should do so.
Compelled to disobey
U.S. service members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. In addition, under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the U.S. Manual for Courts-Martial, service members must obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful orders. Unlawful orders are those that clearly violate the U.S. Constitution, international human rights standards or the Geneva Conventions.
Service members who follow an illegal order can be held liable and court-martialed or subject to prosecution by international tribunals. Following orders from a superior is no defense.
Our poll, fielded between June 13 and June 30, 2025, shows that service members understand these rules. Of the 818 active-duty troops we surveyed, just 9% stated that they would “obey any order.” Only 9% “didn’t know,” and only 2% had “no comment.”
When asked to describe unlawful orders in their own words, about 25% of respondents wrote about their duty to disobey orders that were “obviously wrong,” “obviously criminal” or “obviously unconstitutional.”
Another 8% spoke of immoral orders. One respondent wrote that “orders that clearly break international law, such as targeting non-combatants, are not just illegal — they’re immoral. As military personnel, we have a duty to uphold the law and refuse commands that betray that duty.”
Just over 40% of respondents listed specific examples of orders they would feel compelled to disobey.
The most common unprompted response, cited by 26% of those surveyed, was “harming civilians,” while another 15% of respondents gave a variety of other examples of violations of duty and law, such as “torturing prisoners” and “harming U.S. troops.”
One wrote that “an order would be obviously unlawful if it involved harming civilians, using torture, targeting people based on identity, or punishing others without legal process.”
Soldiers, not lawyers
But the open-ended answers pointed to another struggle troops face: Some no longer trust U.S. law as useful guidance.
Writing in their own words about how they would know an illegal order when they saw it, more troops emphasized international law as a standard of illegality than emphasized U.S. law.
Others implied that acts that are illegal under international law might become legal in the U.S.
“Trump will issue illegal orders,” wrote one respondent. “The new laws will allow it,” wrote another. A third wrote, “We are not required to obey such laws.”
Several emphasized the U.S. political situation directly in their remarks, stating they’d disobey “oppression or harming U.S. civilians that clearly goes against the Constitution” or an order for “use of the military to carry out deportations.”
Still, the percentage of respondents who said they would disobey specific orders – such as torture – is lower than the percentage of respondents who recognized the responsibility to disobey in general.
This is not surprising: Troops are trained to obey and face numerous social, psychological and institutional pressures to do so. By contrast, most troops receive relatively little training in the laws of war or human rights law.
Political scientists have found, however, that having information on international law affects attitudes about the use of force among the general public. It can also affect decision-making by military personnel.
This finding was also borne out in our survey.
When we explicitly reminded troops that shooting civilians was a violation of international law, their willingness to disobey increased 8 percentage points.
Drawing the line
As my research with another scholar showed in 2020, even thinking about law and morality can make a difference in opposition to certain war crimes.
The preliminary results from our survey led to a similar conclusion. Troops who answered questions on “manifestly unlawful orders” before they were asked questions on specific scenarios were much more likely to say they would refuse those specific illegal orders.
When asked if they would follow an order to drop a nuclear bomb on a civilian city, for example, 69% of troops who received that question first said they would obey the order.
But when the respondents were asked to think about and comment on the duty to disobey unlawful orders before being asked if they would follow the order to bomb, the percentage who would obey the order dropped 13 points to 56%.
While many troops said they might obey questionable orders, the large number who would not is remarkable.
Military culture makes disobedience difficult: Soldiers can be court-martialed for obeying an unlawful order, or for disobeying a lawful one.
Yet between one-third to half of the U.S. troops we surveyed would be willing to disobey if ordered to shoot or starve civilians, torture prisoners or drop a nuclear bomb on a city.
The service members described the methods they would use. Some would confront their superiors directly. Others imagined indirect methods: asking questions, creating diversions, going AWOL, “becoming violently ill.”
Criminologist Eva Whitehead researched actual cases of troop disobedience of illegal orders and found that when some troops disobey – even indirectly – others can more easily find the courage to do the same.
Whitehead’s research showed that those who refuse to follow illegal or immoral orders are most effective when they stand up for their actions openly.
The initial results of our survey – coupled with a recent spike in calls to the GI Rights Hotline – suggest American men and women in uniform don’t want to obey unlawful orders.
Some are standing up loudly. Many are thinking ahead to what they might do if confronted with unlawful orders. And those we surveyed are looking for guidance from the Constitution and international law to determine where they may have to draw that line.
Majority of US Troops Surveyed Say They’re Aware of Their Duty to Not Follow Illegal Orders
With his Aug. 11, 2025, announcement that he was sending the National Guard – along with federal law enforcement – into Washington, D.C. to fight crime, President Donald Trump edged U.S. troops closer to the kind of military-civilian confrontations that can cross ethical and legal lines.
Indeed, since Trump returned to office, many of his actions have alarmed international human rights observers. His administration has deported immigrants without due process, held detainees in inhumane conditions, threatened the forcible removal of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and deployed both the National Guard and federal military troops to Los Angeles to quell largely peaceful protests.
When a sitting commander in chief authorizes acts like these, which many assert are clear violations of the law, men and women in uniform face an ethical dilemma: How should they respond to an order they believe is illegal?
The question may already be affecting troop morale. “The moral injuries of this operation, I think, will be enduring,” a National Guard member who had been deployed to quell public unrest over immigration arrests in Los Angeles told The New York Times. “This is not what the military of our country was designed to do, at all.”
Troops who are ordered to do something illegal are put in a bind – so much so that some argue that troops themselves are harmed when given such orders. They are not trained in legal nuances, and they are conditioned to obey. Yet if they obey “manifestly unlawful” orders, they can be prosecuted. Some analysts fear that U.S. troops are ill-equipped to recognize this threshold.
We are scholars of international relations and international law. We conducted survey research at the University of Massachusetts Amherst’s Human Security Lab and discovered that many service members do understand the distinction between legal and illegal orders, the duty to disobey certain orders, and when they should do so.
Compelled to disobey
U.S. service members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. In addition, under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the U.S. Manual for Courts-Martial, service members must obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful orders. Unlawful orders are those that clearly violate the U.S. Constitution, international human rights standards or the Geneva Conventions.
Service members who follow an illegal order can be held liable and court-martialed or subject to prosecution by international tribunals. Following orders from a superior is no defense.
Our poll, fielded between June 13 and June 30, 2025, shows that service members understand these rules. Of the 818 active-duty troops we surveyed, just 9% stated that they would “obey any order.” Only 9% “didn’t know,” and only 2% had “no comment.”
When asked to describe unlawful orders in their own words, about 25% of respondents wrote about their duty to disobey orders that were “obviously wrong,” “obviously criminal” or “obviously unconstitutional.”
Another 8% spoke of immoral orders. One respondent wrote that “orders that clearly break international law, such as targeting non-combatants, are not just illegal — they’re immoral. As military personnel, we have a duty to uphold the law and refuse commands that betray that duty.”
Just over 40% of respondents listed specific examples of orders they would feel compelled to disobey.
The most common unprompted response, cited by 26% of those surveyed, was “harming civilians,” while another 15% of respondents gave a variety of other examples of violations of duty and law, such as “torturing prisoners” and “harming U.S. troops.”
One wrote that “an order would be obviously unlawful if it involved harming civilians, using torture, targeting people based on identity, or punishing others without legal process.”
Soldiers, not lawyers
But the open-ended answers pointed to another struggle troops face: Some no longer trust U.S. law as useful guidance.
Writing in their own words about how they would know an illegal order when they saw it, more troops emphasized international law as a standard of illegality than emphasized U.S. law.
Others implied that acts that are illegal under international law might become legal in the U.S.
“Trump will issue illegal orders,” wrote one respondent. “The new laws will allow it,” wrote another. A third wrote, “We are not required to obey such laws.”
Several emphasized the U.S. political situation directly in their remarks, stating they’d disobey “oppression or harming U.S. civilians that clearly goes against the Constitution” or an order for “use of the military to carry out deportations.”
Still, the percentage of respondents who said they would disobey specific orders – such as torture – is lower than the percentage of respondents who recognized the responsibility to disobey in general.
This is not surprising: Troops are trained to obey and face numerous social, psychological and institutional pressures to do so. By contrast, most troops receive relatively little training in the laws of war or human rights law.
Political scientists have found, however, that having information on international law affects attitudes about the use of force among the general public. It can also affect decision-making by military personnel.
This finding was also borne out in our survey.
When we explicitly reminded troops that shooting civilians was a violation of international law, their willingness to disobey increased 8 percentage points.
Drawing the line
As my research with another scholar showed in 2020, even thinking about law and morality can make a difference in opposition to certain war crimes.
The preliminary results from our survey led to a similar conclusion. Troops who answered questions on “manifestly unlawful orders” before they were asked questions on specific scenarios were much more likely to say they would refuse those specific illegal orders.
When asked if they would follow an order to drop a nuclear bomb on a civilian city, for example, 69% of troops who received that question first said they would obey the order.
But when the respondents were asked to think about and comment on the duty to disobey unlawful orders before being asked if they would follow the order to bomb, the percentage who would obey the order dropped 13 points to 56%.
While many troops said they might obey questionable orders, the large number who would not is remarkable.
Military culture makes disobedience difficult: Soldiers can be court-martialed for obeying an unlawful order, or for disobeying a lawful one.
Yet between one-third to half of the U.S. troops we surveyed would be willing to disobey if ordered to shoot or starve civilians, torture prisoners or drop a nuclear bomb on a city.
The service members described the methods they would use. Some would confront their superiors directly. Others imagined indirect methods: asking questions, creating diversions, going AWOL, “becoming violently ill.”
Criminologist Eva Whitehead researched actual cases of troop disobedience of illegal orders and found that when some troops disobey – even indirectly – others can more easily find the courage to do the same.
Whitehead’s research showed that those who refuse to follow illegal or immoral orders are most effective when they stand up for their actions openly.
The initial results of our survey – coupled with a recent spike in calls to the GI Rights Hotline – suggest American men and women in uniform don’t want to obey unlawful orders.
Some are standing up loudly. Many are thinking ahead to what they might do if confronted with unlawful orders. And those we surveyed are looking for guidance from the Constitution and international law to determine where they may have to draw that line.
Aug 16, 2025
Grand Strategy
Defeating someone like Donald Trump—who thrives on media attention, sharp rhetoric, and an “us versus them” narrative—requires a strategy that’s less about matching his style and more about taking away his strongest weapons while strengthening your own position.
Here’s how that generally works in politics and public life:
1. Don’t feed the spectacle
- Trump often uses outrage as oxygen. The more emotional, reactive, and personal the opposition becomes, the more he can frame himself as the victim and rally supporters.
- Instead, respond with calm, fact-based points—boring to him, powerful to others. It denies him the drama he thrives on.
2. Control the narrative
- Trump likes to be the one setting the agenda. If you’re reacting to him 24/7, you’re playing his game.
- Keep conversations focused on your own policies, plans, and wins—not just criticisms of him.
3. Use facts, but frame them simply
- Long-winded rebuttals lose people. Short, repeatable statements that contrast truth with his narrative are more effective.
- Example: Instead of a paragraph of fact-checking, say, “That’s not what happened—here’s what did,” and move on.
4. Build a coalition bigger than his base
- He’s most powerful when his opponents are divided.
- Create common ground between groups that might not agree on everything but share a goal of protecting democracy, fairness, and stability.
5. Call out the behavior, not just the person
- Attacking Trump personally can backfire, as it feeds his “they hate me, so they hate you too” line to supporters.
- Instead: focus on the harm his actions cause to ordinary people—policies, costs, rights lost.
6. Win on the ground, not just online
- Trump’s movement is sustained by real-world organizing—rallies, events, door-knocking.
- To counter him, the opposition has to meet people in person, listen to their concerns, and earn trust face-to-face.
7. Protect democratic guardrails
- Work on securing voting rights, preventing election interference, and supporting independent journalism.
- A bully in politics is hardest to beat if the rules of the game are rigged.
May 10, 2025
May 7, 2025
May 4, 2025
Standing Up
"All" hasn't always meant 'all'. But if we're going to to that "more perfect union" thing, we need to be committed to working at it. Working harder that we have been anyway.
"...all...are created equal."
"...with liberty and justice for all."
I drove by UVa for that torchlight shit Aug 11, 2017 - and then I was downtown in Charlottesville the next day. It kinda knocked me back, and I felt the need to do my protesting in cyberspace.
But seeing what was happening with the BLM demonstrations, and then with more recent events - where only black folks are being detained and arrested, it's time for me to step up and get back in the game in meatspace.
I'm getting a little old for this, but I'm there. I'm up on my hind legs.
At this point, I've got way more to gain - way more important things - than I have to lose.
If we're not 'all', then we're nothing.
Like Mr Jefferson said:
"...with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor."
Apr 27, 2025
3½%
If 3½% of a population engage in an active and sustained campaign of passive resistance, even a very repressive regime will fall.
And the likelihood that a democracy will be restored or installed is much higher with non-violence - 15% less likely to relapse into authoritarian rule or revolution.
Apr 23, 2025
Apr 15, 2025
That Was No Pivot
... that was a cave-in - a capitulation - that was the entire Executive Branch admitting he's fucked it up - again.
For every problem that is complicated, and confusing, and vexing, there's a solution that is simple, and elegant, and wrong.
because everything
Trump touches
turns to shit
- there
- are
- no
- simple
- 10-word
- answers
- to
- the
- important
- questions
Apr 2, 2025
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)