Inclusive Activism

Teaser: It seems to me at time the only form of truly socially acceptable ism is ageism. Every single different generation bags on the one that is different than thay are – don’t believe me? If you have ever been distraught at snowbird season, called someone a slacker, or said someone cannot communicate without their damn phone you have been pare of the problem!

Today’s podcast is looking at Generational Ism and we will do this as a series starting with the Traditionalists

Today we will talk about:

How our stories effect our experience of reality.

What are the stories that effected the Boomers?

What are the value drivers of the Boomers and how can we better understand them to work together better?

Welcome back to the podcast! We are going to attempt a different ordering of material for the podcast so we are going to start right into the content you came here for and then talk activism, self-care and community stuff more towards the end!

First thing: How do stories effect us and shape our reality?

Second: What are the stories and major events that shaped the Boomersperspective

Lastly – How can we better speak to the values of Boomers?

–

So in review major points of this podcast were:

As far as the podcast goes I am toying with the idea of having Sara on the podcast as well as Michelle to do a year in review just to hear some different voices. These folks I see as the most invested people with the Inclusive Activism Podcast and I think that hearing from them about how the podcast started, if we are seeing progress with the podcast or not might be interesting. If you would like to be a part of that conversation – Please remember you can email me at [email protected] or leave me a voicemail at 860-576-9393. I would love to hear your thoughts!

Also remember to rate and review us on iTunes, or Stitcher, or if you could please share the podcast on social media, All these things go a long way to making a significant difference for us here at the inclusive activism podcast. Also please subscribe to our podcasts on iTunes, Stitcher, Overcast, Player FM, Pocket Casts or Google Play as these are great ways for me to show “proof of work to potential sponsors”. It would also go a long way in getting my producer Sara paid for her work someday too!

So checking in on my Activism:

My current activism is podcasting and rest honestly

Checking on my classes for Spring

Learning how to promote podcast

Self Care:

Lift X2 a week which is all I can get in due to my gym being closed until next week

But I have also gotten cardio done for 2 days already which is fantastic – my skin looks better? Maybe I am just tan

And Meditated for 2X for at least 10-15 mins and will need to get another day in

Meeting up with people I care about

So on to the podcast for today! How the white working class just got sacrifed at the altar of the rich.

SO if this made you think something, if you have a question or even more shocking a critique let me know. You can call me at 860-576-9393

This space is a place to talk back ask me questions, hit me with scenarios of how to react to situations real time. Depending on how good your stuff is I will give it my “first take response” or if it’s good it might be a future podcast!

Also as always if you’re interested in booking me to bring the power of inclusive activism to your organization you can always do so at [email protected] or you can learn more about this organization at www.inclusiveactivism.com

Teaser: It seems to me at time the only form of truly socially acceptable ism is ageism. Every single different generation bags on the one that is different than thay are – don’t believe me? If you have ever been distraught at snowbird season, called someone a slacker, or said someone cannot communicate without their damn phone you have been pare of the problem!

Today’s podcast is looking at Generational Ism and we will do this as a series starting with the Traditionalists

Today we will talk about:

How our stories effect our experience of reality.

What are the stories that effected the Traditionalists?

What are the value drivers of the Traditionalists and how can we better understand them to work together better?

Welcome back to the podcast! We are going to attempt a different ordering of material for the podcast so we are going to start right into the content you came here for and then talk activism, self-care and community stuff more towards the end!

First thing: How do stories effect us and shape our reality?

Second: What are the stories and major events that shaped the Traditionalists perspective

Lastly – How can we better speak to the values of Traditionalists?

–

So in review major points of this podcast were:

As far as the podcast goes I am toying with the idea of having Sara on the podcast as well as Michelle to do a year in review just to hear some different voices. These folks I see as the most invested people with the Inclusive Activism Podcast and I think that hearing from them about how the podcast started, if we are seeing progress with the podcast or not might be interesting. If you would like to be a part of that conversation – Please remember you can email me at [email protected] or leave me a voicemail at 860-576-9393. I would love to hear your thoughts!

Also remember to rate and review us on iTunes, or Stitcher, or if you could please share the podcast on social media, All these things go a long way to making a significant difference for us here at the inclusive activism podcast. Also please subscribe to our podcasts on iTunes, Stitcher, Overcast, Player FM, Pocket Casts or Google Play as these are great ways for me to show “proof of work to potential sponsors”. It would also go a long way in getting my producer Sara paid for her work someday too!

So checking in on my Activism:

My current activism is podcasting and rest honestly

Checking on my classes for Spring

Learning how to promote podcast

Self Care:

Lift X2 a week which is all I can get in due to my gym being closed until next week

But I have also gotten cardio done for 2 days already which is fantastic – my skin looks better? Maybe I am just tan

And Meditated for 2X for at least 10-15 mins and will need to get another day in

Meeting up with people I care about

So on to the podcast for today! How the white working class just got sacrifed at the altar of the rich.

SO if this made you think something, if you have a question or even more shocking a critique let me know. You can call me at 860-576-9393

This space is a place to talk back ask me questions, hit me with scenarios of how to react to situations real time. Depending on how good your stuff is I will give it my “first take response” or if it’s good it might be a future podcast!

Also as always if you’re interested in booking me to bring the power of inclusive activism to your organization you can always do so at [email protected] or you can learn more about this organization at www.inclusiveactivism.com

Today we will look at my predictions for 2018 and how well they fared

We will look into some things to be aware of in 2019

And we will look into the idea of 2019 of Non-reactivity!

SO if this made you think something, if you have a question or even more shocking a critique let me know. You can call me at 860-576-9393

This space is a place to talk back ask me questions, hit me with scenarios of how to react to situations real time. Depending on how good your stuff is I will give it my “first take response” or if it’s good it might be a future podcast!

Also as always if you’re interested in booking me to bring the power of inclusive activism to your organization you can always do so at [email protected] or you can learn more about this organization at www.inclusiveactivism.com

White Fragility Workshop

Definition Clarification

White Supremacy – White supremacy or white supremacism is a racist supremacist belief which maintains that white people are superior in many ways to people of other races, and that therefore, white people should be dominant over other races.

White Supremacist – a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races

Racism – prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.

Racist – showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another.

Institutional racism (also known as systemic racism) is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions. Institutional racism is also racism by individuals or informal social groups,[1] governed by behavioral norms that support racist thinking and foment active racism. It is reflected in disparities regarding wealth, income, criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power and education, among other factors.

White  Fragility  is  a  state  in  which  even  a  minimum  amount  of  racial  stress  becomes  intolerable,  triggering  a  range  of  defensive  moves. These moves  include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation.

Intersectional Privileged Fragility

Show video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdFCRHhygHo

Small Group Post Film Discussion

What did you see? How did the video make you feel? What thoughts or feelings did you experience?

SO if this made you think something, if you have a question or even more shocking a critique let me know. You can call me at 860-576-9393

This space is a place to talk back ask me questions, hit me with scenarios of how to react to situations real time. Depending on how good your stuff is I will give it my “first take response” or if it’s good it might be a future podcast!

Also as always if you’re interested in booking me to bring the power of inclusive activism to your organization you can always do so at [email protected] or you can learn more about this organization at www.inclusiveactivism.com

Every find yourself burnt out, exhausted from fighting fire after fire every day. Ever feel like you don’t have time for the things that really matter? A lot of that comes from not knowing and understanding what matters most to you! When you make your to do list for Today you need to consider the things that matter most to you which really align with your values.

Invest your time and money in the things that mean the most to you  – and suddenly your life becomes your own!

But unless you know who you are and where you want to go in life and without a sense of what matter or what is most important to you – you become a drone. Someone who at best will be doing for someone else that same thing.

Make a list of your values from 1-10

One is more important and align them in rank order.

Do things that help for today, tomorrow, next week, next month and next year – the more forward thinking work you can do today the better equipped for success tomorrow.

You have to be the master of your own ship and journey – the ride and its direction is up to YOU!

SO if this made you think something, if you have a question or even more shocking a critique let me know. You can call me at 860-576-9393 or email me at [email protected]

This space is a place to talk back ask me questions, hit me with scenarios of how to react to situations real time. Depending on how good your stuff is I will give it my “first take response” or if it’s good it might be a future podcast!

Also as always if you’re interested in booking me to bring the power of inclusive activism to your organization you can always do so at [email protected] or you can learn more about this organization at www.inclusiveactivism.com

Some real facts about the black panther party!

Today we will discuss –

More traditional thoughts about what we were taught about the Black Panther Party

Some truths hidden from us about this organization

And how they were far more progressive and future oriented than the credit they are given

SO if this made you think something, if you have a question or even more shocking a critique let me know. You can call me at 860-576-9393 or email me at [email protected]

This space is a place to talk back ask me questions, hit me with scenarios of how to react to situations real time. Depending on how good your stuff is I will give it my “first take response” or if it’s good it might be a future podcast!

Also as always if you’re interested in booking me to bring the power of inclusive activism to your organization you can always do so at [email protected] or you can learn more about this organization at www.inclusiveactivism.com

Some real facts about the black panther party!

Today we will discuss –

More traditional thoughts about what we were taught about the Black Panther Party

Some truths hidden from us about this organization

And how they were far more progressive and future oriented than the credit they are given

SO if this made you think something, if you have a question or even more shocking a critique let me know. You can call me at 860-576-9393 or email me at [email protected]

This space is a place to talk back ask me questions, hit me with scenarios of how to react to situations real time. Depending on how good your stuff is I will give it my “first take response” or if it’s good it might be a future podcast!

Also as always if you’re interested in booking me to bring the power of inclusive activism to your organization you can always do so at [email protected] or you can learn more about this organization at www.inclusiveactivism.com

How I am planning to vote and why:

My Values

On the economy she wants to invest in the everyday people which makes an economy really move

Strongly for Universal Healthcare which from a small business and public servant perspective people really underestimate what it could mean for all of us if we really didn’t need to pay for our healthcare and how much money can be saved with a focus on prevention as well as remove the profit motive

On money and outsider’s voices in elections: I hate it – though I am a radical I want to see rank order voting as soon as possible! Get financial interests out of politics and make government focus on what it should be focused on – improving the lives of their citizens

My focus on being a communalist we do what is best for us all – even if it hurts me a bit right now – if need that help later I know people will have my back!

Also I believe the economy does better when more everyday people have more, I think a rising tide lift all boats. While poor people don’t hire people their spending does create demand.

I am for equity – which is different from equality – there is a need to notice people in the most acute situations and do what is needed to help them the most – first.

This requires pubic investments in things like transportation and trade, innovation, a skilled workforce, courts to protect patent rights and contract agreements, public safety and other measures that support the creation of wealth and help to make individual prosperity possible. It also requires progressive taxation, meaning those who have and earn more should pay more to help support the investments in things like schools, transportation, and economic competitiveness necessary to advance the interests of all.

A key component of responsibility involves ecological and social sustainability. This requires on-going stewardship of our land, water, air and natural resources, smart use of energy, and the responsible consumption of goods…

Successful families and communities cannot exist without cooperation. We also value human interdependence on a larger scale and accept the importance of looking beyond our own needs to help others and find global solutions to global problems.

– “We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we’re willing to fight for it.”

– “We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth.”

– “We believe that the Internet shouldn’t be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality.”

– “We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage.”

– “We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them.”

– “We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt.”

– “We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions.”

– “We believe — I can’t believe I have to say this in 2014 — we believe in equal pay for equal work.”

– “We believe that equal means equal, and that’s true in marriage, it’s true in the workplace, it’s true in all of America.”

– “We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform.”

– “And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!”

A note and a word about the Maricopa Community College Elections

Being that I work at and with the Maricopa Community College District – there appears to be pattern of people who are looking to make a name for themselves in promoting cutting benefits and opportunities for students at MCCCD. This is happening with State Superintendent of education with Tracy Livingston in her failed bid to be the republican candidate – and with John Heep and Lauren Hendrix. My concern is they want to defund and hinder the MCCCD colleges then attempt to sell them to a for profit institution or just make us so unable to provide for our student’s and community’s that everyone goes to a for profit higher education institution.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2018/05/05/mcccd-governing-board-wrong-meet-confer/569833002/

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/elviadiaz/2018/03/14/mcccd-board-sped-maricopa-community-colleges-collapse/422852002/

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix-education/2018/09/26/maricopa-county-community-colleges-district-faculty-files-complaint-higher-learning-commission/1421736002/

Maricopa Community College District

District 3 VOTE FOR Marie Sullivan

Three way race one fake moderate to split the vote Stan Arterberry who is from GCU who has a vested interest in seeing all Higher education privatized and for profit is running as the moderate but his real purpose is to divide the vote from Marie Sullivan so Debbie Vandenboom can win – she wants to be part of the district board because she believe colleges are inviting Planned Parenthood on campus to provide abortions???

Marie Sullivan has been involved in economic and workforce development, education, and women and family issues for over 40 years.  She is the Principal and Owner of Marie Sullivan LLC, focused on Advancing Possibilities of businesses, nonprofits, and government entities to achieve their strategic, innovative and impactful goals. Previously Marie served for 20 years as the President and CEO of Arizona Women’s Education and Employment, Inc., (AWEE), a non-profit organization dedicated to changing people’s lives through the dignity of work. She has worked in public policy development and advocacy in the social service and faith-based sectors.  Overtime she has served on over 25 education, social service and faith-based boards.

Marie currently serves as a member of the AZ Center for Economic Progress Board, the Phoenix Charter 100 Board, and Arizona Town Hall, Marie most recently served as a leader of the Maricopa County Workforce Development Board and Executive Committee, as a member of the Phoenix College President’s Advisory Council, the AZTechForce Foundation Task Force, and the West Valley Community Bank Advisory Board for Small Business Development. Marie has been named one of the 50 Most Influential Women in Business in Arizona and received the Jeanne Lind Herberger Award given to a woman committed to advancing the condition of women and girls through service and philanthropy. Marie has been awarded the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce’s prestigious ATHENA Award, given to a woman acknowledged for her excellence in business, her community service and involvement, and her professional mentorship of women. She was named Public Service Leader of the Year, Tribute to Women Award, by the YWCA, was named Goodman’s Good Guy Award winner as the outstanding nonprofit business leader in the Metropolitan Phoenix area, and is a Valley Leadership alumna.

For eight years Marie served as a publicly elected member of the Madison Elementary School District Governing Board, where she served both as President and Clerk of the Board and represented her congressional district to the National School Board Association’s Federal Relations Network. She is an alumna of Leadership America where she participated with a select group of women from throughout the United States to discuss and provide leadership on issues affecting the American landscape. Marie is married and the mother of two young adults.

District 4 VOTE FOR Stan Arterberry vs Jean McGrath

Explain area

Jean McGrath no more money for MCCCD – its community members or its student’s please wow!

The complaint states that student learning must be a primary focus and educational institutions must avoid “undue influence” that is personal, financial or political.

The faculty association alleges that “certain members of the college’s current governing board appear to be substantially motivated by ideological or political interests.” The complaint says some board members act on those interests “even when doing so does not benefit students or support the educational mission of the colleges.”

As an example, the complaint says Governing Board member McGrath emailed state legislators in spring 2017 to oppose state funding for the colleges while district officials were requesting that state funding to the colleges be restored. The Arizona Legislature began cutting state funding to the Maricopa Community Colleges during the recession and eliminated funding the colleges from the state general fund in 2016.

McGrath wrote an email to legislators on March 27, 2017, stating the reason the district is asking for money is that “they are miffed at being left out of the budget.” The email details the millions of dollars the college district receives from tuition, property taxes and other sources.

“Please spend the state’s money where it is needed, not at the community college district in Maricopa County,” the email says.

McGrath is running for re-election on a platform of reducing tuition and lowering taxes. She states on her campaign website that foregoing state funding for the community colleges “allows the state to increase support for K-12 education.”

District 4 Vote for Stan!

Stan Arterberry worked 35 years in higher education and 34 years in the California Community College system. He served as a Community College CEO for 20 years and reported to a Community College Governing Board for 19 years. He fully understands the responsibility of Board members and will hold College staff accountable to achieve student success. He is committed to affordable, accessible educational/workforce training programs, quality student support services, and equitable state fiscal support for Maricopa Colleges. Before taking action on any recommendations from staff, he will ask “How does this recommendation promote/contribute to Student Success?”

District 5 Tom Nerini Running unopposed

My entire career has been dedicated to helping students access and succeed in education. For more than 20 years I have worked and attended some of the best colleges in North America. I’ve designed, implemented and coordinated highly successful programs which ensured student access and success in college. I know what it takes for students to be successful in college.

For the past 8 years I have worked as a school counselor in Phoenix Union High School District. Each day I am fortunate to work with students; to get to know their dreams, their abilities and the obstacles they face . I know what they are capable of and what an asset they are to our community. I know that the Community College is the best and, for many students, the only hope to access higher education.

As a graduate of the Phoenix Union High School district and an alumnus of MCCCD, I am these students, and I am running for the Governing Board to ensure that MCCCD remains a strong and vital gateway to economic security for the individual and the source of a well-educated work force necessary for our community to compete in the 21st century.

At Large Roc Arnette

About Kathleen Winn – no information except he is a republican on web

Winn is the other challenger. She does her best to sound good but at the end of the day she is anti-resources for MCCCD. I am concerned she is another person looking to defund and gut the MCCCD district at the cost of the students and employees.

VS Roc Arnett

Roc Arnett is an Arizona native, and Mesa Community College Alumni. He lives in Northeast Mesa with his wife Sydney and has five grown children and twenty grandchildren.

Roc has thirty eight years experience brokering risk and insurance services to clients of a range of complexity including self-insured programs as well more traditional fully insured programs. In addition to insurance industry work, Roc has been active in the community, particularly in transportation and construction related areas of risk.

In 2003, Roc became President of the East Valley Partnership and directed a regional non-profit business coalition advocating for PHX East Valley primarily focused on Economic Development, Education, Transportation, Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Area, and Arts issues.

In addition, the Partnership is also engaged in enhancing East Valley’s tourism, regional healthcare and behavioral health programs, tribal relations, and sponsoring a variety of important informational forums and activities. Roc reported to a Board of Directors comprised of the more than 50 key civic, government, business and educational leaders in the PHX East Valley.

For the past two years, Roc has consulted on transportation, education and economic development projects principally in the PHX East Valley.

Vote Roc

Kyrsten Sinema

Martha McSally

Angela Green

Really holding my Nose and Voting for Kyrsten Sinema – she is like the worst of the Bernie Bros

Kyrsten Sinema is a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate from Arizona. Sinema is running in the general election on November 6, 2018, after advancing from the primary on August 28, 2018.

Sinema began her political career in the Arizona House of Representatives. She represented district 15 from 2005 until her election to the Arizona State Senate in 2010. She resigned from the senate on January 3, 2012, in order to run for Congress.[1][2]

Based on analysis of multiple outside rankings, Sinema is a more moderate left of center Democratic Party vote. As a result, she may break with the Democratic Party line more than her fellow members.

After receiving her master of social work and J.D. from Arizona State University, Sinema worked as an adjunct professor and faculty member for the Center for Progressive Leadership.[3] Her career in public service began in the Arizona State Legislature in 2005, where her advocacy included getting in-state tuition for veterans at all Arizona public universities, combating sex trafficking, and calling for improvements to children’s healthcare.[4]

She is the embodiment of everything problematic with looking at the Democratic Party and how it operates under whiteness – she is a moderate republican in democratic clothing. She will do the least damage

Voting for Anita Malik – and love putting this vote in

David Schweikert has had a chokehold on this district forever – and he still may but Malik is awesome

In May 2017, Anita Malik made a bold choice. She stepped down from her role as Chief Operating Officer of a content technology company to run for the U.S. House of Representatives for Arizona’s 6th district. Having been at the forefront of advances in digital marketing and technology, Anita recognized the urgent need for real tech leadership in D.C.

The daughter of immigrants from India, Anita was born in Kansas City, Missouri. When she was 7, her family moved to Arizona. Her father, a mechanical and computer engineer, instilled in her the importance of leading with empathy and listening; her mother, a stay-at-home mom with a passion for the arts, taught her to appreciate the journey. She attended Scottsdale schools, graduating from Chaparral High School in 1994.

Anita went on to graduate summa cum laude with degrees in both computer information systems and finance from Arizona State University. She later earned her master’s in journalism from the University of Southern California in 2002.

“Anita Malik gives me hope. She is a smart, tough, energetic leader who will govern with heart. She believes having less money should not mean you have less of a voice in your government.” – Lisa Hamilton, voter.

Voting for David Garcia – big time happy about this vote former veteran former teacher – strong pick I think he can beat the ice cream man.

Email [email protected] to notify us of updates to this biography.

Dr. Garcia was born and raised in Mesa, Arizona. After completing his bachelor’s degree at Arizona State University, he earned a master’s and a doctorate degree in education policy from the University of Chicago. His dissertation examined segregation in Arizona’s charter schools.[1] Before running for Arizona superintendent of public instruction, Garcia worked at Arizona State University Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College as an associate professor.[2]

In addition to his teaching duties, Dr. Garcia served as the Associate Superintendent of Public Instruction for Standards and Accountability in Arizona. He also worked as a research analyst for the Arizona State Senate’s Education Committee and as a consultant for the U.S. Department of Education. In addition to his role as associate superintendent, Garcia’s leadership experience also includes service as the director of Research and Policy for the Arizona Department of Education and the director of the Arizona Education Policy Initiative.[2]. Over the years, Dr. Garcia has also published dozens of peer-reviewed articles and book chapters on education policy.[1]

Voting for Katie Hobbs

Hobbs earned her B.A. in social work from Northern Arizona University in 1992 and her M.A. in social work from Arizona State University in 1995. Her professional experience includes working as director of government relations for the Sojourner Center, a member of the adjunct faculty of Paradise Valley Community College’s social and behavioral sciences, and a social worker. She is a former volunteer for the Arizona Democratic Party and Chair of District 15 Democrats.

January fought against special interests to fend off cuts to health care insurance when she worked as a policy advisor to Governor Napolitano, and an Assistant Director at the Arizona Health Care Cost Cont January has taken on human traffickers

At ALWAYS, January has served Arizonans, including survivors of human trafficking. She has a passion for fighting for trafficking victims, and she will work to put a stop to these horrible crimes of greed and abuse from ever happening in Arizona again.

January combatted violence against women

At the Department of Homeland Security, January led the charge to establish the Council on Combating Violence Against Women.  She has served on the White House Council on Women and Girls, contributed to the development of the U.S. National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security, and volunteered on the Board of Directors of the Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence. At ALWAYS, she regularly represented victims of domestic violence who would otherwise have no lawyer.ainment System (AHCCCS).

Voting FOR January Contreras

It used to be the case that you could buy a home, open up a small business and start a family without going into massive debt or flirting with the possibility of poverty. Today that isn’t the case. At least for most of us.

More and more we see people who can’t pay off their college debt, can’t afford a house, can’t qualify for a small-business loan, and can’t afford to start a family. Our kids can’t live at home forever – things have to change.

For too long our political establishment has enabled the bad behavior of corporations that gamble with our money, leaving us behind to pick up the pieces. When the government stops working for the people, we must elect new leaders to fix it. I will fight to create opportunity and restore dignity to an office that for too long has let politicians get away with bad budgets and self-dealing.

Voting For Kathy Hoffman

Hoffman earned a master’s degree in speech language pathology from the University of Arizona. Her professional experience includes working as a speech language pathologist at the Peoria Unified School District. She has served as a member of the Arizona Education Association and the Arizona Federation for Teachers.[1]

Voting for William Pierce

Lets be honest I have not idea what to tell you here – but on this one the democrat looks like a miner not a business man – so I am going with William Pierce over business looking Joe Hart

Voting for First Kiana Sears

Kiana Maria Sears is a passionate energy regulatory and public policy professional who is civically engaged as a community advocate and public education champion.

She is uniquely inspired by her own background as part of a working family to ensure others are able to live healthy lives.

Please join  Kiana Sears as she promises to serve with integrity and to work hard every day to restore the public’s trust in this critical branch of Arizona’s democracy.

Then Sandra Kennedy

Sandra D. Kennedy is a Democratic candidate for Arizona Corporation Commission. Kennedy is running in the general election on November 6, 2018, after advancing from the primary on August 28, 2018.

Kennedy was an unsuccessful Democratic candidate for Arizona Corporation Commissioner in the 2014 elections.[1] She is a former member of the commission.[2] She first assumed office in 2009 and served until 2013, following her re-election defeat in the general election on November 6, 2012.[3]

Voting for Douglas Ervin

Experience and Education

Chief Development Architect for Phoenix headquartered software firm

Business Analyst for Scottsdale based consulting company

Controller for Phoenix small business

Corporate Tax Auditor for Arizona Department of Revenue

Assistant Manager for a foodservice business

Bachelor of Science in Accounting – DeVry Institute of Technology

Scottsdale High School, Pima and Loloma Elementary

Other

Private Pilot

Ironman Triathlete

Backpacker and Hiker

Passed Certified Public Accountant exam

Trained Leader for Climate Reality Project

Volunteer with PV School District’s VIP Program

Voting FOR Hazel Chandler

Hazel Chandler is a Democratic candidate seeking election to the Arizona House of Representatives to represent District 20. Chandler is running in the general election on November 6, 2018, after advancing from the primary on August 28, 2018.

Biography

Chandler earned her B.S. in child development and family studies from San Diego State University in 1971 and her M.A. in management from the University of Phoenix in 1983. She also completed the public manager program in 2012 at Arizona State University.

Changed to Kate Gallego

Since being elected to Phoenix City Council in 2013, Kate Gallego’s entrepreneurial spirit and extensive economic development knowledge have helped transform Phoenix’s economy and revitalize the city’s transportation system. Kate’s proven track record includes leading the campaign to pass Phoenix’s citywide transportation plan and spearheading the successful Phoenix Equal Pay Ordinance.

Kate is passionate about building a Phoenix that works for everybody. She led the effort for the city to partner with AARP to better serve older adults. She has encouraged more young people to enter the construction workforce and championed innovative partnerships with ASU and the University of Arizona. Kate Gallego believes that everyone should have access to cutting edge medical care, and she has been the city council lead on expanding Phoenix’s biomedical campus.

A strong proponent of investing in the infrastructure Phoenix needs to grow, Kate is a member of the bi-partisan coalition Building America’s Future. Her work on infrastructure has earned recognition from Women in Transportation and Friends of Transit. Her work on equity issues has earned recognition the “Courage” Award from the Girl Scouts Cactus-Pine Council, Elected Official of the Year by the National Association of Social Workers Arizona Chapter, and the Rising Leader Award from the Anti-Defamation League. AZ Business Magazine named her as one of the most influential women in business.

Prior to being elected, Kate worked on Strategic Planning and Economic Development for Salt River Project. She graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Harvard University and earned an MBA from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. In 2015 the Wharton School of Business named her in its “40 Under 40” list. She is the proud mom of Michael Gallego.

VOTING Against 125

VOTING AGAINST 126

VOTING FOR 127

VOTING AGAINST 305

VOTING Against 306

Arizona Proposition 125, the Adjustments to Elected Officials’ and Corrections Officer’s Retirement Plans Amendment, is on the ballot in Arizona as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018.[1]

Overview

What would the ballot measure change?

Proposition 125 would allow the Arizona State Legislature to make adjustments to two state pension plans—the Corrections Officer Retirement Plan (CORP) and the Elected Officials’ Retirement Plan (EORP)—based on Senate Bill 1442 and House Bill 2545.[1]

Proposition 125 itself would not make changes to the two state pension plans, but would rather authorize the legislature to make changes. The legislature passed two bills to implement Proposition 125 if the constitutional amendment is approved:

In 1990, Arizona adopted a permanent benefit increase (PBI) formula, which provided increases in retirement payments based on investment earnings. In 1998, the maximum possible increase was capped at 4 percent. The 2018 amendment’s proposed cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) would be based on the inflation rate for the Metropolitan Phoenix-Mesa Consumer Price Index, with the maximum possible increase capped at 2 percent.[1][2]

Why does this change require a constitutional amendment?

Article 29 of the Arizona Constitution describes public retirement systems as a contractual relationship between members and the state, requires that public retirement systems be funded with contributions and investment earnings, and declares that retirement system benefits shall not be diminished or impaired.[3] Article 29 was added to the state constitution in 1998 via Proposition 100.[4] Due to two court cases regarding the interpretation of Article 29—Fields v. EORP and Hall v. EORP—the Arizona State Legislature needs to amend Article 29 to make changes to pension plans that would have the effect of decreasing benefits for current and retired members.[5][6] According to the Arizona Senate Research Staff, the amendment could have a positive impact on the state’s General Fund because of the lower 2-percent cap on annual increases could decrease pension benefits.[2]

Text of measure

Arizona Proposition 126, the Prohibit New or Increased Taxes on Services Initiative, is on the ballot in Arizona as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018.[1]

What would Proposition 126 change about tax policy in Arizona?

Proposition 126 would prohibit the state and local governments from enacting new taxes or increasing tax rates in effect on December 31, 2018, on services performed in Arizona.[1] Services can include various types of economic activities that don’t involve tangible goods, from personal-oriented activities, including salon services, pet grooming, amusement, and fitness activities, to financial-oriented activities, including real estate transactions, banking, and investment management, to healthcare-oriented activities, such as doctor visits.

Who is behind the campaigns surrounding Proposition 126?

Note: The campaign finance information on this page is according to the most recent scheduled reports, which covered through August 20, 2018. The deadline for the next scheduled reports is October 15, 2018.

Citizens for Fair Tax Policy, a political action committee, is leading the campaign in support of Proposition 126. The Arizona Association of Realtors organized the PAC. Citizens for Fair Tax Policy had raised $6.10 million and expended $4.55 million. The Realtors Issues Mobilization Fund, an organization of the Arizona Association of Realtors, provided the largest contribution—$5.10 million. No PACs had organized to oppose Proposition 126.[2]

Arizona Proposition 127, the Renewable Energy Standards Initiative is on the ballot in Arizona as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018.[1]

Overview

What would Proposition 127 change about energy policy in Arizona?

Proposition 127 would increase the state’s renewable portfolio standards (RPS). An RPS is a mandate that electric utilities acquire a minimum amount of electricity from renewable energy sources. As of 2018, Arizona’s RPS is 15 percent by 2025. Proposition 127 would increase the RPS each year until reaching 50 percent in 2030. The initiative would define renewable energy to include sources such as solar, wind, biomass, certain hydropower, geothermal, and landfill gas energies.[1]

Arizona Proposition 305, the Expansion of Empowerment Scholarship Accounts Referendum, is on the ballot in Arizona as a veto referendum on November 6, 2018.[1]

Overview

What is an ESA?

The original program allowed parents or guardians of students with disabilities to sign a contract to opt out of the public school system and instead receive an ESA from the Arizona Department of Education (DOE) that could be spent on private education, homeschooling, or other non-public education. An ESA is funded at 90 percent of what the state would have paid for the student in a district or charter school. Parents or guardians use a prepaid bank card to pay for education-related tuition and fees, textbooks, tutoring, educational therapies, and curriculum. Recipients of ESAs are required to submit quarterly spending reports to DOE. Between 2011 and 2017, the program was expanded to cover students meeting other specified criteria. Arizona was the first state to establish an Empowerment Scholarship Accounts program. [2][3]

How would Proposition 305 change the ESAs program?

A “yes” vote on Proposition 305 would uphold Senate Bill 1431 (SB 1431), which was designed to make all K-12 students eligible to apply for an ESA. The expansion would phase in over four school years. A “no” vote on Proposition 305 would overturn SB 1431. Approval of Proposition 405 would phase in the expansion of ESAs as follows:[1]

Proposition 305 would cap the number of new students allowed to receive ESAs at 0.5 percent of the total number of students enrolled in school districts and charter schools per year through school year 2022-2023. For school year 2023-2024 and thereafter, the number of new ESAs per year would not exceed the number approved for school year 2022-2023. A student whose family is at or below 250 percent of the federal poverty line would be eligible for an ESA with 100 percent, rather than 90 percent, of what the state would have paid for the student in a district or charter school.[1][4]

Are ESAs the same as vouchers?

Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Accounts are often referred to as a school vouchers program.[5][6][7] In 2013, the state Court of Appeals outlined the differences between ESAs, which were upheld as constitutional, and school vouchers, which the state Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional four years earlier, in Arizona.[8][9] In Niehaus V. Huppenthal, the Court of Appeals said that vouchers earmarked state funds for private and sectarian schools, whereas ESAs earmarked state funds for parents of qualifying students to purchase educational services. Vouchers, according to the court, violated Section 10 of Article 9 (Aid Clause) of the Arizona Constitution, which prohibited state aid to private and religious schools. The court said ESAs do not violate the Aid Clause because “none of the ESA funds are preordained for a particular destination.”[10]

Kim Martinez of the American Federation for Children, an organization that advocates for school choice policies, said the difference between vouchers and ESAs is notable, as “ESAs are much more comprehensive than a voucher program and they allow parents to control their child’s state-funded education dollars.”[11] Tim Walker of the National Education Association, a teachers’ professional association and labor union, referred to ESAs as school voucher doublespeak, stating, “The intent is to obscure the fact that these spruced up proposals still produce the same result: less taxpayer money for public schools, more taxpayer money for unaccountable private schools that can, and do, discriminate.”[12]

How did Proposition 305 get on the ballot in 2018?

Save Our Schools (SOS) Arizona, the campaign the collected signatures for the veto referendum, was launched one month after Gov. Doug Ducey (R) signed Senate Bill 1431 (SB 1431) on April 6, 2017. In the Arizona State Legislature, Democrats opposed SB 1431. Most legislative Republicans supported the legislation. U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos (R) described the bill was a big win for students and parents. According to Dawn Penich-Thacker, SOS Arizona’s spokesperson, six women who met at legislative hearings for SB 1431 and were opposed to the legislation organized the veto referendum campaign.[13] On September 8, 2017, Secretary of State Michele Reagan (R) announced that enough signatures were verified to place the veto referendum on the ballot as Proposition 305. Gov. Ducey, speaking at a seminar for conservative donors, said he wanted SB 1431 to go into effect. He stated, “This is a very real fight in my state. I didn’t run for governor to play small ball. I think this is an important idea.”[14]

Arizona Proposition 306, the Clean Election Account Uses and Commission Rulemaking Measure, is on the ballot in Arizona as a legislatively referred state statute on November 6, 2018.[1]

Overview

What is the Citizens Clean Election Commission (CCEC)?

The Citizens Clean Election Commission (CCEC) oversees Arizona’s public financing program for campaigns. The CCEC has five commissioners—two Democrats, two Republicans, and one independent.[2] The commission is exempt from the state’s rulemaking requirements; rather, the commission is empowered to adopt its own rules to govern the commission. Rules must be adopted in public meetings following a 60-day period for public comment. Proposition 200, which voters approved in 1998, created the CCEC.[3]

What would this measure change about the CCEC and public financing?

The measure would prohibit candidates from using their public financing accounts, known as clean election accounts in Arizona, to give funds to political parties or tax-exempt 501(a) organizations that are allowed to engage in activities to influence candidate elections.[1]

The measure would also remove the Citizens Clean Election Commission’s (CCEC) exemption from the state’s rulemaking requirements. The measure would require the CCEC to receive approval from the seven-member Governor’s Regulatory Review Council (GRRC) to finalize rules for the public financing program. The governor appoints six of the council’s seven members.[1]

How did this measure get on the ballot?

The Arizona Constitution required the measure to go on the ballot because the measure would amend a voter-approved ballot initiative—Proposition 200—passed in 1998. Rep. Doug Coleman (R-16) introduced the proposal in the state legislature. The state House voted 34-25 to place the measure on the ballot, and the state Senate voted 17-12. The votes were along partisan lines. Republicans supported the measure. Democrats opposed the measure.[4] Louis Hoffman and Amy Chan, former CCEC commissioners, sued the state over the measure’s placement on the ballot. Hoffman and Chan argued that the ballot measure violates the state’s single-subject rule, which states that “every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith.” Rep. J.D. Mesnard (R-17), the speaker of the state House, responded to the litigation, contending that the former commissioners were trying to stop voters from deciding the rulemaking process.[5][6][7] As of September 28, 2018, the litigation is ongoing.

Arizona Proposition 306, the Clean Election Account Uses and Commission Rulemaking Measure, is on the ballot in Arizona as a legislatively referred state statute on November 6, 2018.[1]

Overview

What is the Citizens Clean Election Commission (CCEC)?

The Citizens Clean Election Commission (CCEC) oversees Arizona’s public financing program for campaigns. The CCEC has five commissioners—two Democrats, two Republicans, and one independent.[2] The commission is exempt from the state’s rulemaking requirements; rather, the commission is empowered to adopt its own rules to govern the commission. Rules must be adopted in public meetings following a 60-day period for public comment. Proposition 200, which voters approved in 1998, created the CCEC.[3]

What would this measure change about the CCEC and public financing?

The measure would prohibit candidates from using their public financing accounts, known as clean election accounts in Arizona, to give funds to political parties or tax-exempt 501(a) organizations that are allowed to engage in activities to influence candidate elections.[1]

The measure would also remove the Citizens Clean Election Commission’s (CCEC) exemption from the state’s rulemaking requirements. The measure would require the CCEC to receive approval from the seven-member Governor’s Regulatory Review Council (GRRC) to finalize rules for the public financing program. The governor appoints six of the council’s seven members.[1]

How did this measure get on the ballot?

The Arizona Constitution required the measure to go on the ballot because the measure would amend a voter-approved ballot initiative—Proposition 200—passed in 1998. Rep. Doug Coleman (R-16) introduced the proposal in the state legislature. The state House voted 34-25 to place the measure on the ballot, and the state Senate voted 17-12. The votes were along partisan lines. Republicans supported the measure. Democrats opposed the measure.[4] Louis Hoffman and Amy Chan, former CCEC commissioners, sued the state over the measure’s placement on the ballot. Hoffman and Chan argued that the ballot measure violates the state’s single-subject rule, which states that “every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith.” Rep. J.D. Mesnard (R-17), the speaker of the state House, responded to the litigation, contending that the former commissioners were trying to stop voters from deciding the rulemaking process.[5][6][7] As of September 28, 2018, the litigation is ongoing.

How I am planning to vote and why:

My Values

On the economy she wants to invest in the everyday people which makes an economy really move

Strongly for Universal Healthcare which from a small business and public servant perspective people really underestimate what it could mean for all of us if we really didn’t need to pay for our healthcare and how much money can be saved with a focus on prevention as well as remove the profit motive

On money and outsider’s voices in elections: I hate it – though I am a radical I want to see rank order voting as soon as possible! Get financial interests out of politics and make government focus on what it should be focused on – improving the lives of their citizens

My focus on being a communalist we do what is best for us all – even if it hurts me a bit right now – if need that help later I know people will have my back!

Also I believe the economy does better when more everyday people have more, I think a rising tide lift all boats. While poor people don’t hire people their spending does create demand.

I am for equity – which is different from equality – there is a need to notice people in the most acute situations and do what is needed to help them the most – first.

This requires pubic investments in things like transportation and trade, innovation, a skilled workforce, courts to protect patent rights and contract agreements, public safety and other measures that support the creation of wealth and help to make individual prosperity possible. It also requires progressive taxation, meaning those who have and earn more should pay more to help support the investments in things like schools, transportation, and economic competitiveness necessary to advance the interests of all.

A key component of responsibility involves ecological and social sustainability. This requires on-going stewardship of our land, water, air and natural resources, smart use of energy, and the responsible consumption of goods…

Successful families and communities cannot exist without cooperation. We also value human interdependence on a larger scale and accept the importance of looking beyond our own needs to help others and find global solutions to global problems.

– “We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we’re willing to fight for it.”

– “We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth.”

– “We believe that the Internet shouldn’t be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality.”

– “We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage.”

– “We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them.”

– “We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt.”

– “We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions.”

– “We believe — I can’t believe I have to say this in 2014 — we believe in equal pay for equal work.”

– “We believe that equal means equal, and that’s true in marriage, it’s true in the workplace, it’s true in all of America.”

– “We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform.”

– “And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!”

A note and a word about the Maricopa Community College Elections

Being that I work at and with the Maricopa Community College District – there appears to be pattern of people who are looking to make a name for themselves in promoting cutting benefits and opportunities for students at MCCCD. This is happening with State Superintendent of education with Tracy Livingston in her failed bid to be the republican candidate – and with John Heep and Lauren Hendrix. My concern is they want to defund and hinder the MCCCD colleges then attempt to sell them to a for profit institution or just make us so unable to provide for our student’s and community’s that everyone goes to a for profit higher education institution.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2018/05/05/mcccd-governing-board-wrong-meet-confer/569833002/

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/elviadiaz/2018/03/14/mcccd-board-sped-maricopa-community-colleges-collapse/422852002/

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix-education/2018/09/26/maricopa-county-community-colleges-district-faculty-files-complaint-higher-learning-commission/1421736002/

Maricopa Community College District

District 3 VOTE FOR Marie Sullivan

Three way race one fake moderate to split the vote Stan Arterberry who is from GCU who has a vested interest in seeing all Higher education privatized and for profit is running as the moderate but his real purpose is to divide the vote from Marie Sullivan so Debbie Vandenboom can win – she wants to be part of the district board because she believe colleges are inviting Planned Parenthood on campus to provide abortions???

Marie Sullivan has been involved in economic and workforce development, education, and women and family issues for over 40 years.  She is the Principal and Owner of Marie Sullivan LLC, focused on Advancing Possibilities of businesses, nonprofits, and government entities to achieve their strategic, innovative and impactful goals. Previously Marie served for 20 years as the President and CEO of Arizona Women’s Education and Employment, Inc., (AWEE), a non-profit organization dedicated to changing people’s lives through the dignity of work. She has worked in public policy development and advocacy in the social service and faith-based sectors.  Overtime she has served on over 25 education, social service and faith-based boards.

Marie currently serves as a member of the AZ Center for Economic Progress Board, the Phoenix Charter 100 Board, and Arizona Town Hall, Marie most recently served as a leader of the Maricopa County Workforce Development Board and Executive Committee, as a member of the Phoenix College President’s Advisory Council, the AZTechForce Foundation Task Force, and the West Valley Community Bank Advisory Board for Small Business Development. Marie has been named one of the 50 Most Influential Women in Business in Arizona and received the Jeanne Lind Herberger Award given to a woman committed to advancing the condition of women and girls through service and philanthropy. Marie has been awarded the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce’s prestigious ATHENA Award, given to a woman acknowledged for her excellence in business, her community service and involvement, and her professional mentorship of women. She was named Public Service Leader of the Year, Tribute to Women Award, by the YWCA, was named Goodman’s Good Guy Award winner as the outstanding nonprofit business leader in the Metropolitan Phoenix area, and is a Valley Leadership alumna.

For eight years Marie served as a publicly elected member of the Madison Elementary School District Governing Board, where she served both as President and Clerk of the Board and represented her congressional district to the National School Board Association’s Federal Relations Network. She is an alumna of Leadership America where she participated with a select group of women from throughout the United States to discuss and provide leadership on issues affecting the American landscape. Marie is married and the mother of two young adults.

District 4 VOTE FOR Stan Arterberry vs Jean McGrath

Explain area

Jean McGrath no more money for MCCCD – its community members or its student’s please wow!

The complaint states that student learning must be a primary focus and educational institutions must avoid “undue influence” that is personal, financial or political.

The faculty association alleges that “certain members of the college’s current governing board appear to be substantially motivated by ideological or political interests.” The complaint says some board members act on those interests “even when doing so does not benefit students or support the educational mission of the colleges.”

As an example, the complaint says Governing Board member McGrath emailed state legislators in spring 2017 to oppose state funding for the colleges while district officials were requesting that state funding to the colleges be restored. The Arizona Legislature began cutting state funding to the Maricopa Community Colleges during the recession and eliminated funding the colleges from the state general fund in 2016.

McGrath wrote an email to legislators on March 27, 2017, stating the reason the district is asking for money is that “they are miffed at being left out of the budget.” The email details the millions of dollars the college district receives from tuition, property taxes and other sources.

“Please spend the state’s money where it is needed, not at the community college district in Maricopa County,” the email says.

McGrath is running for re-election on a platform of reducing tuition and lowering taxes. She states on her campaign website that foregoing state funding for the community colleges “allows the state to increase support for K-12 education.”

District 4 Vote for Stan!

Stan Arterberry worked 35 years in higher education and 34 years in the California Community College system. He served as a Community College CEO for 20 years and reported to a Community College Governing Board for 19 years. He fully understands the responsibility of Board members and will hold College staff accountable to achieve student success. He is committed to affordable, accessible educational/workforce training programs, quality student support services, and equitable state fiscal support for Maricopa Colleges. Before taking action on any recommendations from staff, he will ask “How does this recommendation promote/contribute to Student Success?”

District 5 Tom Nerini Running unopposed

My entire career has been dedicated to helping students access and succeed in education. For more than 20 years I have worked and attended some of the best colleges in North America. I’ve designed, implemented and coordinated highly successful programs which ensured student access and success in college. I know what it takes for students to be successful in college.

For the past 8 years I have worked as a school counselor in Phoenix Union High School District. Each day I am fortunate to work with students; to get to know their dreams, their abilities and the obstacles they face . I know what they are capable of and what an asset they are to our community. I know that the Community College is the best and, for many students, the only hope to access higher education.

As a graduate of the Phoenix Union High School district and an alumnus of MCCCD, I am these students, and I am running for the Governing Board to ensure that MCCCD remains a strong and vital gateway to economic security for the individual and the source of a well-educated work force necessary for our community to compete in the 21st century.

At Large Roc Arnette

About John Heep – no information except he is a republican on web

John Heep is the incumbent. He’s served on the board for two years and acknowledges declining enrollment is an issue.

“School population is down across the country as much as 10 to 15 percent, even higher than that in a lot of places,” Heep said. “So everyone is reacting to this phenomenon and trying to find new sources of students.”

Heep said during his tenure the governing board has boosted its marketing to increase enrollment. But there have been additional challenges with funding. “We’re also adjusting to not having the monies coming in from the state,” Heep said.

This year, the legislature completely cut state funding to the Maricopa Community College District. Heep’s at large challenger Linda Thor said while those cuts are unfortunate, they can be made up with property taxes. Even though taxes are not a popular topic among voters, Thor said “this one we can we directly tie back to benefits to the individual and to the community as a whole.”

Thor has worked in community colleges for 40 years and served as president of the Rio Salado Community College for 20 years. She thinks the community colleges could do a better job of targeting returning students.

“There are a lot of individuals out there who have some college credits but don’t have a certificate or a degree,” Thor said. “We need to encourage those individuals to come back and complete those degrees.” She said community colleges could start offering boot camp style programs that would provide a shorter term pathway to jobs.

VS Roc Arnett

Roc Arnett is an Arizona native, and Mesa Community College Alumni. He lives in Northeast Mesa with his wife Sydney and has five grown children and twenty grandchildren.

Roc has thirty eight years experience brokering risk and insurance services to clients of a range of complexity including self-insured programs as well more traditional fully insured programs. In addition to insurance industry work, Roc has been active in the community, particularly in transportation and construction related areas of risk.

In 2003, Roc became President of the East Valley Partnership and directed a regional non-profit business coalition advocating for PHX East Valley primarily focused on Economic Development, Education, Transportation, Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Area, and Arts issues.

In addition, the Partnership is also engaged in enhancing East Valley’s tourism, regional healthcare and behavioral health programs, tribal relations, and sponsoring a variety of important informational forums and activities. Roc reported to a Board of Directors comprised of the more than 50 key civic, government, business and educational leaders in the PHX East Valley.

For the past two years, Roc has consulted on transportation, education and economic development projects principally in the PHX East Valley.

Vote Roc

Candidates for US Senate

Kyrsten Sinema

Martha McSally

Angela Green

Really holding my Nose and Voting for Kyrsten Sinema – she is like the worst of the Bernie Bros

Kyrsten Sinema is a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate from Arizona. Sinema is running in the general election on November 6, 2018, after advancing from the primary on August 28, 2018.

Sinema began her political career in the Arizona House of Representatives. She represented district 15 from 2005 until her election to the Arizona State Senate in 2010. She resigned from the senate on January 3, 2012, in order to run for Congress.[1][2]

Based on analysis of multiple outside rankings, Sinema is a more moderate left of center Democratic Party vote. As a result, she may break with the Democratic Party line more than her fellow members.

After receiving her master of social work and J.D. from Arizona State University, Sinema worked as an adjunct professor and faculty member for the Center for Progressive Leadership.[3] Her career in public service began in the Arizona State Legislature in 2005, where her advocacy included getting in-state tuition for veterans at all Arizona public universities, combating sex trafficking, and calling for improvements to children’s healthcare.[4]

She is the embodiment of everything problematic with looking at the Democratic Party and how it operates under whiteness – she is a moderate republican in democratic clothing. She will do the least damage

House District 6

Voting for Anita Malik – and love putting this vote in

David Schweikert has had a chokehold on this district forever – and he still may but Malik is awesome

In May 2017, Anita Malik made a bold choice. She stepped down from her role as Chief Operating Officer of a content technology company to run for the U.S. House of Representatives for Arizona’s 6th district. Having been at the forefront of advances in digital marketing and technology, Anita recognized the urgent need for real tech leadership in D.C.

The daughter of immigrants from India, Anita was born in Kansas City, Missouri. When she was 7, her family moved to Arizona. Her father, a mechanical and computer engineer, instilled in her the importance of leading with empathy and listening; her mother, a stay-at-home mom with a passion for the arts, taught her to appreciate the journey. She attended Scottsdale schools, graduating from Chaparral High School in 1994.

Anita went on to graduate summa cum laude with degrees in both computer information systems and finance from Arizona State University. She later earned her master’s in journalism from the University of Southern California in 2002.

“Anita Malik gives me hope. She is a smart, tough, energetic leader who will govern with heart. She believes having less money should not mean you have less of a voice in your government.” – Lisa Hamilton, voter.

Governor

Voting for David Garcia – big time happy about this vote former veteran former teacher – strong pick I think he can beat the ice cream man.

Email [email protected] to notify us of updates to this biography.

Dr. Garcia was born and raised in Mesa, Arizona. After completing his bachelor’s degree at Arizona State University, he earned a master’s and a doctorate degree in education policy from the University of Chicago. His dissertation examined segregation in Arizona’s charter schools.[1] Before running for Arizona superintendent of public instruction, Garcia worked at Arizona State University Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College as an associate professor.[2]

In addition to his teaching duties, Dr. Garcia served as the Associate Superintendent of Public Instruction for Standards and Accountability in Arizona. He also worked as a research analyst for the Arizona State Senate’s Education Committee and as a consultant for the U.S. Department of Education. In addition to his role as associate superintendent, Garcia’s leadership experience also includes service as the director of Research and Policy for the Arizona Department of Education and the director of the Arizona Education Policy Initiative.[2]. Over the years, Dr. Garcia has also published dozens of peer-reviewed articles and book chapters on education policy.[1]

Secretary of State

Voting for Katie Hobbs

Hobbs earned her B.A. in social work from Northern Arizona University in 1992 and her M.A. in social work from Arizona State University in 1995. Her professional experience includes working as director of government relations for the Sojourner Center, a member of the adjunct faculty of Paradise Valley Community College’s social and behavioral sciences, and a social worker. She is a former volunteer for the Arizona Democratic Party and Chair of District 15 Democrats.

January fought against special interests to fend off cuts to health care insurance when she worked as a policy advisor to Governor Napolitano, and an Assistant Director at the Arizona Health Care Cost Cont January has taken on human traffickers

At ALWAYS, January has served Arizonans, including survivors of human trafficking. She has a passion for fighting for trafficking victims, and she will work to put a stop to these horrible crimes of greed and abuse from ever happening in Arizona again.

January combatted violence against women

At the Department of Homeland Security, January led the charge to establish the Council on Combating Violence Against Women.  She has served on the White House Council on Women and Girls, contributed to the development of the U.S. National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security, and volunteered on the Board of Directors of the Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence. At ALWAYS, she regularly represented victims of domestic violence who would otherwise have no lawyer.ainment System (AHCCCS).

State Treasurer

Voting FOR January Contreras

It used to be the case that you could buy a home, open up a small business and start a family without going into massive debt or flirting with the possibility of poverty. Today that isn’t the case. At least for most of us.

More and more we see people who can’t pay off their college debt, can’t afford a house, can’t qualify for a small-business loan, and can’t afford to start a family. Our kids can’t live at home forever – things have to change.

For too long our political establishment has enabled the bad behavior of corporations that gamble with our money, leaving us behind to pick up the pieces. When the government stops working for the people, we must elect new leaders to fix it. I will fight to create opportunity and restore dignity to an office that for too long has let politicians get away with bad budgets and self-dealing.

State Superintendent

Voting For Kathy Hoffman

Hoffman earned a master’s degree in speech language pathology from the University of Arizona. Her professional experience includes working as a speech language pathologist at the Peoria Unified School District. She has served as a member of the Arizona Education Association and the Arizona Federation for Teachers.[1]

Mine Inspector

Voting for William Pierce

Lets be honest I have not idea what to tell you here – but on this one the democrat looks like a miner not a business man – so I am going with William Pierce over business looking Joe Hart

Arizona Corporate Commission

Voting for First Kiana Sears

Kiana Maria Sears is a passionate energy regulatory and public policy professional who is civically engaged as a community advocate and public education champion.

She is uniquely inspired by her own background as part of a working family to ensure others are able to live healthy lives.

Please join  Kiana Sears as she promises to serve with integrity and to work hard every day to restore the public’s trust in this critical branch of Arizona’s democracy.

Then Sandra Kennedy

Sandra D. Kennedy is a Democratic candidate for Arizona Corporation Commission. Kennedy is running in the general election on November 6, 2018, after advancing from the primary on August 28, 2018.

Kennedy was an unsuccessful Democratic candidate for Arizona Corporation Commissioner in the 2014 elections.[1] She is a former member of the commission.[2] She first assumed office in 2009 and served until 2013, following her re-election defeat in the general election on November 6, 2012.[3]

AZ Senate LD 20

Voting for Douglas Ervin

Experience and Education

Chief Development Architect for Phoenix headquartered software firm

Business Analyst for Scottsdale based consulting company

Controller for Phoenix small business

Corporate Tax Auditor for Arizona Department of Revenue

Assistant Manager for a foodservice business

Bachelor of Science in Accounting – DeVry Institute of Technology

Scottsdale High School, Pima and Loloma Elementary

Other

Private Pilot

Ironman Triathlete

Backpacker and Hiker

Passed Certified Public Accountant exam

Trained Leader for Climate Reality Project

Volunteer with PV School District’s VIP Program

Voting FOR Hazel Chandler

Hazel Chandler is a Democratic candidate seeking election to the Arizona House of Representatives to represent District 20. Chandler is running in the general election on November 6, 2018, after advancing from the primary on August 28, 2018.

Biography

Chandler earned her B.S. in child development and family studies from San Diego State University in 1971 and her M.A. in management from the University of Phoenix in 1983. She also completed the public manager program in 2012 at Arizona State University.

Mayor

David Valenzuela

Daniel Valenzuela is a nonpartisan candidate for Mayor of Phoenix in Arizona. Valenzuela is running in the general special election on November 6, 2018.

Valenzuela was a member of the Phoenix City Council in the state of Arizona, representing District 5. He was elected in 2011.[1] Valenzuela stepped down from the city council on July 18, 2018, to run for mayor of Phoenix.[2][3]

Biography.

Valenzuela’s professional experience includes working as an instructor for the Arizona Department of Emergency Management and the director of the National Fire and Rescue Services Information Officer Network.[1]

Propositions

VOTING Against 125

VOTING AGAINST 126

VOTING FOR 127

VOTING AGAINST 305

VOTING Against 306

Arizona Proposition 125, the Adjustments to Elected Officials’ and Corrections Officer’s Retirement Plans Amendment, is on the ballot in Arizona as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018.[1]

Overview

What would the ballot measure change?

Proposition 125 would allow the Arizona State Legislature to make adjustments to two state pension plans—the Corrections Officer Retirement Plan (CORP) and the Elected Officials’ Retirement Plan (EORP)—based on Senate Bill 1442 and House Bill 2545.[1]

Proposition 125 itself would not make changes to the two state pension plans, but would rather authorize the legislature to make changes. The legislature passed two bills to implement Proposition 125 if the constitutional amendment is approved:

In 1990, Arizona adopted a permanent benefit increase (PBI) formula, which provided increases in retirement payments based on investment earnings. In 1998, the maximum possible increase was capped at 4 percent. The 2018 amendment’s proposed cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) would be based on the inflation rate for the Metropolitan Phoenix-Mesa Consumer Price Index, with the maximum possible increase capped at 2 percent.[1][2]

Why does this change require a constitutional amendment?

Article 29 of the Arizona Constitution describes public retirement systems as a contractual relationship between members and the state, requires that public retirement systems be funded with contributions and investment earnings, and declares that retirement system benefits shall not be diminished or impaired.[3] Article 29 was added to the state constitution in 1998 via Proposition 100.[4] Due to two court cases regarding the interpretation of Article 29—Fields v. EORP and Hall v. EORP—the Arizona State Legislature needs to amend Article 29 to make changes to pension plans that would have the effect of decreasing benefits for current and retired members.[5][6] According to the Arizona Senate Research Staff, the amendment could have a positive impact on the state’s General Fund because of the lower 2-percent cap on annual increases could decrease pension benefits.[2]

Text of measure

Arizona Proposition 126, the Prohibit New or Increased Taxes on Services Initiative, is on the ballot in Arizona as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018.[1]

What would Proposition 126 change about tax policy in Arizona?

Proposition 126 would prohibit the state and local governments from enacting new taxes or increasing tax rates in effect on December 31, 2018, on services performed in Arizona.[1] Services can include various types of economic activities that don’t involve tangible goods, from personal-oriented activities, including salon services, pet grooming, amusement, and fitness activities, to financial-oriented activities, including real estate transactions, banking, and investment management, to healthcare-oriented activities, such as doctor visits.

Who is behind the campaigns surrounding Proposition 126?

Note: The campaign finance information on this page is according to the most recent scheduled reports, which covered through August 20, 2018. The deadline for the next scheduled reports is October 15, 2018.

Citizens for Fair Tax Policy, a political action committee, is leading the campaign in support of Proposition 126. The Arizona Association of Realtors organized the PAC. Citizens for Fair Tax Policy had raised $6.10 million and expended $4.55 million. The Realtors Issues Mobilization Fund, an organization of the Arizona Association of Realtors, provided the largest contribution—$5.10 million. No PACs had organized to oppose Proposition 126.[2]

Arizona Proposition 127, the Renewable Energy Standards Initiative is on the ballot in Arizona as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018.[1]

Overview

What would Proposition 127 change about energy policy in Arizona?

Proposition 127 would increase the state’s renewable portfolio standards (RPS). An RPS is a mandate that electric utilities acquire a minimum amount of electricity from renewable energy sources. As of 2018, Arizona’s RPS is 15 percent by 2025. Proposition 127 would increase the RPS each year until reaching 50 percent in 2030. The initiative would define renewable energy to include sources such as solar, wind, biomass, certain hydropower, geothermal, and landfill gas energies.[1]

Arizona Proposition 305, the Expansion of Empowerment Scholarship Accounts Referendum, is on the ballot in Arizona as a veto referendum on November 6, 2018.[1]

Overview

What is an ESA?

The original program allowed parents or guardians of students with disabilities to sign a contract to opt out of the public school system and instead receive an ESA from the Arizona Department of Education (DOE) that could be spent on private education, homeschooling, or other non-public education. An ESA is funded at 90 percent of what the state would have paid for the student in a district or charter school. Parents or guardians use a prepaid bank card to pay for education-related tuition and fees, textbooks, tutoring, educational therapies, and curriculum. Recipients of ESAs are required to submit quarterly spending reports to DOE. Between 2011 and 2017, the program was expanded to cover students meeting other specified criteria. Arizona was the first state to establish an Empowerment Scholarship Accounts program. [2][3]

How would Proposition 305 change the ESAs program?

A “yes” vote on Proposition 305 would uphold Senate Bill 1431 (SB 1431), which was designed to make all K-12 students eligible to apply for an ESA. The expansion would phase in over four school years. A “no” vote on Proposition 305 would overturn SB 1431. Approval of Proposition 405 would phase in the expansion of ESAs as follows:[1]

Proposition 305 would cap the number of new students allowed to receive ESAs at 0.5 percent of the total number of students enrolled in school districts and charter schools per year through school year 2022-2023. For school year 2023-2024 and thereafter, the number of new ESAs per year would not exceed the number approved for school year 2022-2023. A student whose family is at or below 250 percent of the federal poverty line would be eligible for an ESA with 100 percent, rather than 90 percent, of what the state would have paid for the student in a district or charter school.[1][4]

Are ESAs the same as vouchers?

Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Accounts are often referred to as a school vouchers program.[5][6][7] In 2013, the state Court of Appeals outlined the differences between ESAs, which were upheld as constitutional, and school vouchers, which the state Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional four years earlier, in Arizona.[8][9] In Niehaus V. Huppenthal, the Court of Appeals said that vouchers earmarked state funds for private and sectarian schools, whereas ESAs earmarked state funds for parents of qualifying students to purchase educational services. Vouchers, according to the court, violated Section 10 of Article 9 (Aid Clause) of the Arizona Constitution, which prohibited state aid to private and religious schools. The court said ESAs do not violate the Aid Clause because “none of the ESA funds are preordained for a particular destination.”[10]

Kim Martinez of the American Federation for Children, an organization that advocates for school choice policies, said the difference between vouchers and ESAs is notable, as “ESAs are much more comprehensive than a voucher program and they allow parents to control their child’s state-funded education dollars.”[11] Tim Walker of the National Education Association, a teachers’ professional association and labor union, referred to ESAs as school voucher doublespeak, stating, “The intent is to obscure the fact that these spruced up proposals still produce the same result: less taxpayer money for public schools, more taxpayer money for unaccountable private schools that can, and do, discriminate.”[12]

How did Proposition 305 get on the ballot in 2018?

Save Our Schools (SOS) Arizona, the campaign the collected signatures for the veto referendum, was launched one month after Gov. Doug Ducey (R) signed Senate Bill 1431 (SB 1431) on April 6, 2017. In the Arizona State Legislature, Democrats opposed SB 1431. Most legislative Republicans supported the legislation. U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos (R) described the bill was a big win for students and parents. According to Dawn Penich-Thacker, SOS Arizona’s spokesperson, six women who met at legislative hearings for SB 1431 and were opposed to the legislation organized the veto referendum campaign.[13] On September 8, 2017, Secretary of State Michele Reagan (R) announced that enough signatures were verified to place the veto referendum on the ballot as Proposition 305. Gov. Ducey, speaking at a seminar for conservative donors, said he wanted SB 1431 to go into effect. He stated, “This is a very real fight in my state. I didn’t run for governor to play small ball. I think this is an important idea.”[14]

Arizona Proposition 306, the Clean Election Account Uses and Commission Rulemaking Measure, is on the ballot in Arizona as a legislatively referred state statute on November 6, 2018.[1]

Overview

What is the Citizens Clean Election Commission (CCEC)?

The Citizens Clean Election Commission (CCEC) oversees Arizona’s public financing program for campaigns. The CCEC has five commissioners—two Democrats, two Republicans, and one independent.[2] The commission is exempt from the state’s rulemaking requirements; rather, the commission is empowered to adopt its own rules to govern the commission. Rules must be adopted in public meetings following a 60-day period for public comment. Proposition 200, which voters approved in 1998, created the CCEC.[3]

What would this measure change about the CCEC and public financing?

The measure would prohibit candidates from using their public financing accounts, known as clean election accounts in Arizona, to give funds to political parties or tax-exempt 501(a) organizations that are allowed to engage in activities to influence candidate elections.[1]

The measure would also remove the Citizens Clean Election Commission’s (CCEC) exemption from the state’s rulemaking requirements. The measure would require the CCEC to receive approval from the seven-member Governor’s Regulatory Review Council (GRRC) to finalize rules for the public financing program. The governor appoints six of the council’s seven members.[1]

How did this measure get on the ballot?

The Arizona Constitution required the measure to go on the ballot because the measure would amend a voter-approved ballot initiative—Proposition 200—passed in 1998. Rep. Doug Coleman (R-16) introduced the proposal in the state legislature. The state House voted 34-25 to place the measure on the ballot, and the state Senate voted 17-12. The votes were along partisan lines. Republicans supported the measure. Democrats opposed the measure.[4] Louis Hoffman and Amy Chan, former CCEC commissioners, sued the state over the measure’s placement on the ballot. Hoffman and Chan argued that the ballot measure violates the state’s single-subject rule, which states that “every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith.” Rep. J.D. Mesnard (R-17), the speaker of the state House, responded to the litigation, contending that the former commissioners were trying to stop voters from deciding the rulemaking process.[5][6][7] As of September 28, 2018, the litigation is ongoing.

Arizona Proposition 306, the Clean Election Account Uses and Commission Rulemaking Measure, is on the ballot in Arizona as a legislatively referred state statute on November 6, 2018.[1]

Overview

What is the Citizens Clean Election Commission (CCEC)?

The Citizens Clean Election Commission (CCEC) oversees Arizona’s public financing program for campaigns. The CCEC has five commissioners—two Democrats, two Republicans, and one independent.[2] The commission is exempt from the state’s rulemaking requirements; rather, the commission is empowered to adopt its own rules to govern the commission. Rules must be adopted in public meetings following a 60-day period for public comment. Proposition 200, which voters approved in 1998, created the CCEC.[3]

What would this measure change about the CCEC and public financing?

The measure would prohibit candidates from using their public financing accounts, known as clean election accounts in Arizona, to give funds to political parties or tax-exempt 501(a) organizations that are allowed to engage in activities to influence candidate elections.[1]

The measure would also remove the Citizens Clean Election Commission’s (CCEC) exemption from the state’s rulemaking requirements. The measure would require the CCEC to receive approval from the seven-member Governor’s Regulatory Review Council (GRRC) to finalize rules for the public financing program. The governor appoints six of the council’s seven members.[1]

How did this measure get on the ballot?

The Arizona Constitution required the measure to go on the ballot because the measure would amend a voter-approved ballot initiative—Proposition 200—passed in 1998. Rep. Doug Coleman (R-16) introduced the proposal in the state legislature. The state House voted 34-25 to place the measure on the ballot, and the state Senate voted 17-12. The votes were along partisan lines. Republicans supported the measure. Democrats opposed the measure.[4] Louis Hoffman and Amy Chan, former CCEC commissioners, sued the state over the measure’s placement on the ballot. Hoffman and Chan argued that the ballot measure violates the state’s single-subject rule, which states that “every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith.” Rep. J.D. Mesnard (R-17), the speaker of the state House, responded to the litigation, contending that the former commissioners were trying to stop voters from deciding the rulemaking process.[5][6][7] As of September 28, 2018, the litigation is ongoing.

Teaser: So I have noticed something – people love – just love love love to be the critic. They are really quick to champion a perceived winner like they did with Capernick and Nike – and at the same time they are very quick to damn all parts of John McCain. Were are you at with this – and how can we better understand this idea

Today’s podcast to double trouble problem of dualism and absolutism – with a bit of a critique here of our own inclusive activists

Today we will talk about:

We will look this notion of dualism?

We will try to understand what is this rise of absolutism and the dangers with dogmatic ?

Lastly we will talk about the need to pick sides and have a “take” on everything and what it does to our pragmatic understanding to full ideas and issues.

Welcome back to the podcast! We are going to attempt a different ordering of material for the podcast so we are going to start right into the content you came here for and then talk activism, self-care and community stuff more towards the end!

First thing: What is the ideal of dualism

Dualism in cosmology is the moral or spiritual belief that two fundamental concepts exist, which often oppose each other. It is an umbrella term that covers a diversity of views from various religions, including both traditional religions and scriptural religions.

Moral dualism is the belief of the great complement of, or conflict between, the benevolent and the malevolent. It simply implies that there are two moral opposites at work, independent of any interpretation of what might be “moral” and independent of how these may be represented. Moral opposites might, for example, exist in a worldview which has one god, more than one god, or none. By contrast, duotheism, bitheism or ditheism implies (at least) two gods. While bitheism implies harmony, ditheism implies rivalry and opposition, such as between good and evil, or light and dark, or summer and winter. For example, a ditheistic system could be one in which one god is a creator, and the other a destroyer. In theology, dualism can also refer to the relationship between God and creation or God and the universe (see theistic dualism). This form of dualism is a belief shared in certain traditions of Christianity and Hinduism.[1] Alternatively, in ontological dualism, the world is divided into two overarching categories. The opposition and combination of the universe’s two basic principles of yin and yang is a large part of Chinese philosophy, and is an important feature of Taoism. It is also discussed in Confucianism.

Many myths and creation motifs with dualistic cosmologies have been described in ethnographic and anthropological literature. These motifs conceive the world as being created, organized, or influenced by two demiurges, culture heroes, or other mythological beings, who either compete with each other or have a complementary function in creating, arranging or influencing the world. There is a huge diversity of such cosmologies. In some cases, such as among the Chukchi, the beings collaborate rather than competing, and contribute to the creation in a coequal way. In many other instances the two beings are not of the same importance or power (sometimes, one of them is even characterized as gullible). Sometimes they can be contrasted as good versus evil.[2] They may be often believed to be twins or at least brothers.[3][4] Dualistic motifs in mythologies can be observed in all inhabited continents. Zolotaryov concludes that they cannot be explained by diffusion or borrowing, but are rather of convergent origin: they are related to a dualistic organization of society (moieties); in some cultures, this social organization may have ceased to exist, but mythology preserves the memory in more and more disguised ways.[5]

How do I see dualism in activism?

Second: What is absolutism

Moral absolutism is an ethical view that particular actions are intrinsically right or wrong. Stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done for the well-being of others (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good. Moral absolutism stands in contrast to other categories of normative ethical theories such as consequentialism, which holds that the morality (in the wide sense) of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act.

Moral absolutism is not the same as moral universalism. Universalism holds merely that what is right or wrong is independent of custom or opinion (as opposed to moral relativism), but not necessarily that what is right or wrong is independent of context or consequences (as in absolutism). Moral universalism is compatible with moral absolutism, but also positions such as consequentialism. Louis Pojman gives the following definitions to distinguish the two positions of moral absolutism and universalism:[1]

Ethical theories which place strong emphasis on rights and duty, such as the deontological ethics of Immanuel Kant, are often forms of moral absolutism, as are many religious moral codes.

Moral absolutism may be understood in a strictly secular context, as in many forms of deontological moral rationalism. However, many religions have morally absolutist positions as well, regarding their system of morality as deriving from divine commands. Therefore, they regard such a moral system as absolute, (usually) perfect, and unchangeable. Many secular philosophies also take a morally absolutist stance, arguing that absolute laws of morality are inherent in the nature of human beings, the nature of life in general, or the universe itself. For example, someone who believes absolutely in nonviolence considers it wrong to use violence even in self-defense.

Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas never explicitly addresses the Euthyphro dilemma, but draws a distinction between what is good or evil in itself and what is good or evil because of God’s commands,[2] with unchangeable moral standards forming the bulk of natural law.[3] Thus he contends that not even God can change the Ten Commandments, adding, however, that God can change what individuals deserve in particular cases, in what might look like special dispensations to murder or steal.[4]

Political Absolutism is a term used to apply to a great many systems in which one person, or one organ of State authority, has unquestioned power over all or most other organs. Absolute Monarchy is the most common form of absolutism, with all official power being vested entirely in the Crown or Monarch. Historically, the term was used to apply to European monarchies where no-one and nothing – including the Church – was superior to the Monarchy.

How do I see Absolutism in activism?

Lastly – Do I think this problem and why am I concerned?

Graded absolutism is a theory of moral absolutism in Christian ethics which resolves the objection to absolutism that in moral conflicts we are obligated to opposites. Moral absolutism is the ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them. Graded absolutism is moral absolutism but qualifies that a moral absolute, like “Do not kill,” can be greater or lesser than another moral absolute, like “Do not lie”. Also called contextual absolutism or the greater good view, is an alternative to the third alternative view and the lesser evil view, both discussed below, regarding moral conflict resolution.[citation needed]

According to graded absolutism, in moral conflicts, the dilemma is not that we are obligated to opposites, because greater absolutes are not opposites of lesser absolutes, and evil is not the opposite of good but is instead the privation of good. Since evil is the privation of good, only the privation of the greater good counts as evil, since whenever there is a moral conflict, we are only obligated to the greater good. The real dilemma is that we cannot perform both conflicting absolutes at the same time. ‘Which’ absolutes are in conflict depends on the context, but which conflicting absolute is ‘greater’ does not depend on the context. That is why graded absolutism is also called ‘contextual absolutism’ but is not to be confused with situational ethics. The conflict is resolved in acting according to the greater absolute. That is why graded absolutism is also called the ‘greater good view’, but is not to be confused with utilitarianism.

As far as the podcast goes we have been up to some interesting new things! We have a social media liason now! You may also have noticed that the podcast has now a Facebook Page, a Instagram Page AND a new Twitter Account! With all these things we are getting more and more ways to reach out and connect with you our listeners. Glad to have them part of our team! Please remember you can email me at [email protected] or leave me a voicemail at 860-576-9393. I would love to hear your thoughts!

Also remember to rate and review us on Apple Podcasts, or Stitcher, or if you could please share the podcast on social media, All these things go a long way to making a significant difference for us here at the inclusive activism podcast. Also please subscribe to our podcasts on iTunes, Stitcher, Overcast, Player FM, Pocket Casts or Google Play as these are great ways for me to show “proof of work to potential sponsors”. It would also go a long way in getting my producer Sara paid for her work someday too!

So checking in on my Activism:

Meeting with Poder in Action about a possible student club Free the People on Campus

Attended another sweat lodge ceremony

Will have dinner with Luke Black next week

Self Care:

Lift X3 a week which has been a source of serious frustration

Cardio has been at least 3X a week and have added in running bleachers at PC

And Meditated for 2X for at least 10-15 mins

Got one 10 min Yoga session in

Have been doing concentrated Christian Mediation in for past 5 days!

I’ve been getting my supplements in pretty regularly thank goodness

Training Tank has been going well but the fact that it is so warm has been hard too

Reading a bit more here and there

Lastly for the Recommendation of the Podcast:

Own the day Own your Life

The founder and CEO of Onnit, the mega lifestyle brand and one of the fastest growing companies in the country, teaches us how one single day of positive choices leads to a lifetime of concrete strategies for better living, optimal performance, and a stronger mind, body, and spirit.

Human optimization thought leader Aubrey Marcus’s personal and professional mission rests on a single question: How can we get the most out of our body and mind on a daily basis?

Marcus answers that question in Own the Day, Own Your Life an empowering handbook that guides readers to optimize every moment of the day, from waking in the morning, through work and play, until bedtime each night. With small, actionable changes implemented throughout the course of one day, we can feel better, perform more efficiently, and live happier. And these daily habits turn into weekly routines, ultimately becoming part of lifelong healthy choices.

From workouts and diet to inbox triage, mindfulness, shower temperature, and sex, this ground-breaking manual provides simple strategies for each element of your day. Drawing from the latest studies and traditional practices from around the world, Own the Day, Own Your Life delivers an optimization philosophy, including cutting-edge life-hacking tips, nutritional expertise, brain upgrades, and fitness regiments.

Own the Day, Own Your Life is a must-have “choose-your-own-adventure” guide for the everyman and everywoman—packed with pragmatic and effective strategies that empower you to enjoy your life, take charge of your health, and own the day.

So in review major points of this podcast were:

SO if this made you think something, if you have a question or even more shocking a critique let me know. You can call me at 860-576-9393

This space is a place to talk back ask me questions, hit me with scenarios of how to react to situations real time. Depending on how good your stuff is I will give it my “first take response” or if it’s good it might be a future podcast!

Also as always if you’re interested in booking me to bring the power of inclusive activism to your organization you can always do so at [email protected] or you can learn more about this organization at www.inclusiveactivism.com