Note: This is an unedited first draft… looking forward to talking to Stephanie at 2pm, about 45′ from now. The “gubernatorial coalition” below represents a legal, nonviolent way to secure significant reins of power… following a fresh paradigm for the electoral arena which incorporates the principles and values of The Metta Center for Nonviolence. Metta didn’t “make” me do anything; it served as a catalyst. I just love alliteration. Update: Below the a/b/c/d segment below you’ll find, Stephanie and Michael, the promised additional blahblah; I trust it’ll be sufficient for you to grant me open-ended access to you on Thursday if I make that long, long trip up to Petaluma (even if the time has to be broken up LOTS, secured only in bits here and there).

As per
by Oxman

What’s below is a tentative list for a gubernatorial coalition… which, of course, requires elaboration. It should be fun to tweak it, bouncing off of grassroots feedback. Brief contact from a distance with Stephanie Van Hook inspired me to post this. Also, though, writing it is a function of the frustration experienced this morning (22 July) in trying to “connect” with concerned citizens — doing excellent, well-intentioned work — in New York and Florida. I look forward to having the opportunity to delineate all of TOSCA’s nooks and crannies for Stephanie in person, in confidence… at her very earliest convenience.

Transforming Our State with Citizen Action (TOSCA) in California is easy to explain, upon request. The thing is, one needs to set aside sufficient time for doing so… so that the author is not required to sound bite something that’s been put together over a period of eight years. There must be ample opportunity for obligatory, in-depth Q&A. Telegraphic communication respecting TOSCA* is not appropriate, simply does not work for anyone’s benefit. It is a plan for action which carries the imprimatur of the late Howard Zinn; leisurely discussion of it will not waste your heartbeats.

*The dated description of TOSCA should not be read without engaging the author in Q&A of some kind; it’s too likely to be dismissed prematurely for any one of a number of reasons otherwise. [That's said based on thousands of interactions.]

In no special order:

1. Stephanie Van Hook

2. Graham Nash

3. Angela Davis

4. Sergio “I Only Look Illegal” Romo

5. Susana De Anda

6. Kobe Bryant or Matt Damon

7. Ahmir “Questlove” Thompson

8. Robin Davis Gibran Kelley

9. Cynthia Chandler chandler

Numbers 10, 11 and 12 are not provided here for good reasons. Please contact Oxman at to discuss

a) the above list;
b) who the author has in mind for the remaining three slots;
c) who you would like to have on the list;
d) what issues you’d most like to be addressed first, and from what point of view.

Promised additional blahblah

If you glance at, you’ll see a sound bite delineation that should give you enough bones to pick over. Bottom line, I can help you to secure the gubernatorial seat for a person of your choice in 2014, or create a watershed in history for your organization’s purposes in a campaign loss. The HOW that can be achieved is WHY I need more than an hour to spend with you on Thursday. Ideally, I’d like to take up your entire day on 25 July, and stay up all through the night with the plan’s nooks and crannies. All that aside, though, I’d like to talk to you about what it might mean for you to have me working for you as a volunteer, serving as an asset for your purposes vis-a-vis what your needs are right at this moment 24×8.

Between now and Thursday, I’m certainly open to going back and forth via email and/or phone to discuss whatever concerns you about TOSCA or my volunteer gesture. We don’t have to wait three more days to engage in dialogue. [Pause.] Here’s to looking forward to another prompt, positive response.

Select interesting points I’ve observed over the last eight years trying to leisurely discuss the new paradigm for action which I’m hawking

as unprecedented,

as something that could serve the purposes of organizations without costing them anything whatsoever,

and as necessary:

1. Activists are too busy keeping their particular non-profit afloat agenda afloat, without any sense of the need to move in solidarity on a new macroscopic scale, without acknowledging collective deadlines;
2. Concerned citizens who do give me some time are rushed, their attention divided, the time allowed minimal, not permitting much back and forth [And rarely reading telegraphic material submitted, even when it’s described as a prerequisite to intelligent discussion, and there’s an agreement to honor the need to read minimally prior to talking);
3. No one can explain how what they’re doing will lead to the institutional changes they seek in time;
4. Everyone thinks that money is necessary to bring about miracles;
5. The vast majority of socially-conscious/environmentally-conscious work is being done is contingent upon ego-satisfaction on the part of decision-makers, petty self-serving considerations plaguing service to too great a degree;
6. There is virtually no serious interest in securing grassroots input;
7. A belief that there’s absolutely nothing new under the sun that could be proposed, no truly new paradigm for action possible, least of all in the electoral arena;
8. One should be able to condense any proposed model for fresh action that’s worthwhile into a short sound bite;
9. It is out of the question to consider brainstorming over anything with anyone for many, many hours in a row;
10. “Fighting the good fight is sufficient” and “Every little bit helps” are two mantras which are never subjected to scrutiny. Ditto for “The Blessings/Sacredness of Doing Your Own Thing.”;
11. For at least 75% of my attempts I did not receive even a “Thanks, but no thanks” reply, or minimal, relatively meaningless responses came in at the pace of an arthritic snail… even when I was offering truly singular contributions, such as a valuable library, 24×7 volunteer time (from myself, and — potentially — others), and making a number of other unusual gestures which stood to help with the mundane matters that must be attended to by every non-profit;
12. Regarding recruitment and raising funds, way too much stock is being placed in rational appeals, and too little use is being made of effective visceral approaches.

That’s a mere twelve out of dozens of observations which should be highly instructive for one and all; all, certainly, warranting discussion in and of themselves. Again, what’s here is unedited, and rushed itself. But I’m hoping that the thrust of what I’m trying to get across here will penetrate, resonate.

CONTACT for elaboration.