A teacher's open letter to Nate Easley

there is just so many things wrong with this

" We got a new student at my school this week - a thirteen-year-old girl from Honduras who just spent four months alone in a detention center in Texas.  I'll be "to blame" for her CSAP scores in two weeks."

A perfect example of how 'data' and 'testing' and 'accountability' sound good in business models, but have no connection to the real world of human children being taught about their world by people of knowledge and trust - our teachers.

---

by: wade norris @ Sat Feb 12, 2011 at 16:07:30 PM UTC

Wait.

Wait a durned second, here.
I thought this whole Easley recall was about the Bennet-Romanoff primary. Or something.

Do you mean to suggest that there are real problems in DPS.

Real problems that School Board President Easley has been ignoring? Or even contributing to?

Whoa. It's not political? It's actually about governance.

Who knew?

But... who are your leaders? why haven't you filed with the Secretary of State. I want to see those donut receipts. A complete accounting. Post it NOW! DefenseDenver. Come clean!

---

by: Vouchersandcharters4ever @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 03:56:42 AM UTC

There are real problems with DPS...

but it still sounds like the given reason (an alleged, and apparently untrue, charge of a conflict of interest) isn't the real reason for the recall. This teacher admits as much. And for that I have a huge problem with it.

To what extent is Easley responsible for these issues? How does it justify recalling him now, as opposed to waiting for his term to expire and running a Merida-type candidate at that time? How are actions like these justified?

Tactics and motives matter. The end NEVER justifies these means.

---

by: Aristotle2 @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 16:47:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Presumably,

you're referring to MotR's melodramatic woe-is-me ramblings over at Pols. I'm not persuaded one bit by that nonsense. She's obviously a willing participant in an ongoing coordinated smear campaign run by slick professional political hacks against the grassroots folks who are seeking to recall Easley because of his unacceptably poor performance in office, and her I'm-such-a-victim routine is just another cynical stratagem in their campaign.  Now she's being held accountable for her actions, and of course she doesn't like it one bit. Well, tough.

MotR's attempt to dismiss concerns about Easley's conflict of interest reminds me of the Bush-Cheney regime's argument that it was OK for them to commit torture because their own lawyer John Woo had given them permission.  Just as it's ultimately up to the citizenry to decide whether the Bush-Cheney torture policy was acceptable, it's up to the DPS voters to decide whether or not Easley's dual roles constitute a conflict of interest.  That is the essence of representative democracy.

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 18:48:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Related developments:

I wasn't going to link to this because it "outs" MotR, but since Pols has now done so, here it is:
http://www.thecherrycreeknews....

There's a mention there of Alan Franklin's semi-secret dual role as an employee at ProgressNow and the man behind the curtain at ColoradoPols.  That's a situation that requires authoritative, independent investigation.  ProgressNow is politically, operationally  and financially linked to the DNC, OFA, and the associated corporate donors from Wall Street, Big Pharma, etc. who funded Michael Bennet's primary campaign against Andrew Romanoff. And during that campaign, ColoradoPols viciously attacked Romanoff with fabricated "scandals" and blatantly slanted "coverage" of the campaign. We need to know what Franklin's role was in that and we need to know that all of these behind-the-scenes arrangements and activities were conducted in full accord with campaign finance regulations and other laws.  At the every least, people should be outraged to learn that an influential and supposedly independent political blog that claims the mantle of journalism is actually being anonymously run by a paid political operative of a large and well-funded political organization.

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 19:26:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So...

... you support the despicable actions of the asswipe at Cherry Creek News?

You had little to begin with, but you truly have flushed all your credibility down the crapper.

Anyone else want to continue casting their lot with these stalinists?

---

by: Aristotle2 @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 19:59:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fortunately,

for society's sake, you are not the arbiter of credibility, for you have none yourself.

"Stalinists?" Get a grip, kid.

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 20:13:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What would you call those who intimidate and harass in the name of politics? n/t

---

by: Aristotle2 @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 20:22:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bloggers

 Do or do not, there is no try.  

---

by: Yoda69 @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 20:22:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Republicans. ProgressNow.

This is too easy.  

 Do or do not, there is no try.  

---

by: Yoda69 @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 20:25:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yawn. n/t

---

by: Aristotle2 @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 20:34:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You asked.

 Do or do not, there is no try.  

---

by: Yoda69 @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 20:36:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

... "MotR," Alan Franklin, Karl Rove, "Laughing Boy," "Ralphie" ...

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 20:36:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Mucius Scaevola"...

You have demonstrated why you aren't credible.

I won't be drawn further into a flamewar with you, so please have the last word, little man.

---

by: Aristotle2 @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 20:38:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"flame war" ...

Re-read the thread, kid, and the other threads you've been involved with in this forum. You're the one trying to start flame wars with personal attacks. You're just frustrated that no one is taking your bait and being drawn down to your level.  Have a nice day.  

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 20:44:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Says a guy who posts anonymously

Let me enumerate the ways in which you are wrong:

1) The campaigns on Pols aren't coordinated; they come from a bunch of people who tend to agree with each other. MotR opposed the Easley recall, but she also opposed the Merida recall (and she was one of the first to do it publicly on that site).

2) The "grassroots folks" are seeking to recall Easley because of his conflict of interest. Or is that not the official story anymore? If it's "unacceptably poor performance in office," that's worth debating. If the conflict of interest matters, let's talk about that instead.

3) Whether you like her or not (and I've had some really nasty exchanges with her) or agree with her or not, MotR is clearly, unequivocally, and indisputably a victim in this. Also indubitably. Green set out to RUIN HER LIFE because she expressed an opinion on a political issue she's not even involved in. (I don't think he'll succeed, but it was clearly his intention.) As someone who posts more inflammatory things on a lower-readership blog, I'd think you'd be somewhat sympathetic.

4) Easley's conflict of interest (which, let's recall from two paragraphs ago, you just said didn't actually matter) is like the Bush Administration torturing people? That's crazy. When your bartender pours you a weak gin and tonic, do you say, "This reminds me of the Trail of Tears." When the person in front of you at the coffee shop flirts with the barista while you're in a hurry, do you say, "This reminds me of Genghis Khan's conquest of Europe." I mean how could you even function in society if those things are comparable to you?

5) As a teacher, I'm on your goddamned side, and on Merida's side, and in principle on DeFENSE's side. I've been arguing with people on Pols for YEARS about this stuff. I got banned from the site for arguing too vehemently about PRECISELY THIS. And now Guerin Green is making everyone on my side look like a horrible human being, and that's supposed to be reserved for people who disagree with me.

Long story short, quit making me look like an asshole. That's my job.

---

by: sxp151 @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 21:05:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just temporarily.

I'd really like to see your exact words - I can't believe you really earned a trip to the penalty box.

Thanks for speaking up. It's interesting to see how many people really don't understand what's right and what's wrong.

---

by: Aristotle2 @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 21:15:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My exact words are still there

Nothing I wrote was deleted (as far as I can recall), so it's all still up there. The last straw for them was the comment I wrote on the Monday Open Thread in response to Mark G.

---

by: sxp151 @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 21:39:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't worry --- getting banned from ColoradoPols

is like being told you're "not allowed" to eat food off the floor of the men's room at Mile High Stadium. This concept is viewed in normal society as a non-binding constraint.  

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 21:49:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's so confusing

that they call it a urinal cake. Why tempt fate?  

 Do or do not, there is no try.  

---

by: Yoda69 @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 21:58:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I saw your links at the penalty box

after I posted this. That's what I get for not checking in where I can.

---

by: Aristotle2 @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 22:10:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Much respect

Thank you for serving the kids.  

---

by: DefenseDenver @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 19:16:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is no excuse

for someone to reach beyond the website and intrude upon the privacy of people who are participants in the forum.

---

by: Hardee Har @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 20:20:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually there is.

There are several different ways people are identifiable and sometimes people want to be identified. There are welcome and unwelcome methods of contact. You can't make a blanket statement like that. The audio on that recording sounds much like comments made on any website where comments are allowed.  

 Do or do not, there is no try.  

---

by: Yoda69 @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 20:24:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If someone makes them self available through posting

their email, obviously it's a welcome point of contact. Stalking is a different issue, obviously.

---

by: Hardee Har @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 20:29:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't recall any comments

where someone threatened to forward anonymously-authored comments to that author's employers. Maybe you're okay with that, but that would mean that you're a stalinist, too.

---

by: Aristotle2 @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 20:36:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good one!

I feel sooo pwned.  

 Do or do not, there is no try.  

---

by: Yoda69 @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 20:37:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So you admit to being okay with these tactics?

I'd really like to see you answer "yes" or "no" to that question. I suspect you'll more likely squirm around it or ignore it completely...

---

by: Aristotle2 @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 20:40:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes. Yes, I'm okay with

you going down on me. But don't take too long, okay little man?  

 Do or do not, there is no try.  

---

by: Yoda69 @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 20:44:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not only did you immediately fulfil my prediction

but you did it with homophobia! Well done.

---

by: Aristotle2 @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 20:51:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yoda isn't a male.

Thanks for participating.  

---

by: Fong @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 21:10:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, that's what I get for making an assumption.

So she isn't a homophobe. Still doesn't strike me as a decent person, if I may say so.

---

by: Aristotle2 @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 21:13:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

DOOD it's a blog.

Let's all remember that. She kicks ass. Trust me.  

---

by: Fong @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 21:14:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not only that, but if she was a guy,

then welcoming another male's oral contact is not what I'd call homophobia. Just saying.  

---

by: Fong @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 21:17:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Talking about sex is more fun than all this

but as you say, it's a blog. When blog arguments get people doing nasty things in Real Life, I think they've gone over the line. This has all gotten really excessive, and I say this as someone who holds grudges for years and insults people in very personal and vicious ways. So you know I have credibility.

---

by: sxp151 @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 21:41:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I do know you have credibility in that way.

I remember we used go rounds but now I like you lots.

K I'm gonna go wash off the nice now. ttyl.  

---

by: Fong @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 21:45:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Alright.

I'll give her another chance. But I'm serious in my contempt for anyone who supports what's happened here. There's what's right and what's wrong, and we liberals ought to always do what's right. There's a reason why "Rovian" is an adjective to describe these kinds of things.

---

by: Aristotle2 @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 21:18:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

oh reeely? I get another chance?

ohgeethankyousir! may I have another??

 Do or do not, there is no try.  

---

by: Yoda69 @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 21:48:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Congratulations, Yoda. Thrilled you must be.

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 21:54:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes. And I don't think Yoda has a gender

My Yoda figuring from the seventies or whatever didn't have genitals. I also can't imagine what Yoda's mother would have looked like. I think Yoda is a hermaphrodite and since I don't fear fucking, I can't ever be a homophobe.  

 Do or do not, there is no try.  

---

by: Yoda69 @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 21:57:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yoda's a dude

as evidenced by Yaddle, a female Jedi Master from Episode I.

And the Special Edition versions of the toys all had genitals. Didn't you update your collection?

---

by: sxp151 @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 22:06:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I love the feminine softness in her eyes.

 Do or do not, there is no try.  

---

by: Yoda69 @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 22:37:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sure.

Do you support these tactics?

---

by: Aristotle2 @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 22:07:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's definitely a line that has been crossed

but the reaction is insincere. The guy snapped and it's hard to not think that the online culture needs to very minimally take some responsibility for some self-reflection. It's not like the conversations about the surrounding issues have been productive and it's not like the participants have been honest about what's motivating them either. The whole thing reeks of disingenuous bullshit. It's lost it's emotional appeal for me. I'm incapable of feeling sympathy for a group of people who seek only to validate each other.  

 Do or do not, there is no try.  

---

by: Yoda69 @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 22:36:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why do you think the reaction is insincere?

It doesn't strike me that way at all.

Also, does sympathy with one party or the other matter? Ethics shouldn't be dependent on feelings.

---

by: Aristotle2 @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 22:43:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're choosing to look at this too simplistically.

Bear with me.

Imagine a group of schoolyard bullies.

Okay?

Are you thinking about them?

You now have your answer.

I can't feel sorry for crying bullies who have a long career of antagonization. I don't have faith they'll learn either, it's far too rewarding for them to keep doing it, which is ultimately why it was a dumb move.  

 Do or do not, there is no try.  

---

by: Yoda69 @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 23:29:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Like all nerdy kids

I've had revenge fantasies about the bullies I grew up with. But there comes a time when the punishment no longer fits the crime. Green went way overboard, and I'm really surprised that anyone who posts anonymously anywhere can pretend it's no big deal. Do you think you'll never piss off someone crazy? Can you really not imagine what it's like to be in her shoes?

---

by: sxp151 @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 06:41:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Like I said:

There was definitely a line that was crossed. He did go overboard. He did snap. All of that is bad, if you want it in black or white terms. But it's hard to feel sorry for a pack of intentionally antagonistic people. Especially when they hold their anonymity so dear but hold it dear in large part so they can use it as their weapon. I can't feel sorry for them.

They're fucking with people's lives. They're ranting about political things they'll do, attacks they'll make on figures, and recalls they'll participate in and they do it with a herd mentality while blatantly bouncing messages off of each other that are designed incite and inflame. These things they do have real consequences and it makes them feel powerful.

Their self-pity powwow sprinkled with macho chest-beating slogans of self-defense and "yeah, don't fuck wit me, her, or him, cuz we're fucking tough" is par for the course and indicative of a lack of self-examination and they're getting off on their attack. Like my good friend Fong told me the other day about some Christians she was persecuting, "they don't feel vindicated until they're persecuted." This applies to that group as well. There's no substance there.  

 Do or do not, there is no try.  

---

by: Yoda69 @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 17:16:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

They were praying over their rack of ribs from Chili's.

"Dear Lord, thank You for this rack of high-fructose-coated ribs on which I will chow down. Amen"

---

by: Fong @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 05:59:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't believe...

... that your take is any less simplistic; as a matter of fact, it's more so.

I've dealt with MOTR for a number of years now; tenacious she is; pugnacious, she is as well. But a bully? Sounds to me like someone got a taste of her combative side and is still smarting from it. (And I know how that goes - she's turned her fire my way a couple of times.)

I was going to try to take this at face value for the sake of argument, because bullying bullies isn't right either, but I can't because anything MOTR has done has not included anything this low. Same with Laughing Boy.

"The line has been crossed, BUT..." Sorry, no buts. Wrong is wrong is wrong. And I say this as someone who knows how to perceive the gray areas.

---

by: Aristotle2 @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 19:34:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

BTW...

... I'd respect the pro-recall group's arguments more if they had any substantive responses to MOTR's findings.

---

by: Aristotle2 @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 20:08:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ari, I disagree with you on this one point.

MOTR has, at least at times, been very much the bully. Most of her posts about and to me, for instance, for years, have been extremely viscious, generally with no purpose other than to inflict injury, often to an extent that made me wonder how it's possible for a person to do that and not feel any shame over it. She is second only to Ralphie for the degree of persistent, malicious vitriol employed.

I don't know what she did or didn't do to merit the treatment she received, or if it is excusable or not; I've been busy with other things, and have not followed the story at all. But I do know that the blogosphere is a toxic environment, bringing out the worst in many of us, and bringing out the best in few. The feeling of remoteness from the parties with whom and about whom one is communicating, and the insulation of anonymity, contribute to that toxicity.

I think it's time for people to try to do better, on-line and off, whether they're guilty of their own past sins or not.

The notion, in general, that no amount of vitriol and visciousness is too much, but the act of revealing the identity of someone engaging in it (even if, as is sometimes the case, there was no anonymity to protect, nor any intention of trying to protect it) is the one inexcusable sin, is not something that resonates with me, though revealing someone's identity against their will just out of spite is inexcusable as well.

We're all in this story together; let's write it well.

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 21:20:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well said.

On that note, I'd like to apologize to you, Steve, your lashing out at you on several occasions in the past when you said things that pissed me off. I overreacted, and I am truly sorry.  

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 22:38:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That should be

"... I'd like to apologize to you, Steve, your for lashing out ... "

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 22:40:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Apology accepted.

100% and without reservation. Cheers.

We're all in this story together; let's write it well.

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 22:45:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hey Steve...

Taken the bar yet? Hope your studies are going well.

I understand your point of view - I really don't know how things got to be so bad between you and them. It was really, really unfortunate.

I hope, however, that you don't agree that this was a just outcome for her, especially as it had no such motivation behind it.

---

by: Aristotle2 @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 18:26:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hey Ari.

Taking the Bar on Tuesday and Wednesday of next week. Can't wait to be done with that!

I don't know enough about what happened or why to make any judgment on the MOTR thing. At a glance, it looks pretty wierd and inappropriate (the outing). As hard as it may be, even when people go out of their way to shower you with hostility, you can't wish ill on them in return. It just doesn't accomplish anything that any of us should be wanting to accomplish.

We're all flawed human beings (some more than others). We need to stop hating each other because of it, and start working together in spite of it.

Cheers. Stop by Colorado Confluence from time to time. I highly recommend the series of essays on "the evolutionary ecology of natural, human, and technological systems" (see the "catalogue of selected posts" page). And "A Proposal: The Politics of Reason and Goodwill." Colorado Pols gift to me was to force me to focus my thoughts in one place, where I wasn't busy being drawn into pissing matches. I'm happy with the outcome.

We're all in this story together; let's write it well.

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 18:36:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good luck!

And I'll check it out. I do lurk from time to time. Usually there isn't anything I can add to your essays, so don't take my lack of comments to mean that I'm disinterested. :)

---

by: Aristotle2 @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 19:06:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks Ari.

Catch you later.

We're all in this story together; let's write it well.

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 19:51:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Talking about this has really become boring.

I've tried to explain it was well as I could but I think you've got a dog in the fight and you're trying to wish away other perspectives all while pretending to be looking for them. That's also disingenuous.

And for the record, attacking bullies is quite righteous. Often it's the only thing to do to make the abuse stop so claiming that bullying bullies (are you calling them bullies)? is just PLAIN WRONG is ridiculous.

Can we talk about something else now?  

 Do or do not, there is no try.  

---

by: Yoda69 @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 18:51:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're welcome to talk or not talk as you wish.

And I'm sorry, but I'm the possibly least disingenuous person you've ever encountered. That may sound pompous, but it's true.

I understand your perspective, and I understand that it's lacking in a real objective viewing of this matter. I'm all about the tactics here.

For the record, my understanding of the education fight is insufficient to really take sides at this time. In general I lean toward the positions taken by school board's minority, but that's based on discussions I've had with various friends in education. But their role in this has me questioning their morality and their true interests. That matters - even if their goals are golden, they are wrong when they decide that any means of achieving them are acceptable. Your bully remark shows you believe otherwise. So, there's my dog. If you choose not to believe me, then there's nothing I can do for you.

---

by: Aristotle2 @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 19:05:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I've tried to stay out of this

because I believe it's a disingenuous discussion as well but I can't help but noticed that because of this, you think the minority of the school board's morals are questionable. I think your priorities are out of whack and discredit your input on the matter.  

If it is the next generation's education we're fighting for and privatization is both the destruction of that and what the majority is whoring themselves out for, then why isn't the majority's morality what you're questioning? Why isn't that the most glaring thing in your perpetually spinning, fruitless and annoying quest for "objectivity"?

I agree. I think you're being disingenuous. And you've already admitted you don't have the facts about the issues at stake. Plus, your focus on the incident with Green and fetish with using it as an omen for what's going on in the minds of the minority on the schoolboard is just odd and demonstrates how unfair and completely un-objective you're being.  

---

by: Fong @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 19:24:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's ... interesting analysis.

Morals matter. The end doesn't justify all means.

How about helping me out here? I'm being honest. What is the big issue that I, a Denver parent of school-age children (currently going out of district because DPS is so screwed up), be most concerned about? It's clear that DPS isn't educating kids. I know, at the very least, that NCLB has made testing such a focus that, among other things, schools now encourage high school kids to drop out rather than drag down the scores. I'm smart enough to oppose that. But that's about all I know for sure.

Education isn't a black and white issue, and here I see it being treated exactly that way. Or so it seems. So, where do I begin? Honest question.

---

by: Aristotle2 @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 19:35:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You said "all means"

which to me, sounds like you're willing to admit that sometimes there's an exception to the rule that the ends don't justify the means. I wonder what relative rules you use to determine that?

The biggest issue you need to be concerned with is whether or not your and everyone else's kid is getting the best education possible while remaining vigilant that resources aren't being wasted, going to ineffective and unfair programs that line the pockets of people who will use any means necessary (read: capitalizing on fear about ineffective schools by railroading democratic community involvement). It's hard work and the forces to be dealt with are very powerful, which makes them seductive and dangerous. Is this news?  

---

by: Fong @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 19:57:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was hoping for specifics.

When you make a statement like that, who is going to disagree?

And when I said all means, I meant all possible means at one's disposal. Maybe if I said "any" that would have been more clear. And I don't know what means you think I'm okay with, but it doesn't include anything that's meant to silence someone.

A word of advice to anyone reading my comments - I don't deal in hidden meanings, so if you find something between the lines, you're imagining it.

---

by: Aristotle2 @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 20:05:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Okay well,

then ask someone else for something more specific and please let me know what they say because I'm interested in whatever others plan to do about this situation.  

---

by: Fong @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 20:19:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Great questions

This is where any smart parent should start.

You should come to the Ravitch event tonight at Augustana Lutheran.  It's free.

---

by: DefenseDenver @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 21:21:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't believe in objectivity

hahahahaha. You have to **believe** in objectivity. Get it?

and I don't believe you're striving towards it either, but if you were, it's no wonder to me that you're going in circles the way you have been. And if the dog you have in this fight is tactics and not results, then you're even more backwards in your questions about morality because education, and every other aspect of our civilization is rushing down the shitter because those who have stolen power and resources from people, including the majority on the schoolboard, have done so and will continue to do so by any means necessary, all while trying to discredit those who resist for using the same tactics they're using.  

 Do or do not, there is no try.  

---

by: Yoda69 @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 19:36:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Which tactics would those be?

The ones that you're alluding are being used by the majority?

---

by: Aristotle2 @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 19:42:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Any means possible, I suppose

 Do or do not, there is no try.  

---

by: Yoda69 @ Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 23:26:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why do you assume that this is anything more than community-driven?

Is it just because Middle of the Road, who doesn't even live in Denver, says so?

Have you ever asked any of them directly?

It should be clarified that board members are not involved in this community-led initiative.  

---

by: DefenseDenver @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 21:20:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well...

... it's because MOTR has SHOWN me why I should take your claims skeptically, and you have yet to SHOW me why I shouldn't.

I approach issues that I don't understand like a judge in court - I assess what each side can SHOW. To date, MOTR (whose credibility is boosted by her nonresidency of Denver, along with her good work exposing the jerk behind Merida's recall for what he was) has come in with a lot of good evidence, as have others.

Now, what I DO know already is that there are plenty of powerful interests with a stake in this fight - I don't need to understand those stakes. What I DO know is that we have a perfectly good election process for addressing the issues here. And I also know that abusing the recall process is likely to lead to counter recalls - Merida might find herself the subject of one yet again, this time with some other "community driven" group leading the charge.

Now, is the case that you're a front for the unions (as I've seen alleged) proven? Far from it. But I don't trust that you're being forthright here.

---

by: Aristotle2 @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 16:37:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wut?

Someone's credibility is boosted or deflated by whether or not they live in Denver?

ok. GOT IT!

You should have come to the Ravitch event last night. There was a lot of discussion among attendees about this issue. It could have given you more of what you're looking for.  

---

by: Fong @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 16:52:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well,

not to be contrary, but there are some general rules of thumb about credibility, none of which is dispositive on its own, but each of which offers some indication:

1) Speaking against one's own interests suggests more credibility than speaking in support of one's own interests.

2) Arguing both sides before stating a conclusion suggests more credibility than arguing one side only.

3) Having "no dog in the fight" suggests more credibility than having a stake in the issue under debate (since it frees one of the biases of having a direct interest).

4) Counterbalancing #3 a bit is the fact that people with "a dog in the fight" may tend to be better informed about the details of the issue under discussion.

Ari was referring to #3. It's not proof of anything, but it is marginally suggestive. You, Fong, on the other hand, were probably thinking of #4 in your response. It may be that it's more or less a wash between the two of them, though it depends on the circumstances: A highly engaged outsider gains more from #3 than he or she loses from #4, while an insider who is strong on #1 and #2 gains more from #4 than he or she loses from #3.

I tend to agree with you on this one, in this case, Fong: MOTR, being quick to form very strong and inflexible opinions, doesn't gain much credibility for something that would otherwise suggest "impartiality."

We're all in this story together; let's write it well.

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 17:19:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's my loss...

... I'm sure it would have been interesting.

I like Steve's answer - "C" is where I was coming from. I'll keep an eye here for news about other such meetings. Keep in mind, though, that I can't do things on short notice, so if something is posted today for a meeting tonight, I'll be staying at home to take care of things.

---

by: Aristotle2 @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 21:26:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I understand that but it was posted

a while ago. You need to keep up on your squarestate!

---

by: Fong @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 21:32:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Too true!

I'll stick around as long as I'm learning things here.

---

by: Aristotle2 @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 22:09:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Like Judge Judy, maybe...

MOTR did no work in "exposing the jerk behind Merida's recall." It was all common knowledge to anyone with a working understanding of Denver politics...

I love the conceit that you approach issues like "a judge in court." Judges follow standards of admissibility of evidence. Something you don't.

In fact, a judge would look at how evidence was obtained. Like how MOTR got access to a non-political staffer at DPS, how she obtained material subject to attorney-client privilege, why she didn't have to go through the proper channels at DPS (the Communications Office). And a judge would sense "political hatchet job." And dismiss the evidence. And the claim. With prejudice.

Ari, you either don't know how the real world works. Or you are a clownshoes stooge for agenda-carrying hacks. Pet-care hacks. From Estes Park. Talk about "abuse of process."

Let your inner judge, decide. And then get back to us, wouldya?

---

by: Hercules @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 18:12:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tell me more.

This is the first I've heard of any "access to a non-political staffer" or anything suggesting that someone's attorney-client privilege was breeched. Is this the first time it's being discussed? If so, why now?

For the record, I see nothing wrong with people in the know talking about what they know, so if there's something basically wrong there, please explain it. (I compared my approach to that of a judge, but I'm interested in what's true and what isn't, and I know that the laws surrounding that usually are not. If I followed that standard, then the leak of the Pentagon Papers would have to be seen as a bad thing.)

I'm going to ignore the insults and disrespect for now, but if it continues, I'll have to disregard what you say. So please, let's keep it civil.

---

by: Aristotle2 @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 21:31:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Skepticism is necessary

We have never said that you shouldn't be a skeptic or ask critical questions.  This is exactly what we want to see in our kids, after all, and one of the reasons why we're saying DPS is failing them.  

The problem is that you already accept some "truths."  You're saying so yourself, like "abusing the recall process is likely to lead to counter recalls" and how you think a board member is mixed up in this.

Basically, what you're saying is that because one board member had a jerk initiate a recall, that automatically means that that board member initiated a recall against another out of retaliation.  Aren't you then saying that Easley was behind the Merida stuff?  

The definition of "retaliation" is "to return like for like, especially evil for evil: to retaliate for an injury."

Would you happen to know whether MOTR has ever TALKED to Merida?  Wouldn't you think that, since she once wrote an expose, that she would have access?  Wouldn't you want to exploit that relationship to get the other side? Or was basic objectivity abandoned because of other issues, like the primary or even education policy differences?

Ever notice how her piece never once mentioned what DeFENSE organizers had to say?  It's because, at least from our organizers' standpoint, she never once talked to any of us.  She never emailed us.  She's still not subscribed to our newsletter.  Not once.

So, while you say that our credibility is in question because we haven't proven anything to you, the basic "good work" that you praise her for, hasn't been done for her piece.  She hasn't proven her credibility on the Easley issue at all.  

It's really no skin off our noses either way.  We understand how ugly a recall is, and we debated among ourselves for 6 months after the window opened because of it.  But after a whole year of deafness and rubberstamping that looks just like the previous 8 years of Kevin Patterson and the 5 years of Bennie Milliner before that, enough is enough.  We can't leave this up to the right stars being aligned anymore, especially not with this level of conflict of interest.  The people that want more Manual High School-style hostile takeovers are paying his salary, and it wouldn't be an issue if he would EVEN JUST ONCE vote against the Superintendent.  If that's not proof of the conflict of interest, then what is?

No more Manuals!

---

by: DefenseDenver @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 18:23:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Is it unethical that MOTR

...reached out from beyond the blogosphere to talk to DPS staffers?

---

by: DefenseDenver @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 19:22:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why would it be?

She was doing more independent investigation than most people on the blog do, even if she wasn't terribly even-handed about it. (As I recall she had a bunch of quotes from Easley and didn't quote anyone else. But she wasn't obligated to: nobody is entitled to expect objectivity from a blogger.) I disagreed with the basic premise of the diary and said so.

That doesn't justify even a tiny bit what happened to her because of it.

It's like if a kid makes fun of a teacher in class and the teacher beats the crap out of him with a baseball bat. You don't have to support the insult to condemn the beating.

---

by: sxp151 @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 23:01:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's hard to have sympathy for MotR.

I tried, I really did. But she is a habitual abuser of online anonymity. Just one recent example that comes to mind: A few days ago, she and another anonymous poster on Pols were publicly ridiculing Mr. Green's personal dating life, and this was well before this "outing" incident. In my view, when people engage in that kind of conduct as MotR does, they have forfeited any expectation that society will continue to honor their anonymity.  

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 21:01:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's messed up.

It always sucks when someone snaps but let's consider when someone is antagonized and then when people attempt to capitalize on when the finally get a good, snappy reaction. Their capitalizing on it is utterly insincere. Here's something from some random blog that makes me think of this

there is something about a blogger cooing on about their day to day tragedies that reeks of insincerity. it just seems that people are fishing for attention which then calls into question the authenticity of the pain they are "sharing" with the community. you can also see a form of this when people relate conflicts, etc. clearly, you're hearing a biased recount of a situation. and clearly, you have a group of people that feel inclined to reinforce that bias. therefore, people claiming to be searching for other viewpoints are in reality looking for an excuse to think the way they already do.

and as this continues, one has to wonder if generationally we are becoming less and less real. if everything you think and do must factor in your online community then the individual ceases to be.

I am a man.  

 Do or do not, there is no try.  

---

by: Yoda69 @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 21:54:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Almost forgot ...

Deepest sympathy to the letter-writing teacher on the death of their beloved kitty cat, in addition to the tremendous difficulties they are facing professionally and personally as a result of education "reform" schemes. Please know that there are many of us out here who are on your side and are very grateful to you for being a public school teacher.

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 19:33:20 PM UTC

Whether you agree or not with the recall

or with the tactics of community newspapers, this is truth:

ADULTS ARE INTERFERING WITH KIDS' EDUCATION.

and

IF YOUR JOB INTERFERES WITH YOUR ABILITY TO LISTEN TO CONSTITUENTS, YOU SHOULD STEP DOWN.

End of story.

Don't like the use of a recall?  Ask your state rep to run a bill to pull it down from the statutes, or at least ask him /her to put specific reasons for recall in the statutes.  Until then, if communities have bad representation, they have the legal right to correct the mistake via recall.

The law is the law.

---

by: DefenseDenver @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 00:29:48 AM UTC

I have the advantage of not knowing the details of this case.

I've been very much immersed in my own world for the past few weeks, and have not kept up with anything at all. So I'm responding to you abstractly.

1) Adults are always "interfering" with kids' education. Unless kids are educating themselves, that's pretty much what education is.

2) Listening to constituents is important, but it's not everything. There are two challenges in a democracy such as ours: i) to hold our representatives accountable to our will, and ii) to enable them to mobilize information and expertise in service to that will. The latter means we don't want government by plebiscite, but rather a government that operates according the principles of "agency." Our government is our agent, and we are its principal. That is not the same as government is our puppet, and we are the puppeteers, because that would make it a very ineffective agent.

Now, armed with these ideas, if I looked at the details of this situation, I might come to the same conclusion you came to, or I might come to a different one. But I think (respectfully) that, to make your case, you have to do more than deploy the mantra of populism; you have to demonstrate why one policy is, or set of policies are, actually more effective than another, in accomplishing the goal we are all committed to: Most effectively educating our children.

We're all in this story together; let's write it well.

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 01:55:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just to clarify:

"That is not the same as government is our puppet, and we are the puppeteers, because that would make it a very ineffective agent."

What I mean is, that when we employ agents, we employ them in part in order to mobilize their expertise and their focused attention. When I hire a surgeon to perform surgery on my child, I don't want them to perform it according to my detailed insructions, because I don't know how to perform surgery: I want them to accomplish the desired task using the focused and developed information that I don't have the time to learn and utilize. Same when I hire a lawyer, or an accountant, or, for that matter, a history teacher. If we reduce our agents to mere ventriloquists dummies in our lap, we've lost the greater part of their value. That does not mean that they shouldn't be held accountable, and that there aren't some very complex and difficult challenges involved in doing so. But it does mean that the consideration I've just described belongs in the mix as well.

We're all in this story together; let's write it well.

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 02:01:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Intersting post on ColoradoPols...

*[new] Outing them back
Read quickly, this will be deleted soon and this account will be banned.
ssayeknodskcusruegayov is John Erhart of squarestate.net and former online director for Romanoff for Senate. Ths is why ssayeknodskcusruegayov can't help but turn the conversation back to Romanoff. He's never gotten over it, and his involvement in the recall of Easley has everything to do with his psychopathic hatred of Bennet and Colorado Pols. Erhart, among other things, blames Colorado Pols for Squarestate's failure, and this animosity predates the 2010 Senate race.
Defense Denver is a shared account accessible by Erhart, Sarah Fong, Andrea Merida, and several others associated with the organization. Defense Denver exists specifically to evade disclosure law, and allow Merida to surreptitiously help the recall effort. An earlier blog post alleging a deep role for Merida's consulting firm and large amounts of in-kind support is accurate.
I know all of this first-hand. I will be unable to prove it now, but I have learned that much of Defense Denver's legally dubious activity will be publicized very soon. I believe that recent actions by supporters of Defense Denver to harass and intimidate their skeptics justifies my posting this information. I encourage all of you to copy and paste it before it is deleted and retain it. Thank you.

---

by: TruthWillOut @ Sat Feb 19, 2011 at 17:38:32 PM UTC

Haha...

Go ahead and run with that.

---

by: DefenseDenver @ Sat Feb 19, 2011 at 18:10:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just sharing info

I don't really care who anyone is.  Thought it was interesting.  Is it true?  I don't know but we might see.  

---

by: TruthWillOut @ Sat Feb 19, 2011 at 18:32:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

They're so dead wrong.

And what's the point anyway?  What do any of those people care about public education?

---

by: DefenseDenver @ Sat Feb 19, 2011 at 18:47:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, probably wrong. Or so it is claimed on Pols

I'll take ssa...'s word that it is a false rumor.

My guess is lots of 'those people' care about public education.  I certainly do.  Strong neighborhood schools are a good thing.  I hate the budget cuts.  We need to support teachers and schools.  But I'm not quite sure of what DD's agenda is...seems to me like there is more to it than you might let on.  Or not who knows? Not me.

---

by: TruthWillOut @ Sat Feb 19, 2011 at 19:20:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's what our "agenda" is

You get a sneak preview of what we're posting later today on our website.

We support:

Students
nurturing their whole selves in robust learning communities including art, music, sciences & physical activities
providing safe & educationally sound learning environments, eliminating racial disparities in discipline practices
developing inclusive education environments by eradicating concentrated poverty and racial segregation
closing achievement gaps so that all students are prepared to meaningfully participate in our democracy

Parents
supporting the right of parents to be active participants with their children's educational process
developing community processes with, parents, the community, and teachers at the front-end of policy formation
connecting parents with supports and resources to help facilitate their children's learning

Communities
preserving neighborhood schools as the hubs of community connections, services & supports
reinventing low-performing schools as community schools by offering high-quality programs, strong instruction, and wraparound services
utilizing public schools, the only mandatory community institutions, as sites of innovation & collaboration

Teachers
expanding effective teacher education and professional development programs
equipping teachers working in high-need areas with adequate resources, supportive leadership, and access to expert coaching and mentoring
evaluating teachers under fair systems that use multiple measures, not just test scores

Proven Methods
implementing research-proven methodologies like high quality early childhood education
incorporating long-term strategies for effective systemic change
exploring high-quality programs that produce extraordinary outcome changes in a relatively short period of time

It also needs to be said that we will use any legal means at our disposal to get these things, using our First Amendment and citizenship rights.

We mean business about taking back our schools.

---

by: DefenseDenver @ Sat Feb 19, 2011 at 19:40:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm with you on that point

but still want to learn more about the recall efforts and such.  But I'll take sometime with it this weekend.

gracias

tt

---

by: TruthWillOut @ Sat Feb 19, 2011 at 20:20:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here are some point-person contacts.

You're welcome to call and find out more.

To get involved contact our Team Leaders:

Montbello/Far North East Jackie Skalecke 303-371-3811 *

Northeast - Mandy Hennessy - 720-224-412

Spanish Speaking Parent Organizer - Mario Ramirez - 303-526-8712 *  

Media Inquiries - John McBride 720-270-3527        

---

by: DefenseDenver @ Sat Feb 19, 2011 at 20:39:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks! Your post above on your agenda is very good

I think that you should post it as a diary on Pols too.  Sure you might get flak from some of the more, ummm, opinionated members--but I bet it would help with a lot of us lurkers and fence sitters.  

---

by: TruthWillOut @ Sat Feb 19, 2011 at 21:13:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Working on it as we "speak"

And Mandy's number is wrong there.  It should be 720-224-4125.

---

by: DefenseDenver @ Sat Feb 19, 2011 at 22:12:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

John McBride?

Hmmm. Didn't expect to see that name there. Can you explain his connection to your group?

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Sun Feb 20, 2011 at 00:53:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

He's the filer of the recall committee

So he's the contact for his committee.  End of story.

---

by: DefenseDenver @ Sun Feb 20, 2011 at 02:06:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I still don't have this clear ...

Are you saying he's the contact person for DeFENSE Denver, or the contact person for the recall committee?  (Or both?) My impression was that there's a distinction to be drawn there.

Not trying to give you a hard time, just want to make sure I understand.

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Sun Feb 20, 2011 at 05:03:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

From what I can gather...

McBride is the media contact for the recall committee, and he is the petitioner- the guy who filed the recall.

DeFense is NOT the recall. They, and other organizations are supporting the recall. People who have attended  DeFense meetings are actively supporting the recall, training petitioners, etc. They have explained his repeatedly.
McBride is not the spokesman for DeFEnse. He is the leader of an ages-old Northeast Denver education group. deFense is a johnny-come-lately group, energized in part by the closure of Montbello and six other schools. get it, trolls? defense has said repeatedly, if you want info, email them, and someone will get back to you.
There has been so much supposition, spun up by corporate reformers, or political operatives getting their piece of the Donnell-Kay, Piton, hedge-fund pie, that the simplest explanation- given by DeFense, has been ignored.

MS - thanks for your clear minded postings on this matter, you've made following this much easier.

---

by: Vouchersandcharters4ever @ Sun Feb 20, 2011 at 15:53:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Vouchersandcharters has it right

John McBride has never been an organizer with DeFENSE.  We know him well, and he is a long-standing figure in northeast Denver, especially around education.  He filed the recall.  He is on the committee.  He is the contact for that committee.

It sounds like you might think that DeFENSE exists solely to work on a recall campaign.  It doesn't.  It was formed to stop the aggression on neighborhood schools, fueled by the market-based reform that the district is currently using, Manual High, the attempt to close Lake Middle School and the Montbello areas being some of the most recent examples.

We do support community's use of legal means to stop this aggression; it's one of our core values.  So some DeFENSE organizers are helping the recall committee.  Some, though not all, live in northeast Denver.  Others just recognize what's happening, how the district is attacking all sectors of the city, and realize that the time to push back is now.

Not everyone associated with DeFENSE is working on the recall, and not everyone working on the recall is associated with DeFENSE.  In a way, it's a lot like being an unaffiliated voter that votes for Obama but is not a registered Democrat.  A little cumbersome of an analogy that we hope doesn't make the confusion worse.

Contact with DeFENSE is done via email through our website or engaging with us here on the blogs.  We have our own method of contact.  It is not John McBride.  Emails are answered by one of our communications team.  He is not on that team.

It's a little tricky, so it's understood.  Thanks for trying to make sense of it in the positive way you've been using.

---

by: DefenseDenver @ Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 00:49:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, that's what I thought.

It seems DeFENSE Denver's post here has been misconstrued (over at Pols and maybe elsewhere), but I can honestly see how people took it to mean that McBride might be a contact for DeFENSE Denver. The post was a little ambiguous. But then again, when you think about it, if DD was trying to conceal anything toward that end, they certainly wouldn't have publicly listed McBride as a contact.

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 00:55:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for that.

We should have been way more clear.

---

by: DefenseDenver @ Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 01:08:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I did ask about both DD and the recall eom

---

by: TruthWillOut @ Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 03:50:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Or thought I did??

Maybe in another thread.

In any case, I wasn't particularly confused.  I think we all want good schools.  I don't necessarily think that folks with questions, even tough or uncomfortable ones are necessarily bad or corruptor part of an enemy force or anything, tho.  I mean when you think of it it is a blogging environment and blogging world is a little like that.  Easy to be fioerce behind a keyboard-lol. Myself, I can be quite the warrior.

But...

I guess my approach would be a bit more gentle than some take, I mean strategically. You know?

---

by: TruthWillOut @ Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 04:00:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed.

Just to be clear, we did not engineer or ask for any of the laser-sharp scrutiny that has come to some of our most vehement detractors over on the other blog.  

We said, and still say, that we feel bad that she was targeted, since, after all, she's done the same to us.  We've been on the receiving end.  It's clear she was pretty shaken, and that's not nice.

Not to excuse anything, but it's a little difficult to call foul if you've been the attacker as well.  She didn't want to ask questions.  She wanted to slander and accuse.  When you start out on the attack, sometimes people attack back.

Again, doesn't excuse anything.  But if dialog was what she wanted, and not retaliation (however over the top), she should have started with a conversation before ever committing anything to a diary.

---

by: DefenseDenver @ Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 05:49:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Really?

Over a blog?  I guess I don't see it that way.  Better to just call bullshit and move on.  No need for nuance.  

---

by: TruthWillOut @ Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 07:45:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It still is bad that she was targeted.

n/t

---

by: DefenseDenver @ Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 17:07:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

OK, that's it -- I'm outing TruthWillOut ...

Here he is.

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Sat Feb 19, 2011 at 19:26:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Awww...

TruthWillOut is just another decent person trying to wrap their brains around this mess, probably.

---

by: DefenseDenver @ Sat Feb 19, 2011 at 19:41:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Busted! Yes I'm Karl Rove.

Thanks for the info DD I would like to sign up on your list to learn more if you can.

tank.tommy@ymail.com

Thanks for the info in the other post, and for providing any other info you can.  I will make sure to review it.  I mean in between juggling all the corporate 527s I run.  :)  

---

by: TruthWillOut @ Sat Feb 19, 2011 at 20:18:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I like

how the supposed outing post that was copied and pasted from Pols is so stupid and obviously false and fabricated that no one here at SquareState cares whether or not it gets deleted.

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Sun Feb 20, 2011 at 01:04:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

They caught us red-handed...

...collaborating with other people.  Guilty!

---

by: DefenseDenver @ Sun Feb 20, 2011 at 01:18:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]