For the record:

And interview I did with Dennis Meyers, News Director at the Reno News and Review that helps to explain my concerns regarding colleges of education.  I am looking for both critique and support in finding ways to do something about the state of the body politic and I am beyond desperate in recruiting people interested in doing something other than voting for the next best than worse, who are interested in redemocratizing and carrying toward its ultimate goal of the better union the proclamations found in the Declaration of Independence.  This is serious business and it is not really, directly of a partisan variety.  If you read what I offer up, you should find that I am all about people thinking for themselves and offering up their opinions, thought and opinions born of being solidly informed and willingness to apply reason to the decision making process.  Democrats are as rotten as republicans and when one demands for reaching across the isle, consider what it is for which you are wishing.  If that reach couples assholes with assholes, then what you have is doubly potent assholism.

I did vote for HC and I am not proud of it because it does not make me proud to have spent my life fighting for democracy and then chasing between one brand of authoritarianism and another, the good authoritarianism justified by attitudes toward the multitudes that show little respect for the ability of most to make good and sensible decisions.  The really nasty part of this is that the attitude has a basis in reality, that a good proportion of the citizenry of this labeled democratic nation are neither well informed nor wise in the the way they go about making their political decisions.  Ask and I will begin to show the information available that confirms this fact of American life.

People are capable of much more but, in a society that is patently anti-intellectual and hooked on answers offered up by demigods of one political brand or another (think about those commercials aimed at garnering votes for any of the candidates offered up for election this year and try to find the substance, the intellectual rigor displayed in what is conveyed in those advertisements).  Rush works and so does the Boxer rap, the selling of Hillary and the selling of Donald Trump.  The truth is not is of much importance as the personality and the fact that all political candidates now take on the air of celebrity should be a clear sign that campaigns now are as much about entertainment as real and meaningful political grist.   Where were the ads or the conventions featuring true intellectuals, the really smart and well studied people out there?  Beyonce and Springsteen count!  Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges,  or Ezra Klein do not.  Ted Neugent and Jerry Falwell Jr. count but where were the likes of Bill Crystal or, yes, George Will?

Education, education, education stupid, and of a very different variety than what is offered today, what most Americans alive today have experienced.

I join the Greens because they are fresh and viable.  Look what Jill Stein has been able to accomplish since the election!  Their platform, not mine to embrace, but possibly open to my influence.  The big parties offer nothing of the kind and it is time we had parties that did exist as forums rather than propaganda machines.  Maybe Green and maybe… But something else, please.


This is must read!!!!!!!!  Indeed it could not get much worse, the secretary of education the sister of Eric Prince, the founder and head of a mercenary group called Blackwater whose biography, offered in part, as the article tells us in Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army (a book that will not now be found on any school’s library shelf), is chilling.  She may not be her brother but I guarantee you that she is not adverse to his ideas or his business.  And read too about her husband who was the focus of many an article for his archly conservative verging on fascistic views of the world and how it should be run.  As the last post argues, education is the last hope for reversal of the incredible damage that has been done because of what transpired this election.  The people who are advising Trump are smart enough to know this and to create an educational system that serves their undemocratic desires.

Read the article!

One fix?

Written to colleagues and administrators and others I know involved in education.

Accompanying note:

There may be grammatical and syntactical errors in the attached note but I do hope that those reading it will consider what is said and what it may mean in regard to the present situation in this United States of America.  While many of you have no real association with the College of Education, my hope is that you might think about the role it plays, the role it can play, and the role it should play in a society such as ours.  I do know that good numbers of people think that colleges of education, if they think about them at all, are irrelevant and, as the note argues, thought they have made themselves irrelevant, because the teach teachers how to teach, the consequences of what they do are relevant to almost every facet of life in a society, consequential especially in a nation in which it is the people who should be deciding for themselves how the nation is to behave and how it is to treat its citizens.  I speak at length about NCLB and I behoove people to study that episode in educational history in light of the present and what this present will mean for the future.  Those asking how it is that the American public elected the present president-elect ask a very important question.  I guarantee that the answer has much to do with what people understand and do not understand and how they think that leads to what they think and do not think.  I also believe that education is a big part of what should be the goal of any democratic society, helping people become adequately and properly informed and exceptionally good at making good sense of what they come to know so that they are able to participate effectively in the democratic decision making process. Democracy cannot exist if individuals allow for their minds to be controlled by others and, sadly, little happens in schools that inform them as to how to resist those who wish to control.  Schools, most in fact, do much to encourage obedience to authority above critical thinking and the individual pursuit of truth.  Someone possesses the right answer and the student’s work is to listen to that someone and remember what he or she has said.  Consider for a moment the current cable news format, little reporting, nothing much in depth, no references for further exploration into events or their meaning, but plenty of commentary by those who know, those with the expertise the rest of us do not have to properly interpret what is going on and what we should do about it.

So, that said, I invite you to read my screed with the hope that you might send your cards and letters to those in charge of education to ask them to do the proper analysis for which I call and to, on a regular basis, present their findings to the broader public so that those affected by their actions (or inaction) my participate in making sure that what teachers are being taught is what they need to be taught if they are going to do right by citizens of a society that, by its charter, should be a democratic one.

This is an open letter so share if you will.

Happy Thanksgiving!


Open letter:

Perhaps it is none of my business, but somehow I think it is, enough so that I write this note.  I am curious to know how the College and those who work in the College will respond to the demands of the new administration, its Department of Education.  Certainly the best term to describe what happened when the Bush administration imposed its No Child Left Behind edicts on the educational system, is capitulation.  Little was done to assess the consequences of that horrendous act and a lot was done to find ways to adjust programs to fit the bill.  As far as I could tell, there was little discussion in College of Education classrooms about what was wrong with the kind of instruction NCLB demanded and even less about the political motives for NCLB impositions.  One of our faculty who was granted significant funds for implementing NCLB reading programs in the State was praised for her deeds and, when news came to verify the obvious, that Read First was a fraud, the positive results meaningless in light of what constitutes meaningful growth in literacy, the College remained silent, no mention of the deception or the negative consequences at College meetings and certainly no public response to the ugly reality being reported in the nation’s major newspapers.  The faculty member who brought Read First to Nevada was never asked to explain how it was that she could so vociferously go about exposing Nevada children to this brain numbing program.  Instead of being questioned and chastised for the work, she was made the head of a College unit.


There should have been deep analysis of the College’s response to NCLB but none occurred.  There should have been outreach to the community to explain how it was that NCLB was allowed to affect curriculum and instruction in the state and why it was that the educational experts had done nothing to help the public understand the implications and the educational consequences for students and their teachers.  Nothing was done to correct years of bad teaching in the College and in the schools by College educated teachers.  The COE went about its business and treated the debacle that was NCLB as though it were none of its business.


In my thinking, always to be ignored and despised, the College and its faculty was negligent in its handling of NCLB, in its immediate response and in the aftermath.  Instead of taking the opportunity to do some meaningful soul searching, once NCLB rules were eased and then abandoned, the College went on with its work as if nothing had happened, this when something truly monumental had happened.  If ten thousand people had died from a drug administered by physicians, medical schools would be busy working with medical researchers to understand the problem so they could do what was necessary to inform their students of the situation and how to go about dealing with it in the field.  With NCLB, millions of human beings were affected and the College did nothing to try to understand what had happened so that it could teach its students how not only to think about what had happened as a result of NCLB but also to understand how it could be that such a toxic program could come to dominate educational practice in the United States.


I pleaded for a proper conversation, posted notes on the chat line until it was shut down to shut me up and then on the walls of the College building.  I tried to bring up the subject of NCLB at meetings and was told that I was disrupting, preventing meaningful and necessary business from getting done.  I was told in so many ways that what was a constant concern of mine was irrelevant to the work of the College and, when I tried to teach my students what I knew, through my research to be true, they rebelled and administrators in the College continued to evaluate my classroom work without trying to understand what it might be that was causing students to respond to my courses as they were.


What I have said so far is about the past.  My motive for spending my time writing this note is a vague hope that the College not accede to the demands of a DOE run by the likes of Betsy Devos, that the faculty use its expertise to critique, to assess the value and consequences of what they are told to teach teachers if the teachers are to be able to comply with the mandates.  This would not mean telling students what to think about what is being mandated, but how to think about any mandate in regard to how following it will affect the growth and development of students.  My hope against hope is that the College will be for State and country an arbiter of truth, an organization that can be trusted to do what is necessary to satisfy the needs of students, of a citizenry, before it gives into the demands of higher authority.  It is my hope that the College will risk whatever must be put at risk to do the research that leads to a clear understanding of the real value of programs and instructional mandates and that it finds ways to make those findings very public so that the decision making processes and the decision making bodies do what is right by students and democratic society.


I am suggesting, because I care and am truly worried about the present and how what is done now will affect the future, that the College be aggressive in its research and aggressive in putting forth the truths the work reveals before the public and before those with the authority to create educational policy.  I am suggesting that the College become effectively confrontational, confronting all in authority with its expertise, with the conclusions reached regarding good instructional practice, that it define good educational practice in terms of the kind of growth and development it produces and the righteousness of that kind of growth and development in regard to what it means to be a properly educated human being, in the United States of America, a person able to think for him or herself and share the results of that thinking in the public forum so that the decisions that are made in regard to the future are by and for and of the people.


I beg for deep reading of the meaning of decisions related to the education of human beings who live in a democratic society.  I beseech members of the faculty and administrators to consider the proper mission of a college of university, especially those that reside in public universities, that run on tax dollars, their obligation to the people to figure out what it is that constitutes a good and proper education, how to help teachers understand how to determine what is good and proper, and then find the best methods of delivering that good and proper education.


To do the things I ask, the people involved need to be ready for push back and worse.  The possibility of funding being threatened is real and, if university administrators happen to be on the wrong side of things, repercussions for faculty and college administrators.  The College will have to deal with the public schools and resistance to the teachings that come with proper analysis of student needs and means for serving those needs.  The College and its faculty might find itself at odds with school districts’ policies and what is taught in College courses will have to be decided either in regard to what is or what is right, answer the question of for what students should be prepared, to fit in, fit the specifications of districts even if those specifications are wrong for good and proper education of student, or to be reflective and effective educators who constantly assess the value of practice against the criterion of good and proper education.  If indoctrination and propagandizing is practice in place, the College must resist giving credence to such practice.  That would be the ethical thing to do, the right thing to do if the institution is to adhere to the tenants of democratic principle.  It just might be the wrong thing to do if the College wishes to please rather than inform policy and practice.


I cannot help but think that the new administration will ask of education much that should be considered contradictory to good and proper education of citizens of democracy.  Past administrations, even the more liberal leaning administrations, have imposed on educators rules and regulations that have pushed educators to teach in ways that thoughtful people, brave enough to assert their expertise, have tried to teach.  Such teachers have found little support from those who might help them, a reasonable source for such support, the colleges of education.  So, again, I ask, I hope against hope, that you, College of Education faculty and administration, will decided to fight whatever fight might come along that has to do with making sure that students get the education they need and deserve no matter who is in charge.  It is the students, because they are citizens of a democracy, who are charged with deciding who is in charge and what those placed in positions of authority do with that authority.


The good graduate of a good school should know of the power he or she holds and how to use it.  That does not come of memorizing what others think or have thought but of thinking for oneself to develop one’s own meanings for what is experienced and what is heard.


Please, please, please, what every your plans for the future of the College, consider that last paragraph and how it can and should apply to what happens in the College and what the College does to affect the world.

Democrats Distort Truth to Excuse an Inexcusable Fumble

Please share with anyone who may be interested and repost at will.

I would rather have it that readers read the Chris Hedges article to be found at than to read what it inspired me to say.  My piece reflects critical elements of my thinking since the race for the presidency began and after the election of the unacceptable.  How we came to elect a president Trump seems beyond comprehension.  This is what so many who were against Trump, especially those in the Hillary would like it to be, beyond comprehension and they wish this because to comprehend it to understand things about Hillary and her supporters that do begin to explain how the impossible came to be real.  Few in the democratic party wish to develop an honest assessment of what transpired.  They do not want it said that Donald Trump did not win so much as Hillary lost.  They do not want to talk about how their candidate, adored beyond reason, was absolutely the wrong candidate, so wrong a candidate that the likes of Donald Trump could vanquish her in an election.  Stupidly, idiotically, too many Hillary supporters are pointing at the number 1.7 million to explain the calamity.  Indeed, she had more actual votes than Trump.  But she did actually, without any doubt lose the election.  In the interview with Chris Hayes discussed below, Joan Walsh used this argument which argues what?  What of any value to considering how we got into the miserable situation we are in.

Those sincerely concerned with what really matters should concern themselves with the issues Hedges raises and, if they have the time and energy to do so, with those I raise.

My assessment:

I have written to the fact that the democratic party is far from being a party of the people and not at all a party dedicated to democracy.  I have argued that Hillary Clinton was a candidate of the neoliberal elite who would rather party with the likes of Beyonce and Whoopie Goldberg than sponsor forums and debates that include voices often not heard in public venues, people like Noam Chomsky and Chris Hedges, for instance, Bernie Sanders, too, and others who have been saying for a long time that establishment politics works for the wealthy class, serves its desires always at the expense of those whose quality of life is constantly diminished as the wealthy use them to insure the opulent life style.  The democratic claims a link to liberalism but it is not liberalism that stands for liberal principles, rather, it is neoliberalism that links to liberalism though a few social issues but only those and only in a way that does not interfere with a good life for a few at the expense of the many, that many without any other place to go but the democratic party because it, at least, says nice things about the not privileged and supports the rights of these people to be what they are, gay or black or female or muslim or whatever, as long as they do not do anything to expose democrats for what they really are.


Most of the people I know who supported Hillary Clinton supported her because they too are neoliberals, either because they have what they need and most of what they want or because they understand that it is easier to get to the point of having what they need and most of what they want by licking the feet of neoliberals with power, doing some party work, being allowed to hang around and, maybe getting invited to party with the party, get near its stars.


Indeed, the democratic party is autocratic and the existence of stars within expose its non egalitarian propensities.  There are, in the democratic party a good many high ranking members who do indeed look down upon those with lower and no rank.  I was at the Nevada Democratic Convention, yes, as a Bernie Sanders representative and I expected that Hillary would win the vote of the people there.  My reason for attending was to have a chance to make my voice heard so that the reasons for my support of Mr. Sanders might be understood and, in someway, have a say in the direction the party would take through the campaign and after, my ideas based in my belief that the party should be a sincerely inclusive one where people, the people, came together to determine how to make the nation a better place for all to live.

I was truly bothered by Ms. Clinton’s long standing relationships with a good many people who I had good evidence to suggest were a part of the problem, part of a corporate/capitalist force that had taken over all aspects of the political system and, through Ms. Clinton, along with Ms. Clinton were advocating more of the same.  Ms. Clinton was not going to release transcripts of speeches to the kingpins of America, the very people and companies that had twisted the economy until the wealth of the many was just about squeezed out, that wealth flowing rather steadily into the bank accounts of those who already had a lot of what was available already.

I never heard the elites of the democratic party push for investigations into the economic crash manufactured by absurd and esoteric–exotic–fiscal manipulations, most of which had been made possible–legally possible–by actions taken by the democrats, by Hillary’s husband in particular.  I did not see many tears shed by the likes of Debby Wassermann Schultz, Nancie Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, or even Barrack Obama.  I did watch all of them parade before the public in stylish suits and repeat over and over again how they were the solution to the problems before us.

All of these people, Obama an exception, perhaps, has been in politics for many, many years and had hardly ever, if at all, explained the failed side of their tenures.  Maybe the state of the nation has gotten better, according to someone’s accounting, for periods of time.  However, by the time we arrived at 2015, the state of the state was not seen as being good at all.  Good numbers of people were still suffering from the effects of the economic meltdown that deprived them of everything they had worked to earn.  Default and repossession and foreclosure became terms as well known and understood as fast-ball, touchdown, and three-pointer.

It should have been that the system in place would be scrapped and a new one built or, at least, the system in place would have been scrutinized and adjusted to insure that it would not and could not tear apart the nation again in such substantial ways.  The people had been fucked and they had been fucked with and party leaders continued to find ways to get along with those who had fucked us.

The Clintons made millions by being friends with millionaires and billionaires and suffered nothing by the incredible misdeeds perpetrated by the millionaire and billionaire classes and their entities, the banks and the insurance companies and the hedge funds and  the corporations that made it big by giving their employees little, employers who did everything to satisfy the investors even when doing so meant screwing the regular people, reducing their wages and cutting their benefits, sometimes sending the work out of country if domestic workers were the least bit hesitant to working harder and earning less.


The Clintons sat at the dinner table of the Trumps, just a part of the lifestyle that put them with celebrities of all kind, some obviously of the most toxic kind.  Hillary served on the Walmart Board of Directors.  No shame in that.  They did create a rather wonderful foundation, wonderful in deeds, indeed, though shady in some respects–who donated, why they donated, what the Clintons got when the foundation got, and so on and so forth.

This is not to say that the Clintons are in anyway evil people or to in anyway take away from them what they deserve in terms of accolades.  They have accomplished a lot and a lot of what they have accomplished is good, very good.  But, the candidacy of Hillary Clinton could not speak only to the good because that would never have been allowed by those who opposed her and those who opposed her had at their ready the very issues I have brought up here.  She may not have ever acted unethically, for instance, but one could find behavior that at least appeared to be unethical.  There were actions taken that both liberals and conservatives could take her to task on, as Bernie Sanders did, for which she had little sensible defense.  This caused her to use a senseless defense, senseless in that by staying quiet about what she was being accused, she did noting to make sense of what she had done and been doing.

Hillary, in my mind, was one of the most brilliant candidates to ever appear the American electorate.  And, because she was so damned smart, it was difficult for someone like me to buy into the “mistake” defense.  That she should have known better?  I could not believe that she did know better.  What I saw was a person who would have major difficulties getting elected if she were to be wholly candid and even more problems if she tried to duck the good questions that should have been asked of her.  Indeed, whatever she would do to make herself the viable candidate would not make her a good candidate.  She did support Bill Clinton’s law and order agenda.  She did support Bill Clinton’s rewriting of financial regulations.  She did support NAFTA.  She did support T.P.P until…

So I went to the convention and that the rules we, the convention, had adopted, would not allow for me to have a say.  Nor would anyone not in line with the party line–the Hillary line–have an opportunity to speak.  And when those who had been told that they would not be allowed to voice their positions demanded that they be heard, first in regard to the nature of the rules of conduct themselves, resisted the powerful of the party by demanding floor time, they were told that they were hoodlums.  Barbara Boxer herself took the stage to admonish the stupid little people who were making such a fuss and all I could think to say was fuck you Barbara Boxer.  ‘Deplorables!’

Of course, it has come out in honest reporting that those little people weren’t quite as bad and nasty as the party hierarchy said they were to the press, that there was considerable good reason for them to object to the manner in which the meeting was being conducted (done deal before the proceedings had begun, hundreds of folks traveling long distances to get to Las Vegas only to be told to be quiet and obey) and that their behaviors were far from being what the convention chair had described them to be—violent and criminal—to the national press.

The convention and the alleged bad behavior of Sanders supporters did make national news and the national party, through its upstanding surrogates, used the events of that day to continue its campaign to discredit both Sanders and those who stood with him.  My party acolyte friends harangued those like me who were on the Sanders side for days until a few investigative reporters began to write stories discrediting the party version of what had happened at the convention.  In truth, there had been no violence except the explosive verbal rebuke of Ms. Boxer who thought it an affront—she was after all a party stalwart and superstar—to have those protesting not sit down and shut up as she had demanded.  She was appalled at their disobedience, the refusal to forget all that they found problematic about Ms. Clinton and all they found right with Bernie Sanders and join the team of good sense.

Actually, to have done so, to have obeyed would have made no sense, democratically speaking because it would have meant that the Sanders’ supporters had decided to be for party above principle, going along with the dictates of the party powerful without having sound reason—a good political reason—to do so.  Democracy is about advocacy and it is about debate and at this democratic party convention only one side was allowed to advocate so that there could be no debate.  The democratic party, its leadership represented by Ms. Boxer, was interfering with democratic process in a most blatantly vile manner, vile because of what it represented in terms of a political party’s disregard for democracy.  A party, a major party, in a nation that was built on democratic principles was violating those principles and working to humiliate those trying to enforce those principles so as to have a say in who the party would nominate and to whom the nominee and the party would have to answer once the nomination process was completed.

The deplorables at the convention were vindicated, at least in the press, the party locally and nationally never issuing an apology for its deplorable behavior and for the anti-democratic nature of the party exposed by events at the convention.  And then the wikileaks stories began to appear, the e-mails between the party powerful that showed that what had happened in Las Vegas, was symptomatic of the attitude of party higher-ups toward those who were questioning the party line.  The party, before the nominating process had begun, had decided on who would be the party’s nominee and the “process” was but a pretense, a show well planned to anoint Hillary as the democratically chosen democratic party candidate.  The anger displayed by Ms. Boxer and others who took the stage to castigate those in protest for making the party look bad were being castigated for exposing the real nature of the process that was really meant to display solidarity even if the illusion necessitated that solidarity be forced and enforced.

Debby Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign her position as party chair.  The leaked documents in the Wikileaks collection showed that she and others of the party elite had worked to rig the process from the beginning.  There had never been a democratic process and the contest between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton would be no contest at all, a whole half of those were democrats being disenfranchised and disrespected by those who were running the party.

The elitist tendencies of the democratic party, its officers ties to America’s rich and famous, its disregard for the consequences of these ties for policy making and for those who would continue to suffer because of those policies and party unwillingness to push for real reform where real reform was needed because of these relationships, these were subjects made taboo and at gatherings like the one in Las Vegas and every Bernie Sanders’ rally, the real danger for the party was exposure of the relationships and their consequences.  Party powerful wanted what the relationships had for them and they didn’t want to be criticized for having those relationships.

If one looks at who they are, those who run the party, Clintons, Boxer, Wasserman Schultz, Schumer, Donna Brazil (who stole debate questions and handed them over to Hillary Clinton!!!), John Podesta, and so on and so forth, it would be difficult to find one of these who suffered from the economic crash.  If you looked at how each of these people lives, it would be found that they live very good lives.  The same with most of my friends who are good friends with the party.  It would, I think, become evident, too, why no one in the party really pushed too hard to have those responsible for the economic crash and the subsequent theft of home and wealth from those in the middle and, too, the almost poor and the really poor, prosecuted.  The friends who kept the leadership out of the mess were the same ones who had caused the mess.

These folk had done nothing much over the years to address the taking of wealth held by the “lower” classes by the upper classes and they can hardly ever be found initiating or participating in investigation into how and why this was happening.  Many of them actually made it clear that concern about this phenomenon was tantamount to promoting class warfare.  The solution to the increasing numbers being pushed out of the middle class and the downward spiral of those on the fringe and below it they argued was entrepreneurship, the creation of more businesses to create more jobs.

What they did not talk much about was the problem that could occur, that was occurring, was that business was operating in a world where to compete, overhead had to be kept low and overhead was kept low by keeping wages and benefits low.  Americans, as the productivity figures clearly showed, were working harder and only entrepreneurs and those holding stock in their companies were benefitting by that productivity.

This is what Bernie Sanders was talking about and by talking about it, he was exposing the complicity of the democrats who ran the democratic party and those it elected in creating and keeping in place the conditions that allowed the swindle to continue.

That said, it needs be said that Donald Trump did not win the election.  Hillary Clinton lost the election because of who she is and that for which she actually stands, who she stands up for.  The e-mail scandal, was not the straw that broke the back, nor were revelations about the Foundation.  What took her down was the attitude that comes with being a celebrity, a good friend of the rich and famous.  Along with this, of course, the kind of distain for those “below” her, the same kind of disdain Barbara Boxer expressed for those like me who wanted to call the party out for its elitist tendencies and disregard for the conditions of life their polices forced the many to live under.

It was these people who destroyed America by helping to get Donald Trump elected and it is these people who refuse to take responsibility for the hell they have brought upon us.  I heard Hillary talking to the Save Our Children Foundation a week or so after the election.  She was up beat when I felt beaten.  She smiled her way through a speech that was so very positive that it reflected either ignorance or disregard for the pain that was to come because of the election outcome.  She asked that we work together to make our great America even greater, the greatness of America a prominent theme in her campaign that, before the election was bullshit, insensitive to the plight of the majority of Americans, and totally absurd following the election.

I have watched as party powerful try to divert attention from the enormity of the loss, its meaning for the future in terms of both long and short term consequences.  Consider for a moment, if you dare, the meaning of Donald Trump president with a congress in which both houses are held by republicans, a congress and president that will anoint new Supreme Court Justices and legislate the lives of the people of this nation, Any honest liberal politician would be over the top petrified by what has happened and what it means.  But there was Hillary, smiling, looking like a celebrity deserving of applause and acting like she was somehow the people’s hero.

Chris Hayes, the other night, had a segment concerning statements Bernie Sanders made on Meet the Press on Sunday, November 20 (  Sanders had said such things as this:

Chuck, I don’t know that it does a whole lot of good to look backwards. We’ve got to look forward and we’ve got to hear what those workers were saying just a few moments ago. And what they were saying is, they’re sick and tired of seeing their standard of living go down. They’re sick and tired of seeing their jobs go to China and other low-wage countries.

“Which means that we have to transform our trade policies and tell corporate America to start investing in this country and not in countries all over the world. It means we’ve got to raise the minimum wage. It means we need pay equity for women workers. It means to say that we have to create jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. It means to say that we have to make public colleges and universities tuition-free.

In other words, what all of that is about is the working class of this country, for the last 40 years, has been decimated and the rich are getting richer. People are tired of it. They want real change. And I’m going to do everything that I can as part of the new leadership of the Democratic party to bring about that change.

Hayes guest, Joan Walsh, a regular contributor on MSNBC and a writer for The Nation magazine responded to Sanders’ comments by saying that it was nothing but Bernie Sanders taking the opportunity of Clinton’s election defeat to say “I told you so.”  God damn it Ms. Walsh!  You take no responsibility!!!

Ms. Walsh was an ardent Clinton supporter and with regularity during the campaign had offered commentary on the race that was as Hillary biased as it could have been.  She attacked Sanders for the duration of the campaign, one of many who tried to explain the ridiculousness of his candidacy.  Prior to the election, I had usually found Joan Walsh to be a sensible commentator.  Once the election cycle started I watched her become increasingly unhinged, her desire to have Hillary elected the first woman president unbalanced, not in the sense that she did not treat the two candidates with an even hand, but unbalanced in regard to the way her support for Hillary distorted her thinking.  She excused all that came up that was critical of Clinton, denying at every turn the validity of charges that seemed to be very much valid.

She did not do much to answer the charges, whether they came from republicans or Sanders’ supporters or elsewhere as to dismiss them as either absurd or irrelevant.  She was not only bias, but off base and a contributor to the politics of distortion and seeding of doubt used so well by the likes of Lee Atwater, Roger Ailes, and Carl Rove to win elections through deceit, deceit predicated on that disrespect for voters that led them to believe that voters were so stupid as to accept as real and true what they knew to be deceitful.

Ms. Walsh, of course, was using these tactics for the side of the good and she and those like her did not care too much about the truth as long as what the public believed coincided with their goals.  In a big way, what Ms. Walsh had done and was doing on Hayes’ show was exactly the thing that had caused me to drop my membership in the democratic party.  I dropped out not because of who they nominated but the way they had gone about promoting a single candidate and manipulating a dumb democratic party proletariat to bend to their will despite, in spite of what was real’

Arrogance!  Ugly arrogance.  Elitism.  Disrespect.


And so the article attached!







“Clearly we are at a crossroads. As you look around the United States today, it can be difficult to see this nation’s promise. Instead, we see a country that seems powerless over its self-dividing culture, a nation whose institutions are becoming unmanageable, whose media urges it further from sanity.”

– Robert C. Maynard