Monday, January 24, 2011

Let the battle begin

UPDATE 3:44 PM I just hit 500,000 page views. I'm going to Disney World!

ORIGINAL POST 9:45 AM


Praise the Lord and pass the (verbal) ammunition, the Amherst School Committee race in the People's Republic just became downright interesting. We got us a contest.

And isn't that what democracy is all about?

Plus the difference between the two is downright stark--even though both are highly-educated white woman, married, with kids in the schools.

One is a crusading reformer, fearlessly forcing our bloated education system to take a hard look in the mirror and realize how bloated and ineffectual the once venerable system has become; while the other candidate is an apologist for the tired, expensive, business-as-usual scenario.

The Daily Hampshire Gazette reports (late as usual)

80 comments:

Anonymous said...

Not even in the same league.



Sanderson, all the way.

Anonymous said...

Leave it to Larry to summarize the position of Dr. Appy whom he has not even met or talked to.

Way to go Larry! Great fact-based reporting. Your journalism professors would be proud.

LarryK4 said...

My former editor for 14 years Nick Grabbe did quite an illuminating story on Ms. Appy just after she first announced.

And since he was responding to her press release, you would think Ms. Appy would have somewhat the command of important issues and be prepared to comment on them.

Came off like a complete amateur, not ready for prime time.

Anonymous said...

Are sure it's her fault? Nick Grabbe is the worst writer on the planet. He types while he's interviewing rather than recording the interview, thus guaranteeing that you will be misquoted. Some mentor. Who knows what she really said.

Anonymous said...

He types while he's interviewing rather than recording the interview, thus guaranteeing that you will be misquoted.

Then what you do - moron - is repeat your most important points at the end to make sure he got them. Better yet, write them for him -- he does have email, doesn't he?

Could it be that some folk talk in such an oblique and obtuse manner that he just misunderstands????

Anonymous said...

It's not like he shows you what he's written. How are you supposed to know if you are being misquoted before you read it in the paper. He doesn't submit a draft to you. It's his job to get it right, not yours. That's like saying if you buy a lemon of a car why didn't you go to Detroit and help them build it. Moron.

Anonymous said...

Sanderson is going to be soundly rejected by the voters.

Anonymous said...

If she it, it will be a sad day for our community and we will get what we deserve - mediocrity in all things important. And happiness in Levrett.

Anonymous said...

I think you're right, about Catherine being soundly rejected at the polls.

So what? I think that Catherine's right on the substance and on the need for change. Perhaps she has pushed too hard: not the worst thing someone could be accused of.

Clare Bertrand, the biggest political operator in town, says that Catherine Sanderson is "aggressive". (Actually, I suspect Clare is simply intimidated by the woman intellectually.)

Funny, I've never seen Clare use the collaboration approach to try to promote "sustainable development" in town. Instead, she's won whatever gains she's won at the ballot box.

There are just some people in town you can't work with on public policy matters, and Clare knows this.......or perhaps she's forgotten. She used to have the heart and soul of a reformer, but the Appy campaign she's running so far is something different. The new appeal for "buy-in" is simply a plea to "go slow" or perhaps to leave well enough alone.

Clare Bertrand: one more inspiring person who has given in to the power of "what we know versus what we don't know."

People who want change with all their heart and soul and energy are often accused of being rude and uncivil. That happens all the time. Clare Bertrand should know this, or perhaps she's forgotten.

Anonymous said...

I just don't believe you need to be rude and uncivil to accomplish change. Look at Martin Luther King. Look at Gandhi. There is another way.

Anonymous said...

Can't we let the candidates run on their own merits without all the histrionics and distorted perspectives on what they stand for? Just reread Larry's blog post if you don't know what I mean by that. He's setting the bait and waiting for all the hungry dogs out there to bite... over and over and over again, till everyone is as bloody as possible by election day. How 'bout we resist the temptation this time and just listen, weigh the options before us and head out to the ballot box to vote for our own individual preference when the time comes around? These are two good women with their own ideas about how best to serve the interests of our children and community and, most importantly, they are both willing to serve. We should be thankful and respectful of that.

LarryK4 said...

Mighty fine sentiment there Pilgrim...for an Anon.

(Yeah, it's hard to do a John Wayne impression in text only.)

NitwitAnon said...

Anon 7:52 hit the nail on the head. Larry is the consummate troll. It's great entertainment! Keep up the good work Larry.

LarryK4 said...

As I just told my good friend over at Localocracy (via Facebook), the next two months should be fun for us local political junkies

Anonymous said...

I am voting for the best looking, given that they are both accomplished.. Katherine Appy has my vote in that department. clare is a cutie as well.

LarryK4 said...

As I've said a few times before: sarcasm/satire requires their own special font.

Anonymous said...

Excuse me, Anon 7:17 pm (and perhaps you're simply too young):

There is NO ONE, but NO ONE who exemplifies the proposition that people who want change with all their heart, soul, and energy are often accused of being uncivil than Martin Luther King!!!! Perhaps you didn't live through it, but I remember it well. I understand that time has taken the edge off of MLK, but white folks all over America at the time were frightened by him, and wished that he would just go away. They accused him of every incivility under the sun, and he did jail time for it.

I don't think that Catherine Sanderson has been rude and uncivil, but that's the caricature. It is very sad to see someone like Clare Bertrand pushing it, and many will simply take her previously good word for it. She does an artful job of conflating the anonymous posters on Catherine's blog with Catherine herself. It's all a hoax, designed for people who haven't got or taken the time to make their own observations. The FoxNews approach to reality, which substitutes a shorthand, an image, a label, for the subtlety and nuance of policy debate, has come to the self-proclaimed centrists in Amherst.

It's a damned shame to see Ms. Bertrand draw down on her considerable credibility in this way. She may win, but, in the long run, it's going to be a self-inflicted wound to her credibility, because she will have split the parents in Amherst against each other for a long time to come. The coalition-building for other causes will be that much more difficult for Clare and others after this.

This is nothing more than the status quo striking back, no less so because it's being pushed by people who heretofore were advocating change on the zoning and development front. Given the profoundly conservative tilt of Amherst's voters, which has ironicly dogged those who wanted some movement on expanding the tax base, it may very well succeed. But that doesn't make it right or best for the schools. In the long run, it's also bad for Amherst politics.

Anonymous said...

This is the first time we've seen Ms. Bertrand motivated purely by something negative. It's a campaign intended, first and foremost, to take down an elected official; that is its reason for being.

Sad.

LarryK4 said...

Yeah she probably should have spent a little more time prepping her candidate for that first disastrous interview with the Gazette--especially since it occurred AFTER the campaign sent out a press release.

Anonymous said...

You know, when Baer Tierkel and Company, including Madames Bertrand and Auerbach, first took up arms politically and decided to garner seats in Town Meeting by recruiting to run parents and others dedicated to a more moderate approach to development, one wondered: how can this turn ugly?

One would have thought that they might decide to devastate other Town services, cops, public works, capital spending, in order to feather the nest in the schools.

Wrong.

And one could credibly argue that an acceptable quid pro quo for asking town residents to put up with economic development and drop their NIMBY objections would be an approach to the schools that demanded a problem-solving, reformist approach, you know, that strove for schools that appear to be deserving of an enhanced tax base.

No, that didn't happen.

Instead, the approach is "we tell you the schools are great, take our word for it, anyone who says otherwise is combative and destructive, and now, John and Mary Q. Taxpayer, PAY UP. And, if you, Catherine Sanderson, are not on board with each and every override vote, whether we supported you last time or not,we will cut you off at the knees."

But they tell us THEY are nice and she's "combative".

LarryK4 said...

Well it was some unethical behavior on their part concerning the election last March that got them canned as columnists for the Amherst Bulletin.

Of course six months later the Amherst Chamber of Commerce gave them an award for being "change agents". Go figure.

Anonymous said...

Clare Bertrand, the biggest political operator in town

Right now. Wasn't the guy always crying about loosing his home once a very powerful person in town?

Amherst is changing folks. If Catherine looses, the middle will cease to hold and you will see an end to any pretense of civility in town politics. It will become slash & burn on both sides. And for those of you who work for the schools and live in town -- you will start having the popularity of an IRS agent

If Catherine looses, the schools will continue in their spend lots, educate little way for a few years until either something horrendous happens (like the PPrince Suicide) or they go for the next override.

You know, there really has never been a true anti-government opposition to an override yet. But if enough parents have kids in private schools, there could well be a "well, f**k the schools" response to the override.

Anonymous said...

Sanderson is a college professor, no conflict of interest there as college kids don't vote. But Appy is a practicing family therapist in town, is she not going to contact clients and ask them to vote for her, not going to make various threats if they don't???

This won't be the first time an aspiring politician has made threats of what would happen if people didn't campaign for the candidate -- anyone remember how the Springfield Housing Authority mess started to unfold?

Anonymous said...

"This is the first time we've seen Ms. Bertrand motivated purely by something negative. It's a campaign intended, first and foremost, to take down an elected official; that is its reason for being.

Sad."

Uh, excuse me for noticing, but isn't that the point of elections? Many times an incumbent will run for reelection. Some times they will run unopposed but many times there will be a challenger. That is how, recently, the Republicans regained control of the House.

There is nothing sad here. The only thing I see here is democracy in action. Now, you may be a CS supporter and clearly Ms. Bertrand is a KA supporter. Now comes the run-up to the election and then we'll have an election. And someone will be victorious. This is democracy at the local level, democracy in its purest form, I think. Long live democracy!!! Nothing sad here, that I can see.

Anonymous said...

They have nothing positive of their own to present, except that they are "nicer than Catherine". Check out Dr. Appy's website, and her statement on there: she starts right in on the existing SC. It's a purely negative campaign.

Anonymous said...

Larry 11:11at unethical behavior are you talking about?

A.N.W. said...

12:07 "If Catherine loses....."
sounds like threats or better yet, Tea party-like ultimatums. Let' can the drama folks.

Anonymous said...

I read these last comments and think - what have we become? we're trashing a candidate for office because she dares to challenge the incumbent? I'm neither a supporter for Catherine or Katherine. But I do not understand the assertion that Appy is "negative" for running against Sanderson. Isn't that how it works? If she were positive, she probably wouldn't need to run against Sanderson. As the incumbent, Sanderson has a record of service that she can present and defend to the community. As the challenger, Appy does need to tell us how she would be different and why that's better. I don't see anything negative. As an undecided voter (how many are there in Amherst?),I'm depending upon each of them to make the case for my vote.

And though I don't know Clare Bertrand, I think the adult name calling going on against an opponent's team is just as offensive to me as it would be if it were against the opponent herself. Let's set a model for our children, especially our daughters, and refrain from name calling.

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:48
I agree it would be nice to set a good example for our daughters. So it surprises me that Clare Bertrand calls Catherine Sanderson "aggressive" (and implying Catherine should sit quietly and prettily in the corner as women seem to be expected to do, even in this town!) instead of calling her smart. Really really smart. So smart it seems to make people scared of her and call her "aggressive." I guess the women's movement has a way to go.

Anonymous said...

8:48 In my observation, Catherine Sanderson is aggressive and smart. Women can be both.

Anonymous said...

I know many members of Town Meeting that were recruited by the Sustainable Amherst folks. Many of them support Catherine Sanderson and change. Those who support both change in our schools and town government are sadly disappointed by what they perceive sustainable Amherst stands for - town government that needs change but schools that are wonderful and second to none. Many people who support changes in both our schools and town, have either pulled away from spending time on town issues or are going to soon.

When the zoning change was voted on, in the last town meeting, the vote lost by only a few votes. Baer, Clare, and Andy are going to need to hold people together not push them apart. Their support of Appy in this election will only serve to push apart. This is not doom and gloom, I am sure they can rebuild but it will be very difficult road. Belief that you can support a candidate whose only claim is she is not Catherine Sanderson and still build a sustainable base on town meeting is simply hubris.

Anonymous said...

Is it taking a collaborative, positive approach to let your campaign manager sling the nasty words and mud, while you take the high road? Not too nice, just hypocritical. Appy should just debate the issues, and be up front instead of letting her campaign manager do her dirty work. We have enough of that at the national level.

Roach patrol said...

Overly medicated drooling Amherst has lost (among other things) the ability to interpret human behavior correctly. Amazing. It finds it even more challenging if the person's gender is female. REALLY AMAZING. Some, seeing an opportunity in the confusion, use the situation to their own selfish advantage, even as a weapon, in an ~engineered reality~ play concocted to convince the confused that this manufactured reality is THE reality... that they MUST see things accordingly. In this case, the agenda is: protection of mediocre schools aka the STATUS QUO (i.e. the status of entrenched insiders), a narrow and highly non-inclusive failed social/political (quasi/faux liberal hybrid) agenda, continued co-coordinated deception of tax payers, funding ultra high insider salaries and propping up property values as a means of maintaining/rewarding
"voter" (and way more importantly, political insider) support for the agenda.

All of this while attacking someone (a woman no less) who REALLY cares by implying her kind of change is SCARY and BAD, that she (Catherine Sanderson) is some kind of witch and her criticisms and aggressions are directed at YOU, citizen torchbearer of all things "Amherst"...

Innnnncredible and absolutely


priceless.

Anonymous said...

Roach Patrol:

I don't think anyone ever called CS a witch except you just now.

Anonymous said...

"I don't think anyone ever called CS a witch except you just now."

Do you have any idea of what the teachers in the elementary schools say about her -- in front of children?

Anonymous said...

And how do you know what they call her in front of children?

More hearsay in the offing??

Anonymous said...

Larry @ 12:26 p.m. 1/24: Ha! This goes a long way toward explaining why this journalist appears to be sourcing stories out of this and Catherine's blog! Congratulations Larry, the mentee has become the mentor. Remind me to end my subscription to the Gazette. I can read it all here first! For free!

Anonymous said...

And how do you know what they call her in front of children?

There are still decent people in the education profession, and they have no use for this sort of stuff and are quite willing to report it...

Voter said...

here is something i sent to Ms. Sanderson's blog:

Hi Catherine, congratulations on your announcement [to run for s.c..] I'd like to offer some constructive criticism.

My understanding from talking with many, many parents, teachers, etc., is not that they feel that you "ruffle feathers" by sticking to your guns, having a strong agenda and strong opinions and voting according to them, challenging those you oppose in appropriate forums, so on...

It's your style. There are countless examples on tape of you being unecessarily disrespectful during meetings. This usually takes the form of you making "faces" when others are speaking; you roll your eyes, make exaggerated "confused" faces, often exchange snickering glances with Steve Rivkin or Rob Spence, nod or shake your head as if we need to know whether you approve or disapprove of anything that is being said. Those are things that are unconnected with trying to push an agenda. These things contribute to an uncivil, hostile environment. I also believe these habits are a large factor in the "dysfunction" which exists currently on the school committee. I believe these are some of the things which lead to claims of you being a "bully".

Anonymous said...

"And how do you know what they call her in front of children?

There are still decent people in the education profession, and they have no use for this sort of stuff and are quite willing to report it..."

Until I see some proof other than you essentially saying trust me on this, your charge remains unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo, like much of what is posted on this blog.

Someone on a different thread on this blog wondered about the increasing nastiness and meaness of one neighbor to another in this town. Wondered why it has gotten so bad lately. I think the answer lies in this blog and Catherine's blog as well. The nastiness has finally done me in. I will not be visting this blog any longer. I will leave you all to your anger, spite and nasty, mean world.

LarryK4 said...

Don't forget to whistle kumbaya on the way out the door.

Anonymous said...

Anon: January 26, 2011 2:40 AM

Ms. Brighty used to make the same "faces" and glances. Used to drive me nuts but nobody else complained then. Maybe because she was doing it at Catherine's expense?

LarryK4 said...

I always thought she was sucking on a lemon. But...now that you mention it, the timing was a tad curious.

Anonymous said...

Huh, I don't recall nobody complaining about Ms. Brighty. Somebody should have!

If I were in a meeting, either at work, or a volunteer organization I was part of, or even around the dinner table, and people were making the kinds of faces C.S. makes when I took a turn to speak, and if they were glancing at each other and snickering, I would feel bullied.

It simply does not contribute in any way to a functional board.

Catherine, will you make a campaign promise to stop this behavior if you are re-elected?

Leering from the left said...

Wouldn't it be just P.T. Barnum if Ed became Catherine Sanderson's campaign manager and Larry was her press secreatary.

Oh my god. All 3 crazy lunatics on the same campaign. We have seen anything like that since Haldemen, Erlichman and Nixon. No, Larry, you can't be Nixon, but you can carry Catherine's personal belongings.

Come on Ed and Larry. Put together an overnight bag, boys, cause the eye-rolling, can't stop talking Sanderson needs a little medicine show help from a couple stuck-in-the-rut, don't-know-what-to-do with myself umass lifers like you two bozos.

Please,please, please fellas.

And to top it off you could put together some one hit wonders from Larry's blog. You know, the regular intellects that throw up here: Roach Patrol and the like.

Larry has no end of red neck bigot friends who are always willing to help assassinate someone's character in the press.

Don't be shy boys!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

LarryK4 said...

Yeah, and my "red necked bigot friends" are more than matched by Cowardly Anon Nitwits like you.

Roach patrol said...

Thanks for thinking of me.


Now scurry before I get my broom.

Concerned Mom said...

I have to agree with with poster at 2:16. I'm actually really glad someone brought it up.

One night i was watching a school committee meeting, and my 8-year old daughter came into the room and started watching with me. After a little while she turned to me and said, "Mommy, why is that lady being so mean to the other people?" In a momentary lapse of good parenting I started to defend Ms. Sanderson's behavior, but in the end I could not and told her that I didn't know why, but that it is very inappropriate. What kind of an example is she setting for our children? I wonder what her children think when they watch her at the meetings.

If kids in school were doing that to each other during class discusssion times, would it be tolerated? Would we call it "bullying"?

LarryK4 said...

Hmm..Lucky thing your daughter did not watch the 3/9/10 School Committee meeting where Principal Mark Jackson was as rude and obnoxious as I have ever seen in my 25 years of watching/participating in public meetings toward Ms Sanderson who is maybe half his size.

http://tinyurl.com/4pkfbu7

Anonymous said...

Mark Jackson is an asshole. He should be fired.

Roach patrol said...

"The 15 or 20 anonymous evaluations collected from administrative staff (including Jackson's) should have gone directly to Chair Farshid Hajir and then to the entire Amherst Regional School Committee--but nobody else."


The hit squad.


p.s. Where are Hajji's notebooks???

LarryK4 said...

Obviously that would take a new Superintendent as I believe Maria Geryk was acting Superintendent the night he bullied Ms. Sanderson; and if I had been the Super at the time I would have fired him on the spot.

But then, if I had been Superintendent in place of Gus Sayer nine years ago, I would have fired Mr. Jackson's predecessor Stephen Myers for inappropriate activity with a minor.

Or at the very least, duly reported it to the higher authorities as mandated by state law.

Anonymous said...

Everyone on this blog is so quick to defend C.S. Mark Jackson was doing everyone a favor at the meeting by taking a stand against her, Catherine is a bully. She reminds me of high school mean girls, with her eye rolling and whispering. She has ruined her name on school committee.

LarryK4 said...

Or taking a stand to protect his cozy position that pays $130-K annually.

Comes in handy, as I'm told that private school he sends his daughter to is pretty expensive.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Anon 8:53. I could not agree with you more.

LarryK4 said...

And for all we know you are he (or she as the case may be.)

Anonymous said...

Mr. Kelley, I think you wrote recently:

"Two wrongs don't make a right."

What does whether or not Mr. Jackson was ever rude have to do with this discussion? Is the subject Mr. Jackson now? Would that be more convenient? I think you need a new headline.

I thought we were on a post about the upcoming school committee election and the two individuals who will be "battling" each other for the one seat that is coming up?

There are hours of tape of Catherine Sanderson being a nasty, rude, mean-girl bully, (maybe someone should put together a montage for YouTube,) resulting in a dysfunction that, among other things, keeps anyone who's ever HEARD of Amherst from wanting to apply for the superintendent job here.

I haven't heard anyone deny the observations about Catherine Sanderson yet. Does somebody need to fake cry in response to her bullying tactics in order to get your sympathy?

Anon Nitwit said...

Larry: "Let's talk about the two candidates who will be battling for the School Committee seat that will become vacant in March."

Anon Poster: "OK. The incumbent has displayed a tendency to make a lot of nasty faces when people are talking which contributes to--"

Larry: "Elaine Brighty made faces!"

Anon Poster: "Uh, yeah, OK, and sometimes she is very rude to other committee members and that creates a--"

Larry: "Mark Jackson was rude!"

Anon Poster: "Hey, listen, I thought we were going to discuss the candidates and the qualities each will bring--"

Larry: "You're a nitwit!! You're a nitwit!!"

Right. Whatever.

Anonymous said...

and if I had been the Super at the time I would have fired him on the spot.

And if I wasn't the supt, had I been there, I would have decked him. The schmuck deserved it - what part about not beating on girls do we not understand in this town???

You hit a girl, I hit you -- what part about this do we not understand???

Anonymous said...

Uh, Anon 1:49:

Mark Jackson did not hit anyone. If you hit him you would have been arrested for assault and battery.

As for poor poor Catherine Sanderson, if you can't stand the heat get the hell out of the kitchen. I have seen Ms. Sanderson berate people in much stronger terms than what Mark Jackson did. So enough of this talk of Mark Jackson bullying poor little Catherine Sanderson. It;s hogwash.

Anonymous said...

"There are hours of tape of Catherine Sanderson being a nasty, rude, mean-girl bully, (maybe someone should put together a montage for YouTube,) resulting in a dysfunction that, among other things, keeps anyone who's ever HEARD of Amherst from wanting to apply for the superintendent job here."

A montage of CS on youtube - what an awesome idea!!! Any tech-savvy takers on this project??

Anonymous said...

"A montage of CS on youtube - what an awesome idea!!! Any tech-savvy takers on this project??"


Yeah, everything out of context and doctored.


Riiiiiiight.


You don't want to take it there.

LarryK4 said...

I believe some kids, errr, aspiring journalists, from ARHS already did that.

Anonymous said...

uh, yeah, ed at 1:49...

i think you better think twice next time you come home drunk at 1:30am and decide to get on the blog and suggest that you would like to commit assault and battery against a resident of the town...

LarryK4 said...

"Methinks thou doth protest too much"

Anonymous said...

That idiot kid of Idiot Andy Churchill did a skit at the high school dissing Catherine and everyone thought it was okay. How about we do one on what a brainless nitwit Maria Geryk is? Is that okay? Or better yet, one dissing Elaine Brighty and Andy Churchill?

Anonymous said...

I wish posts like the one 7:55pm that talks about someone's child was removed.

Anonymous said...

If the idiot kid can openly produce the skit he did at the high school, for all to view, then the idiot kid makes himself a target, like the idiot father.

ANW said...

this last post is a sad illustration of Amherst as it is today.

On a blog where we're talking about educating our kids and how we care about our kids, one honest person puts up a disgusting horrible comment. and no one says "STOP" - that's unacceptable, over the line... revealing that the adults in this community are using the kids as a shield for their own petty horrible political wars.

very very sad.

Roach patrol said...

"i think you better think twice next time you come home drunk at 1:30am and decide to get on the blog and suggest that you would like to commit assault and battery against a resident of the town..."


LOL


What's a little roach like you gonna do, under the crush of a shoe???

Anonymous said...

"If the idiot kid can openly produce the skit he did at the high school, for all to view, then the idiot kid makes himself a target, like the idiot father."


Especially when the asshole father encourages it...

Anonymous said...

And it was a damn funny skit. She's such an easy target.

"Roll your eyes and sigh on 3. And----3."


"Good. Now try it again. That's it. This time with a real upper middle class disgust."

"There you go. Now you're getting it."

Yea, no challenge to mimic that.

Ed said...

You know - and this is the real Ed saying this -- a lot of women from where I am from would have gone into that meeting armed.

A guy twice their size coming at them - they would have pulled out their weapon, chambered a round, and asked him if he really wanted to keep doing this.

And where I am from -- the reality that surrounds the 45 square miles known as Amherst -- women are allowed to defend themselves against guys twice their size who threaten (implicitly or explicitly) violent assault.

Where I am from, Marc Jackson would have been sent back to New Jersey damn fast and a whole long time ago....

Ed said...

Let me add three things:

First, there is a very big distinction between words (even hateful) and implicit threats of physical violence.

I have seen the UMass Police criminally prosecute students for far less than what Marc Jackson did -- I know because I got dragged into court to testify as a witness. In Massachusetts, an "assault" is when a person reasonably believes that someone is going to hit her -- and watching the video, it is fairly clear she did think that.

Second, there is the fact he is twice her size. Flip this the other way around with her being the aggressor and physically assaulting someone half her size (likely a child) in exactly the same manner that Jackson did. Would people be as nonchalant about this?

Third, Marc Jackson is about the same size as Larry Kelly -- and Maria G has likely said a few things at some point that Larry didn't like. Imagine if Larry did the exact same thing to Maria G. -- would we have a problem with this?

So Larry isn't a district employee -- that makes what Jackson did worse, not justifies it...

We all have the right not to be silenced by threats of overwhelming physical force....

Anonymous said...

Again, Ed, you keep talking about Mark Jackson and physical force or physical intimidation. ALL HE DID WAS MAKE A COMMENT!!!!! A quite appropriate comment at that. And I will say this again, if Catherine Sanderson can't stand the heat she needs to get out of the kitchen. It's ok for her to make bullying comments til the cows come home. But when Mark Jackson calls her on an inaccurate comment she made he if all of a sudden physically intimidating her?

You are so full of yourself,its disgusting.

Ed said...

"ALL HE DID WAS MAKE A COMMENT!!!!!"

If that was only all -- have you seen the video? It wasn't what he said - as rude and disrespectful as that was, but his charging at her as if he intended to hit her.

Watch the damn video.

And then ask yourself why none of the so-called men in that room didn't ask what part of violence against women we weren't opposed to...

If Jackson had wanted to stand were he was and call her every obscenity he had ever learned in New Jersey, that would have been one thing -- worthy of contempt but still one thing.

But once he charged at her, that is where he crossed the line into criminal assault territory.

And the parents of any child he disciplines (for anything) ought to appeal it to the state on the grounds of what he did in public and thus implicit permission to violate rules of decent behavior.

Ed said...

"ALL HE DID WAS MAKE A COMMENT!!!!!"

If that was only all -- have you seen the video? It wasn't what he said - as rude and disrespectful as that was, but his charging at her as if he intended to hit her.

Watch the damn video.

And then ask yourself why none of the so-called men in that room didn't ask what part of violence against women we weren't opposed to...

If Jackson had wanted to stand were he was and call her every obscenity he had ever learned in New Jersey, that would have been one thing -- worthy of contempt but still one thing.

But once he charged at her, that is where he crossed the line into criminal assault territory.

And the parents of any child he disciplines (for anything) ought to appeal it to the state on the grounds of what he did in public and thus implicit permission to violate rules of decent behavior.

Anonymous said...

I have seen the video, Ed, and he did not charge her. He moved to the mike to sit down and make a comment.

Anonymous said...

Ed and everyone else. Here is the link to the video. Mark Jackson's comments begin at about 9:45 PM at the joint regional/union 26 meeting of march 9th.

Not only was there NO charging, but he addressed CS for one minute in a calm voice and expressed his opinion of what she said. No bullying, no charging. A calm difference of opinion.

If you don't believe it, watch the video for your selves. FACTS MATTER FOLKS! And in this case Ed is full of sh*t.

http://204.213.244.104/Cablecast/Public/Show.aspx?ChannelID=2&ShowID=5515

Anonymous said...

let the battle... fizzle into non-existence.

one of the candidates didn't want to be publicly evaluated.