S/O - What’s up with AEM?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That all gets lost with comments like: “whi.....I mean elitist"

Sorry, I disagree a bit here. Every community in Arlington says what it wants; but does not necessarily get it. Yeah, the wealthy white communities in the north get it more than not. However, the Black community of Nauck wants its own neighborhood school. They don't want anyone from outside their neighborhood coming to "their promised neighborhood school." Again, sorry; but no neighborhood gets that. Randolph ES is probably the closest thing to it; but even the majority of those students are technically from outside the Douglas Park neighborhood. I don't believe the Black community around Drew said it specifically wanted an 80% FRL neighborhood school. Even if they did, I don't think it's right to let them have that.

The issue that was specifically the subject of the comment was whether Drew would be a neighborhood school or some sort of hybrid, arguably akin to what it previously had with Montessori. It is true that not every community gets what it wants, but typically that plays out as everyone else saying, you can't have that b/c it's not best for Arlington, and not, you can't have that b/c it's not best for YOU.

There is zero basis to say that the black community and/or Nauck didn't want anyone outside the neighborhood going to "their" school. Zero. The boundary process was about figuring out how to fill Drew, and about all the other nearby communities fighting to stay out of Drew. To the extent there was a coherent Drew voice or movement, it generally just wanted a reasonable boundary. (If you're one of those conspiracy theory folks about how Drew "didn't want" SF or something, nonsense. I was there and that is not true.)

This is not exactly accurate. The idea was to make Drew science focus so that there wouldn’t be a fight to stay out of it, but more of a fight to get into it. The problem is the idea wasn’t presented clearly enough and the immediate reaction was you are a racist for even having an idea about it.

I said arguably akin. I know the author didn't design it to be the same as the two programs/one school thing. But the issue remains: it was presented in a "this is best for you" kind of way, from a white community to a black community. As I understand the at-issue term, leaving aside whether I think it's a useful or productive one, that's pretty much what it means. And I think the reason it was used was to get people to consider the history and context that were also in play, separate and apart from the merits of the idea or the chaos of the boundary process.

This is PP. I disagree that it was “arguably akin,” but I can’t disagree with the rest of your statement. The whole thing was a mistake, and the originator apologized and recognized that well-intentioned people can do unintentionally racist things. But the way it played out was awful and hurtful—and not just because of white fragility. I just wish that people would at least try to recognize when people are trying to be on the good side and make a mistake.

+100 PP and I am totally with you in particular on the last point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had to take AEM out of my news feed because it was raising my blood pressure. I've left the group once before, and I think I just need to do it again. I consider myself pretty liberal, but I'm genuinely conflicted on the CA race and that makes me a racist on AEM. F that.

So, asking here so I don’t get pilloried. I am also conflicted about the CA race. Per someone I really trust and respect, this case with the 10 yr olds that is getting all this press, is it true that Stamos was not in fact the CA at the time? I looked up the bio of the principal and she retired from APS before Stamos was even elected CA. She was a prosecutor at that time, but was she the one who made the decision to charge those kids/how to charge them? Can anyone tell me the truth?

From an email from Libby Garvey:

5. Prosecuting Juveniles: One of the mailers accuses Theo of prosecuting 10 year-olds. Ms. Dehghani-Tafti’s accusations do not even make sense. She dug up a case from 20 years ago when Theo was not the Commonwealth Attorney, was not the Chief Deputy Commonwealth Attorney, and was not the trial prosecutor.

I was on the School Board and remember the incident. Two ten-year old boys put hand sanitizer in their teacher’s water bottle, which he drank from. The teacher thought he had been fatally poisoned The boys admitted it. They said they wanted to kill their teacher. The boys did not go to jail or prison. There was a deferred disposition on a misdemeanor, and the case was ultimately dismissed because the boys got the supervision and treatment that they needed. The case is not relevant to Theo, but even if it were, it is totally misrepresented.




This is consistent with the letter to the editor, where the principal says she regrets they couldn't "follow normal school procedures...." presumably because the teacher called the police directly.

To be clear, I am the PP you quoted and my trusted source is not Garvey (who I am tepid, at best, towards, and I am not on her mailing list). My source is a private citizen who didn’t support Vistahdt and is one of the most progressive people I know. The fact that she’s sending messages about this make me really question what the heck is going on.

[Anonymous]

Haven't seen this one on AEM yet but elsewhere there is a letter about Stamos prosecuting 13 yo's for sexting. Anyone have the context? It suggests she has an office policy of doing so, which as the mother of girls, who I assume bear the brunt of this type of behavior, is not necessarily a crazy position to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That all gets lost with comments like: “whi.....I mean elitist"

Sorry, I disagree a bit here. Every community in Arlington says what it wants; but does not necessarily get it. Yeah, the wealthy white communities in the north get it more than not. However, the Black community of Nauck wants its own neighborhood school. They don't want anyone from outside their neighborhood coming to "their promised neighborhood school." Again, sorry; but no neighborhood gets that. Randolph ES is probably the closest thing to it; but even the majority of those students are technically from outside the Douglas Park neighborhood. I don't believe the Black community around Drew said it specifically wanted an 80% FRL neighborhood school. Even if they did, I don't think it's right to let them have that.

The issue that was specifically the subject of the comment was whether Drew would be a neighborhood school or some sort of hybrid, arguably akin to what it previously had with Montessori. It is true that not every community gets what it wants, but typically that plays out as everyone else saying, you can't have that b/c it's not best for Arlington, and not, you can't have that b/c it's not best for YOU.

There is zero basis to say that the black community and/or Nauck didn't want anyone outside the neighborhood going to "their" school. Zero. The boundary process was about figuring out how to fill Drew, and about all the other nearby communities fighting to stay out of Drew. To the extent there was a coherent Drew voice or movement, it generally just wanted a reasonable boundary. (If you're one of those conspiracy theory folks about how Drew "didn't want" SF or something, nonsense. I was there and that is not true.)

Talk to some of the "old timer" Black residents directly - they specifically have complained about other people coming into their neighborhood to attend their neighborhood school. And they ARE getting their neighborhood school and not another hybrid. So if that's the only point, what's the problem?

I expect those comments were based on Montessori being located there and dominating the neighborhood program in size, resources, attention, and performance for years.

There is no problem. I was trying to explain the context of the "whitesplaining" comment and why I believe it was a mostly correct observation, if provocative.

I understand why black residents of Nauck felt like there was whitesplaining. But I also understand why that comment would discourage residents of other races from wanting to attend Drew. Are white parents of kids at Drew allowed to express opinions about what is best for the school? Are they allowed to have any say when it comes to school policies? I wouldn’t feel welcomed or encouraged to join the Drew community if I were another race. The message received was this is the long promised neighborhood school for black residents, and everyone else zoned in is there to fill seats but shut up because this school is not actually for them.

Oh and you’re racist for not wanting to be zoned to a historically underperforming school or a school with a high FARMS rate. But also, if minorities don’t want to attend a school with those characteristics, those concerns are totally legitimate and we should fix that! It’s only racist to care about school qualities when you’re white.

And this is why we’re opting out of Drew. The message was loud and clear- this is a school for the Nauck community, you have no say in what happens here. and oh, you’re racist if you don’t attend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That all gets lost with comments like: “whi.....I mean elitist"

Sorry, I disagree a bit here. Every community in Arlington says what it wants; but does not necessarily get it. Yeah, the wealthy white communities in the north get it more than not. However, the Black community of Nauck wants its own neighborhood school. They don't want anyone from outside their neighborhood coming to "their promised neighborhood school." Again, sorry; but no neighborhood gets that. Randolph ES is probably the closest thing to it; but even the majority of those students are technically from outside the Douglas Park neighborhood. I don't believe the Black community around Drew said it specifically wanted an 80% FRL neighborhood school. Even if they did, I don't think it's right to let them have that.

The issue that was specifically the subject of the comment was whether Drew would be a neighborhood school or some sort of hybrid, arguably akin to what it previously had with Montessori. It is true that not every community gets what it wants, but typically that plays out as everyone else saying, you can't have that b/c it's not best for Arlington, and not, you can't have that b/c it's not best for YOU.

There is zero basis to say that the black community and/or Nauck didn't want anyone outside the neighborhood going to "their" school. Zero. The boundary process was about figuring out how to fill Drew, and about all the other nearby communities fighting to stay out of Drew. To the extent there was a coherent Drew voice or movement, it generally just wanted a reasonable boundary. (If you're one of those conspiracy theory folks about how Drew "didn't want" SF or something, nonsense. I was there and that is not true.)

Talk to some of the "old timer" Black residents directly - they specifically have complained about other people coming into their neighborhood to attend their neighborhood school. And they ARE getting their neighborhood school and not another hybrid. So if that's the only point, what's the problem?

I expect those comments were based on Montessori being located there and dominating the neighborhood program in size, resources, attention, and performance for years.

There is no problem. I was trying to explain the context of the "whitesplaining" comment and why I believe it was a mostly correct observation, if provocative.

I understand why black residents of Nauck felt like there was whitesplaining. But I also understand why that comment would discourage residents of other races from wanting to attend Drew. Are white parents of kids at Drew allowed to express opinions about what is best for the school? Are they allowed to have any say when it comes to school policies? I wouldn’t feel welcomed or encouraged to join the Drew community if I were another race. The message received was this is the long promised neighborhood school for black residents, and everyone else zoned in is there to fill seats but shut up because this school is not actually for them.

Oh and you’re racist for not wanting to be zoned to a historically underperforming school or a school with a high FARMS rate. But also, if minorities don’t want to attend a school with those characteristics, those concerns are totally legitimate and we should fix that! It’s only racist to care about school qualities when you’re white.

And this is why we’re opting out of Drew. The message was loud and clear- this is a school for the Nauck community, you have no say in what happens here. and oh, you’re racist if you don’t attend.

Look, you can tell yourself that if you want to, but it's simply not true. I'd be happy to discuss in person if that would help you to reconsider, or at least not feel so bitter. Currently, you seem to be making decisions on the basis of AEM comments including those by people who don't live in Nauck or send their kids to non-Montessori Drew. I do live there and will send my child to new Drew. And there are others doing the same, both white and black.

[Anonymous]

Look, you can tell yourself that if you want to, but it's simply not true. I'd be happy to discuss in person if that would help you to reconsider, or at least not feel so bitter. Currently, you seem to be making decisions on the basis of AEM comments including those by people who don't live in Nauck or send their kids to non-Montessori Drew. I do live there and will send my child to new Drew. And there are others doing the same, both white and bla


I don’t disagree, but I do think that message was propagated by SB members including Murphy. They way they handlers it was some rookie business!!

[Anonymous]

AEM has been hijacked by Parisa CA advocates. They promote a story about a case from 2 decades ago and present it as if Theo was responsible. Then, when asked directly, they say they "think" she prosecuted it b/c it became clear she wasn't the CA back then. When that was called out as false, as well, they still offer no apology or choose to remove the blatant falsehood.

So, the people accusing the GOP of spreading propaganda in AEM are responsible for promoting false information themselves. Color me surprised!

I'm a long-time Dem. and find myself feeling an instinct to vote against anyone the hijackers promote.

[Anonymous]

I hope Parisa loses so we don't have another election where anyone uses these tactics

[Anonymous]

So Parisa lives in North Arlington?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AEM has been hijacked by Parisa CA advocates. They promote a story about a case from 2 decades ago and present it as if Theo was responsible. Then, when asked directly, they say they "think" she prosecuted it b/c it became clear she wasn't the CA back then. When that was called out as false, as well, they still offer no apology or choose to remove the blatant falsehood.

So, the people accusing the GOP of spreading propaganda in AEM are responsible for promoting false information themselves. Color me surprised!

I'm a long-time Dem. and find myself feeling an instinct to vote against anyone the hijackers promote.

+1. I’m conflicted and turned off by their behavior. I’m all for not overcharging small crimes, refusing to prosecute marijuana possession, and restoring voting rights. But I hate the misrepresentations that seem to be made by Parisa and her supporters. I hate the hypocrisy of how they treated the police officer’s post on AEM and called for it to be removed after their constant campaigning. The claim that his post was overly emotional and “threatening” also seemed just like a BS way of shutting down people with opposing views. And ad hominem attacks on people are super pathetic — you should be able to defend your positions with logic and reasoning rather than pointing to where someone works. I don’t want to support those tactics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had to take AEM out of my news feed because it was raising my blood pressure. I've left the group once before, and I think I just need to do it again. I consider myself pretty liberal, but I'm genuinely conflicted on the CA race and that makes me a racist on AEM. F that.

So, asking here so I don’t get pilloried. I am also conflicted about the CA race. Per someone I really trust and respect, this case with the 10 yr olds that is getting all this press, is it true that Stamos was not in fact the CA at the time? I looked up the bio of the principal and she retired from APS before Stamos was even elected CA. She was a prosecutor at that time, but was she the one who made the decision to charge those kids/how to charge them? Can anyone tell me the truth?

Ultimately, doesn’t this boil down to a bunch of 22207ers fighting amongst themselves, per usual? Stamos, Tafti, and this principal are all neighbors from the same super zip code in NA. Is there really that much daylight between them, other than the ACDC and McAuliffe retaliating against Stamos for stepping out of line (I don’t agree with Stamos’ position of not restoring voting rights, but am conflicted about the general idea of PDs becoming CAs as agent of change). I believe there is implicit and even plenty of explicit bias in Arlington courts/schools/community, but I don’t believe the particular cases of alleged “police brutality” or overcharging minors should be blamed on a Stamos either. If she was so awful, why didn’t anyone challenge her last time? These cases happened prior to the last election, I believe. I think I agree with Tafti on a lot of things, but I don’t like how the campaign has unfolded.

I see it as bunch of 22207ers who paid a fortune to live in a zip code that will let them send their kids to schools with very low FARMS populations supporting someone who says she is for social justice. Barf. I'm voting for Stamos. You know who supports Stamos? Crime victims. And I'd bet you a thousand bucks if any of those Tafti supporters are a victim of violent crime in the future, they are going to want an aggressive prosecutor, no matter the race or age of the perpetrator.

But but but it’s pretty up there, we moved for the trees and easy commute not to get away from poor people. Really. Do you believe me? I mean, after all, I totally support affordable housing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had to take AEM out of my news feed because it was raising my blood pressure. I've left the group once before, and I think I just need to do it again. I consider myself pretty liberal, but I'm genuinely conflicted on the CA race and that makes me a racist on AEM. F that.

So, asking here so I don’t get pilloried. I am also conflicted about the CA race. Per someone I really trust and respect, this case with the 10 yr olds that is getting all this press, is it true that Stamos was not in fact the CA at the time? I looked up the bio of the principal and she retired from APS before Stamos was even elected CA. She was a prosecutor at that time, but was she the one who made the decision to charge those kids/how to charge them? Can anyone tell me the truth?

Ultimately, doesn’t this boil down to a bunch of 22207ers fighting amongst themselves, per usual? Stamos, Tafti, and this principal are all neighbors from the same super zip code in NA. Is there really that much daylight between them, other than the ACDC and McAuliffe retaliating against Stamos for stepping out of line (I don’t agree with Stamos’ position of not restoring voting rights, but am conflicted about the general idea of PDs becoming CAs as agent of change). I believe there is implicit and even plenty of explicit bias in Arlington courts/schools/community, but I don’t believe the particular cases of alleged “police brutality” or overcharging minors should be blamed on a Stamos either. If she was so awful, why didn’t anyone challenge her last time? These cases happened prior to the last election, I believe. I think I agree with Tafti on a lot of things, but I don’t like how the campaign has unfolded.

I see it as bunch of 22207ers who paid a fortune to live in a zip code that will let them send their kids to schools with very low FARMS populations supporting someone who says she is for social justice. Barf. I'm voting for Stamos. You know who supports Stamos? Crime victims. And I'd bet you a thousand bucks if any of those Tafti supporters are a victim of violent crime in the future, they are going to want an aggressive prosecutor, no matter the race or age of the perpetrator.

But but but it’s pretty up there, we moved for the trees and easy commute not to get away from poor people. Really. Do you believe me? I mean, after all, I totally support affordable housing!

You sound a lot like the dismissive, prejudicial people on AEM.

[Anonymous]

On the topic of political posts that somehow aren’t deleted: I find the discourse going on right now about Parisa’s campaign to be so very ironic. One of the hens claims she “believes” Parisa was involved in some way with potential prosecution of the 10 year olds in question. When someone else posts disproving evidence, well suddenly facts don’t matter but something something she didn’t SAY she wasn’t involved something else.

This is a group that almost definitely in any other context would assert that facts matter. I don’t care about this race to begin with - and think both sides are acting ugly - but if I were Parisa this is not the sort of representation I’d want.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, above should say believes THEO was involved.

[Anonymous]

What a lot of them are pointing out is that Theo won't say that case is mishandled.

If there's no such thing as prosecutorial discretion, why does it matter who the CA is?