Alexander Ooms applies a well-known parable about the stinging scorpion and the helpful frog to the current political scene on the Denver Public Schools Board of Education.
You know the story. It goes like this:
A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a wide river, and the scorpion asked the frog to carry him across on his back. “How do I know you won’t sting me?” the frog asks. The scorpion says “because if I do, then I will die too.”
Satisfied, the frog puts the scorpion on his back and starts the journey across the river. When they are halfway across, the scorpion sinks his stinger into the frog. As paralysis sets in and the frog begins to sink, knowing both will now drown, the frog asks, “Why?”
“Because” says the scorpion, “it is my nature.”
Since the elections in November of 2011, the parable has played out. The board majority are frogs; the minority are scorpions. The board frogs keep agreeing to carry the scorpions across the river. The board scorpions keep accepting the ride, only to eventually produce their sting.
The most recent example of this living parable the replacement of majority member Nate Easley, who is leaving the board before his term is up. The board president has the legal right to essentially appoint a replacement, but instead the majority hastily developed a transparent system with an open application process and public interviews, after which the entire board votes for their preferred choices and the leading candidates were placed on a short list for further discussion with the hope of a unanimous agreement. Sounds reasonable enough. “Climb onto our backs and we’ll work together on this,” say the frogs. “OK, we will,” say the participating scorpions.
And then? After the board votes on applicants, the resulting short list has no Latinos. An advocacy group complains. And thus part way through this process, scorpions Jeannie Kaplan and Arturo Jimenez sting. They join the campaign against the lack of Latino candidates, despite their direct and willing participation in the process that resulted in no Latino candidates. You read that correctly: neither Kaplan nor Jimenez voted for a single Latino candidate to advance to the short list, and then both signed a letter to protest the lack of Latino candidates on the short list. Halfway across the river. Sting.
This is the pattern. Facing a DPS bond with a divided electorate, the board frogs publicly advocate for the measure and ask their colleagues to join them; a board scorpion then leads an effort to block the bond. Sting. The board frogs labor to finalize a consent decree for ELL students; three scorpions derail the process with a last minute letter to the judge. Sting. The board frogs try to develop a community process for the inclusion of a charter school into a northwest neighborhood. After first praising the plan a board scorpion eventually pens an op-ed in which she argues that policy, citizen recommendations, equity, collaboration and compromise “do not matter to the majority.” Sting.
Will anyone make it across the river?
In truth, the scorpion behavior here is not new. The most public of previous incidents was probably board scorpions Jimenez and Kaplan voting in favor of pension refinancing, then shortly thereafter coming out in venomous opposition to it. Sting. Perhaps the most obvious board scorpion is representative Andrea Merida, whose initial act as a publicly elected official was to plunge her stinger deep into her friend and supporter. Sting.
But what is new about this board since the election in the fall or 2011 is the frogs. The ascendancy of Seawell to the presidency, as well as the election of new members Rowe and Haynes, was generally seen as a shift towards consensus and camaraderie after the prior board’s predictable series of acrimonious 4-3 votes. This new board bloc prefers advocating for policies that attract as wide a base of support (and as few direct enemies) as possible, even if this entails watering those policies down to make them more palatable.
My point here is not to say that the behavior of the scorpion is more or less correct than that of the frog. And frogs are not morally superior to scorpions (or vice versa). In the partisan political realm, both behaviors are perfectly viable strategies: vicious dissent is often part of the process, as is elevating broad consensus over impact.
But in politics, these strategies are deployed in service to some greater political end. And that greater end is what is entirely absent here. It’s pretty hard to argue that the scorpions have had any success by subverting the board majority, but at the same time the frog’s attempts at collaboration have resulted in even more acrimony and less effective policy. The few shabby accomplishments of the DPS board over the last 15 months have been drowned out by the drama.
And in truth, these respective strategies of offer and sting seem less and less about any board members trying to accomplish a specific policy agenda or adhere to a set of firmly held core beliefs. More and more, it seems that the acts are simply an inherited habit and pattern. Frog must offer ride. Scorpion must sting frog.
So how many more times before the board composition changes again will the frogs offer their undefended flesh while trying to advance a program, and the scorpions embrace the offer with a sting? I would bet a whole lot more. Denver has gone full circle, from a board praised as one of the nation’s best to one paralyzed by a repeated ritual experience which neither group seems to have the ability or inclination to break.
And honestly, after watching the pattern play over and over again, there is not much point to blaming either side for their behavior. Why is this DPS board as dysfunctional as it is? Why indeed. It is their nature.
About the author
Alexander Ooms, senior fellow at the Donnell-Kay Foundation and author of the blog Ooms With A View, serves on the boards of STRIVE Prep, Colorado Charter Schools Institute, Charter Schools Development Corp. and the Colorado chapter of Stand for Children. He lives in central Denver with his wife, three children and a big furry dog.
Hey, Alex, you know what I’m doing tonight? I’m going to Kepner to go see a play. You should tag along. They’re doing “Into the Woods,” tonight only. Tickets are $4 for adults and $2 for kids. All the proceeds go to the 8th grade actors field trip to dinner and a theater production.
Let me know when STRIVE is doing a play; you can escort me.
Oh, and as for your commentary, I’m expecting to see you declare your candidacy for school board.
What I find incredibly ironic is your attempt to capture some moral high ground about ELLs but are a board member for STRIVE, who up to now has purposefully sidestepped the requirements of the 1999 court order. Sorry, you don’t get an opinion if you’re actively interfering with the civil rights of kids.
Don’t forget to let me know when STRIVE is doing a theatrical production, you hear?
All I take from this is a scorpion is anyone who disagrees with corporate ed “reform,” the Gates Foundation, the re-segregation of schools through “market forces,” “creative destruction” or whatever buzzwords the Donnell-Kay foundation is parroting from the business world today. So practically everyone who works in education and actually understands how the system works instead of babbling consultant speak from afar is a scorpion. So it’s not really a parable, since parables are supposed to make sense – more like a highly arrogant simplistic self-justification. Whatever. I am starting to understand why Ms. Merida is so aggressive – I would be also if I had to put with up with attacks like this everyday. It seems like the DPS board perfectly reflects a lot of the dysfunction we have as a society today, dysfunction that is exemplified by postings that pretend to be “parables” but are simply political attacks.
Mr. Harold, you’ve nailed it. What Alex fails to note is how the direct and indirect pressure from people like him behind the scenes are agitating any dysfunction that we may or may not have. He conveniently forgets that something like 80 percent of all our board votes are unanimous.
It’s a pretty luxurious spot to be in, that of being able to sit on a board that finances charter schools and then throw stones while criticizing from the well-financed sidelines.
One other thought for you, though: would you still qualify me as “aggressive” if I were a man? Or a Republican member of the state legislature?
Still, I think you see the situation clearly and do not water down my high regard for your observation based on your assessment of my personality. Let’s have coffee some day.
Alexander Ooms reflects the thinking of GERM (Global Education Reform Movement). The frog is really the germ and the scorpion (parents, teachers, students and other community members) is attempting to inject the vaccine of democracy into the authoritarian power structure, the status quo, that Ooms is defending whether or not he recognizes or acknowledges such. Testing, scapegoating and stereotyping are all propaganda tools that have been used for, at least, the last forty years to avoid the realities of poverty. And, GERM’s representatives in Denver, charter schools are, as Andrea Merida describes, without “theatrical productions” and other forms of art. Plus, GERM is resegregating public schools. When will equity become part of reform? Until it is and until reform is democratic, not authoritarian, it will continue to fail.
Alexander -
I can’t wait to read your DPS version of the parable, “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” The coporate ed-reformers as the Emperor, Bennet and Boasberg as the swindlers (perfect casting!) and all the local ed-reformers and DPS minions & sycophants as the ministers who see the truth but saying NOTHING.
I appreciate all the thoughts. A few comments:
Mr Harold, and Ms Adrian make an illustrative point, even if it is not the one they intend (the cry of “corporate ed reform” is not so much deploying a stinger, more a jerk of the knee). For the point here is that the minority deploy their stinger most fiercely on issues which are not ideological. Opposing the DPS Bond, merging the previous DPS Pension into the state’s, and the consent decree puts the scorpions in opposition not just to the board majority, but on an opposing side of the DCTA, PERA, the Congress of Hispanic Educators, and various other groups that are more usually allies. It has no goal (other than trying to drown all parties).
Ms. Merida’s provides an apt display of the exact behavior I was commenting upon. Deploying her stinger is simply her nature.
STRIVE: GVR’s talent show is tonight from 6-7 (all are welcome). Last year STRIVE: Westwood had the highest ELL growth scores in the city. By 8th grade, this growth means that many of the students have exited the ELL designation. If more schools had these student outcomes, DPS might not need a consent decree.
I remain intrigued by Ms. Merida’s obsession with STRIVE. No matter the subject, she always singles out that one charter school. She is like an adolescent girl on the playground, always teasing and poking the same boy, unable to look in any other direction, but adamant that she does not, no seriously – I AM NOT KIDDING – like him. Not even a little bit.
Personally I think Ms. Merida secretly has a secret crush on STRIVE Prep.
First off, you have my permission to address me directly, Alex.
Actually, STRIVE does not have ELLs that need English learner services. You’re talking about apples and oranges here. The English learners you have at STRIVE are kids who have already been exited from services. In other words, the public schools have already done the hard work of bringing them to English proficiency so that their mother tongue is no longer an issue when taking the CSAP/TCAP. You show almost no “growth” at all on the CELApro, because you don’t offer services. Your track record of linguistic cherry-picking is in DIRECT violation of the ELA court order.
All that is clear.
Let me help you with a slight correction to your statement that, “By 8th grade, this growth means that many of the students have exited the ELL designation.” ELs don’t exit from services because of TCAP grades. They exit from services primarily because of the CELApro exam and after parents have made the decision after evaluation by, and consultation with, teacher professionals with qualifications in English language development. You tread precariously toward racism to assert that English learners are classified as such because of some academic deficiency measured by a test they don’t have the linguistic capability to take. You insinuate that there is some academic/cognitive deficiency in students who don’t today speak fluent, academic English. Tread carefully and get up to speed with the court order. You will be held accountable for implementation with fidelity and without such obvious cultural prejudice.
Secondly, since your growth is achieved by regular student attrition, even as high as 45% of a student cohort from 6th to 7th grade, OF COURSE it will appear that your students “grow.” You’ve been able to lobby to have the district and state craft an SPF to cover the real story, which is that you push out the most troublesome students, severely reduce the educational experience of the rest, and then claim to be heroes.
I had to assist in the transfer of one of your traumatized former students today, Alex. The experience she had at your school was such that she’s seeking outside help. Do you accept any responsibility for the fact that instead of being helped, she was pushed out? And where are the “re-enrollment” stats that you all speak about, which supposedly prove that the student attrition rate is affected by students repeating grades?
Please do let me know when STRIVE offers a play…or competes in athletic competition…or enters into a robotics competition…SOMETHING that indicates an academic, regular commitment to the arts and sciences, to prove that you aren’t punishing low-income and minority kids for being such by boiling down their education experience to where YOU think it should be. Why not start by offering choir with a degreed professional trained in music pedagogy for middle school-aged students?
I’m sure your own kids get ballet or piano or the like. Are not my neighbors good enough for a roughly similar experience?
Instead of trying to slander me with your cheap sexist and classist remarks, why not take responsibility for what you’re doing to kids who just want the “good education” you’ve promised their parents?
Excuse me. School board members are elected to office, no? If so, how could the voting public be so confused about how they think public education should look to create dysfunctional systems? Maybe the faults, such as they are, lie not so much with Board members but with the voters who elected them?
As an actual drama club coach and sponsor, I would just like to say that a talent show doesn’t equal a play. A talent show requires a teacher, or teachers, to assign the order of the acts and run the sound. It also involves some announcements to get kids to participate, but that’s really about it. I know, we do a talent show every year.
A PLAY, though. A play requires auditions, casting, scripts, two nights of rehearsal a week for about ten weeks (walking out of the building at 6:00), then you come to the week of the play:
Monday–dress rehearsal until 6:00
Tuesday–dress rehearsal until 6:00
Wednesday–performance at 7:00 (I don’t get to leave until at least 9:30)
Thursday–performance at 7:00 (I don’t get to leave until at least 9:30)
Friday–after school cast party–another 6:00 departure for me
All in all, a 60 hour week. My partner (the choir teacher) and I are about to put on our SEVENTEENTH play, so I know something about this. We use professional scripts from Pioneer Drama, and have fundraised every penny of our quite impressive bank account ourselves.
A talent show this isn’t. An actual play involves so much work, you have no idea. A talent show, not so much, just a couple of teachers who are willing to stay late for a night or two. Putting on a talent show, which is a lot of fun and a great idea, isn’t a drama club or department. It’s not a play.
BTW, we’re putting on our spring play on April 10 and 11. Tickets are generally $3 for adults in the spring and we will be selling candy, pop, and popcorn. This is a genuinely funny play titled “Swamp Pirate Zombies” and is about a director and writer who have been sent, on a shoestring budget, to Key Wurst, Florida, to produce a pirate movie, using canoes in the swamps. The characters are hilarious. We have a character, a librarian named Sally Schward, who went on Jeopardy! then froze in terror. She became the only contestant on Jeopardy! to fail to buzz in even one time. As a result of this experience, Sally can only speak in Jeopardy! speak.
Our drama club rocks, our plays are excellent and our commitment is insane. It’s a lot more work than a talent show ever could be and is a lot more work than simply, “Hey kids, let’s put on a show!”
And we get this from a “failing” school.
Andrea, did you enjoy Kepner’s play? I bet it was great.
Oh, what a surprise, I have to comment….
I, too, find the manner in which this board behaves to be almost beyond imaginable. But I also believe that the lack of detail is the enemy of truthful reporting and commentary.
Alexander, your use of the parable above is like a retelling of the story from the perceptive of a scorpion standing on the bank of the river in hopes of later getting a ride from the next hapless frog whom you will sting once the bank is reached.
In this story, the scorpion shouts, “Look! Look! That scorpion has a nature both devious and understandable. It is a scorpion, after all, and look how the poor frog suffers!”
The implication? The scorpion doing the shouting would never do the same thing. But he is, after all, a scorpion, too. So what is to be learned? Easy: the frogs are either in on the deal and sinks because he and the scorpion have a little bet on the side.
Alternatively, the frog is an idiot.
So let’s take your examples above and bring some reality to them, shall we?
The Pension Refinance of 2008/2011: If, by now, you do not understand what happened here, Alexander, your head must be in the sand or up the nether regions of Tom Boasberg’s body. DPS has spent well north of $100 million on that refinance, which was orchestrated by Tom Boasberg. The debt is now $800 million to bay off $400 million in unfunded pension liability, which has regrown to over $600 million since 2010, when the pension was merged with PERA.
You can whine all you want about this, but Kaplan and Jimenez are in pretty good company regarding what happened in 2008. That company includes Gretchen Morgenson at the New York Times, Andy Kalotay, a world recognized expert related to interest rates swaps, and Joe Fichera, who teaches at Princeton and regularly is consulted on matters of public finance in a variety of arenas, including MSNBC. These guys are no small hitters on Wall Street. Then we have those who defended the transaction: then board members Pena, Hoyt, and Easley? Well, they can keep each other company in the District hot tub at Boasberg’s home in Boulder.
If the Denver public were educated on this issue, if the Denver Post ever actually reported on the story, Denver’s taxpayer would be screaming for someone’s head. And they will get another chance, as board members were told last week that the pension is once again screwed up and will have to be refinanced again.
Andrea Merida and the Taking of her Board Seat: I sit here almost four years later and I still have no idea what Andrea hoped to accomplish with this maneuver. If she had done it with the three other board members who had been elected along with her in 2009, she and the others might have turned whatever vote it was they were concerned about at the time. (Which schools were being closed that night? I think it was Lake Middle School and one other.) What is clear is that Merida has paid the price ever since.
The DPS Bond and Mil Levy of 2012:Next to the 2008 pension refinance, the public has never been sold such a bill of goods by Boasberg and his crew. The reality is this: the majority of the bond monies will be spent on charter schools. In fact, a little over $300 million of the $400 million is tagged for any use the District feels is worthy, and the criteria for award are not worthy at all, the last of which is that even though the public does not desire the project, the District can implement it. And no, I am not making this up.
The board was told the money would be allocated as I described above in a briefing received from District staff in June of last year. They then voted to go forward in August in a 5-2 vote for the board, with Director Kaplan breaking minority ranks to support it and then giving $500 to support the campaign for its passage.
And then the surprises began, as I warned they would so many times on EdNews Colorado.
Boasberg and crew went out and bought the new Lincoln Street Administration Palace. It was the first use of the bond money Boasberg and crew had, even before there was an oversight committee in place for bond expenditures. No one but board members Jimenez, Kaplan, and Merida blinked an eye at the purchase, I guess because Emily Griffith will have a home on the first floor, losing a number of programs for lack of space.
To fund this purchase, DPS issued all of the approved bond debt as premium bonds, called so because they are offered above market rate. Premium bonds are bought not at auction, but by a single buyer in one fell swoop so Boasberg and crew had quick access to the public’s money. Further, what no board member was told is that premium bonds are based on an expected term of refinance and if refinance does not happen, DPS gets to pay a HUGE penalty. All along the way, the banksters make money.
Better yet, the board was told how to sell the bonds in an illegal executive session, during which David Suppes and DPS’ bankster henchman David Paul said there was a concern the public might not understand how the transaction worked. Legal council was present but said nothing during the meeting. Negotiation strategy for obtaining the best deal on the bonds never occurred, but VP Haynes said these were the reasons for the executive session at the start of the meeting, which had not been noticed… but would be 3 days after the meeting occurred.
The 2013 Consent Decree: One story says it all here. Upon arriving for the consent decree hearing on January 25th, Director Jeannie Kaplan was approached by a woman she did not recognize. The woman said, “Hi, I’m Laurel Malson.” Kaplan responded, “Nice to meet you. I’m Jeannie Kaplan,” to which Malson says, “Are you a board member?” Malson is lead attorney for DPS’ defense team related to the consent decree.
How is it that board members are meeting their defense counsel for the first time at a hearing at which DPS expects a judge to rule on a final consent decree? During testimony, Malson stated she had extensive contact with the Board’s president and vice president, neither of whom represent Jimenez, Kaplan, or Merida’s views on the board.
In fact, Jimenez stated under oath that he had requested to observe negotiations on a number of occasions and was rebuked. The same is true for Kaplan and Merida. Thus the three of them wrote the letter, “playing politics” because they had no voice in the consent decree process. The contents of the letter and this testimony were not reported in the EdNews story, as I recall, but EdNews did report Boasberg saying the three were playing politics with Denver’s kids.
EdNews also ignored the fact that Director Jimenez said he agreed with most of the consent decree but that implementation was his concern. Even the Judge told the Department of Justice’s attorney he was concerned about monitoring, that DPS had a history of not doing what the DoJ wanted. On page 48, line 13 of the hearing’s transcript, counsel for the District states –
Sounds like Director Jimenez might have had a point, and the public is not being told that fact.
The Case of the Missing Latino Candidate: This story is a case of The Garden of Forking Paths.
First, but not foremost, is one simple fact: DPS does not have the equivalent of the Rooney Rule.
No obligation exists to include any candidate of one race or another for an open board position. Black, Latino, and White candidates were all present in the initial list of applicants for the District 4 seat. In the end, all Latino candidates and all but one White candidate were culled from the list, this despite the fact that Stapleton is 70% White, Near Northeast Denver is 40% White (the largest ethnic group by percentage), and North Parkhill is 30% White vs 21% Latino.
I’m White. And guess what: I don’t care one bit that Fred Franko is the last White candidate standing. All I want is a good candidate in a bad director’s chair moving forward. The best part for me is that there are several great candidates for the seat and three or four very good candidates.
That does not mean the Latino candidates who applied for the seat could not have been good. But, based on the results of a supposedly secret ballot, all the board members at DPS felt that eight Black candidates and one White candidate were better.
I should point out Paul Lopez is exactly right: if the Colorado Latino Forum wants the District 4 seat to be held by a Latino, it can find a great candidate and run him/her in November. I hope CLF does just that, and Lopez works hard to support the candidate. (I love Paul Lopez, he has done so much for his district.)
All of this shows the ridiculousness of what Jimenez and Kaplan did. First and foremost, what their actions said was, “Existing candidates, we don’t believe in you. We want to start over.”
If I were one of the nine left in the race for Easley’s seat, and thank God I am not, I would say, “Screw you, Jimenez and Kaplan. Fat chance I will ever work with you in good faith.” But this never seemed to occur to either Jimenez or Kaplan. Now they will get to enjoy the respect they have engendered with the nine finalists.
In sum, I’m not sure who the frogs are and who the scorpions are on DPS’s board. For the most part, on issues that really matter, I would say the board minority’s positions are closer to my own. I want accountability, and not just for teachers. I want to see the ever underperforming Tom Boasberg gone from our school district, and I want to see someone with actual business acumen and a sense of responsibility to Denver’s children in the superintendent’s chair. (How about a superintendent who lives in Denver rather than Boulder, one with the guts to put his kids in a school he oversees? Alas, I should recognize that Boasberg is just exercising his right to choose where he lives and the school he sends his kids to. Boasberg doesn’t have that sort of courage.)
I don’t care if the new superintendent believes in charter schools or not, as long as s/he believes in charter schools that actually perform based on the demographics of Denver. And that is true for all Denver’s schools, traditional or charter.
I’m tired of feeling like everything that can be done to neighborhood schools to ensure their “failure” is done. As an example, in the next months or so, the Denver School Board will vote to close Smiley Middle School while the charter school, Venture Prep, co-located with Smiley and that performs worse than Smiley, will not be closed.
And I am sick to death of seeing ignorant wealthy people put money into school board races they know nothing about so Boasberg’s handpicked, largely stupid candidates, or those whose livelihoods rely on DPS, have elections bought for them.
So, Alexander, if you care so much for kids, why don’t you work on these issues? Oh, wait, you work for the Donnell Kay Foundation, right? That is the foundation that keeps pouring money into Venture Prep.
After all, it is all about the kids. Frog or scorpion, Alex?
Well Mary, I did not realize that talent shows and theatrical productions were in a competition, but I’m impressed by the scheduled dedication of you and your students, and I trust it will be a worthy production.
Ms. Merida, once more, has her own private criteria and definition of ELL students and success; first STRIVE is infringing on the rights of ELL kids, then somehow we don’t have the right ones. Just us of course; no other school merits a mention. Neutral parties might want to read the University of Colorado study (dated, but still relevant) and decide for themselves: http://www.ucdenver.edu/…/WestDenverPrepCaseStudyReport.pdf
And her ongoing obsession with STRIVE continues unabated. Merida has continually lambasted DPS for spending a disproportionate amount of time on charters, yet rather than discuss the essay in which she features, she just wants to gossip about STRIVE. For Merida really does not like STRIVE, no no no. So much so that between furtive glances she hurls names, schoolyard style, in our direction: sexist, classist, racist, etc — anything to get some attention, look over here, please, look at me! Merci, mon cheri: there are 170+ schools in DPS, myriad issues before the board, and she cannot tear her eyes away. It’s quite an infatuation. She did like STRIVE once, you know, back when she voted for the SW high school and commended it’s range of extracurriculars. So maybe she is harboring some hope still. She’ll go talk to her friends, talk to our friends, talk to me. Are we are never getting back together? Like, ever?
Christopher,
I can’t imagine trying to match you for length, but nothing you write as much bearing on my central point: what is remarkable here is the way that the board scorpions initially support something only later to turn against it, and in doing so end up opposing many of their traditional allies while having zero impact on the policy.
Like them, your complaints all come with the considerable benefit of hindsight. Surely with such strong feelings you are on record as opposing these actions when they were initiated, right?
Just to take the example upon which you write at such length, the pension refinance received a 7-0 vote from the board (including Kaplan and Jimenez), and was supported by DCTA and PERA (which is how it got done). For the record I’m pretty sure I am the first person on record to raise a flag well before the partisan bandwagons formed (http://blog.ednewscolorado.org/2008/09/29/dps-and-the-credit-crises), it was only when there was political hay to be made that Kaplan and others decided it was more convenient to oppose it. Ditto the board appointment — even you have to agree it takes a special form of conscience to complain hours later about a process over which one has considerable influence. Likewise, the consent decree was in play for 2+ before the letter opposing it at the last minute — where was the opposition during all that time?
So please, show me where you or others are on record opposing these policies at their origins, and I will have an easier time believing that you are focused on the policies, and not the people.
Alexander,
I am going to ask you to read something, and ask also, that you pretend I wrote it. Here it goes:
For Merida really does not like STRIVE, no no no. So much so that between furtive glances she hurls names, schoolyard style, in our direction: sexist, classist, racist, etc — anything to get some attention, look over here, please, look at me! Merci, mon cheri: there are 170+ schools in DPS, myriad issues before the board, and she cannot tear her eyes away. It’s quite an infatuation.
What would you write back to me, if I wrote that to or about you?
Right.
Sometimes I wish the dialogue on these pages would better reflect the dignity of the subject matter, and respect for the public audience who digests them. S’il vous plait, mon cheri: no cause is improved by such an hysterical rant.
Kathy,
You neglected to include the lines attributed to the esteemed American poet Taylor Swift, which is what gives that paragraph its proper context and gravitas.