I responded:They [MORE] want democracy, but told New Action that only MORE can choose the presidential candidate. Now that's democracy. ... Francesco Portelos, comment on a blog
New Action proposed to MORE that the presidential candidate come from MORE subject to approval by New Action. New Action was invited to all meetings to discuss that choice.Portelos sent me an email still claiming that MORE had dictated to New Action and mocking MORE's democracy.
Most intelligent people have learned to ignore emails from Portelos since any response may be parsed, edited and made public but I had been drinking too much wine, so I responded.
When Portelos engages in mistruths, distortions and outright lies they have been dubbed as a "Pulling a Porty." Most of the people in MORE and ICE ignore these misthruths, distortions and outright lies, which are bought wholesale by his supporters who feel he has no reason to tell lies. Until they get to know him better.
[Full disclosure: I was one of these people for years who believed what he was telling me. Until I saw the cracks and began to examine things in more detail.]
So, I finished my glass of wine and I sent the whining Porty an email informing him of the truth. I pointed out that New Action had been the ones to state that due to the higher MORE vote totals compared to New Action in the 2013 election that was a factor in their decision to give MORE the priority choice for president and would also decide that MORE gets to break any ties when there are odd numbers of candidates.
Portelos responded by disparaging the higher vote totals MORE received in the election as a factor and somehow raising that was not being democratic. In his world of democracy, if one caucus gets double or triple the number of votes it makes no difference. But hey, it was New Action that brought that factor up. If you polled people in ICE, MORE, New Action, TJC, etc, they would probably agree with New Action that MORE's significantly higher vote totals should be a factor. Watch the tune change if Solidarity should outpoll MORE in the election. Suddenly vote totals would matter. [I could write his press release now].
When faced with the truth that New Action had initiated the suggestion that the presidential candidate come from MORE's ranks, Portleos delved into his fiction library: "That's not what New Action says."
At that point I didn't even bother to respond.
Portelos makes up fictional people when facing the truth.
Will the fictional New Action person stands up publicly and affirm what Portelos assert "That's not what New Action says?"If there is such a person, I say "no guts, no glory."
Jonathan Halabi, a leader of New Action actually did affirm that my response was correct.
- Jonathan said on the same blog...
- It's not necessary to make stuff up. Norm is correct. It was our (New Action's) proposal. [Norm Editorial: Of course it is necessary for Porty to make stuff up.]
We suggested that the slate be split evenly, but that the presidential candidate come from MORE's ranks, subject to approval by New Action's executive board, which is exactly what happened.
In fact, the first meeting didn't feel very much like a negotiation at all. We came to quick agreement on all major issues, and spent the remaining time chatting and discussing strategy, details, etc.
Here's the actual language on the composition of the slate:
3. Allocation of Slots
• The allocation of slots, in general should reflect both the relative strength of the caucuses, and the history and significance of the caucuses.
• The number of delegate slots is sufficient that both groups may supply as many delegate candidates as they wish; we are unlikely to run out of space.
• The number of officer, divisional and at-large slots should be divided evenly, except where there is an odd number (eg, 7 high school slots) the extra seat will be filled by MORE.
• The presidential candidate will come from MORE’s ranks, and be agreed to by both groups.
• In the case of other officer candidates, and the divisional executive board candidates, the groups will review each other’s choices and agree to the specific candidates. If there are specific objections, the groups will discuss. In all other cases the individual group may choose its candidates without consulting the other group.
Jonathan
After all, he's just an excitable boy.
*Message to Solidarity members:
Remind us once again why MORE, ICE, New Action, NYCORE, etc. should support this guy for President of the UFT.
Your article is..."Out of the Park" Brilliant. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteAssholetelos strikes again.
ReplyDeleteSolidarity Renamed: Portilians
ReplyDeleteThere are always issues when you run a pathological liar for President. One is that people sometimes believe the lies. Thanks for clearing them up for us. Can't wait to see what the Porty Party has to say about this.
ReplyDeleteWhat will the Porty Party say? Hmmm...."We're with you boss." "They are lying!" "You are a God!" What else can they say. He is Jim Jones. Rev. Moon. Jimmy Swaggert. He's a cult leader. They've been brainwashed and need to be reprogrammed.
ReplyDeleteA copy I left on another blog about the same issue. MORE falls short and Portelos is your whipping boy. Thing is that he can handle it.
ReplyDelete"Has anyone looked at the stats of PS 63 v Earth School?
Not good for a social justice caucus presidential candidate. Seems like Jia did leave a tyrant principal with an 87% free lunch mostly black and Hispanic population school. She went over, within the same district, to a school with a 38% free lunch population and 40% black and Hispanic population.
That's according to sites like inside schools and schooldigger.com
Should this behavior not be answered by a presidential candidate privately or publicly?
Must be easy to go to greener pastures."
Check out the history of standing up to the principal of your candidate before worrying about Jia.
DeleteNorm, could you paste that email I sent you here? I haven't emailed you in over a month. That's before the comments on Chaz' blog where his opinion of MORE and New Action wasn't favorable.
ReplyDeleteI remember when you said I was the best organizer you ever met and in the same breath stated "I've seen people like you before though. They burn out and disappear." The irony here is that it is you, your buddy Zucker, and a couple of others involved in trying to get me to burn out. You can try all you want, but it's not going to happen. You cut your nose to spite your face.
You want to be in the opposition forever. You need to be. It's sad. Blog about me all you want. The number of UFT members who read all of our blogs, from Chaz to NYC Educator to ICE is at most 1,000 with overlap. Or as James Eterno agreed "1,000 on a good day." There are roughly 200,000 UFT members out there. This is not even to say that these 1,000 are gullible enough to believe your lies.
You lied the second Solidarity was formed. You stated I was the reason Stronger Together didn't want MORE to be on their 2014 slate for the NYSUT RA. Then Beth jumped in to say it's not true.
What other "mistruths" have you written? Why even moderate you comments here?
In any case, I'm sorry your dream of a super caucus has failed, but that's not my fault nor the fault of the great "sycophants" of UFT Solidarity. As an ICE founder tells me "MORE failed and you're the scapegoat Portelos."
Here you go. I'll deal with the other bullshit above at another time. Note how you try to change the subject after I proved you lied about MORE dictating to New Action. You try to dredge up something about me lying. All 5 MORE NYSUT candidates voted to keep you on the ballot including Jia Lee. No one said Beth had anything to do with this. An anonymous person in NYSUT told someone in MORE that there were rumors about NYSUT wanting you off the ballot and MORE people unanimously affirmed their support for you and stood up for you and you whine about MORE not supporting you. You prove to be not only dishonest but a major back stabber.
DeleteThe major error was that someone tried to spare your feelings, not yet knowing that you have no feelings.
Dec. 20
Norm,
Please correct me if I'm wrong. How is telling New Action that they must allow MORE to select a presidential candidate "democratic?" That's democracy?
How much do you want to release the whole June 29th tape? $50?
Francesco A. Portelos
My response:
How about new action telling more it was our choice to choose the candidate as long as they agreed. Reason? We got triple their vote in last election.
We were willing to choose jointly but they said go ahead. Of course they were consulted all the way and were invited to participate as we did in November 2013 meeting which you listened to.
Your distorted info as always but I don't doubt you will tell it that way.
More made no demands on new action.
The entire agreement was suggested by them.
So live on in your fantasy world.
Have a Good Day
Norm Scott
Francesco Portelos
That's not what New Action said. Even if, having more votes supersedes democracy? Is that a joke?
*Flicks the mosquito away....
ReplyDeleteWhere do I begin? What did Chaz write?
ReplyDelete"Unfortunately, missing from their 2016 plank is the ATR issue. Was this a deliberate omission or a mistake? If the caucus wanted to advocate for the ATRs, their plank would have clearly stated it. Furthermore, MORE's obsession with "Social Justice" is displayed in their plank. They believe in restorative justice issues"
OK, fine, he is entitled to his opinion. Chaz is little more (pardon the pun!) to the right than most members of MORE are and disagrees with some of the MORE plank, but so what? It does not mean he doesn;t want MORE and doesn't mean he is not supporting Jia.
I have disagreed with MORE, and rather vociferously in the past. But times change, people change, and people are able to put the past behind them.
But in your linear logic why not mention what Chaz wrote about Solidarity?
"Until this caucus matures and adds more people who are respected by the general membership, it is only as good as that one person in charge of the Solidarity caucus.
Note: I was one of the founding members of the Solidarity caucus but have decided to become unaffiliated to retain my independence."
Does not sound like a ringing endorsement.
Yes, Portelos, I will give you credit. You are a excellent organizer. But, so were/are David Koresh, Charles Manson (of course without any of the violence), Jim Jones, L. Ron Hubbard, Jimmy Hoffa, Donald Trump... the list can go on and on. You organize and lead by manipulation, lies, subterfuge, and intimidation. The aforementioned are your archetypes to imitate rather than true leaders, true organizers, Karen Silkwood, Albert Shanker, Martin Luther King, Cesar Chavez, Crystal Lee Sutton. But you have chosen your sad, lonely dark path to go down and you are now reaping what you have sown.
Yet again we see your textbook example out of Psych 101 in which you are claiming that the readers of this blog, and I am sure other blogs as well are "gullible";
"is a failure of social intelligence in which a person is easily tricked or manipulated into an ill-advised course of action. It is closely related to credulity, which is the tendency to believe unlikely propositions that are unsupported by evidence."
If this definition does not fit your followers to a T, nothing else does. You are projecting. Big time. Just in case you don't understand the definition and psychology behind one that projects;
"known as blame shifting, is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unpleasant impulses by denying their existence while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.
According to some research, the projection of one's negative qualities onto others is a common process in everyday life."
This is probably why you bully so much those that disagree, threaten you, or speak out against you;
"A bully may project his/her own feelings of vulnerability onto the target(s) of the bullying activity. Despite the fact that a bully's typically denigrating activities are aimed at the bully's targets, the true source of such negativity is ultimately almost always found in the bully's own sense of personal insecurity and/or vulnerability. Such aggressive projections of displaced negative emotions can occur anywhere from the micro-level of interpersonal relationships, all the way up through to the macro-level of international politics, or even international armed conflict"
Continued....
ReplyDeleteYour projecting comes out yet again when you chastise Norm for moderating comments. Yet, you are the first to whine when negative comments are written about you on BATs as well as the first to ban people from posting on your Facebook pages. Why is that? May I join your new super duper ATR Super Secret Alliance?
So basically you have called the people who read the blogs gullible without giving any counter arguments against what has been claimed against you. This, in my honest opinion, does not make you look good.
But that is usually the case. You are are a unrepentant child having a tantrum because you do not get your way.
Why won't Porty answer the question: Why did he make up a story about MORE dictating to New Action? He should issue a retraction and apologize for slander.
ReplyDeleteWho wants you to burn out? You are your portilians are too entertaining. We hope you keep chasing your tail for the next 10 years.
ReplyDeleteNo one reads the blogs and here you are spending time reading them and commenting. If someone wrote your name on a graffiti wall you would travel to see it.
ReplyDeleteA great organizer for evil. This is not the first time Norm has been wrong about someone. Norm's record is not all that good but we love him anyway. We hope he keeps doing this because we Unity slugs find him so entertaining. Almost as funny as FP.
ReplyDeleteRome is burning.
ReplyDeleteAbigail Shure