I almost feel sorry for her, but I can't. As all of us have aged, we've learned lessons in life. At least we should have learned them. Some of you, like Norma, never seem to figure things out. You say and do the same dumb things again and again because you didn't learn from your earlier mistakes. Norma has put together a blog post proving that she's not much on learning from the past.
I'd like to start where she started - the law. There's nothing like a current or former politician when it comes to not understanding the law. Norma keeps that longstanding tradition alive by claiming she... well here's what she wrote
"The private citizen part of it is a big relief because I am on a different legal standing in that the haters (bloggers, media, and such) cannot take liberties in writing or reporting about me because I am no longer under the scrutiny and public standing of being an “elected official”."
Even someone with a cursory knowledge of the "Public Figure Doctrine" knows that she's mangling the concept of "public figure" and "public official." Before that quote she details her path from "from elected official to private citizen, to blogger, and now radio talk show host..." (emphasis is hers and completely unnecessary to her point).
She basically plots a course from "public official" to "public figure," which means she doesn't get any of the protections of a "private citizen." You don't lose your election and then all of sudden become someone who can not be discussed in an editorial or news story. You surely can't become a "blogger" and a media personality, such as a radio show host, and expect any legal relief from "fair comment on matters of public interest." When Norma gives up the blog, radio show, her role as community organizer, political commentator and general presence at all things democrat in El Paso, she might - MIGHT - qualify as a "private citizen" when it comes to defamation law. Again that's a solid "MIGHT" because anything she did as a "public official" or "public figure" would be available for comment on for eternity.
Just so you all know - you can't knowingly (maliciously) lie about any living person and have legal protection to do so. It doesn't matter if they are the President of the United States or the quiet old lady across the street who never leaves her house - you can't communicate lies about them and have it be legal.
What you can do is give your opinion on public figures, public officials and matters of the public interest. With those three things you can say just about anything that resides in the realm of opinion. For example, you can say "David K is the biggest jerk on the planet and probably the worst political mind to have ever typed a word on the subject." I'm a public figure and that's your opinion.
What you can't do is publish an editorial in the El Paso Times saying that your neighbor is an asshole and is not be trusted because he has a Bush sticker on his car. Your neighbor is most likely not a public figure and does not invite public scrutiny of his private actions.
Norma doesn't know any of that, but often claims she's "keeping a file" and is "going to sue." Those of us who know the law, know she could sue -because you can sue anyone for anything - but would not likely win and would owe the defendant attorney fees when it was all said and done. If anything her desperate need to be in the spotlight after she lost her election has probably made her a bigger target warranting more fair comment on matters of public interest. The "haters" are going to write and talk about her more now that she's broadcasting her views across the airwaves and internet - mission not accomplished.
Just like a drunk college kid screaming "I have rights" at the cops as they drag him away from a bar, Norma is not only wrong, she's annoyingly and belligerently wrong.
You'd think at some point she'd ask a friend with knowledge about the subject if her claim of now being a "private citizen" is correct and defensible. Nope - not Norma, she just makes it up as she goes. Remember - she represented part of El Paso in the state legislature for years and had to deal with laws much much much much much much more complex than libel and slander law. How do you think she did with those laws?
Norma has been described to me as "tragically impulsive" with a lot of the stuff she does. Her second subject approached in the blog post hits upon her need to edit everything her staff did when she was in office. She readily admits she was hard to deal with (the understatement of the epoch if you've ever spoken with former members of her staff) and had to "Normaize" written communications from her office before they went out.
This is likely one of the areas she hurt herself the most. Her inability to see her words and actions as they are seen by others is exactly why she's a "former" state legislator. Her staff handed to her what was probably the diplomatic thing to say and she would then "Normaize" removing any of the diplomacy while adding her emotional response to the issue. And we know what happens when Norma's emotions get the best of her.
The next segment starts out with her 20 year quest for a college degree. You can't help but laugh when you see someone bragging that it took them that long to graduate. Just because you went back to something and finished it, doesn't make it a great accomplishment. In my house, it makes you lazy. Starting the laundry on Monday and finishing it on Friday is not a good thing. It really does not matter what the excuse is.
I know we're all supposed to pretend that returning in your later life to finish the credit hours you were short of for a college degree is supposed to be a cool thing. In reality it's a waste of time. If you're not going to be a lawyer or a doctor, then it's likely that the new degree on the wall isn't going to do much for you at age 35 or older. They do have dates on them and the fact you graduated college at 45 isn't something an employer thinks is a good thing or even cares all that much about in the end. If you've survived past 35 without a college degree, you're likely where you need to be. College is specifically designed to launch you into your career path, not appear somewhere toward the end of your journey.
I know a lot of you are going to freak out and whine about the reality I just dealt to you, but that's okay. You've been conditioned to reward people for anything they do lest someone not have their ego stroked at every turn in life. You have become weak and made others weak in turn by avoiding reality. Here's the truth about college.
First of all, college isn't hard. Acting like an adult when you have the mind and maturity of a child is.
I've always thought about graduating from college like this - If a bunch of drunk frat boys can do it between partying and sleeping, anyone can do it. Wearing it as a badge of honor is kind of ridiculous when you consider just how many people accomplish that same goal every year and just how little effort they put into the achievement.
The older you get, the easier college is. The biggest test in college is how you manage your responsibilities when there's no one around to manage your freedom. When an 18 year-old enters college he's likely had 13 straight years of people telling him when to get up, when to go to bed, where to go and what time to be there. In college that 18 year-old is tasked with making all of those decisions on his own with the expectation that he will pass his classes at the same time.
A person living on their own for ten years with a job, rent and all the other things grownups face will have no problem getting through college. In fact, it's a simple task. Working for a living is tremendously tougher than college. College grads are often shocked by this fact, just ask one.
Nothing magical happens in college that makes you smarter. All the books you read in college are available to everyone else. What you do learn to do is adhere to the system of taking direction and producing something based on that direction. It's perseverance, not learning. The professor or book says it and a few times a semester you regurgitate it back to them. The professor measures how well you adhered to his or her instruction and you are passed on to the next subject if he approved of your ability to take direction. It's a classic dominance and subordinance scenario.
Just like in the work world, your dedication to the subordinate role will result in higher praise. And just like in the world world, you can sleep your way to the top or talk yourself out the door by being "insubordinate" in college.
Crazy how that works, right?
Now, somebody tell Norma that she didn't "accomplish" anything. She failed to finish her degree in the time that most people finish. It's that simple. I failed too. It took me five years and that means I failed. I don't see how taking 20 years to finish is somehow better than my failure.
After some musings about her "story" and the revelation that she has made up a name for herself (anyone want to psychoanalyze that one?), she gets onto the business of refuting my question about whether or not she writes her blog posts and if she's actually going to update her site in a timely fashion.
She claims "I WRITE MY OWN BLOG POSTS ALL THE TIME!!" (unneeded emphasis is hers). If she does, then she has really good days, and really bad days when it comes to writing. In fact, in some posts she's eloquent, controlled and uses compound sentences to communicate conflicting thoughts on a subject, while in others she's choppy, simple and short. I think anyone who reads her previous few posts against the one I refer to here would be hard pressed to claim it was the same person writing both.
I will say that the previously well written posts on her blog do look like they have been "Normaized" in places. Childish repetition of of phrases and unneeded emphasis on meaningless words (in the context provided - maybe they mean something to her, but the reader is at a loss given no other clues) appear out of place with the rest of the writing. It's like the author was suffering from a version of Tourette Syndrome that affects only their writing.
I think coming out and screaming to the world that you write all of your blog posts in a manner and form that doesn't match a lot of the recent posts on her blog was a bad idea.
Then we're on to the radio show. A week late, but I guess late is better than never.
You'd think that if she was writing all of her blog posts last week she would have thought to say something about the radio show. Instead she waited until after she read my blog to start doing so. Oh wait - who am I kidding? It's a coincidence that she decides to promote her show and answer my inquiries as to who is writing her blog at the same time in the same place after I took up both subjects last week. Pure coincidence.
She leaves little doubt that somebody with a political axe to grind has bought the airtime she's occupying.
"It is an independent program, not a non-profit, nor politically funded (no super PACS), nor an Entravision sponsored program."
If Entravision isn't "sponsoring" the program, then it's purchased airtime. The way the FCC has things setup, you can't readily lie about how the program, or this case "a commercial," gets to the air. It's not like David Candelaria sought out Norma because he thinks she's the next Rachel Maddow. Somebody sought out David Candelaria and asked to buy time on the station so Norma could say things they wanted said.
Whoever bought the time can't be happy with her writing what she wrote. I think they'd prefer she not saying anything about the situation.
If Norma wants to uphold her reputation as a very honest person, she'll need to divulge who set her up with the gig. If she refuses to disclose her benefactor, then you must question everything she says and why she is saying it. Bottom line - until they give the details, their motives and words are suspect. It's a lie of omission at this point.
If you're Beto O'Rourke you better be recording every single secondof the show. Any paid advertisement mentioning him or his election has to stand up to the FEC's scrutiny. With Norma and Strelz blabbing away, you can bet there might be something worth reporting.
You can tell things are going well already when Norma writes:
"Even though Paul is adjusting to having a regular co-host, I’m blessed with the opportunity to learn how to host by my own show, working side by side with the BEST – Paul Strelzin."
You don't have to be a guy who saw Paul live in action for years to know that he doesn't sit second seat to anyone. If there's a hot mic within his reach, he's the one doing the talking. I have heard that Norma and him have already butted heads because he takes over the show and it's supposed to be her gig.
I don't give it much longer until there's a split due to the two enormous egos not fitting in the same studio. Today's passive aggressive shot across the bow at Strelzin might just be the thing that ends it.
The good news is that when it's over she'll be able to tend to her "bloggie" more!