Politicians In Glass Houses Shouldn't Throw Mud
In a clear case of projection, Dan Chang and his supporters from the Charter School Industry accuse their opponent of falsely attacking him.
“It’s truly sad to see how low the dark special interest forces that have destroyed LAUSD have stooped in their negative attacks…”
– Sam Yebri, USC Law Professor
After Scott Schmerelson won his election for the LAUSD School Board in 2015, he was seated on the dais next to long-term Board Member Monica Garcia. Disdain for his neighbor was often visible as the BD 2 representative was everything Scott was not. As a principal, Scott had learned how to lead groups with disparate interests and approached his new job with a friendly demeanor that encouraged respectful dialog and compromise. Garcia was bombastic and willing to push any group aside, even children with Special Education needs, to advance her agenda.
When I launched my long-shot attempt at displacing Garcia in 2017, Scott supported me by being one of the two sitting Board Members who donated to my campaign. However, to make their support public would have been a breach of etiquette; by tradition, Board Members are not supposed to campaign against their peers. Therefore, both donated below the threshold so their names did not have to be revealed, keeping their support anonymous.
As a gentleman, Scott would have never dreamed of breaking protocol, but the board members supported by the Charter School Industry have no such qualms. Nick Melvoin and Tanya Franklin have endorsed Scott’s competitor, Dan Chang, in the race. Franklin even provided a quote for use by billionaire Bill Bloomfield as part of a $4.48 million campaign to unseat the incumbent:
Beyond being a breach of etiquette, Franklin’s statement is blatantly false. First, it suggests Dan received the “endorsement of teachers and LAUSD parents” when United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) endorsed his opponent. Dan is not even backed by his co-workers at James Madison Middle School as they endorsed Scott. The incumbant was also endorsed by Parents Supporting Teachers, which claims to be the largest parent-led education advocacy group in Los Angeles, having over 29,000 members on its Facebook page.
The second falsehood in Franklin’s statement is that Scott and his supporters are hurling “distorted smears against Dan Chang”. This fits with the flyer’s theme: “Why is Scott Schmerelson throwing mud at Dan Chang?”
As a voter in LAUSD BD3, this accusation seemed strange to me. My mailbox has been flooded with flyers and I have been frustrated by the lack of attacks from Scott against Dan and his history of trying to privatize our public schools. To confirm, I checked the records on the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission’s website and found that most of Scott’s communications focused on his decades-long career as an educator, including being a teacher, counselor, and principal in the LAUSD.
The negativity that is contained in Scott’s campaign literature is not focused on Dan, but on those who are supporting him. Sure enough, the flyer making the mud-throwing accusation received major funding from Bill Bloomfield, an out-of-state billionaire who gave at least $30,400 to the National Republican Congressional Committee (when white supremacist Steve King was a member) and supported the presidential campaign of Rudy Giuliani.
Also funding this campaign is the California Charter Schools Association (CCSA) Advocates. In the 2020 campaign cycle, the CCSA supported Scott’s challenger, Marilyn Koziatek, using a flyer that was widely condemned for its use of Anti-Semitic tropes. The Charter School Industry continued their support of this candidate even after her ties to anti-gay and anti-abortion groups were uncovered.
Contrary to Scott, Dan and his supporters are flinging plenty of mud towards the incumbent. Some of their questionable accusations include:
- His opponent “advocates for defunding the police.” It was actually the block of Board Members supported by the Charter School Industry (Chang endorser Nick Melvoin, Kelly Gonez, and Monica Garcia) who joined the retiring Jackie Goldberg to pass the resolution decreasing the size of the Los Angeles School Police. Scott voted against it and has been endorsed by the union for the LA School Police, the Peace Officers Research Association, and the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs.
- Scott “hasn’t been in the classroom since 1983.” As a Board Member, Scott takes great pride in regularly visiting all of the schools he represents, including spending time with students in the classroom. If the accusation is that Scott has not taught since 1983, it is because he became a school principal. Dan equates this with being a bureaucrat, but any parent will tell you that the key to a successful school is having a successful principal.
- “Dan’s running against a lifelong Republican who has supported Trump.” This is a blatant lie as Scott left the Republican party in the wake of Trump’s takeover of the party. Since he did not die before changing his registration, he is not, by definition, a “lifelong” Republican. He is currently a registered Democrat whose endorsements include the Los Angeles County Democratic Party and the North Valley Democratic Club.
With all this mud being thrown by Dan Chang and his supporters, why would they make this accusation against Scott? Is it a case of Trump-like projection? Do they think that the voters are too stupid to notice? Do they just not have anything else to run on?
Fortunately, voters have the last word in any election. If my fellow parents in the San Fernando Valley look past the mud they will clearly see that Scott is the better candidate.
I am in the crowd somewhere with my year and half old daughter on my shoulders. I was not throwing mud.
_____
Carl Petersen is a parent advocate for public education, particularly for students with special education needs, who serves as the Education Chair for the Northridge East Neighborhood Council. As a Green Party candidate in LAUSD’s District 2 School Board race, he was endorsed by Network for Public Education (NPE) Action. Dr. Diane Ravitch has called him “a valiant fighter for public schools in Los Angeles.” For links to his blogs, please visit www.ChangeTheLAUSD.com. Opinions are his own.
About the Creator
Carl J. Petersen
Carl Petersen is a parent advocate for students with SpEd needs and public education. As a Green Party candidate in LAUSD’s District 2 School Board race, he was endorsed by Network for Public Education (NPE) Action. Opinions are his own.
Keep reading
More stories from Carl J. Petersen and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Time to Dump Trump? Europeans Whisper Last-Resort Options to Save Greenland
In diplomatic circles across Europe, a phrase once unthinkable is now being whispered behind closed doors: What if the alliance can’t hold? As renewed pressure from former U.S. President Donald Trump resurfaces over Greenland, European officials are reportedly discussing last-resort options to safeguard the strategically vital Arctic territory — even if it means distancing themselves from Washington. While public statements remain carefully measured, private conversations suggest a growing anxiety: Greenland has become a geopolitical fault line, testing NATO solidarity, transatlantic trust, and Europe’s ability to defend its own interests. Why Greenland Is Suddenly at the Center of Global Power Politics Greenland is not just the world’s largest island. It is a strategic prize. Located between North America and Europe, Greenland sits at the crossroads of Arctic shipping lanes, missile defense routes, and untapped reserves of rare earth minerals. As climate change melts Arctic ice, access to these routes and resources is expanding — turning the region into a global competition zone. The United States already maintains a military presence in Greenland through Thule Air Base, vital to missile warning and space surveillance. But Trump’s earlier proposal to buy Greenland outright shocked European capitals and Denmark alike, reframing the island not as a partner but as a commodity. Now, with Trump once again influencing U.S. foreign policy discourse, European leaders fear that economic pressure, security leverage, or political coercion could return. Denmark’s Dilemma and Europe’s Unease Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, and Copenhagen has repeatedly stated that it is not for sale. Yet Denmark alone lacks the political and military weight to counter sustained pressure from Washington. That’s where Europe enters the picture. Behind the scenes, diplomats from Germany, France, and Nordic countries are reportedly discussing how to shield Denmark and Greenland from unilateral U.S. moves. These discussions are not about confrontation — at least not yet — but about contingency planning. The uncomfortable truth is this: Europe has long relied on the U.S. for Arctic security, and challenging Washington risks exposing Europe’s own strategic weaknesses. What Are the “Last-Resort Options”? European officials are careful not to spell out these ideas publicly, but analysts point to several possibilities under quiet consideration. 1. Deepening EU Involvement in Greenland One option is stronger European Union engagement with Greenland — economically, politically, and diplomatically. This could include increased investment in infrastructure, climate research, and sustainable mining projects to reduce Greenland’s reliance on external powers. By anchoring Greenland more firmly within Europe’s economic orbit, the EU could make any U.S. attempt at leverage far more complicated. 2. Expanded European Security Presence Another option involves enhancing European defense cooperation in the Arctic, potentially through joint patrols, surveillance missions, or NATO-aligned European initiatives that do not rely solely on U.S. leadership. This would be a delicate move, as NATO cohesion depends heavily on U.S. participation. Still, some European officials believe greater autonomy is overdue. 3. Legal and Diplomatic Shields Europe could also pursue stronger legal frameworks affirming Greenland’s right to self-determination and Denmark’s sovereignty. While largely symbolic, such measures would raise the diplomatic cost of any aggressive maneuver. In extreme scenarios, coordinated diplomatic resistance — even sanctions or formal rebukes — could be considered, though most officials view this as a true last resort. Why Trump Changes the Equation European leaders are accustomed to managing disagreements with Washington. What makes Trump different is unpredictability. During his presidency, Trump repeatedly questioned NATO commitments, framed alliances as transactional, and blurred the line between negotiation and coercion. His interest in Greenland was not just strategic — it was personal, public, and disruptive. The fear in Europe is not necessarily that Trump would “take” Greenland, but that he might use U.S. security guarantees as leverage, forcing concessions through pressure rather than partnership. For European capitals already dealing with Ukraine, energy insecurity, and domestic political shifts, another transatlantic crisis is the last thing they want. Greenland’s Own Voice Amid the power politics, Greenlanders themselves are increasingly vocal. Many in Greenland support greater autonomy or eventual independence — but not annexation. Local leaders have emphasized that Greenland’s future must be decided by its people, not foreign governments. European officials privately acknowledge that ignoring Greenlandic voices would undermine their moral position. Any European strategy, they argue, must prioritize economic development, environmental protection, and self-governance, not just strategic defense. A Test for Transatlantic Relations At its core, the Greenland issue is about more than territory. It raises uncomfortable questions: Can Europe protect its interests without U.S. backing? Is NATO flexible enough to survive internal disagreements? What happens when allies no longer trust each other’s intentions? For now, European leaders are trying to avoid open confrontation, hoping that diplomacy and quiet deterrence will keep tensions from escalating. But the whispers themselves are revealing. They suggest that Europe is, for the first time in decades, seriously contemplating a future where American leadership is not guaranteed. Why This Moment Matters The Arctic is warming faster than any other region on Earth — physically and politically. What happens in Greenland could set a precedent for how global powers compete in newly accessible regions. If Europe fails to act, it risks appearing passive and divided. If it acts too forcefully, it risks fracturing the transatlantic alliance that has underpinned its security since World War II. It is a narrow path — and one that demands strategic clarity Europe has often postponed. Final Thoughts “Time to dump Trump?” may sound dramatic, but it captures a deeper unease spreading across European capitals. Greenland has become a symbol of a shifting world — one where alliances are tested, assumptions are challenged, and old guarantees no longer feel automatic. Europe is not eager for a break with Washington. But the quiet conversations suggest a realization that preparation is not betrayal. Whether these whispered last-resort options remain theoretical — or become policy — will depend on how the next phase of U.S. politics unfolds. For Greenland, Europe, and the Arctic, the stakes could not be higher.
By Muhammad Hassan2 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.