Welcome to WeeklyWilson.com, where author/film critic Connie (Corcoran) Wilson avoids totally losing her marbles in semi-retirement by writing about film (see the Chicago Film Festival reviews and SXSW), politics and books----her own books and those of other people. You'll also find her diverging frequently to share humorous (or not-so-humorous) anecdotes and concerns. Try it! You'll like it!
There are 150 teacher years in Connie’s immediate family and her first book, written for Performance Learning Systems, Inc., in 1989, is entitled “Training the Teacher As A Champion.” In this day of Betsy DeVos, you can expect to hear some comments on how our educational system is being undermined from the top down.
The Van Gogh Immersive Exhibit in Chicago is now touring various cities in the U.S.
I tried to get tickets for the showing in Chicago for my July 23rd birthday, but the soonest I could get us in was August 17th. The price for 2 tickets with a “flex” schedule option was about $131.00.
This allowed us to show up at 3 p.m. or slightly before or after and stay pretty much as long as we wished, although the actual program itself seemed to run about 35 to 45 minutes.
First, be advised that there are a lot of steps to gain entrance to the building. This would not be a good exhibit (in Chicago, anyway) if you have difficulty climbing stairs.
They route you through the gift shop and there were many very nice things in the gift shop. They were priced as high as you would expect. A reproduction of a Van Gogh painting on a silk scarf ended up costing $83.
You are handed a cushion and the seating is primarily benches scattered throughout the building. It is much like drifting through a regular museum with the occasional seating in front of a painting. There were also some folding chairs with backs that one could retrieve from along the walls, which turned out to be a nice relief after being seated for quite a while with no back on the benches.
Van Gogh on floors and walls in Chicago.
We entered when the program, which is paired with music, was about 20 minutes from being over. We stayed through a brief intermission and then watched the entire program from the beginning. I would say that we were there roughly an hour, from start to finish.
This documentary that showed at the 43rd Denver Film Festival was helmed by Annabel Rodriguez Rios and Sepp R. Bruderon (editor/writer) who visited the remote village of Congo Mirador many times over the course of years, watching it shrink from a village with population of 700 to 30 families and, ultimately, to an abandoned village.
Chief among the inhabitants of the village is Tamara Vilsamil, who is a rabid Chavez supporter and seems to be doing quite a bit better, financially, than the rest of the village. She brags, at one point, that she owns 50 hectares of land and that it is “as good as money in the bank,” saying that she can always sell a cow if she needs money.
Several old-time residents of the city on stilts talk about “the fatal night,” which, they say, has come. Throughout the time that the documentary is filming sedimentation continues to plague the village with remarks like “sedimentation is killing us all.”
The backdrop of the documentary is an upcoming election and, at one point, ring-leader Tamara says, “I’m going to get our comrades and kick their asses.” There is a lot of talk about North American government planning to take over the town and the nation and a lot of jingoistic talk about “the Fatherland.”
Near the end of the film Vilsamil and another representative from the watery town journey to Maracaibo. She says, “Going to Maracaibo is as important as Obama going to Cuba.” We see the duo being served breakfast in what appears to be the palace in Caracas and Vilsamil says, “Confo is running out of time. The town is already lost. It’s just mud and snakes left.”
The final scenes of the film show a deserted, watery, abandoned wreck of a town
“Til Kingdom Come” has played both the 56th Chicago International Film Festival and the 43rd Denver Film Festival, spelling out the close relationship between evangelical Christians and the Jewish community in Israel. The 77-minute film is directed by Director Maya Zinshtein.
It’s difficult to understand how this symbiotic partnership has flourished, given the prophecies in evangelical texts that have 2/3 of Jews being killed and 1/3 ultimately converting to the evangelical view of things, in the final analysis. The film’s write-up says, “They donate sacrificially to Israel’s foremost philanthropic organization, the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, because they fervently believe the Jews are crucial to Jesus’s return.”
There are also the disturbing positions of evangelicals on same sex marriage, gays, legalized abortion, and many other issues, including the Arab Palestinians’ right to live peacefully on the West Bank. (This is the issue that Vanessa Redgrave championed, to her detriment, many years ago when she was receiving a 1977 Best Supporting Oscar for her film work in the Holocaust drama “Julia.”)
At the outset of the film, we hear rural Kentucky Pastor Boyd Bingham IV say, “We are the people who brought DJT to power and he pushes our agenda.” It should be mentioned that VP Mike Pence is a noted evangelical, as is Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
According to the film, there are 650 to 800 million evangelicals around the world. They have single-handedly become some of the biggest donors to Israel, raising $4 and $5 million at a crack, even while, on the film, an official from Louisville, Kentucky, proudly proclaims that the state is now down to only one facility where a legal abortion can be obtained. (Shades of the sixties!)
There is film of the youngest Bingham preacher at the Binghamtown Baptist Church on a 1982 pilgrimage to Israel and his great joy at the moving of the Israeli consulate to Jerusalem. (It is Israeli Premier Bebe Netanyahu’s goal to annex the West Bank.)
Two million Arabs live under Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem now. When the embassy was moved, 58 PalestiniIsrans were killed and 2,771 were injured, all in protest of the move.
It was an interesting documentary, which is more than I can say for “I Am Greta.”
Now playing the 43rd Denver Film Festival, “Meat the Future” is a Liz Marshall documentary that explains the brainchild of cardiac surgeon Uma Valeti, who has formed Memphis Meats to bring meat grown in laboratories to market.
Dr. Valeti actually was a trained cardiac surgeon at the Mayo Clinic, but he had been haunted for years by the idea that, in order to eat meat, animals must be grown to adulthood and then slaughtered. Not only did the idea that “in the midst of life, we are in death” affect him as a child, he also became aware of the growing demand for meat that cannot be met by standard methods.
In the course of this film, we meet Ira Van Eelen, whose father in Amsterdam may have been the Godfather of Clean Meat, starting experiments with growing meat in a lab as far back as 2010. Dr. Valeti took the idea and has made it a reality—if an expensive reality—making it possible to cultivate meat that tastes like meat, from the cells of chickens and ducks and beef cattle, in a cultured lab setting over the course of 4 weeks, whereas it takes from 14 to 24 months to raise an animal from birth to slaughter.
In order to feed humans, pigs and cows and other living mammals are slaughtered. It’s a reality that has driven many to become vegetarians. Even Dr. Valeti admits having tried vegetarianism for a while. The success of things like tofu burgers, however, has not been nearly as close to “the real thing” as the cultured meats that Valeti’s Memphis Meats has been able to produce.
Early news articles (April, 2016) showed a pound of what appeared to be ground beef with the label $18,000 – 1 lb. of ground beef from Memphis Meats. The three original investors put $3.1 million together but, since their successes, investors like Bill Gates and Richard Branson, along with David McLennan, the CEO of Cargill, have come onboard to underwrite the group’s efforts. Draper Fisher Jurveston, an investment firm for those looking to underwrite promising technologies, reports that the group now has “more money coming at them than they want to take” and mentioned a figure of $4 billion.
What are the “good” and the “bad” things about “clean meat”? (“clean meat,” as a term,has tested more positively than “cultured meat” in P.R. studies).
Animals are a big part of the carbon footprint problem and, with this technology, the need to raise so many animals on feed lots, is bypassed, thereby decreasing the carbon footprint of the industries that are now producing our meat. The film mentions a timeline of 20 to 30 years by which time animals would not need to be raised for meat. This is, as the film put it, ‘a huge paradigm shift.”
Supply – The documentary posits the belief that, despite all the efforts that currently exist to feed the world’s people, we need to step up production. Comparing 4 weeks of preparation time (clean meat) to 14 to 24 months (real meat) is educational.
No more slaughtering living creatures for our beef, pork, poultry or fish.
As you can imagine, meat producers are not at all sure that this idea is a “good” thing for them, their industry, or the public They maintain that the government must learn how to regulate cell-based meats. Both Sonny Perdue (Secretary of Agriculture) and Dr. Scott Gottlieb of “Face the Nation” appearances talk about “clean meat.”
The Good Food Institute says we need the equivalent of a Manhattan Project to move the initiative forward. Why do I get the feeling that, just like the electric car, the “old way” meat people will kill the idea of cultured cells becoming edible meat, just as the fossil fuel industry killed the electric car?
Expense – currently, it is prohibitively expensive to create “clean meat” with figures of $1700 per pound mentioned. The use of markets and technology to solve problems cannot be supported enthusiastically enough, but I do wonder if this Bold Brave Idea might end up like the hydrogen car. (Remember that one?)
This is a slightly truncated version of the original “Washington Post” article that explains one of the likely methods that DJT will/would try to use to steal the November 3rd presidential election.
Could Trump steal the election? Here’s one way to find out. (Sept. 30, 2020)
The disastrous debate that unfolded in Ohio should prompt us to take the possibility that President Trump will try to steal the election far more seriously — even as it also renders that outcome much less likely to succeed.
Trump exhorted his far-right army to mobilize for a sustained conflict over the election results. He refused to say whether he’d accept a legitimate loss. And he confirmed he’s expecting the Supreme Court to help invalidate countless legally cast ballots.
It’s this last point that presents a way to gauge Trump’s chances of executing some version of his corrupt designs.
The short version is this. At Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing, Democrats can press a line of questioning that might illuminate whether Trump can pull off one of his most-discussed means for rigging the election: getting a GOP state legislature to appoint substitute pro-Trump electors to the electoral college, regardless of the popular vote in that state.
Trump is telegraphing his scheme
At the debate, Trump said he “can’t go along” with a result tallied up from millions of mail-in ballots, which will mean “fraud like you’ve never seen.” He urged supporters to “watch” the voting “very carefully,” i.e., to engage in voter intimidation.
And asked what he expects of the high court and Barrett, Trump said: “I’m counting on them to look at the ballots.”
Trump did also say he might not “need” the court to settle “the election itself.” But that only inadvertently confirms that he believes the court is at his beck and call on this matter.
As far-fetched as it seems that a state legislature might appoint pro-Trump electors, it’s important to note that some Republicans are already claiming that the fictional mass fraud in large-scale mail balloting could serve as the justification for doing just this.
As one Trump legal adviser told the Atlantic, they might say: “We don’t think the results of our own state are accurate, so here’s our slate of electors that we think properly reflect the results of our state.”
And so, when Trump casts doubt on the legitimacy of a prolonged count after Election Day — as he did at the debate — he’s opening the possibility of using exactly this justification for precisely this endgame.
As Edward Foley outlined in a prescient 2019 article, if Trump were ahead in the Election Day count, he’d likely put this scheme in motion while claiming “machine politicians in Philadelphia” are trying to steal the election with fabricated mail votes.
Could this work?
Democratic National Convention
To be clear, it shouldn’t.
The Constitution does assign to each state the authority to “appoint” its electors, in a “manner” that the legislature “may direct.”
But in a terrific piece, three legal scholars — Grace Brosofsky, Michael Dorf and Laurence Tribe — explain that precedent shows this means the legislature must “direct” how the state appoints its electors by making laws that create and define the process for doing so.
Virtually all states have made laws that provide for electors to be appointed in accordance with the popular vote outcome in them. (Maine and Nebraska do this by congressional district.) Thus, those scholars argue, legislatures can’t appoint pro-Trump electors without making a new law providing for appointment of electors based on legislators’ own will, not that of the voters.
Such a new law would require the governor’s signature. And in three states where this appears most likely to be tried — Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin — Democratic governors would veto any such effort by GOP-controlled legislatures.
The Supreme Court has upheld the principle that a governor can veto such an effort, those scholars note. In the 1932 case Smiley v. Holm, the court ruled that the Minnesota state legislature could not change election rules unilaterally in the face of such a veto.
This ruling confirmed that for the court, “state legislatures cannot alter” laws governing the selection of electors “except through their ordinary state lawmaking procedures,” which would require a gubernatorial signature and be subject to veto, the scholars argue.
So friendly legislatures can’t do this on Trump’s whim without a new law, no matter how loudly they scream that ongoing counting of mail ballots is fraudulent.
Such a case might again find its way to the Supreme Court. But how would it rule?
The question for Barrett
Democratic senators can press Trump’s nominee on this question — by asking whether she believes Smiley is settled law, and on whether she believes the Constitution does or does not allow state legislatures to appoint electors outside the lawmaking process.
Dorf, a professor at Cornell Law School, told me Barrett would likely evade this question, by merely promising to “respect precedent” while declining comment on a question that might soon be before the court.
Still, this might be worth trying. Given that Trump has explicitly said he expects the court — and Barrett — to help him pull off something like this, we’re in an extraordinary situation. By confirming that Smiley is settled law, Barrett could strongly suggest that such an effort will fail, sparing the country from it.
“She could certainly throw cold water on it,” Dorf told me. “She could make it clear that she’s not likely to be receptive to an argument” that legislators can appoint electors without a new law.
As for other justices — such as John G. Roberts Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch — they might also look askance at such an effort. In Bush v. Gore, the court described the process for appointing electors as a “legislative” scheme. Dorf says they might see this as invalidating any effort to appoint them outside the lawmaking process.
To be clear, Trump’s disastrous debate performance makes it more likely Biden will win the “blue wall” states by a comfortable enough margin that Trump won’t even try such a scheme.
But Trump also made it clear at the debate that he’s unhinged enough to try anything — and is perfectly happy to rile up millions of supporters behind an effort to overturn a legitimate loss. So if there’s any way to take this off the table now, we should try it.
Tonight’s guest on “Weekly Wilson,” Ed Dezevallos, the 75-year-old Executive Producer of “Lone Star Deception” (now streaming on Amazon) was my guest tonight at 7 p.m. CDT.
Ed was an especially great guest, as he could “take the ball and run with it” conversationally, and, therefore, you get to hear less of me and more of him. His accomplishments are many, including a number of real estate developments over his 50-year career. I regret that I didn’t get to hear the rest of Ed’s “bucket list,” but being involved in making a film was one of those “bucket list” wishes and he spent 2 years shepherding the Eric Roberts, Anthony Ray Parker film to the screen. Last week, I interviewed Eric and Eliza Roberts,both of whom played roles in the film.
The other project that Ed has supervised was one designed to help young people learn about a variety of careers. Called www.soyouwanttobe.org, we spoke about this colorful and useful series of videos. I tried to play its upbeat cheery theme song from my laptop—3 times. No dice. (I had warned my guest that, if it were a technical matter, it probably wouldn’t work.)
If you would like to hear an interesting story about becoming the Executive Producer of a film at 75, it is cued up for your entertainment. Check it out.
Hotel one block from the Old Capitol in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Attending the National Federation of Press Women conference in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, was an informational experience. We were treated to a keynote address from Peter Kovacs, editor of The Advocate, Baton Rouge’s local newspaper, and a three-time Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist, Walt Handelsman. Also featured as speakers were Jeff Cowart of San Antonio, who talked about Creative Story telling, and Scott Sternberg, an attorney and First Amendment expert who talked about attacks on First Amendment freedoms.
Scott Sternberg readies his presentation about attacks on the First Amendment (freedom of speech).
A panel of book authors featured Stanley Nelson, editor of the Concordia (La) Sentinel and author of “Devils Walking: Klan Murders Along the Mississippi in the 1960s,” Rachel Emanuel, author of “A More Noble Cause: A.P. Tureaud and the Struggle for Civil Rights in Louisiana,” and Leo Honeycutt, former television journalist and author of several books including “Edwin Edwards: Governor of Louisiana: An Authorized Biography.”
National Federation of Press Women attendees (approximately 80) in the Old Capitol Senate chamber.
Peter Kovacs, who started off the convention on Thursday, June 27 shared with us that his father, then 25 years old, was in Baton Rouge staying at this very hotel when Huey Long was shot. Why was he there? He was a traveling condom salesman. Kovacs went on from that shared glimpse into Louisiana history to talk about the Pulitzer his paper won for a series on jury law in Louisiana that allowed the accused to be sent to prison even if the jury could not find them guilty. It had to do with a now-outlawed law that allowed juries to find someone guilty with only 9 or 10 of 12 jurors agreeing on the guilt, a hold-over from the Jim Crow years.
Old Capitol. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
On Friday, the noon luncheon at the Old Senate building one block away yielded many interesting and amusing stories conveyed by Jay Dardenne. The building, itself, is a National Historic Landmark and received an Excellence for Architectural Award. According to Dardenne, the building was more than adequate to serve as the Capitol building but Huey Long wanted the tallest Senate building and decreed that a new Capitol building must be built, which it was. (Huey Long is buried in the front lawn).
Voted 11th best stained glass window in a recent poll.
For those of us who have seen Sean Penn play Huey “Catfish” Long in the movies, we may not have realized that he was a very real threat as a Presidential candidate to FDR in the election of 1936, but was assassinated on September 10, 1942, at age 42 in Baton Rouge before his 8 million followers in many other states could band together to put him in office. In his first year in office, Huey Long
Outside the convention center hotel.
paved 8,000 miles of formerly dirt roads, provided for free text books for all Louisiana students, and had placed 23 members on the family payroll. Each employee was required to contribute 10% of his or her pay check to a fund known as the Deduc fund, which was used to support Huey’s chosen candidates in their races. When told this was not kosher, Huey said, “I’ve made them pay it momentarily.”
Jay Dardenne, Commissioner of Administration for Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards. He oversees the state budget and general government operations and served for 8 years as Louisiana’s Lt. Gov. 4 years as Secretary of State, 15 years as a state senator, and 3 years as a Baton Rouge metro Councilman. (Speaker on 6/28 inside the Old Capitol).
Ultimately, Huey’s domineering very Trump-like ways caused a move to impeach him. The Senators met in the very room where we had lunch, but they had all been placed in office by Huey and, after deliberating for one hour, refused to impeach him (“We will not vote to impeach.”). They all signed in a circle, so that no one could see who had signed first, forming the famous “Round Robin Signature.” Chief Justice O’Neal of the Louisiana Supreme Court, when asked about the prospect of impeachment for Huey Long, said, “Don’t you think I’d give the thieving son-of-a-bitch a fair trial?”
The 6/28 luncheon was held within the very Senate room where Senators met to vote on whether to impeach then-Governor Huey Long.
When Huey was finally gunned down, he was no longer the Governor, but was serving as Senator. On September 8, 1935, Long was at the State Capitol attempting to oust a long-time opponent, Judge Benjamin Henry Pavy. At 9:20 p.m., just after passage of the bill effectively removing Pavy, Pavy’s son-in-law Carl Weiss, a physician from Baton Rouge, approached Long, and, according to the generally accepted version of events, shot him in the torso with a handgun from four feet (1.2 m) away. Long’s bodyguards responded by firing at Weiss with their own pistols, killing him; an autopsy found that Weiss had been shot more than sixty times by Long’s bodyguards. Long died on September 10 at 4:10 a.m. According to different sources, his last words were either, “I wonder what will happen to my poor university boys,” or “I have so much to do.”
Speaker Dardenne shared details of another Louisiana politician, Cat Dusett, who spoke Parisian French and did not speak English well. He once declared he would “win by a landscape” and said, “I talk out of my head.” When asked about his policy on juvenile delinquency, he said, “If it’s good for the kids, I’m for it.” Asked about Civil Rights, his response was, “If we owe it, we ought to pay it.”
Incoming President Gwen Larson.
Dardenne moved on to humorous stories of a snake oil remedy called Hadacall. (When asked why it was named Hadacall, the entrepreneur and patent medicine salesman inventor said, “Ihadda call it something!”) In addition to advertising that the potion could cure cancer and insomnia, it was eventually marketed as an aphrodisiac and Jerry Lee Lewis even composed a chorus in one song, which went like this: “It takes a knock-kneed woman and a bow-legged man to do the Hadacall boogie on a sardine can.”
Walt Handelsman, who has won 3 Pulitzer Prizes for his cartooning and his animated drawings, delighted the crowd with a presentation featuring some of his better-known cartoons. Some cartoons we were not allowed to photograph, but this one, featuring Bill Clinton, earned a second laugh when Handelsman told us that the next day he got a phone call from an elderly woman who wanted to know, “Who is Bill talking to? Is it Monica?”
The caption on the cartoon, (for those who cannot enlarge it on their screens) shows (Bill) Clinton saying, “Well, this is ANOTHER fine mess you’ve gotten us into.”
OPEN ON C-SPAN LOGO OVER CAPITOL: ANNCR. V.O.: Earlier today former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders testified before the House Special Committee on Impeachment. Ms. Sanders was questioned by Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York about various statements she has made to the media that she later acknowledged were not true. FADE IN: HOUSE HEARING ROOM. SFX: CAMERA SHUTTERS. SARAH SANDERS IS IN THE WITNESS CHAIR AND IS EXTREMELY UNCOMFORTABLE. MR. NADLER: Ms. Sanders, thank you for responding to the court order that you appear. MS. SANDERS: Well, it was a court order. MR. NADLER: And had you not obeyed it, you could have gone to prison. Is that why you came today? MS. SANDERS: …yes. MR. NADLER: Ms. Sanders, the Mueller Report quotes you as acknowledging to the Special Counsel that you lied to the White House press corps about why the president fired FBI Director Comey. Is that correct? MS. SANDERS: Yes. MR. NADLER: You told the White House press corps that the reason the president fired Mr. Comey was that the rank and file of the FBI had lost confidence in Comey. Was that a true statement? MS. SANDERS: No. NADLER: And what did you tell Mr. Mueller about why you had told the press corps that “the rank-and-file of the FBI had lost confidence in Comey? SHE IS SQUIRMING. SANDERS: I told Mr. Mueller that I had said that, quote, “in the heat of the moment.” NADLER: And was that statement true? That you lied to the press corps in the heat of the moment? SANDERS: Yes. It…it was in the heat of the moment. That happens. People blurt out untrue things in the heat of the moment all the time. NADLER: Now, you told the Special Counsel something else about that untrue statement, didn’t you? MS. SANDER: Yes. I admitted that saying that Comey had lost the support of rank-and-file members was, quote, “not founded in anything whatsoever.” MR. NADLER: You also told the Special Counsel that when you told the White House press corps that you personally had been contacted by “countless members of the FBI,” that had been, quote, “a slip of the tongue.” MS. SANDERS: Yes. A slip of the tongue. MR. NADLER: And, in fact, you told my staff in a pre-interview that you had not been contacted by countless members of the FBI complaining about their lack of confidence in Director Comey. MS. SANDERS: Yes, that had been an outright lie. And I admitted that to Special Counsel Mueller and to your staff. MR. NADLER: In fact, you admitted that you had been contacted by exactly zero members of the FBI. SANDERS: Yes. Not one. NADLER: And you also told us that you felt compelled to tell the truth to the Special Counsel because your testimony to him was given under penalty of perjury? SANDERS: Yes. MR. NADLER: And that the reason you told the truth in that instance was that you were afraid of going to prison? SANDERS: Yes. Very much so. MR. NADLER: And you know the testimony you’re giving before this committee is also under penalty of perjury. SANDERS: Yes. MR. NADLER: And the reason you are telling us the truth right now also is that you are afraid of going to prison? SANDERS: Yes. I am very, very afraid of going to prison. MR. NADLER: And yet, two days after the Mueller Report came out saying that you had admitted lying repeatedly to the media, you lied to the media again? SANDERS: Yes. I lied to George Stephanopoulos. MR. NADLER: You told Mr. Stephanopoulos that when you lied about the reason Director Comey was fired that, quote: “It was in the heat of the moment, meaning that it wasn’t a scripted talking point. I’m sorry I wasn’t a robot like the Democratic Party.” Am I quoting you accurately? SANDERS: Yes. MR. NADLER: But what you told Mr. Stephanopoulos was not true, was it? SANDERS: No. MR. NADLER: And it was a lie because, in fact, it had been a talking point, hadn’t it? SANDERS: Yes. MR. NADLER: And are you admitting that only because you are under oath here, and you knew if you lied, you could go to prison? SANDERS CONSULTS WITH HER ATTORNEY SANDERS: Yes. That is correct. NADLER: And why, after admitting in the Mueller Report that you had lied to the White House press corps, did you lie to Mr. Stephanopoulos? SANDERS: I misspoke because I was freaked out and didn’t know what I was saying. NADLER: You were freaked out? SANDERS: Yes, I was. NADLER: Are you freaked out now, Ms. Sanders? HER ATTORNEY LEANS IN AND WHISPERS IN HER EAR. SHE WHISPERS BACK. THERE ARE A FEW BACK AND FORTHS. NADLER WAITS IMPATIENTLY. SANDERS: Let me clarify. I was freaked out when I lied to Mr. Stephanopoulos. I am a little freaked out now, but not as freaked out as I was when I was on with Mr. Stephanopoulos. HER ATTORNEY NODS NADLER: Ms. Sanders, you swore to tell the truth to this committee. SANDERS: Yes. And I have. To the best of my ability. Really, Mr. Chairman. I am not good at this. And that is the honest truth. NADLER: I believe you. But you know that being freaked out is not a legal defense if you lie to the committee? SANDERS: Yes. And that is why I am just trying so very, very hard to be truthful. NADLER: So you don’t go to prison? SANDLER: Yes. That is why I’m freaked out. Because I so, so do not want to go to prison. And I am doing the very best I can to be every bit as honest as I know how. (CORRECTING HERSELF) I mean, even more honest than that. I really don’t want to go to prison. NADLER: Well then just tell us the truth. SANDERS: Okay. The truth is I am especially scared of people who do not look like me. NADLER: Oh, no, no, no. No. You don’t have to bare your soul. Just answer the questions truthfully. SANDERS: Oh. So, I probably shouldn’t have said that? NADLER: Well…what you said is very ugly and sad. But I know it was honest. SANDERS: Thank you. I can’t tell you how much that means to me. NADLER: Right. Let me ask you something. You’re about to leave the White House, and I imagine you are looking for a job with some public relations firm or maybe setting up your own shop. Do you intend to continue lying to the public and to the media wherever it is you land? SANDERS CONSULTS WITH HER ATTORNEY. THIS IS A LONG ONE. FINALLY… SANDERS: Yes. But only if there is no other way to help my clients. NADLER: Okay. Just know that if you lie again publicly that we reserve the right to call you back. SANDERS: I understand. NADLER: But it would be great not to have to call you again. SANDERS: Tell me about it. NADLER: You may be excused. SANDERS: Thank you. Am I still under oath? NADLER: Actually, no. SANDERS: Great! (TURNS UGLY) This whole hearing is a witch hunt! The ones you should be investigating are the lefty SPIES in the FBI who bugged Trump Tower! NADLER: Oh boy. We will stand adjourned until tomorrow morning. HE HITS THE GAVEL. AS A FOX NEWS CAMERAMAN STEPS IN WITH HIS HANDHELD CAMERA POINTED AT SARAH… SANDERS: You ought to be ashamed of yourself, Mr. Chairman! To insinuate that I had been lying when this president is presiding over the strongest economy in the history of humankind! SHE ADDRESSES THE FOX CAMERAMAN SANDERS (CONT’D): You got that? AS HE GIVES HER THE THUMBS UP… FADE
(*The above courtesy of former Senator Al Franken’s Facebook Page).
EAST MOLINE, IL, May 17, 2019, Marquis Who’s Who, the world’s premier publisher of biographical profiles, is proud to present Connie Corcoran Wilson with the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. An accomplished listee, Ms. Wilson celebrates many years’ experience in her professional network, and has been noted for achievements, leadership qualities, and the credentials and successes she has accrued in her field. As in all Marquis Who’s Who biographical volumes, individuals profiled are selected on the basis of current reference value. Factors such as position, noteworthy accomplishments, visibility, and prominence in a field are all taken into account during the selection process.
Connie (Corcoran) Wilson
Connie (Corcoran) Wilson succeeded as a small business owner, a writer, and an educator in the field for over 40 years in the IA/IL Quad Cities. Her work for three online blogs continues, including her own blog (WeeklyWilson.com). After earning a Bachelor of Science in English from the University of Iowa in 1967, with a minor in Journalism, she obtained a Master of Arts in English and education at Western Illinois University in Macomb, IL, in 1972. She was a member of Old Gold Singers (1965-1968), University Choir (1964) and Oratorio Chorus (1963), as well as the University of Iowa Honors program while in college, and received two scholarships to attend Iowa (Freshman Merit Scholarship awarded to the top 5% of the entering freshman class and a Ferner/Hearst Journalism Scholarship.)
Connie began her career as the Chairman of the English department at Silvis Junior High School in Silvis, Illinois (1969-1985). She served 4 terms as Co-Chairman of the Silvis Education Association, and was responsible for achieving recognition of that group as the bargaining agent for the district’s teachers after a three-year long struggle and electing 4 members of a 7-member school board, which authorized a vote supervised by the League of Women Voters. She resigned her teaching position in 1985 to take a position as Educational Writer for Performance Learning Systems, Inc. (Emerson, NJ) and co-authored their book Trainingthe Teacher As A Champion (1989) with PLS founder Joseph Hasenstab. Performance Learning Systems, Inc., is the nation’s largest teacher training firm and responsible for Project T.E.A.C.H., among other offerings.
Following the completion of the PLS company Bible, Ms. Wilson founded Sylvan Learning Center #3301 in Bettendorf, Iowa in 1987 and the Prometric Testing Center in Bettendorf in 1995. She continued as CEO of both businesses until 2003. Sylvan earned the distinction Best Business of the Year 1993 from the Bettendorf Chamber of Commerce, as well as earning a personally presented Bi-State Literacy Award from First Lady Barbara Bush. Delta Kappa Gamma Honorary Society for Professional Educators, (of which Ms. Wilson was an invited member), also honored Connie with awards for service to the community on two occasions.
Currently, Ms. Wilson works as the chief executive officer for Quad Cities’ Learning, Inc., a role she has held since 2003. She currently is a contributor to www.TheMovieBlog.com, the third largest on-line film criticism blog, as well as writing for www.QuadCities.com and her own blog (www.WeeklyWilson.com), founded in 2007. Over the course of her career, she has written for 5 newspapers and over 20 online digital outlets, including being named Content Producer of the Year for PoliticsbyYahoo in 2008. She routinely covers SXSW in Austin, TX, and the Chicago International Film Festival and other film festivals, as well as attending numerous writing conferences, such as the BEA (Book Expo America), ITW (International Thriller Writers), National Federation of Pen Women, and Writers for New Orleans.
Connie (Corcoran) Wilson
Ms. Wilson served as adjunct faculty at Augustana College (Rock Island, IL), Blackhawk Junior College (Moline, IL), Marycrest College (Davenport, IA), St. Ambrose University (Davenport, IA) and Eastern Iowa Community College (Bettendorf, IA). She worked in Public Relations for Kaplan College following her sale of the two businesses she founded. She was a member of the Better Business Bureau from 1986 to 2003. Ms. Wilson completed post-graduate coursework at Northern Illinois University (DeKalb, IL), the University of California (Berkeley, CA), the University of Chicago (Chicago, IL) and the University of Iowa (Iowa City, IA), advancing from a Master’s degree to a Master’s degree + 30, (the equivalent of a PhD.)
A published author, Ms. Wilson’s works include Training the Teacher As A Champion for PLS Bookstores; It Came from the 70s: From The Godfather to Apocalypse Now, and three volumes of short stories, Hellfire & Damnation I, II and III for the Merry Blacksmith Press; Laughing Through Life, a collection of humorous essays; Both Sides Now, a collection of previously published newspaper pieces; The Color of Evil suspense/horror YA series with three entries, and two books on the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama’s Odyssey: The 2008 Race for the White House. Mrs. Wilson was the film and book critic for the Quad City Times newspaper (Davenport, IA) from 1970 to 1985 and has continued reviewing film uninterruptedly for the past half century. (*See ConnieCWilson.com for a complete list of books published in paperback, hard cover, e-book and audio book). She also compiled several books of Ghostly Tales of Route 66 on assignment from Quixote Press in both paperback and e-book format.
Honors for her writing include the Midwest Writing Center’sWriter of the Year 2010 (Davenport, IA), and the Silver FeatherAward from the Chicago chapter of the Illinois Women’s Press Association in 2012 and 2014. In addition, her three-novel series The Color of Evil was named Best Indie Book of the Year 2018 in audio format by Shelf Unbound online magazine and has won 38 screenplay awards since March of 2018 for the screenplay based on Book One (The Color of Evil). The second book in the much-lauded series is Red Is for Rage, with Book 3, Khaki = Killer honored in various cover competitions for its Vincent Chong designed cover. The illustrations for Ms. Wilson’s 6-book series The Christmas Cats in Silly Hats, illustrated by Hallmark artist Gary McCluskey and written expressly for her twin granddaughters, have also won plaudits.
In Sydney, Australia.
Outside of her professional career, Ms. Wilson has been married for 52 years to husband Craig K. Wilson and has two children, Scott, an engineer living in Austin, Texas, with his wife Jessica (also an engineer) and their twin daughters, Ava and Elise (age 10) and Stacey, a graduate of Belmont in Music Business (Nashville, TN) who worked for Taylor Swift’s 13 Management and currently works for Southwest Airlines. The family has enjoyed a Cancun Easter vacation every year since 1991 and gathers on the Fourth of July for a Family Fest involving the entire clan. With homes in Austin (TX), the Quad Cities of IA/IL and Chicago, Connie continues to write and enjoys reading, movies, swimming, trivia, playing cards, and travel in her spare time, (with Alaska following Australia/New Zealand as the next travel destination.)
In recognition of outstanding contributions to her profession and the Marquis Who’s Who community, Ms. Wilson has been featured on the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement website. Please visit www.Itachievers.com for more information about this honor and www.ConnieCWilson.com for more information about her writing or www.WeeklyWilson.com (her blog) for ongoing discussions of movies, books, politics and travel.
About Marquis Who’s Who®:
Since 1899, when A. N. Marquis printed the First Edition of Who’s Who in America®, Marquis Who’s Who® has chronicled the lives of the most accomplished individuals and innovators from every significant field of endeavor, including politics, business, medicine, law, education, art, religion and entertainment. Today, Who’s Who in America® remains an essential biographical source for thousands of researchers, journalists, librarians and executive search firms around the world. Marquis® publications may be visited at the official Marquis Who’s Who® website at www.marquiswhoswho.com.