The Observer has the editorial Warren to Run for Re-election, Will Continue to Sell Out Progressives.

Then the 2016 Democratic primaries happened.

Warren’s name was one of several floated as potential contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination. Emails released by WikiLeaks revealed the Clinton campaign was worried Warren would enter the race, and noted that Clinton met with Warren before the primaries began.

Despite Bernie Sanders’ emergence as a viable contender against Clinton, Warren refrained from endorsing the Vermont Senator. The move would have served an important boost to Sanders, who had the odds stacked against him by the Democratic establishment. Though Sanders won over 46 percent of the vote, he received a small fraction of the Democratic Party’s super delegates and only one major newspaper endorsement, from the Seattle Times.

I am surely going to want to remember this article.

Elizabeth Warren beat Scott Brown because he turned out to be nothing but an empty suit. He frequently waited to make a political decision until after he was sure his vote didn’t matter. If you look at the Presidential primary process and then the no-DAPL movement, Elizabeth Warren has learned how to be any empty suit, too. That’s decidedly not what I voted for.

Now that I know for sure what she is, I won’t be voting for her again. Political betrayal has political consequences. That’s the only way deterrence works. They didn’t believe us when we said we wouldn’t vote for Hillary. Well now they know that was not an idle threat.

This makes me think of the Starkist Tuna commercials of the 1970’s.

Sorry, Elizabeth, we don’t need politicians who talk well, we want politicians who lead well.

Jamie Czupkiewicz Guerin commented on Facebook:

There is a Berner running against her… As a green!!! Joshua Ford

What is the interest among Sturbridge residents for forming a Green-Rainbow Town Committee?

I am trying to gather responses on the Committee’s Facebook page. Of course, the Facebook page is in anticipation of such a committee being formed. It does not exist yet (to my knowledge).

The Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance has a Getting Started page for forming a Town, Ward, or City Committee.

On that page, they explain the section of the Massachusetts general laws that define some of the rules.

What is a Local Party Committee?

M.G.L. Chapter 52 regulates the process by which local political party committees are formed. Ward and town committee members of each party are elected at the presidential primary by those who have voted in that particular party. The members of the various ward committees of a political party in a city constitute the city committee.

Ward and town committee members hold office for a term of four years, ending on the thirtieth day following the date of the next presidential primary. City and town committees determine the number of members of ward and town committees, which must be no less than three and not more than thirty five per committee. Ward and town committees may also have associate members. A change in residence or in party affiliation may cause an individual to cease being a member of a political party committee.

In addition to the information provided here, those interested in forming a local party committee should also consult with the appropriate state political party committee and with the Elections Division of the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s Office for more information.

The OCPF Video: Instructional video for Ward, Town and City Party Committees does not seem to exist as of this date – January 6, 2017.

The Office of Campaign and Political Finance Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a CAMPAIGN FINANCE GUIDE – Committee Treasurer. The introduction to this 22 page guide says the following:

This brochure is designed to introduce treasurers of political committees to the provisions of the campaign finance law.

Uplift has the article Why the United States is at War With Itself. The article begins with what I believe to be a perceptive description of the problem.

The heads of the CIA and FBI have both come on the record to say that America’s traditional enemy, Russia, covertly interfered in the elections by hacking the Democrat Party. Whether you believe this story or not is irrelevant to a far more important point: that the American establishment is now at war with itself. By leaking information on what it says is evidence of a Russian information influence operation, the US intelligence community is conducting its own influence operation against an incoming president.

Although it is exceptional to be perceptive, that is still the easy part. Analyzing causes and cures is where almost all such articles fail to satisfy (probably including my post here). The article goes on to identify one of the probable causes of our troubles.

Information is in overproduction, and the more we are saturated with it, with social media and news reports and multimedia stories and soundbites and expert commentary, the less we collectively understand the world around us.

This is a flawed analysis which might lead to bad “solutions”. This may not at all be an indication that “the less we collectively understand the world around us.” It is quite likely that before this, we falsely believed that we collectively understood the world around us. Now that more information is available and we don’t know what to believe, we may actually be more accurately assessing what we know and what we don’t know. This may be huge progress when not looked at through brown colored glasses.

What I fear is that the feeling that there is an information overproduction might lead to efforts to rein in this production. As stated above, I believe we may be far better off with this “overproduction” than we were before.