The conference is officially over. I managed to escape the closing reception after only two drinks and early enough to get a full night's sleep before heading out in the morning to fly back East.
Schmoozing went well. Met some potential collaborators who are interested in just the things the Petting Zoo is hoping to develop in months to come. And learned -- as I've been suspecting -- that the Great Problem of Our Time is social, cultural, and political rather than scientific. The Problem isn't a lack of information or understanding but a lack of credibility and trust.
Why? And what to do about it? Those are the questions we need to be asking ...
Also, Enviro Shark and I did have a chance to talk, and my suspicions about the tensions between Expanding Habitats and Survival in Captivity were not figments of my imagination. While I feared I was being paranoid, in fact I was spot on. But the good thing is that Enviro Shark now "gets" where I'm coming from, and I think we have a solid alliance that will prove useful in the weeks ahead as far as settling the tensions and moving forward.
All in all, a pretty decent conference experience. Wish I had more time to see the sights, as it is beautiful out here in the mountains, but I am looking forward to going home.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Friday, September 14, 2012
Perverse
I cannot tell anyone at this conference that I used to work at Think Tank. They'd spit in my face or throw their drink at me or something.
I realized this yesterday when I was talking to someone, telling hir about the Petting Zoo, how I had just started there recently, and how Expanding Habitats was an awesome program. Then ze asked, "What did you do before Petting Zoo?"
I opened my mouth and was about to say I worked at Think Tank, and then I looked at hir and thought about what hir work was and what people had been talking about all afternoon, and I just said, "Oh, I was at Grad U doing a PhD and then teaching for a bit after."
It's weird, let me tell ya. And the road ahead will be difficult. Because, you see, one of the goals of Expanding Habitats is to get people talking to each other. But if people on either side of this issue loathe each other so much that someone who merely worked as a secretary, briefly, for the "wrong" side is tainted goods, that's a problem. And it is, I can tell you from having been now on the inside of both sides, a problem on both sides.
I really need to write that book I think ...
I realized this yesterday when I was talking to someone, telling hir about the Petting Zoo, how I had just started there recently, and how Expanding Habitats was an awesome program. Then ze asked, "What did you do before Petting Zoo?"
I opened my mouth and was about to say I worked at Think Tank, and then I looked at hir and thought about what hir work was and what people had been talking about all afternoon, and I just said, "Oh, I was at Grad U doing a PhD and then teaching for a bit after."
It's weird, let me tell ya. And the road ahead will be difficult. Because, you see, one of the goals of Expanding Habitats is to get people talking to each other. But if people on either side of this issue loathe each other so much that someone who merely worked as a secretary, briefly, for the "wrong" side is tainted goods, that's a problem. And it is, I can tell you from having been now on the inside of both sides, a problem on both sides.
I really need to write that book I think ...
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Perplexing
If your goal is to get the public to take science seriously, what difference does it make if the motives of some of the actors that help you accomplish this goal differ from yours? If your own motives are communitarian, making the world a better place, and theirs are individualistic, making themselves richer, so what? If working together nonetheless gets you farther towards this common goal than you'd otherwise get on your own, why should you refuse to collaborate?
(Note: I'm out West at a conference. I spent this afternoon on a university campus. Time for short reflections only but two things are eminently clear: 1. I'm glad I no longer work at a university, and 2. Far too many academics are well-meaning and thoughtful people, but they are out of touch with reality when it comes to what is required to get things done in the public sphere. More to come ... )
(Note: I'm out West at a conference. I spent this afternoon on a university campus. Time for short reflections only but two things are eminently clear: 1. I'm glad I no longer work at a university, and 2. Far too many academics are well-meaning and thoughtful people, but they are out of touch with reality when it comes to what is required to get things done in the public sphere. More to come ... )
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Petty Schadenfreude
Just before I arrived on the scene, the Petting Zoo got a freebie they just couldn't pass up: The use of a major public venue to host an event that would normally cost about fifteen grand for use just in the morning. Now, that's pretty sweet, but the catch (of course there's a catch!) is that we could only have it on a certain day. Planning such an event would normally require at least four months. Six would be better. What did we have? Two.
Yes, TWO months to put something together that would normally take SIX. On the plus side, this event is in DC, whereas we expect future events in the series (this is the first) to be held around the country with partnering orgnizations or institutions or even museums. So, we don't need to coordinate those types of logistics. However, the hard part, as far as I can tell from these my first six weeks on the job, is getting Important People to participate.
For better or worse, the public part of the event is coming together reasonably well. Important People like media attention, right? Most of those speakers are confirmed, with the exception of a Republican keynote. We have a Democrat, but it's proving rather ... well ... "difficult" to find a moderate Republican counterpart. That is, someone who would please certain organization higher-ups who think there needs to be more talking with "others" without causing donors to barf up their breakfast.
People are working on this, however, and, well, it ... just isn't really my problem becase -- in this town where who you know counts more than what you now -- I am a nobody and know nobody.
Which is not to say I'm not making efforts to make this event a success anyway. My role is to work on the non-public portion of the event, which is a workshop thingie of sorts, in the afternoon following the public part. It's in the same venue. In a beautiful conference room, in fact, overlooking the Capitol. Lunch will be catered by Fancy Celebrity Chef's Catering Company (leftovers will go to Mama Duck and her gourmet-fed babies who live in a wading pool on the roof, but I digress!).
We're trying to get 20-30 Important People to show up and talk at each other for a couple hours and come up with a sort of public document that everyone signs on behalf of their Fancy Very Important Organizations and which is ultimately presented to the next administration as a set of policy recommendations.
Turns out it's hard to get 20-30 Important People to show up and talk at each other for a whole afternoon when all you're giving them in return is Fancy Celebrity Chef's funburgersandmixedgreens, which they can very well go buy for themselves should they wish to eat such things.
So, the petty schadenfreude ... Yeah, well, so we divied up the list of people we want to invite. I had a handful of possibilities and alternates to pursue. A few academics and a few other types. The academics, surprisingly, have been relatively easy to get in touch with and talk to. We'll have a few of them. The "other types" I volunteered for are in an industry dealt with frequently by Think Tank. I figured I'd at least have an excuse to send an email and do some friendly name dropping.
The result? Total. Cold. Shoulder. As in, no response at all or a blatant blow-off: "Sorry, who-the-fuck are you again and why are you bothering me? No, I'm not available. I'm traveling. Can't rearrange. Now, go fuck yourself."
Not sure how that's going to work out. It kinda reminds of high school, actually. The social dynamics of it, that is. Whatevs.
But, so, the schadenfreude ... Yes, well, turns out it's not just me, Dr. Nobody Who Knows Nobody, that's gotten the ole fuck-off reponse. People Who Know Important People aren't getting their repeated and increasingly desperate voicemails answered, either. Woohoooo!!!??!!!???!
Is it totally perverse of me that I take some pleasure in this? Probably ...
I do, sincerely, want this event to go well. And, the truth is, it probably will go just fine. We have far from exhausted the list of possible participants in this workshop-thingie-do. It just amuses me in a sick-ish way that these people who think they're Special are being ignored, too -- and by people they expected would talk to them.
At least I was expecting to be ignored. Water off a baby duck's back ...
Yes, TWO months to put something together that would normally take SIX. On the plus side, this event is in DC, whereas we expect future events in the series (this is the first) to be held around the country with partnering orgnizations or institutions or even museums. So, we don't need to coordinate those types of logistics. However, the hard part, as far as I can tell from these my first six weeks on the job, is getting Important People to participate.
For better or worse, the public part of the event is coming together reasonably well. Important People like media attention, right? Most of those speakers are confirmed, with the exception of a Republican keynote. We have a Democrat, but it's proving rather ... well ... "difficult" to find a moderate Republican counterpart. That is, someone who would please certain organization higher-ups who think there needs to be more talking with "others" without causing donors to barf up their breakfast.
People are working on this, however, and, well, it ... just isn't really my problem becase -- in this town where who you know counts more than what you now -- I am a nobody and know nobody.
Which is not to say I'm not making efforts to make this event a success anyway. My role is to work on the non-public portion of the event, which is a workshop thingie of sorts, in the afternoon following the public part. It's in the same venue. In a beautiful conference room, in fact, overlooking the Capitol. Lunch will be catered by Fancy Celebrity Chef's Catering Company (leftovers will go to Mama Duck and her gourmet-fed babies who live in a wading pool on the roof, but I digress!).
We're trying to get 20-30 Important People to show up and talk at each other for a couple hours and come up with a sort of public document that everyone signs on behalf of their Fancy Very Important Organizations and which is ultimately presented to the next administration as a set of policy recommendations.
Turns out it's hard to get 20-30 Important People to show up and talk at each other for a whole afternoon when all you're giving them in return is Fancy Celebrity Chef's funburgersandmixedgreens, which they can very well go buy for themselves should they wish to eat such things.
So, the petty schadenfreude ... Yeah, well, so we divied up the list of people we want to invite. I had a handful of possibilities and alternates to pursue. A few academics and a few other types. The academics, surprisingly, have been relatively easy to get in touch with and talk to. We'll have a few of them. The "other types" I volunteered for are in an industry dealt with frequently by Think Tank. I figured I'd at least have an excuse to send an email and do some friendly name dropping.
The result? Total. Cold. Shoulder. As in, no response at all or a blatant blow-off: "Sorry, who-the-fuck are you again and why are you bothering me? No, I'm not available. I'm traveling. Can't rearrange. Now, go fuck yourself."
Not sure how that's going to work out. It kinda reminds of high school, actually. The social dynamics of it, that is. Whatevs.
But, so, the schadenfreude ... Yes, well, turns out it's not just me, Dr. Nobody Who Knows Nobody, that's gotten the ole fuck-off reponse. People Who Know Important People aren't getting their repeated and increasingly desperate voicemails answered, either. Woohoooo!!!??!!!???!
Is it totally perverse of me that I take some pleasure in this? Probably ...
I do, sincerely, want this event to go well. And, the truth is, it probably will go just fine. We have far from exhausted the list of possible participants in this workshop-thingie-do. It just amuses me in a sick-ish way that these people who think they're Special are being ignored, too -- and by people they expected would talk to them.
At least I was expecting to be ignored. Water off a baby duck's back ...
 |
| "Quack, quackk! Aren't we teh cutest?" |
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Race, Gender, Class, Culture, and Climate Change
This study analyzing social and cultural obstacles to climate change found that among the "six Americas" (alarmed, concerned, cautious, disengaged, doubtful, and dismissive), those people most dsimissive about addressing climate change because they are convinced either it doesn't exist or isn't a problem are most likely to be
It's also interesting that the group most likely to be "alarmed" about climate change is older, well-educated white women with higher than average household incomes, while lower income women of color are the most likely to be "disengaged" from the issue altogether. In other words, socioeconomically privileged women can afford to overlook the "dirty" sources of their status (e.g. the oil company executive husband) while personalizing the exploitation of the environment (recall, traditionally Nature = Woman). However, socioeconomically underprivileged women have more pressing priorities, like reliable jobs, healthcare, and childcare, and cannot necessarily afford to question -- no matter how valid the basis for their questions -- the status of the ruling class.
Shit. I may have just convinced myself to give up cheese.
Hmmmm. Fancy that! In other words, the group whose social, cultural, and economic dominance is most likely to be challenged by A) the environmental consequences of climate change and B) collective actions to mitigate those consequences is the group most resistant to the facts.high-income, well-educated, white men. They are also more likely to be very conservative Republicans who are civically active, hold strong religious beliefs and are the segment most likely to be evangelical Christian. They strongly endorse individualistic values and oppose most forms of government intervention.
It's also interesting that the group most likely to be "alarmed" about climate change is older, well-educated white women with higher than average household incomes, while lower income women of color are the most likely to be "disengaged" from the issue altogether. In other words, socioeconomically privileged women can afford to overlook the "dirty" sources of their status (e.g. the oil company executive husband) while personalizing the exploitation of the environment (recall, traditionally Nature = Woman). However, socioeconomically underprivileged women have more pressing priorities, like reliable jobs, healthcare, and childcare, and cannot necessarily afford to question -- no matter how valid the basis for their questions -- the status of the ruling class.
* * * * *
While the majority of Americans actually fit into the categories "concerned" or "cautious," rather than "dismissive," "disengaged," or "alarmed," I'm still pretty well convinced we're screwed.
Why? Because even poeple who are "concerned" enough to do things like bike to work and maintain a compost bin in the office kitchen are only willing to accept inconveniences they deem appropriate -- it's great having low-flush toilets, you know, as long as everyone still gets to eat factory farmed burgers for lunch.
* * * * *
Like I said. We're screwed.
 |
| Via |
Saturday, July 7, 2012
"We still believe in pirates. Do you?"
My last day as Operations Director of New Think Tank is this Friday, July 13. We held my farewell lunch yesterday, though, since New Think Tank President will be out of town most of next week.
At lunch, my successor asked what I would most miss most about leaving. Now, I am not a huge fan of such questions, reasonable as they may be. This falls in the same category of questions as "What is your favorite book?" Of course, you can always come up with some kind of answer, but it's always a bullshit answer. So, I gave a sort of bullshit answer that may perhaps have disappointed people who may have cared about what my answer was.
Becauses, of course, there are silly things I will miss (a desk in a former art gallery by a floor-to-ceiling window with an awesome view) and silly things I won't miss (taking out the trash). And I could, of course, add onto these lists ad infinitum, but what would that really tell you? Not much.
Instead, since they say a picture is worth a thousand words, I offer you one of the coolest pictures ever:
On the far left is New Think Tank President depicted as the pirate captain. On the far right with the red bandana is me. And on the bottom right with the glasses and beard is the person I've occasionally referred to here as "Other Colleague." The other three are directors of New Think Tank's offices in Ohio, Texas, and Florida.
The guy with the eye patch is -- ooooooooo! evill!!!! -- a former executive director of ALEC who has never been anything but polite, respectful, and an all-around cordial and colleagial person to work with, which is pretty much what I can say about EVERYBODY at New Think Tank and, sadly, a lot more than I can say about more than a few people I knew in academe. While some of my liberal friends (who have often wondered how I could "stand" to work where I did for as long as I have -- WTF people!??!!?) might cringe to hear me say it, I'd rather work with nice people who vote differently than I do than asshats who claim to share my politics but hypocritically reinforce an exploitative and destructive class system in their own workplaces and profession.
(Ahem ... Yes, Academe, you and some of your loyalest servants still piss me off.)
Pirates are sort of a theme around here. I won't go into details, but, suffice it to say, I like working in a place where, unlike in academe's lower ranks, you get to make up your own rules, chart your own course, and keep the treasure you acquire along the way.
That piratical spirit, shared by all of my New Think Tank colleagues, is what I'll miss most when I leave.
But, fortunately, I don't think I'll be entirely leaving it behind. If you look closely at the picture, notice the text at the very bottom. You might have to enlarge your screen to see it, but it's an inside joke of sorts. If you figured out what the Great Scandal of May 2012 was about, you'll get the joke. Even if you didn't and don't, appreciating the spirit of it is enough. The text says, "We still believe in pirates. Do you?"
My answer: Yes, friends, always and forever! Once a pirate always a pirate!! And the best adventures, for me and for you, are yet to come!!!
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Any post-academics out there who want my think tank operations director job?
I'm dead serious. We've started circulating the job posting on nonacademic sites. Surprisingly quickly, we've already received several responses. They're all crap on a stick so far.
I also circulated an invitation to some people at Grad U and among some other academic/post-academic types but no word from any of them yet. I think the politics might be an issue for some such people, although, really, it should not be ... Just look at what adventures you may have!
We want to get this taken care of quickly, and I do feel some sense of obligation to get someone good. New Think Tank President is biased towards hiring another post-academic looking to get off the adjunct track. (Apparently, we don't totally suck at stuff!)
So, long story short, if you're a post-academic in the DC area, you've been following my blog long enough to know a little about what this job might be like, and think you might be interested, send me an email at recentphd@gmail.com, and I'll fill you in on some details. We'd like to have some interviews lined up for the week of 6/18 and make a decision by 6/25. (Isn't this soooooooooo much better than the timeline for academic jobs?)
I also circulated an invitation to some people at Grad U and among some other academic/post-academic types but no word from any of them yet. I think the politics might be an issue for some such people, although, really, it should not be ... Just look at what adventures you may have!
We want to get this taken care of quickly, and I do feel some sense of obligation to get someone good. New Think Tank President is biased towards hiring another post-academic looking to get off the adjunct track. (Apparently, we don't totally suck at stuff!)
So, long story short, if you're a post-academic in the DC area, you've been following my blog long enough to know a little about what this job might be like, and think you might be interested, send me an email at recentphd@gmail.com, and I'll fill you in on some details. We'd like to have some interviews lined up for the week of 6/18 and make a decision by 6/25. (Isn't this soooooooooo much better than the timeline for academic jobs?)
Friday, May 25, 2012
What's cuter than one fatass orange cat lounging on your couch?
Why, of course, TWO fatass orange cats lounging on your couch!
There's been a lot going on at work this week, as you might imagine from some previous posts, but nothing I really feel like blogging about. Nor is there any immediate post-academic griping I care to share.
The next "next" job, it seems, pretty much comes down to a a not unpleasant shifting of positions, so to speak:
There is also a next NEXT "next" job I've alluded to cagily before. Let's just say there were some interviews a few weeks ago, a phone interview before all the Think Tank shit hit the fan and an in-person interview right in the thick of it. They went well. References were checked. And now I'm waiting. I expect it'll be at least another week or two before I hear anything. I don't want to say too much about it until I know one way or the other, but if I were offered this position, it would mean leaving New Think Tank just as it is getting its feet off the ground, something I hadn't imagined would be happening when I originally applied. And it's exciting to be at the start of a new venture, even if it's one in which my role is primarily "support." Leaving wouldn't be entirely easy ...
But, if you've figured out what the whole Think Tank shitstorm was about, you might find it interesting in a truly ironic way to note that one of the people at the in-person interview was one of the lead authors of the IPCC 2007 report. The job isn't an academic one but would involve working with academics, both scientists and humanities and social sciences people. It would, likewise, be the start of a new venture, a new initiative essentially, albeit within an existing and well-established organization. And it would mean moving beyond a "support" role.
So, one way or the other, there's much to happen ahead, new ventures both here and there, wherever I end up. We'll have to wait and see.
For now, though, it's teh weeekendzzzz!! And I intend to spend a good part of it encamped peacefully wit teh kittehs ... peacefully, that is, until Hobart decides to bite Lucky on his fat ass, which he inevitably will do, and then Lucky will smack the shit out of Hobart, which he inevitably will do, and then there's a kerfluffle ... and then everybody settles down ... until it starts all over again.
MeeeeeeeooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwEEEEEE!!!!!!!
 |
| Lucky (left) and Hobart (right) |
The next "next" job, it seems, pretty much comes down to a a not unpleasant shifting of positions, so to speak:
There is also a next NEXT "next" job I've alluded to cagily before. Let's just say there were some interviews a few weeks ago, a phone interview before all the Think Tank shit hit the fan and an in-person interview right in the thick of it. They went well. References were checked. And now I'm waiting. I expect it'll be at least another week or two before I hear anything. I don't want to say too much about it until I know one way or the other, but if I were offered this position, it would mean leaving New Think Tank just as it is getting its feet off the ground, something I hadn't imagined would be happening when I originally applied. And it's exciting to be at the start of a new venture, even if it's one in which my role is primarily "support." Leaving wouldn't be entirely easy ...
But, if you've figured out what the whole Think Tank shitstorm was about, you might find it interesting in a truly ironic way to note that one of the people at the in-person interview was one of the lead authors of the IPCC 2007 report. The job isn't an academic one but would involve working with academics, both scientists and humanities and social sciences people. It would, likewise, be the start of a new venture, a new initiative essentially, albeit within an existing and well-established organization. And it would mean moving beyond a "support" role.
So, one way or the other, there's much to happen ahead, new ventures both here and there, wherever I end up. We'll have to wait and see.
For now, though, it's teh weeekendzzzz!! And I intend to spend a good part of it encamped peacefully wit teh kittehs ... peacefully, that is, until Hobart decides to bite Lucky on his fat ass, which he inevitably will do, and then Lucky will smack the shit out of Hobart, which he inevitably will do, and then there's a kerfluffle ... and then everybody settles down ... until it starts all over again.
MeeeeeeeooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwEEEEEE!!!!!!!
Thursday, May 17, 2012
What's Been Going On
Hardly seems like a week's gone by since my TGIF post, and now it's already almost time for another one!
So, what's been going on this week? Well, today things have quieted down a bit, but that's mostly because some of the things I need to do in terms of New Think Tank set-up depend upon things Lawyer, Accountant, and Landlord must do first. In particular, Lawyer needs to complete Fancy Paperwork to make sure our EIN (IRS employer identification number) is properly under New Think Tank's name. Long story short, instead of getting a new EIN, we're taking over one that belongs to a dormant organization because that saves us several steps and a lot of time and effort applying for nonprofit status as a totally new organization. We need this number for all sorts of things related to set-up, and, given the abrupt nature of our departure from Think Tank, the sooner we have it the better. The ball is in Lawyer's court, so to speak.
Here's a run-down of what the rest of the week's been like:
This week, let's just say the ship has sailed:
As a thank-you gift to Large Donor, we are having a caricature artist draw us as pirates. At the top of the drawing, a banner will say "Thank you for your support!" At the bottom, a caption will say "We still believe in pirates. Do you?"
So, what's been going on this week? Well, today things have quieted down a bit, but that's mostly because some of the things I need to do in terms of New Think Tank set-up depend upon things Lawyer, Accountant, and Landlord must do first. In particular, Lawyer needs to complete Fancy Paperwork to make sure our EIN (IRS employer identification number) is properly under New Think Tank's name. Long story short, instead of getting a new EIN, we're taking over one that belongs to a dormant organization because that saves us several steps and a lot of time and effort applying for nonprofit status as a totally new organization. We need this number for all sorts of things related to set-up, and, given the abrupt nature of our departure from Think Tank, the sooner we have it the better. The ball is in Lawyer's court, so to speak.
Here's a run-down of what the rest of the week's been like:
- On Monday, we got our @NEWthinktank.org email set up and approved designs for our logo and website. I talked to a bunch of CPAs about what they could offer in terms of accounting and payroll and circulated tax forms for everyone to fill out (which, as of today, almost everyone has returned).
- On Tuesday, I talked with the CPA we've decided to go ahead with about a timeline for getting everything in order so that we don't miss a paycheck after the last one from Think Tank -- especially important because I am doubtful we will actually get that last paycheck, which is supposed to include unused vacation pay, too. The severance from Think Tank ended up being a "gentleman's agreement" between Think Tank Boss and Think Tank Boss's Boss (a.k.a. Delusional Lunatic) rather than a legally binding agreement. This "gentleman's agreement" included expense reimbursement, as well as pay, through the end of this month, but Think Tank has already refused to reimburse expenses for us this week. They also have not paid our mobile phone bill, which was due a few days ago. They claim they don't have the funds, which may be true, but that doesn't bode well for getting paid ...
- Later on Tuesday, Think Tank Boss, Coworker, and myself went to the bank and opened a small business account for New Think Tank.
- On Wednesday, we invoiced Large Donor for ... a six-figure sum. This amount is supposed to cover New Think Tank's operating costs, including salaries and rent, for 2 months. Large Donor has already verbally promised to support us in this amount, and we are expecting a check or wire transfer within the next few days. It is almost certain we will have other donations coming in long before the end of these first 2 months (essentially by the end of July), but it feels a little like walking on thin ice, not knowing where your salary is going to come from 2 months down the line.
- Later on Wednesday, I talked to Landlord about having the office lease transferred from Think Tank to New Think Tank. This shouldn't be a problem, but Landlord is a bit of a space case and tends towards the absent-minded and careless (who in their right mind would otherwise neglect putting a recycling bin out for the building for so long that they accrued multiple fines from the city?). The lease issue will be resolved but probably not without several more phone calls and some nagging on my part.
- Today (Thursday) we ordered business cards, and I tried to get our mobile phones, office phone/internet, and electric bill transferred to new accounts under our new EIN. I didn't think this would be possible until Lawyer had finished with Fancy Paperwork, but I figured it was worth a try. Turns out I was right and we'll have to wait for Lawyer. At least I got the billing addresses changed to New Think Tank. Since Think Tank, despite the "gentleman's agreement," is no longer paying our bills, at least our service won't be interrupted ...
- Also today, we reviewed some applications for summer interns.The interns are sponsored by Infamous Foundation and farmed out to various organizations in the area. A great many of these potential interns wrote on their applications that their future goal was to become a professor -- in fields like philosophy. At the top of our list was one of the only ones who did NOT list becoming a professor as a career goal -- not because of this but largely because the other things this person said indicated ze did not have hir head up hir ass and would generally do a better job at the things we would ask hir to do. Should this be surprising?
This week, let's just say the ship has sailed:
 |
| Via |
Thursday, May 10, 2012
"My life is not an experiment."
One of the saddest things about this whole mess I've been writing about these past few days is the degree to which Delusional Lunatic's actions have impacted Think Tank employees who had NOTHING whatsoever to do with DL's abominably stupid action, people who do not share the views that prompted it, whose work itself has nothing to do with the subject of Abominably Stupid Action, and yet who are nonetheless suffering the consequences not only in terms of their jobs being in jeopardy but in terms of their reputation. After all who would want to hire you after you worked for Delusional Lunatic? You must be a little crazy yourself. Why should we trust you?
While I think my team, ultimately, after a few tough transitional weeks/months, will land on its feet (and probably be better off in the long-run for making the break), nearly everybody in Think Tank's main office is boiling mad -- and rightfully so. DL acted (as I may or may not have mentioned before) without consulting either senior management, including my boss, or the Board of Directors. Rumor has it that ze did not do this because ze KNEW every single one of these people would have told hir NOT to do Abominably Stupid Thing. In other words, ze knew ze was playing with fire and that hir actions could have potentially far-reaching consequences, and yet ze chose not to consult the very people who would stopped hir from doing it. Those people would have recognized the risk to themselves and the rest of Think Tank's staff. Yet, it also seems fairly clear that DL recognized this risk, too, on some level. After the fallout started, DL went around saying Abominably Stupid Action was merely "an experiment" in getting the public to pay more attention to Crackpot Idea DL is committed to.
"My life is not an experiment."
That is what one of the senior managers said at a meeting DL organized earlier this week for the entire staff except my team which, of course, works in a different city (a few were participating via conference phone but not me). Apparently, afraid to criticize DL, nobody would speak up. It was uncomfortable, apparently, because everybody had been talking behind DL's back. Everybody was offended and incensed by what DL did, both because of its abominable stupidity and because it was done with so little thought for the consequences it would have for other people.
"My life is not an experiment."
Once Senior Manager said that, apparently, people opened up and let loose, When you're in a position of leadership within an organization, you don't fuck around with people's lives like that just to promote your Great Cause, whatever-the-fuck that happens to be. You don't pull stunts like this just so that you can be "controversial" or "provocative" or "outspoken." You don't put other people's reputations and livelihoods on the line for the sake of your own delusional self-aggrandizement. DLdid not apologize.
No amount of apologizing would do any good at this point, but nonetheless, in my opinion, DL personally owes an apology to the public and to the entire staff and soon-to-be former staff of Think Tank. You fucked up, dude, and delusional lunacy is NOT an excuse.
My. Life. Is. Not. An. Experiment.
In better news, we've worked out the severance agreement. Think Tank will pay us through May 31, plus whatever vacation is owed. In my case, that's 2 full weeks, so, in essence, another paycheck. We're also planning the launch of New Think Tank for June 1, and we should have all the payroll stuff worked out by early June, too, so that, ideally, no one will miss a paycheck (and mine will be significantly larger). By the terms of the agreement, we're under something of a gag rule until then, but the stories will get told in time ...
While I think my team, ultimately, after a few tough transitional weeks/months, will land on its feet (and probably be better off in the long-run for making the break), nearly everybody in Think Tank's main office is boiling mad -- and rightfully so. DL acted (as I may or may not have mentioned before) without consulting either senior management, including my boss, or the Board of Directors. Rumor has it that ze did not do this because ze KNEW every single one of these people would have told hir NOT to do Abominably Stupid Thing. In other words, ze knew ze was playing with fire and that hir actions could have potentially far-reaching consequences, and yet ze chose not to consult the very people who would stopped hir from doing it. Those people would have recognized the risk to themselves and the rest of Think Tank's staff. Yet, it also seems fairly clear that DL recognized this risk, too, on some level. After the fallout started, DL went around saying Abominably Stupid Action was merely "an experiment" in getting the public to pay more attention to Crackpot Idea DL is committed to.
"My life is not an experiment."
That is what one of the senior managers said at a meeting DL organized earlier this week for the entire staff except my team which, of course, works in a different city (a few were participating via conference phone but not me). Apparently, afraid to criticize DL, nobody would speak up. It was uncomfortable, apparently, because everybody had been talking behind DL's back. Everybody was offended and incensed by what DL did, both because of its abominable stupidity and because it was done with so little thought for the consequences it would have for other people.
"My life is not an experiment."
Once Senior Manager said that, apparently, people opened up and let loose, When you're in a position of leadership within an organization, you don't fuck around with people's lives like that just to promote your Great Cause, whatever-the-fuck that happens to be. You don't pull stunts like this just so that you can be "controversial" or "provocative" or "outspoken." You don't put other people's reputations and livelihoods on the line for the sake of your own delusional self-aggrandizement. DLdid not apologize.
No amount of apologizing would do any good at this point, but nonetheless, in my opinion, DL personally owes an apology to the public and to the entire staff and soon-to-be former staff of Think Tank. You fucked up, dude, and delusional lunacy is NOT an excuse.
My. Life. Is. Not. An. Experiment.
In better news, we've worked out the severance agreement. Think Tank will pay us through May 31, plus whatever vacation is owed. In my case, that's 2 full weeks, so, in essence, another paycheck. We're also planning the launch of New Think Tank for June 1, and we should have all the payroll stuff worked out by early June, too, so that, ideally, no one will miss a paycheck (and mine will be significantly larger). By the terms of the agreement, we're under something of a gag rule until then, but the stories will get told in time ...
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
The Silence Is Deafening
We have been waiting all day to find out whether the lawyers have reached a severance agreement.
No word yet. In fact, no communications at all from Delusional Lunatic's office.
Is there a psychological term for projecting onto your perceived enemies the very qualities that impair your own judgment? Projection -- yes, perhaps that's it! And paranoia, too. Everyone, clearly, is out to get Delusional Lunatic. The Bubble Gum Shit Theory of Planet Earth experts, activists, and their sympathizers in the media. Oh, and wait, all your donors, supporters, and staff, too! What did you expect? Are you in touch with reality? No, it's everybody else that's out of touch with reality!!
At this point, we just want to be done with the whole mess and free to move forward. Seems like they're holding us hostage by holding up the negotiations process. If they don't like our proposal for severance, they should make a counter proposal. It's mind-boggling and maddening, but, then, we are dealing with a delusional lunatic ...
No word yet. In fact, no communications at all from Delusional Lunatic's office.
Is there a psychological term for projecting onto your perceived enemies the very qualities that impair your own judgment? Projection -- yes, perhaps that's it! And paranoia, too. Everyone, clearly, is out to get Delusional Lunatic. The Bubble Gum Shit Theory of Planet Earth experts, activists, and their sympathizers in the media. Oh, and wait, all your donors, supporters, and staff, too! What did you expect? Are you in touch with reality? No, it's everybody else that's out of touch with reality!!
At this point, we just want to be done with the whole mess and free to move forward. Seems like they're holding us hostage by holding up the negotiations process. If they don't like our proposal for severance, they should make a counter proposal. It's mind-boggling and maddening, but, then, we are dealing with a delusional lunatic ...
You know it's bad when ...
You know it's bad when Fox News describes something a conservative or conservative organization did as "shocking."
Yes, the thing referred to in the previous post that Delusional Lunatic did was "shocking." Only, Think Tank, collectively, has taken the blame because the public doesn't know that Delusional Lunatic was acting alone. And since Delusional Lunatic is also Think Tank's CEO (previously referred to here as Think Tank Boss's Boss), nobody is likely to find out anytime soon. People's jobs are already at risk because it's possible Think Tank will simply implode in the not too distant future. Nobody wants to get fired before that happens for pointing fingers without a solid contingency plan in place.
Hence Project Mutiny (see comments to previous post). Think Tank's "brand" has become irreparably damaged. It's not only toxic but radioactive. Donors have been pulling out en masse. Delusional Lunatic's action was what you could literally call, already, a million dollar mistake, but Delusional Lunatic isn't apologizing or acknowledging any wrong doing.
In other words, Delusional Lunatic has destroyed our capacity to raise money and do work. An apology probably wouldn't do any good anyway. The damage has already been done, and Project Mutiny is the only answer. The lawyers are still negotiating over a severance agreement, and today I will be taking care of getting tax ID numbers and other matters related to setting up New Think Tank. One major donor that withdrew from Think Tank has promised to provide New Think Tank with liquidity for the first few months while it gets on its feet.
Yes, the thing referred to in the previous post that Delusional Lunatic did was "shocking." Only, Think Tank, collectively, has taken the blame because the public doesn't know that Delusional Lunatic was acting alone. And since Delusional Lunatic is also Think Tank's CEO (previously referred to here as Think Tank Boss's Boss), nobody is likely to find out anytime soon. People's jobs are already at risk because it's possible Think Tank will simply implode in the not too distant future. Nobody wants to get fired before that happens for pointing fingers without a solid contingency plan in place.
Hence Project Mutiny (see comments to previous post). Think Tank's "brand" has become irreparably damaged. It's not only toxic but radioactive. Donors have been pulling out en masse. Delusional Lunatic's action was what you could literally call, already, a million dollar mistake, but Delusional Lunatic isn't apologizing or acknowledging any wrong doing.
In other words, Delusional Lunatic has destroyed our capacity to raise money and do work. An apology probably wouldn't do any good anyway. The damage has already been done, and Project Mutiny is the only answer. The lawyers are still negotiating over a severance agreement, and today I will be taking care of getting tax ID numbers and other matters related to setting up New Think Tank. One major donor that withdrew from Think Tank has promised to provide New Think Tank with liquidity for the first few months while it gets on its feet.
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Fallout
Dear Delusional Lunatic,
You accomplished on your own everything I had hoped to and more. When I set my sights on sabotaging your project, I never imagined things could have possibly turned out so well.
Thanks for finishing what I started. I only wish I could take credit, but you hit the self-destruct button all by your lonesome, depraved, delusional self.
Good luck screwing over your entire staff. I'm sure they deeply appreciate what you've done.
Yours truly,
Unethical Asshole
You accomplished on your own everything I had hoped to and more. When I set my sights on sabotaging your project, I never imagined things could have possibly turned out so well.
Thanks for finishing what I started. I only wish I could take credit, but you hit the self-destruct button all by your lonesome, depraved, delusional self.
Good luck screwing over your entire staff. I'm sure they deeply appreciate what you've done.
Yours truly,
Unethical Asshole
Friday, May 4, 2012
It's Like ...
It's like something outta the fucken Onion. Like, if the Onion published it, it would be funny.
Only ... they didn't. You can't make this shit up ...
It's like the Sokal Affair. I mean, EVERYBODY knows gravity is socially constructed, right? Only "radical fringe" fucken SCIENTISTS would claim they can PROVE gravity is real!! And they are murderers and terrorists and communist dictators for DARING to spread such audacious falsehoods!
Oh, wait ... did I just hear somebody say the earth is flat? Crap! I think I need to get my hearing tested!!
Only ... they didn't. You can't make this shit up ...
It's like the Sokal Affair. I mean, EVERYBODY knows gravity is socially constructed, right? Only "radical fringe" fucken SCIENTISTS would claim they can PROVE gravity is real!! And they are murderers and terrorists and communist dictators for DARING to spread such audacious falsehoods!
Oh, wait ... did I just hear somebody say the earth is flat? Crap! I think I need to get my hearing tested!!
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Hey, Kids! Can You Identify the Logical Fallacy Here? Hint: There Might Even Be More Than One!!
Consider the following:
The most prominent proponents of Bubble Gum Shit Theory of Planet Earth are not actually the Bubble Gum Shit Theory Experts who came up with the theory and have spent their respectable careers promoting it in public, legitimate, intelligent, ethical, and democratic ways. No. The MOST PROMINENT proponents are, in fact, Mass Murderer, Communist Dictator, and Several Radical Evil Psycho Violent Terrorists because these individuals are FAMOUS and said somewhere, at one time or another, possibly from in prison, that they believed in Bubble Gum Shit Theory of Planet Earth. And, because these shithead-asshole-criminals of "questionable ethics" believe in Bubble Gum Shit Theory of Planet Earth, that automatically makes said theory a "fringe" theory and undermines the validity of the consensus of all the Bubble Gum Shit Theory Experts who have been studying Bubble Gum Shit for decades.
Do you, dear reader, also still believe in Bubble Gum Shit Theory of Planet Earth? Why then YOU, too, have questionable ethics. You, too, are like Mass Murderer, Communist Dictator, and Radical Evil Psycho Violent Terrorists. Oh, and let's not forget Very Stupid Bubble Gum Shit Theory Expert who did something blatantly stupid and unethical but which did NOT undermine in any way Bubble Gum Shit Theory of Planet Earth per se but rather only Very Stupid Bubble Gum Shit Theory Expert's own personal integrity.
OMG. *headdesk*
It's like saying that because Very Stupid Bubble Gum Shit Theory Expert is a Stupid Shithead then, ipso facto, Bubble Gum Shit Theory of Planet Earth is ITSELF stupid shitte! That is, because Stupid Shithead said X, X is false, despite overwhelming confirmation of X's validity by non shitheads, non murderers, non communist dictators, and non radical evil psycho violent terrorists -- in fact, by highly respectable, smart, educated Professor Doctor Researcher Bubble Gum Shit Theory of Planet Earth fucken EXPERTS!!
Ummm .............it's a alternative universe over here, kidz. That's about all I can say.....
The most prominent proponents of Bubble Gum Shit Theory of Planet Earth are not actually the Bubble Gum Shit Theory Experts who came up with the theory and have spent their respectable careers promoting it in public, legitimate, intelligent, ethical, and democratic ways. No. The MOST PROMINENT proponents are, in fact, Mass Murderer, Communist Dictator, and Several Radical Evil Psycho Violent Terrorists because these individuals are FAMOUS and said somewhere, at one time or another, possibly from in prison, that they believed in Bubble Gum Shit Theory of Planet Earth. And, because these shithead-asshole-criminals of "questionable ethics" believe in Bubble Gum Shit Theory of Planet Earth, that automatically makes said theory a "fringe" theory and undermines the validity of the consensus of all the Bubble Gum Shit Theory Experts who have been studying Bubble Gum Shit for decades.
Do you, dear reader, also still believe in Bubble Gum Shit Theory of Planet Earth? Why then YOU, too, have questionable ethics. You, too, are like Mass Murderer, Communist Dictator, and Radical Evil Psycho Violent Terrorists. Oh, and let's not forget Very Stupid Bubble Gum Shit Theory Expert who did something blatantly stupid and unethical but which did NOT undermine in any way Bubble Gum Shit Theory of Planet Earth per se but rather only Very Stupid Bubble Gum Shit Theory Expert's own personal integrity.
OMG. *headdesk*
It's like saying that because Very Stupid Bubble Gum Shit Theory Expert is a Stupid Shithead then, ipso facto, Bubble Gum Shit Theory of Planet Earth is ITSELF stupid shitte! That is, because Stupid Shithead said X, X is false, despite overwhelming confirmation of X's validity by non shitheads, non murderers, non communist dictators, and non radical evil psycho violent terrorists -- in fact, by highly respectable, smart, educated Professor Doctor Researcher Bubble Gum Shit Theory of Planet Earth fucken EXPERTS!!
Ummm .............it's a alternative universe over here, kidz. That's about all I can say.....
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Occupy My Neighborhood
No, I didn't take the day off yesterday to join Occupy DC for its May Day festivities in the park near where I live, but, on my way home, I did catch the culminating march from Malcolm X Park (near my house) to Lafayette Park (near the White House). Here they are marching down 14th Street, NW:
What was great about having the march go through this area was that it got local residents to pay attention. In downtown DC, there's always somebody protesting something. If you live here in Crapitol City long enough, you get used to seeing people walking around near the White House, the National Mall, and the Hill carrying signs and chanting about one thing or another. You get used to them, and you ignore them. But having a march through a neighborhood that is not a major tourist destination, especially when it's large enough to have a police escort and stop traffic on a busy street during rush hour, has a way of making locals look up and pay attention. My neighborhood is very diverse in terms of race, class, and ethnicity, and as I walked home and watched the Occupy marchers, I observed people from all different backgrounds, perspectives, and walks of life stopping -- on foot, in cars, on bikes -- and taking pictures and asking questions: "Who are they? Oh, that's the Occupy people! What are they doing here in our neighborhood? What are they chanting? What do their signs say? Where are they going? Why are they marching?"
And that's all good, I think. Maybe some of those people will go home, get online, talk to their friends, find out, and maybe get involved ...
Here's another view:
What was great about having the march go through this area was that it got local residents to pay attention. In downtown DC, there's always somebody protesting something. If you live here in Crapitol City long enough, you get used to seeing people walking around near the White House, the National Mall, and the Hill carrying signs and chanting about one thing or another. You get used to them, and you ignore them. But having a march through a neighborhood that is not a major tourist destination, especially when it's large enough to have a police escort and stop traffic on a busy street during rush hour, has a way of making locals look up and pay attention. My neighborhood is very diverse in terms of race, class, and ethnicity, and as I walked home and watched the Occupy marchers, I observed people from all different backgrounds, perspectives, and walks of life stopping -- on foot, in cars, on bikes -- and taking pictures and asking questions: "Who are they? Oh, that's the Occupy people! What are they doing here in our neighborhood? What are they chanting? What do their signs say? Where are they going? Why are they marching?"
And that's all good, I think. Maybe some of those people will go home, get online, talk to their friends, find out, and maybe get involved ...
Here's another view:
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
A Question of Ethics
A hypothetical situation, a hypothetical question:
A leading scholar/expert does something very unprofessional. The action occurs outside their professional sphere but is of a nature that, under most circumstances, would compromise their professional integrity. The action is, technically, unrelated to their research. It is, however, driven by an activist's inclination to "make good" on the policy implications of that research. Under most circumstances, such an action would cause things like the cancellation of speaking engagements and censure within, if not outright ostracism from, professional associations and organizations. It might not automatically lead to the revocation of tenure, but it certainly could provide grounds for building a case.
However, the "victim" of the scholar/expert's unprofessional action, in this instance, itself has an unfavorable reputation in many circles. While the scholar/expert may have committed more than one crime, the "victim" has done nothing illegal but yet is perceived in a highly negative light by scholar/expert's colleagues, allies, and supporters. Because of this perception, scholar/expert's breach of professional ethics is dismissed, even laughed off. The "victim" deserved what it got. It is itself an affront to intellectual integrity and so scholar/expert's action is fair enough in kind.
Except, scholar/expert's action is the kind of thing we teach our children and our students not to do.We'd punish them if we caught them. We might even fail or expel them.
And yet, it seems, scholar/expert is exempt because, here, the "victim" is perceived as the truer villain.
Aside from any legal charges the "victim" may pursue, what should the professional consequences for scholar/expert be? If this individual were scheduled to give a lecture at your institution, would you support it to go on as planned or push to have it canceled?
A leading scholar/expert does something very unprofessional. The action occurs outside their professional sphere but is of a nature that, under most circumstances, would compromise their professional integrity. The action is, technically, unrelated to their research. It is, however, driven by an activist's inclination to "make good" on the policy implications of that research. Under most circumstances, such an action would cause things like the cancellation of speaking engagements and censure within, if not outright ostracism from, professional associations and organizations. It might not automatically lead to the revocation of tenure, but it certainly could provide grounds for building a case.
However, the "victim" of the scholar/expert's unprofessional action, in this instance, itself has an unfavorable reputation in many circles. While the scholar/expert may have committed more than one crime, the "victim" has done nothing illegal but yet is perceived in a highly negative light by scholar/expert's colleagues, allies, and supporters. Because of this perception, scholar/expert's breach of professional ethics is dismissed, even laughed off. The "victim" deserved what it got. It is itself an affront to intellectual integrity and so scholar/expert's action is fair enough in kind.
Except, scholar/expert's action is the kind of thing we teach our children and our students not to do.We'd punish them if we caught them. We might even fail or expel them.
And yet, it seems, scholar/expert is exempt because, here, the "victim" is perceived as the truer villain.
Aside from any legal charges the "victim" may pursue, what should the professional consequences for scholar/expert be? If this individual were scheduled to give a lecture at your institution, would you support it to go on as planned or push to have it canceled?
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Possibly I have Lost My Critical Reading Ability?
Or, maybe, that's just me being a smartass.
Less funny is that some people, it appears, actually have lost this ability. Or maybe never had it to begin with. Or maybe, possibly, never developed it in school because they skipped all the classes taught by "liberal" English professors?
In one of those wonderful little morning missives we sometimes get in our inboxes here at Think Tank, we were treated today to some good, old-fashioned libertarian literary criticism. Kurt Vonnegut's 1961 story Harrison Bergeron (if you don't know the story, click the link and read it -- it's short), we are informed, "helps explain" why "taking from some by force of law what they have produced and consequently earned, and giving to others merely to make ìncomes and wealth more equal is not justifiable."
True, in the story,
What role do economics and class play in this satire? Contrary to free-market interpretations going back to William F. Buckley, Jr., who reprinted the story in the National Review in 1965, income and wealth play virtually no role at all. Indeed, they are conspicuously absent. If anything, income and wealth represent the only unequal aspects of this society, as suggested as much by their near absence as by a passing line about a TV news broadcaster with a speech impediment (all the TV newscasters have speech impediments) who "should get a nice raise for trying so hard."
Historical context helps explain how Vonnegut, an inveterate political liberal, could fool so many conservative readers. Darryl Hattenhauer looks at the opening lines I quoted above in this way:
Sure. I agree it would be tragic if we made the Virginia Woolfs of this world
go out and about their business every day wearing Slipknot masks:
But the analogy between physical and mental "advantages" and socioeconomic ones is false. Think Tank Senior Fellow wants to believe,
Hattenhauer's analysis of that opening definition of equality further clarifies where Think Tank Senior Fellow goes astray:
But, more importantly, we've had "equality under the law" since the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868. On February 26, 2012, Treyvon Martin was shot dead. His killer walks free. Before we can talk about whether the same results should apply under the same rules, we should first consider whether the same rules DO apply to all, just because the law says they do.
Less funny is that some people, it appears, actually have lost this ability. Or maybe never had it to begin with. Or maybe, possibly, never developed it in school because they skipped all the classes taught by "liberal" English professors?
In one of those wonderful little morning missives we sometimes get in our inboxes here at Think Tank, we were treated today to some good, old-fashioned libertarian literary criticism. Kurt Vonnegut's 1961 story Harrison Bergeron (if you don't know the story, click the link and read it -- it's short), we are informed, "helps explain" why "taking from some by force of law what they have produced and consequently earned, and giving to others merely to make ìncomes and wealth more equal is not justifiable."
True, in the story,
But what the story satirizes is not a society leveled by "taking from some" to make the disadvantaged "more equal" but rather a society literally weighted down by a misguided vision of equality in which the lowest common denominator rules. People who are smarter or stronger or quicker or better looking are forced by the "Handicapper General" to mask or disable these advantages. Yet nobody else gets to benefit from these advantages, either. Nobody competes, and no one ever gets to fulfill their potential. This is oppression, not equality. It's equality misunderstood, backwards, and upside down, and this paranoid vision of equality-gone-wrong is what the story satirizes, not equality as most Americans idealize it, whatever their politics.everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else.
What role do economics and class play in this satire? Contrary to free-market interpretations going back to William F. Buckley, Jr., who reprinted the story in the National Review in 1965, income and wealth play virtually no role at all. Indeed, they are conspicuously absent. If anything, income and wealth represent the only unequal aspects of this society, as suggested as much by their near absence as by a passing line about a TV news broadcaster with a speech impediment (all the TV newscasters have speech impediments) who "should get a nice raise for trying so hard."
Historical context helps explain how Vonnegut, an inveterate political liberal, could fool so many conservative readers. Darryl Hattenhauer looks at the opening lines I quoted above in this way:
This absurd dystopia's version of equality sounds like something from the pages of popular magazines during the Cold War--because it is. Vonnegut depended on those magazines to establish himself as a writer. ("Harrison Bergeron" first appeared in the Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction.) Just as Twain could not have sold Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and Pudd'nhead Wilson if their sympathy with African-American characters had been obvious, so Vonnegut could not have sold a story overtly sympathetic to leveling. Instead, the Handicapper General apparently recalls the likes of John Wilkes Booth, proponent of slavery. [...] As a struggling writer, Vonnegut had to put a surface on this story that would appeal to his audience. And it did. More specifically, it did so because it appeared to rehearse central tenets of the dominant culture's ideology. It appealed to the literal-minded with such accuracy that William F. Buckley's National Review reprinted it as a morality tale about the dangers of forsaking private enterprise.
And so, conservative readers like Think Tank Senior Fellow, whose prose so freshly and eruditely greeted us this morning, continue to hold up this story as a dire warning about the end result of our nation's "liberal" efforts to promote equality. Senior Fellow writes,Source Citation: Hattenhauer, Darryl. "The politics of Kurt Vonnegut's 'Harrison Bergeron'." Studies in Short Fiction 35.4 (1998): 387+. Literature Resource Center. Web. 27 Mar. 2012.
Hey, dear readers! Didn't you know the reason you have an advanced degree and are working as a secretary is because you're not productive, don't take risks, and don't work hard enough? Wow! I feel so enlightened.Why didn't I think of my plight this way before? I guess I just wasn't smart enough.The goal of a society should not and cannot be to make people equal in outcomes, an impossibility given the individual attributes with which we were each endowed by our creator. It is the opposite of justice and fairness to try to equalize outcomes based on those attributes. It is not fair to the beautiful to force them to wear ugly masks. It is not fair to the strong to punish them by holding them down with excess weights. It is not fair to the graceful and athletic to deprive them of their talents. In the same way, it is not fair to the productive, the risk taking, or the hard working, to deprive them of what they have produced, merely to make them equal to others who have worked less, taken less risk, and produced less.
Sure. I agree it would be tragic if we made the Virginia Woolfs of this world
go out and about their business every day wearing Slipknot masks:
But the analogy between physical and mental "advantages" and socioeconomic ones is false. Think Tank Senior Fellow wants to believe,
Yes, true. However, requiring people who make more money to pay more in taxes does not "handicap" them in the same way as requiring smart people to wear thought-disrupting devices in their ears, as they must in the story. Being born into privileged socioeconomic circumstances (define that as you will) opens up a host of compounding advantageous opportunities that have little to do with an individual's own talents, abilities, or efforts -- their brilliance, beauty, skill, or talent. Two people can be equally hard-working, equally smart, and equally good-looking but end up in very different places in their lives at the age of 35 because of how much money their parents had and what circles they traveled in growing up.As Vonnegut’s story shows, putting social limits on the success people are allowed to achieve with their own talents and abilities makes everyone worse off, because it deprives society of the benefits of their brilliance and beauty and skill and talent.
Hattenhauer's analysis of that opening definition of equality further clarifies where Think Tank Senior Fellow goes astray:
What truly perplexes me is not Think Tank Senior Fellow's superficial reading of the story but the failure to grasp the significance of that absence of ethics from the story's representation of "equality." TTSF continues:This definition codifies the common American objections not just to communist states, but also to socialist ones. The narrator begins with the widespread assertion that the United States not only can and does know God's law, but that God's favorite country is instituting it. (American history is replete with statements like Ronald Reagan's that his policies reflect God's will--see, e.g., his 1982 address to the National Catholic Education Association). So the narrator's definition of America's equality begins not by positing a future equality as much as exposing the misunderstanding of it in the past and present.
The narrator continues to give not a possible egalitarianism of the future [...] but rather an enactment of how absurd society would be if egalitarianism were what America's dominant culture thinks it is. The narrator defines equality only in terms of intelligence, looks, and athletic ability. There is nothing about kinds of intelligence, or how it is used. Similarly, beauty includes only the human appearance; there is nothing about painting, architecture, etc. The first two concerns, intelligence and looks, address two of the traditional categories of philosophy: the true (epistemology) and the beautiful (aesthetics). The third category, the good (ethics), vanishes.
First, most progressives (I guess I'm speaking for myself here, but correct me if I'm wrong) are NOT saying equality SHOULD mean equal incomes and wealth for all. That's just blatantly false.But doesn’t the Declaration of Independence itself say “All men are created equal,” and isn’t equality a fundamental American ideal? Yes, but these expressions invoke a concept of equality different from the social justice concept of equal incomes and wealth for all. The original and traditionally American concept of equality is “equality under the law.” That means the same rules apply to all, not the same results.
But, more importantly, we've had "equality under the law" since the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868. On February 26, 2012, Treyvon Martin was shot dead. His killer walks free. Before we can talk about whether the same results should apply under the same rules, we should first consider whether the same rules DO apply to all, just because the law says they do.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
I Just Got an E-mail Damning Me Today for Working at Think Tank. How Has Your Day Been?
Think Tank is caught up in a bit of a kerfluffle of late. I can't disclose anything specific, but, suffice it to say, ignorance abounds on both sides. Certain Think Tank "experts" are known widely for taking a contrarian view of Subject X. Other people who work here, myself included, as well as others who are politically further to the right, take the mainstream view and are somewhat embarrassed to be associated with the position and policies Think Tank promotes with regards to Subject X. We find it willfully ignorant.
But willful ignorance goes both ways. Really, when you send hate mail to people you don't know because you think the place they work -- which you know nothing about except unsubstantiated rumors you've read on partisan blogs -- is unequivocally Evil with a capital "E," what exactly are you trying to accomplish? Am I supposed to feel bad? Am I supposed to quit? My office doesn't even deal with Subject X.
Even if I am sympathetic to your views, how am I supposed to take you seriously when you send me a statement like this?
But willful ignorance goes both ways. Really, when you send hate mail to people you don't know because you think the place they work -- which you know nothing about except unsubstantiated rumors you've read on partisan blogs -- is unequivocally Evil with a capital "E," what exactly are you trying to accomplish? Am I supposed to feel bad? Am I supposed to quit? My office doesn't even deal with Subject X.
Even if I am sympathetic to your views, how am I supposed to take you seriously when you send me a statement like this?
Yeah, awesome. Fuck you, too, whoever you are. Great way to promote tolerance, understanding, and world peace.To all of you good people at [Think Tank],
I very sincerely hope and wish that you all experience a loss of someone close to your heart, who perished very young as a result of _______________, a major cause of _____________.
My 27 year old son, a former US Nuclear Navy Engineer, died unnecessarily from complications induced by ______________.
May your God forgive you.
I DAMN YOU.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)