By Jeff Boone
I had to stop blogging using my real name.
The reason: because of certain political comments I had made as a private citizen, my company was harmed by a rejection of likely participation in a government-run program. To prevent future harm, I had to start using a pseudonym.
This episode raises a serious consideration for those that welcome more government-run enterprise. For the rest of us, it is another confirmation for why government should stay small.
It is also a call for stronger disclosure rules and media scrutiny for how special government programs are run and participants are vetted. Apparently there is nothing preventing political discrimination from a government program or entity.
To contrast how this works in the private sector, I will use the example of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Here were two titans of the tech industry that routinely publically expressed dislike for and dissatisfaction with each other.
However, they both collaborated. They forged partnerships and worked together because it was good for business. And it has been very good for business and millions of consumers of their marvelous machines and useful software.
But in the politicized-public sector the incentives are not the same. Government generally cannot legally pursue and earn profit. Public-sector managers are generally prevented from receiving any profit sharing.
Even cost-savings incentives are rare. What does tend to motivate is the protection of, or increase of, political power.
And this drive to protect and increase political power is motivation to favor those that can, and discriminate again those that don’t… regardless of damage done to private citizens, private businesses or even the government-run program.
I have three points to make:
1. Consider the risks for blogging political commentary under your personal name. In fact, unless you are in the media business or retired from private and public life with no associations that could be harmed… or if you believe your writings to be risk-free, then I recommend that you don’t.
The mistake I made was to ONLY assess the risk to ME over something I wrote. It was a risk I was personally willing to take. What I did NOT consider was the risks to others associated with me. In this case the company I work for.
2. We need to increase the participation vetting oversight of all government-run enterprise. This includes any new and/or temporary programs… the kind that tends to fly under the regulatory and disclosure radar, and hence tends to be increasing in numbers and scope.
The money used to fund these programs is public, and vetting for participation should be fair and non-discriminatory.
Just like it is illegal to offer contracts to reward political contributors, it should also be unlawful to exclude a participant because of opposing political opinion.
If this is already unlawful, we are not paying much attention to it.
Our media needs to get its head out of the sand on this problem. As billions of dollars flow from government through executive privilege, the public has a right to be protected from unfair allocation of those dollars.
Jeff
Thanks for sharing your story. I am truly sorry that having spoken your truth freely led to negative consequences for you. As one might expect given our differing world views, there are a couple of observations I would make.
1) I chose to use a pseudonym not because I foresaw any problems from government discrimination or personal harm but because I saw the possibility of harm to my colleagues and or family from expressing my personal opinion on some highly personal and controversial issues. My concern was not about what “the government” might do, but about what individuals might do. One thing that frequently gets over looked in broad comments
about “the government” is that this entity just like businesses or corporations, is comprised of individuals each of whom have the choice to act ethically…. or not.
2) While I hear your point about differing incentives in business and government, we have a fundamental
difference in point of view here also. You seem to differentiate working for economic gain from working
to achieve more power. I see these as very similar since as we both know, more wealth can gain access to
more power. For me, it is not like one is a pure motive while the other is corrupt. Wealth or power can both
be used for good…..or not.
3) You often state that you favor small government while you feel that those on the left prefer larger
government. This is too simplistic a view. I also would prefer a small government. It is just that you and I
would distribute the smaller amount of money very differently. For example I would like to sharply reduce
our military and close tax loopholes and economic advantages for the very wealth and divert that funding to
providing food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education to our entire
population as an investment in our future. I suspect this would not be your preferred means of reduction.
4) Which brings me to my last point. You say you favor smaller government. And yet, you say “It should be
unlawful to exclude a participant because of opposing political opinion. If this is already unlawful, we are not
paying much attention to it” So it seems to me that you are arguing for either tighter regulation or stricter
enforcement. And I agree. This is an area in which our government should be more vigilant. But I see a
potential irony here. You are arguing for more government regulation in an area that affects you, while
arguing for less government involvement and regulation in areas that affect millions of others.
Your thoughts ?
Welcome to my world. you think GSE’s are bad, whew, you should try answering to Mrs. Toad, who would croak me faster than you can say clean water.
I’m sorry your business took a hit for your exercise of free speech but i am not surprised. Your anti-government positions always seemed in contrast to the underlying fundamentals of your business model. It always seemed to have a bite the hand that feeds you tone.
While our modern technology now gives our potential for being heard on a universal platform we must all realize the dangers inherent in exposing our personal beliefs to such a wide audience. in a country where the attorney general says its citizens can be killed with a drone without trial we must all be careful about the exercise of our rights.
Funny thing about the AG saying he couldn’t think of a situation where a drone would be used to kill a citizen the administration wouldn’t tell us the rule of law under which the drone program operates. My mind immediately went to David Koresh and Ruby Ridge. Then it went to Big Bear and the SLA.
i also want to thank David for protecting the freedom of anonymous posters. As much as i disagree with David I do appreciate him providing this platform while protecting those who prefer to sound off with a modicum of anonymity through the veil of pseudonym.
Seems to me that if someone else were complaining that their company had suffered some harm because of the political comments they’d made, you’d be asking for the evidence that this had in fact occurred. What’s your evidence? How do we know that the company wasn’t rejected on legitimate grounds?
Posting under a pseudonym has always been problematic, because the shield of anonymity can also be the shield of cowardice, allowing people to behave badly without fear of retribution. The pseudonym debate arises periodically in most of the forums I frequent, some of them nearly 20 years old. There’s no easy answer that fits all situations.
I almost always register and post under my real name. (There have been one or two instances over the years in which I used a pseudonym, but it was due to newbie embarrassment rather than nefarious purpose.) If my professional life has taken a hit as a result, I’m not aware of it. But if it ever does, I’ll just chalk it up to the cost of living in the open. However, self-employment allows me to take that risk, and I can understand why someone employed by others would feel more cautious.
.
Hi Jeff. Good article. I’m retired but still leary of using my real name. You made some good points.
1. On the use of pseudonym
I use real name because we expect elected official to be accountable to their comments. The same standard applies to individuals. There are legitimate situations where real name should not be used, but I did not explore much about those situations.
2. On fair vetting of public funds
I think this is a good time for Jeff to share his ideal process of vetting while he still remembers the issues he encountered. Once he has shared his ideal process, we could compare that with the existing process to see what/how to change.
I think the vetting process of public funds is a fundamental question on governance that should be resolved. But I will let Jeff decide whether the derivation of the fair process should be in this discussion.
Jeff: Thank you for your posting. Awhile back, radio talk show host Dennis Prager stated, “The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen!” I am finding this more and more true as time goes by.
Steve
I have a different view “as time goes by”. As a citizen of this country we have a choice of how “big” vs how “small” we want to be. Especially given the rise of instantaneous electronic communication. There are two times during my life when I have chosen to engage very actively in our democracy. While I have always chosen to remain aware enough to participate by voting on issues I considered of importance, my times of relative activism have been quite limited.
I was an active ( yet respectful, Rusty) protester during the Viet Nam war.
In my thirty’s through fifty’s I chose to direct my energies to child raising, pursuit of career and limited volunteer activities in the schools and sports.
Now entering my early sixties, I again have begun to engage in politics and policy on the local and county level.
We have the ability to choose how much to invest of our time and energies in affecting our government on all levels. And for this, I am very appreciative.
I am standing in for Jeff Boone who is currently self-enrolled in a witness protection program.
Medwoman: [i] For me, it is not like one {government verses private business} is a pure motive while the other is corrupt. Wealth or power can both be used for good…..or not.[/i]
I agree; but there is a fundamental difference in that private business will generally not discriminate on participation that is good for business. Let’s use the following example. Say you were a top volleyball player and had tried out of a needed position on a private professional team that would absolutely benefit from your skills and experience. However, the coach, who is a politician, read your blogging and disagreed with your politics and he rejected you for only this reason. In private business this would be unlikely as the coach would be more interested in winning and succeeding in the business (volleyball in this case). The problem with what happened to Jeff’s company – one that like this volleyball player example was the top performer being considered – was that it was rejected only because of his political views expressed on this community blog. Discrimination over ability is not discrimination, it is proper vetting. However, rejection based on political views is political discrimination.
What bloggers need to consider is a situation where your son or daughter might suffer political discrimination over something you wrote on a blog. Right now there is nothing preventing it. If we continue to grow government and government takes over more of the private economy, that political discrimination can result in real material damage because the lack of alternatives. Private business will more often tend to ignore politics because it is focused on pursuing profit. In private business there are no tangible downsides to hiring talent with political views opposite of owners or management. In fact, sophisticated business will hire people with diverse views to help increase creativity in the workplace. However, many in government want the deck stacked with like-thinkers. They may not want to be embarrassed by the press noting a conflict in views. Or, they just don’t like people with opposing views and use their political power to discriminate. The problem is that government may be rejecting the best candidates in terms of ability to execute. This can be another example of a soft form of corruption where the money is being spent on programs that only allow political supporters to participate.
[i] Welcome to my world. you think GSE’s are bad, whew, you should try answering to Mrs. Toad, who would croak me faster than you can say clean water.[/i]
LOL! Jeff says that he is frequently hit by his wife when she reads what he writes. Blogging is a dangerous semi-profession.
[i]Your anti-government positions always seemed in contrast to the underlying fundamentals of your business model. It always seemed to have a bite the hand that feeds you tone.[/i]
Jeff said he thought long and hard about this before taking the job he currently has. However, the company he works for is a private company, and the SBA loan program requires private bank participation, is zero-subsidy and is supported by the private banking industry and the business community. Jeff supports government involvement in economic development. Most of his ranting about too much big government is related to entitlement spending, government inefficiency and poor service quality, and spending on programs and services that do not add enough value to justify their existence. In any case, the issue is political discrimination. That issue deserves debate no matter how big or small government is.
[i] Seems to me that if someone else were complaining that their company had suffered some harm because of the political comments they’d made, you’d be asking for the evidence that this had in fact occurred. What’s your evidence? How do we know that the company wasn’t rejected on legitimate grounds?[/i]
That is a very good point and questions. Jeff cannot say much about his situation except to say he has a good friend working on the program and was told why his company was excluded. His good friend advised Jeff to stop blogging about anything political. Anyone that knows Jeff or reads what Jeff writes knows that for him to stop blogging about anything political means he would have to stop blogging altogether.
Jeff wrote:
> I had to stop blogging using my real name.
> The reason: because of certain political
> comments I had made as a private citizen,
> my company was harmed by a rejection of
> likely participation in a government-run
> program.
When I had not heard from Jeff in while I figured was either in a deep depression after Obama was re-elected or that he was kidnapped by Davis lefties and being held in one of the “domes” until he would admit publicly “that we need big government and Ronald Regan was evil”…
medwoman 03/07/13 – 10:35 AM I was an active ( yet respectful, Rusty) protester during the Viet Nam war.
How fortunate for you that you wern’t drafted the day after you graduated from college! Steve Hayes, “The Class of 64”
SocialMisfit wrote:
> However, many in government want the
> deck stacked with like-thinkers.
Someone with political views like Jeff has almost no chance of getting a job at a public university (I saw an interesting study in the topic a while back)
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/24/survey-finds-professors-already-liberal-have-moved-further-left
SouthofDavis: Thanks for the laugh, and thanks for posting that link.
[url]http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/24/survey-finds-professors-already-liberal-have-moved-further-left[/url]
It is refreshing to read a study that confirms what many of us already know.
But the spin never stops…
[quote]Hurtado said that these figures always attract a lot of attention, but she thinks that the emphasis may be misplaced because of a series of studies showing no evidence that left-leaning faculty members are somehow shifting the views of their students or enforcing any kind of political requirement.[/quote]
I suspect those “series of studies” are as biased as their subjects are left and liberal. But that is what happens when the foxes are guarding their own chicken house.
I think you are correct that Jeff would not be respected in the business of higher learning owning his political views. There is great irony here: these institutions spout routine demands for tolerance and inclusion while also practicing significant bias and discrimination. It is also ridiculous to hear these explanations that professors’ political bias does not translate into political brainwashing. Of course it does. Just talk to any student of a conservative family and they will confirm it.
[quote]Just talk to any student of a conservative family and they will confirm it. [/quote]May be true for Lib Arts majors… saw evidence of that when I was in college… not sure it is so true in engineering/science.
Social Misfit
I understand the point that you are making but I have two objections.
First, I do not think your analogy of a baseball player holds up well at all. For a sports team, I think it is very likely that merit alone would be the probable means of selection since political views are unlikely to be an issue. But I do not think this holds up well in many other areas where I think there may be “tangible downsides” to hiring someone with opposing political views. For example, knowing my rather far to left of center views, how likely do you think it would be for me to be chosen for example to write PR pieces for a conservative company or to lobby for a conservative group even if I demonstrated the requisite writing and/or lobbying skills ( ok, you can stop laughing now, it was hypothetical ).
I think that you and Jeff are promoting the idea that somehow private business is less discriminatory. Historically, I do not think that is true. Minorities, women, and gays have traditionally been discriminated against by both private business ( example of Ruth Bader Ginsburg graduating from law school in 1952 and unable to find a job at any private law firm because she was a woman. Clearly this was not a question of merit, but of discrimination) and the government. As recently as 1979 when I was applying to medical school, I was told outright at several programs that I would not be selected because I was a woman.
hpierce
I can vouch for the fact that the liberal bias definitely does not apply to the sciences. We had a full range of political beliefs in my classes both while doing pre med at Santa Barbara and in medical school in Davis.
My class of 100 had the full spectrum from the relatively far left such as myself to ardent right wingers.
We were simply too busy to pay any attention to it.
Steve Hayes
“How fortunate for you that you were not drafted the day after you graduated from college.”
I am not sure what point you were making here.
I could not have been drafted at that time as had I not been a woman, I would have sought exemption as a
conscientious objector and accepted incarceration rather than armed military service if need be.
As it happened I am a woman and served two years in the non arms bearing military voluntarily as a general
medical officer in what is considered a hardship post because of the remote location. There are many ways to serve this country other than carrying a gun.
Would you like to clarify your point ?
[quote]I think that you and Jeff are promoting the idea[/quote]
I think you’ll find that SocialMisfit and Jeff share the same views on everything. 🙂
.
[i]I think that you and Jeff are promoting the idea that somehow private business is less discriminatory[/i]
medwoman – The private business discrimination that you point out is illegal and past tense. I don’t think you are making any point worth debating comparing the past with the present. Can we just focus on the here and now?
Private business tends to discriminate only on merit, both because it is illegal to do otherwise, and because it is bad business to do otherwise.
[i]I think it is very likely that merit alone would be the probable means of selection since political views are unlikely to be an issue.[/i]
Well, in Jeff’s case, political views should not have been an issue given that the program was small business economic development… something his company does and is very good at. And, he was alerted that his company’s disqualification from consideration was ONLY due to disagreement over the tone and content for what he wrote on the Davis Vanguard.
[i]I think you’ll find that SocialMisfit and Jeff share the same views on everything[/i]
Jim, you might be right there. Jeff and I tend to have have similar beliefs and ideas. We have not explored “everything” yet, but it is amazing how similar we think!
The reason Jeff wrote this piece is to provide some free advice to others, and to start a dialog on the issue. It seems to be a bigger concern today as we have become more politically divided we are expressing ourselves politically on the public record. Jeff used to think more people should blog using their name. In fact, he frequently advocated that more people should participate and openly speak their mind. Now he is convinced that this is not a good idea.
Jeff is also convinced that political discrimination isn’t something we should accept. We both believe that our elected officials should hang up their campaign pursuits once they take office and assume their executive, legislative or judical role. We are all harmed when our tax dollars are spent in ways that favors politics over capability.
[i]I think the vetting process of public funds is a fundamental question on governance that should be resolved. But I will let Jeff decide whether the derivation of the fair process should be in this discussion. [/i]
Edgar, Jeff thinks the vetting process should be 100% merit-based when we are talking about government contracts and private party participation in programs funded by tax dollars. It makes sense in some cases that political views should be considered in the assessment of merit. If a person’s views are in opposition to the goals of a program, it would not make any sense to include that person. For example, hiring Mike Harrington to consult as an attorney working on the surface water project would not make sense. But let’s say that West Yost was excluded because Bruce West, or Jim Yost blogged something critical about the mayor. That kind of thing might serve the politician well, but not the tax-paying public.
What process does Jeff recommend?
First, keep it simple. We do not need a formal RFP process for each and every selection. Simply implement a rule that all selections for participation in programs funded by public funds be made on merit only, and all rejections be made on merit only. During the vetting process if a candidate is found to have written an opinion critical of a politician or political idea, unless the opinion negatively impacts merit for that particular program, then it cannot be used to exclude the candidate.
Politicians should be able to politically discriminate to their heart’s content using campaign dollars, but not when public funds are at stake.
Jeff and I agree on these points.
Re: SocialMisfit
Are those merits evaluations publicly knowable?
It seems that for the sake of accountability, the agency that assigns the funding should publish the list of applicants, their merit scores, and the amount of funding they get.
Do you agree or object to this?
Allowing people to post under pseudonyms is an unfortunate necessity, as publicly expressing views can backfire. Especially when those views are extreme and involve sweeping assessments of whole groups of people, and repeated use of pejoratives. It’s likely to backfire. I’m sorry you had adverse consequences, but I will say I’m not surprised.
Unfortunately, debates with people who post under pseudonyms can be like shadow-boxing. It’s also easy to manipulate the policy, using multiple log-ins to post under various pseudonyms. It becomes a quick step over to playing games, then trolling. And I am always mindful that many, many more people are reading the Vanguard than are participating, so any negative repercussions of a spirited conversation redound only to me when I’m talking to a participant who is unknown to others. So I long ago made a policy that I won’t engage in detailed online discussions with people who won’t use their own names. Therefore, while I’ve enjoyed our banter in the past, it most likely won’t be happening again.
[i]It seems that for the sake of accountability, the agency that assigns the funding should publish the list of applicants, their merit scores, and the amount of funding they get.
Do you agree or object to this?[/i]
Jeff and I think this is overkill.
Think of it this way. If I interview two candidates for a job. One is black and one is white. I can only select one or the other based only on merit or I break the law. I am not required to seek out every candidate in the world that may be qualified. I am also not required to publish the names of every candidate that I considered, and the criteria I used. I am only required to treat all that I consider or that apply as candidates, legally and fair in my vetting process.
My risk is that someone complains… and then I better have my records in order to prove that I did not break the law.
I think the GAO or similar could audit this government program participation selection randomly, and publish the findings. The risk of disclosure of non-compliance should provide adequate incentive to follow the rules.
[i]Therefore, while I’ve enjoyed our banter in the past, it most likely won’t be happening again[/i]
Don, I’m sure Jeff will be dissapointed to read this, since he frequently has enjoyed your banter even though at times your views are also extreme and involve sweeping assessments of whole groups of people (but are generally void of direct pejoratives). Let’s hope that people in these groups never cause you or your affiliates any harm because of something you wrote. Jeff says “blog carefully my blogging friend!”
Jeff,
Sorry to hear about your experience, but thanks for letting us about it–I’ve been cautious about using my full name for several reasons, including being witness to a serious violent crime, and for employment purposes, similar to yours.
Though I do post under only one name, try to be courteous and avoid personal attacks (although I tend to get acidly sardonic about many political issues), and don’t play games
My attitude when posting electronically under your own name is expect everyone in the world to have access, and for your posting to be available on some database (archived) for eternity. Even when posting under a pseudoname, a good hacker could likely easily work out your login and password; and from there your identity. This is the future; no electronically transmitted information is really anonymous, and it will likely be archived somewhere for eternity. As I understand it; our wonderful Homeland Security is establishing a major database center somewhere in Utah that will be fully capable of accessing and storing all internet and telecommunications data worldwide; we’ll each be immortalized in future databases!
SocialMisfit
“The private business discrimination you mention is illegal and past tense. Can we just stick to the here and now ?”
I agree with your statement that it is illegal, and disagree that it is past tense. My example was past tense.
The discrimination is not, just less overt and therefore in my opinion more pernicious.
But lets do get closer to the present.
22 years ago when I was applying for my current position with a private company, during a one on one interview
the hiring physician asked my about my pregnancy plans. It was illegal then. I knew it and am sure that as Physician in Chief for a very large group, he knew it. The same question was not asked of the male applicants.
I know because I asked. Why was he able to get away with it ? Well, I was hardly in a position to report it since I needed the job and was all too aware that in any event it would have been no more than “she said/he said”.
Did it make any business sense at all at the time to discriminate against female gynecologists ? Of course not
but he did it all the same. By the way, this same question was never asked in group interviews.
But, if that is still too far in the past, lets move up to now. For the past five years I have served as a member of our recruitment and hiring team. I have on a number of occasions had to remind some of my peers that we cannot make our decision based on gender.
Being private, does not make individuals any less discriminatory, or more virtuous although I know from past discussion that you and Jeff both believe it to be so. Businesses, just like the government, are run by individuals. Individuals have uniques strengths and weaknesses and personal bias is no more prevalent amongst one group than the other.
SocialMisfit
“What bloggers need to consider is a situation where your son or daughter might suffer political discrimination”
I agree that this is true, but no more so than that they might suffer from private employment discrimination or even potentially in my case, personal violence. I realize that you and Jeff tend to disproportionately distrust the government over private enterprise. I take a much broader view of this problem. Given my situation as a very outspoken proponent of women’s health issues, I feel that it is possible that I could potentially affect my children’s prospects for future employment with, for example, a Catholic based health care delivery system ( certainly not the government, but just as certainly discriminatory). Worse yet, I feel that it is possible at some point that I could say something that would cause some imbalanced individual to decide to silence me, or perhaps a colleague or family member. This has occurred, and recently.
[i]Did it make any business sense at all at the time to discriminate against female gynecologists ?[/i]
Actually it did make business sense if you were planning on taking a lot of maternity leave because the business would have to find a temporary replacement for you during that time. Jeff told me that he has direct experience with this issue… hiring someone that was already pregnant and then six month later she was out on maternity leave, and then disability for another five months. It would have been illegal to discriminate on hiring this person based on the disclosure, but the lack of disclosure harmed the business that could have otherwise done more pre-planning for how to cover the absence of this new employee.
But, what that doctor asked you was certainly illegal and you could have registered a complaint with the California Department of Labor. You could have also hired an attorney to sue if you had not been given the job and you suspected that the reason had to do with your answers related to his illegal questions.
However, there is no such recourse for political discrimination from a government official or politician.
Related to this maternity leave topic – not to get off track – but there is a very interesting story brewing related to Yahoo and the new CEO Marissa Mayer. Just Google “Yahoo CEO Baby” and read up. Suffice it to say that there are women executives out there with different opinions on the topic of mothers (and fathers) owning childcare responsibilities in the workplace. It will start an interesting and useful national discussion on the topic… one that no man could ever start.
[i]As I understand it; our wonderful Homeland Security is establishing a major database center somewhere in Utah that will be fully capable of accessing and storing all internet and telecommunications data worldwide; we’ll each be immortalized in future databases! [/i]
jimt, good points. And if it wasn’t for Senator Rand Paul, our government might use that database to take us out with a Drone strike. What a great way to eliminate political opposition!
medwoman 03/07/13 – 09:33 PM…
Steve Hayes
“How fortunate for you that you were not drafted the day after you graduated from college.”
I am not sure what point you were making here.
Based on the “I” count in your Vanguard postings(I this and I that), you have showcased a fortunate life.
I feel for Jeff . Most of my adult life has been spent employed by the federal and then municipal government, with severe legal restrictions on my political activities and free speech,with severe penalties, some of which will apply well beyond my passing, others I faithfully endured for 30+ years .Having read about some of the obstacles he has already overcome in his inspiring rise to the vaulted position he now holds so dear, I’m sure he will find a mode of self expression that will insulate him sufficiently from the wrath of his masters or potential clients . Those in government employ can only keep their opinions to themselves and hope their dedication isn’t only rewarded with contemptuous accusations and resentment from the private citizens that they serve ! Biddlin ;>)/
SocialMisfit
Asking a woman about her pregnancy plans is actually no different from asking a high risk athletic male such as those who do out of bounds skiing, or contact sports if they intend to engage in those activities. We have had one male partner who even after one broken bone kept him out of work for months, went back to the same activity, sustained a repeat injury and then was out again for a similar amount of time. Should we then say that it makes no business sense to hire a buff male ?
I have read the article you referenced and am well aware that their is no unanimity of thought amongst either men or women about the value of allowing women and men to take substantial amount of time off for parental leave. Of course, I was never implying that there is unanimity of thought. Only that there are different
perspectives and different values and differences in ethical behavior both within the private and public sectors.
Steve Hayes
It’s all a matter of perspective. From a global point of view, everyone who posts here has led a fortunate life.
My draft status would seem to be irrelevant.
Re: [Ref] ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6187:blogging-and-political-discrimination&catid=71:open-government&Itemid=112#comment-178339[/url])
[quote][i]It seems that for the sake of accountability, the agency that assigns the funding should publish the list of applicants, their merit scores, and the amount of funding they get.
Do you agree or object to this?[/i]
Jeff and I think this is overkill.[/quote]
When you say you think it is overkill, could you clarify who the victim is?
If the government program already has a workflow where the evaluation of the candidates are published, do you have a reason to ask them to stop publishing them?
I am asking this because when a government program publishes its score sheet, it helps to eliminate the need of oversight you suggested. The program would not need another agency to check its work, because any applicant who was not selected will check the work. This is a mechanism that helps to keep government small, and accountable at the same time.
Jeff,
A problem with your style of commenting is that you quickly go from discussing ideas to judging people. Ideas can be embraced and discarded, and discussing ideas, on the whole, is a good thing. When you judge people, then others feel you’ve defined them without really evaluating them fully. The “takers/makers” theme you’ve commonly used is an example of that. People are measured in multiple dimensions beyond how much government service they use.
Your style of discourse often doesn’t seem to allow for considerations in other dimensions when you judge people.
[i]Your style of discourse often doesn’t seem to allow for considerations in other dimensions when you judge people. [/i]
Jeff generally agrees with you wdf1. He is working on being more careful.
Although he is perplexed over the lack of apparent self-awareness from those complaining about his judging when he experiences the same from them. After all he is a white, male, CEO, banker, Christian conservative. Seems that the complaining about this judging problem is mostly one-sided in our dialog and culture. Jeff is still looking for a victim group affiliation that can provide him cover.
“Actually it did make business sense if you were planning on taking a lot of maternity leave because the business would have to find a temporary replacement for you during that time.”
Many of my male friends do more than 50% of the daycare of their young children, for a variety of reasons. Being a pregnant applicant does not guarantee that the mom will always be the one doing daycare or calling in sick due for an ill child. My husband stayed home with both of our young children when they had chicken pox years ago.
Re: paid maternity/paternity leave, it should be allowed and it should be considered a cost of doing business in America.
Also, many people interviewing for jobs, (men and women) have elderly parents to care for. Those folks are not pregnant, but will miss time to drive their parents to doctor’s appointments, search for living facilities, etc.
It is silly, and wrong, to judge a female applicant negatively because she is pregnant.
[i]Jeff is still looking for a victim group affiliation that can provide him cover.[/i]
You don’t need it.