1/10 - It's 5:52 in the morning, and I am revisiting decades-old thoughts about race, class, and privilege; about "Line" and "Staff" jobs and who tended to get each in the civilian Federal workplace from which I retired; ...
2/10 - ... about EEO, Diversity, "avoiding the appearance of impropriety" in assigning salary ranges to different classes of hard and sometimes dirty work, and the extent to which these salaries and classes seem "Stamped from the Beginning," to use a phrase from @DrIbram.
3/10 - These ideas and thoughts woke me up from sound sleep and had their seeds in a dream on a recurring theme I was having: I was back in my Federal Civilian office job, and we were once again wrestling with reorganization because it was moving our duties out from under us
4/10 - I have these kinds of dreams because of, I think, my disposition, which according to the way my Federal @DeptofDefense workforce management wanted to divide up the work to be done, made me a tough person to fit . . and possibly to promote.
5/10 - I had no desire to do anything but the fascinating technical work for which I was hired and, later, for which I boosted my productivity tenfold by cross-training. This came at a price, but also raised in my mind questions about that price.
6/10 - Tendencies in hiring, promotion, and career field diversity worried me at a different level from others - I have never truly minded the road less traveled. But my questions, asked out loud or on our "Intranet," just seemed to earn me the management stink-eye.
7/10 - Such as: I know the office chief jobs tend to go to White Males, but the cleaning crew jobs also tend to go to Black Females. If there is a reason for this, why does that reason also affect the relative salary ranges to which those positions' holders can aspire?
8/10 - I was very interested in the "Technical Track," which was presented to us at least ostensibly as a pathway to management level salaries for technical work... but may have been more like @realDonaldTrump's "Path to Re-election, really, in that regard.
9/10 - I do acknowledge that, despite my noticing the systemic or philosophical quirks whose very state of being observed as I was observing them affected my career, I also did benefit from systemic privilege as a White Male.
10/10 - But the difficulty in getting these kinds of concerns addressed, much less questions answered, and the effect I perceived it had on my "tech-track" promotability, left me a misfit who would retire with a merely adequate pension and many unsettled dreams.
ADDENDUM 1: In an auditorium meeting held for the Research Directorate at my agency, the Research Group's director told us in no uncertain terms "Tech Track is a Management tool." We did not quite know what to make of that.
ADDENDUM 2: Loyalism and sycophant-like behavior seemed the way to me to get higher pay, whether one was in tech-track or management-track, "line" or "staff." It is disturbing to see that encouraged in @DeptofDefense by @realDonaldTrump now... but it was present even then.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1) I dreamed this morning I was part of the cast for a new @DAVID_LYNCH movie, & he was shooting fairly improvisational scenes with me & several other performers, including @PattyArquette, around a large unpaved loop road with trees & buildings, around this time of year, Fall ...
2) There were ideas in the minds of the actors that Lynch had given them of where their stories were going and what to do. I performed a kind of "spazz-out" moment in a scene we shot near strange electronic devices and an uncertain sense whether we were outdoors or indoors. ...
3) Later, I was walking around the loop road, possibly but not definitely off camera, going to ask Ms. Arquette a question, but on the way I had a sudden flash of dream-memory (i.e. not from waking life) about how one of Lynch's films started as a Doctor Who episode. ...
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, I in the name of non-discrimination came out on exactly the WRONG SIDE of the Diversity Training issue, due at least in part to my innate stubbornness & white male Christian heterosexual southern-born-and-raised privilege.
2) - I used my new fascination - internal social media at the Federal @DeptofDefense agency where I worked from 1979 to 2012 - to sound off frequently against quotas and set-asides, and against every move by our EEO office ...
3) - ... to take the fight against discrimination into Affirmative Action territory. We had a newsgroups system fashioned after USENET, and we had internal e-mail, and I became somewhat notorious for my activity in both - quite probably to the detriment of my promotability.
1. Let's take another look at the "duopoly" argument that some Progressives use as a reason they do not want to support either mainstream party, Democratic or Republican, or their candidates. Those Progressive make valid, scary, germane points in the age of @realDonaldTrump.
2. It is no secret that I, while I see value in this argument and in fact think Progressives have the best ideas for American government improvement, some of them woefully overdue, that I have ever seen, sadly still think they were used to divide liberals and elect Trump.
3. But there is much validity in what these Progressives say about the corruption of government as a whole. I say this from my own direct experience of workplace politics as a career civilian @DeptofDefense employee, in one of its agencies, from 1979 to 2012.
1. Since purposes and intentions are diverse and complicated, it occurs to me that the generally odious practice of Manufacturing Consent - and its cousin, manipulation of consensus, can be applied by powerful people and groups to constructive ends.
2. Mind you, such techniques being wielded more effectively by those who are rich and/or powerful stand as reasons why our society does well to govern itself so that the Consent Manufacturers & consensus manipulators do not have outsized influence.
3. But the influence they do have is immense, ingrained. Somewhat sadly, it has formed who we are as individuals as well as who we become as a society. It is not so much that we are not independent, as that we simply cannot & will not extricate ourselves from this influence.
1) - I've trotted out this, my variation on a W.C. Fields/P.T. Barnum/"Canada Bill" Jones aphorism, before, with another pic (the @tassagency_en photo from the Oval Office of the @WhiteHouse the day after @realDonaldTrump fired @Comey). I've reset it to another photo. Here's why:
2) - The original aphorism read "... to let a sucker keep his money." It had to do with being conned, and with being an easy mark for a con artist. It's almost a Categorical Imperative for such a scammer, when faced with an easily manipulated/fooled mark.
3) - Now, transitioning the saying from "money" to "country" gives it political relevance today. There are credulous, manipulated people now, just as there were in America's early years, even our colonial times. And there are prosperous and powerful users of the gullible public.
1/7 - An actual 2000 statement from the Family Research Council (@FRCdc) presents starkly their Christian supremacism: “While it is true that the United States of America was founded on the sacred principle of religious freedom for all, that liberty was never intended ..."
2/7 - "... to exalt other religions to the level that Christianity holds in our country’s heritage...Our founders expected that Christianity — and no other religion — would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate peoples’ consciences ..."
3/7 - "... and their right to worship."
Here we see views that stand in direct challenge of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, & of the fact that religion in America should not be established or reinforced by the government, as a hierarchy dominated by any one faith.