Use of Internet and Campus Master List for Struggle

Craven, Jim jcraven at
Fri Oct 1 12:08:36 MDT 1999

The following is an example of how I use the Master List for open debate and
struggle (to drag whores and toadies out of the backrooms and/or expose
their unwillingness to debate). "Freedom of Speech" means nothing without
the guts to use it and defend it.

Jim C

James Craven
Clark College, 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd.
Vancouver, WA. 98663
(360) 992-2283; Fax: (360) 992-2863
blkfoot5 at
*My Employer Has No Association With My Private/Protected

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craven, Jim
> Sent: Friday, October 01, 1999 9:05 AM
> To:   Hart, Chuck
> Cc:   'Clark at'; Craven, Jim
> Subject:      RE:  Reality has no association with your private/protected
> opinion
> You can take yourself of the list. I've heard charges but not one specific
> example of crap that I have given with of course
> counter-evidence/counter-reasoning/counter-rhetoric (on specifics) on your
> own. Apparently the discussion on sycophants, toadies and half-wits hit
> home with you and you are only able to give this pathetic response. Give
> some specifics: specific utterances/words in writing with which you
> disagree and with counter-evidence and counter-reasoning, give what you
> believe to the the truth about Clark or other institutions or about the
> concepts discussed.
> What happens to an institution when it is run by the mediocre with no
> vision and little intellect--and their sycophants/toadies? What happens to
> an institution when there is insider job fixing and less than the
> best-qualified is packed in? What happens to an institution when
> selections and promotions are geared to rewarding toadies rather than
> openly and fairly searching for the best candidates? What happens to an
> institution when committees are staffed on the basis of having "trusted
> insiders" who will not dare say/vote anything controversial or contrary to
> the wishes of the powers-that-be? What happens to an institution when the
> "insiders" are able to engage in incompetence, wreckless and even criminal
> behavior with impunity while the "outsiders" are denied the most
> elementary due process and when this is discovered and challenged, the
> "insiders" are prepared to go further and manufacture/embellish
> "evidence", commit perjury and destruction/material alteration of public
> records, marginalization/demonization against those who dare challenge
> them; etc? What happens to an institution whem employee morale,
> participation and initiative are mitigated or inhibited by the mediocre
> and incompetent being rewarded and promoted to positions for which they
> are simply unqualified and when powers-that-be cannot be trusted because
> of public and private uterrances and words that are clearly at variance
> with the truth and are even contradictory due to some not keeping their
> lies straight? What happens to an institution when scarce positions
> requiring competent and committed people are instead staffed with insider
> loyalists who continue to produce nothing of substance and then additional
> monies must be spent to hire consultants to bring in skills and
> capabilities that the insiders were supposed to possess but don't? What
> happens to a State or any institution when scarce positions, that belong
> to the People, to which those hiring have been entrusted as trustees to
> place the best-qualified, are instead treated and used as the "private
> property" and "private clubs" of the powers-that-be and their loyalists?
> What happens to an institution when layers upon layers of bureaucracy are
> added--with insiders who have produced nothing of substance--to insulate
> from accountability at the top rather than to enhance performance and
> accountability at the top?
> You say that "Reality" has no association with my private/protected
> opinion? Fine, then let's hear your "reality" or assessment of "reality"
> with which my opinions have no relationship? Let's have your own
> counter-visions, counter-opinions, counter-"logic", counter-"evidence".
> Let's have a public debate since this and other institutions of the State
> of Washington belong to the People of the State of Washington and since we
> who work here have vested and proprietary interests in the credibility,
> integrity, name, stature and effectiveness of this institution at which we
> all work.
> But that is not what you delivered is it? You only could deliver some
> invective (that's ok if accompanied with specific evidence and
> counter-reasoning? But all you delivered you own ranting in protest to
> mine.
> But the good news is that in case you have not sent a copy of your
> invective so you can suck-up to the powers that be and score some toady
> points, I'll make sure you get credit for your righteous invective and
> "flaming the demon". In any case, if your responses so far is all you've
> got, then this but one more time illustrates the fundamental inverse
> relationship between intellect/competence the independent variable and
> degree of toadying/sycophancy the dependent variable.
> Give your counter "vision" and "reality". Let's see it. And while your at
> it, explain the reports of outside consultants and how their own
> assessments are at variance with "reality"? Why not get off your knees and
> do some serious research about what is going on and/or take the time to
> really destroy my arguments in the open as my arguments have been given in
> the open with rebuttal invited (rebuttal is specific counter-evidence and
> counter-reasoning to specific charges or concepts not this pathetic
> toadying response of yours).
> Let's actually practice the campus-wide abilities if we are purporting to
> teach them and indeed be qualified to teach them. By the way, how much
> economics have you studied? Do you also question the meaning and
> applications of opportunity cost that I have discussed? Perhaps you have
> superior qualifications in economics? Give your views in the open rather
> than some little flame in private; plus, you'll score more points--"and
> good things will happen"--that way.
> Jim Craven
> James Craven
> Clark College, 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd.
> Vancouver, WA. 98663
> (360) 992-2283; Fax: (360) 992-2863
> blkfoot5 at
> *My Employer Has No Association With My Private/Protected
> Opinion*
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hart, Chuck
> Sent: Friday, October 01, 1999 7:55 AM
> To:   Craven, Jim
> Subject:       Reality has no association with your private/protected
> opinion
> What about those who say and do not do, and know and do not say who know
> who do say?  Or like you, who say who know who do, and do and do and do,
> but do not know who say and do?
>    Thanks for the tip on the toadies and half-wits.
>    Speaking of being forced to listen to some half-wit talking crap that
> is patently of no value to me, could you please take me off your mailing
> list?
>       -----Original Message-----
>       From:   Craven, Jim
>       Sent:   Tuesday, September 28, 1999 5:25 PM
>       To:     Campus Master List
>       Subject:        FW: Opportunity Cost
>       *My Employer Has No Association With My Private/Protected
>       Opinion*
>       -----Original Message-----
>       From:   Craven, Jim
>       Sent:   Tuesday, September 28, 1999 5:22 PM
>       To:     'Clark at'
>       Subject:        Opportunity Cost
>       Students in economics are exposed to the concept of opportunity cost
> almost from day one of any course. Basically there are direct money costs
> of resource inputs to produce a given quantity and quality of output to
> satisfy particular wants and needs. But there are many and competing wants
> and needs that cannot all be met with limited resources. There are indeed
> alternative uses for any given resources. The opportunity cost of a given
> project is what is being given up by not employing resources to the
> next-best alternative to the project to which those resources are being
> employed. In economic terms, opportunity cost represents the true cost
> against which the benefits of a given project must be weighed.
>       This is a powerful concept. For example, when I am forced to listen
> to some half-wit talking crap that is patently of no value to me or anyone
> else, in my mind I am saying: "where else could I be, what else could I be
> doing and what would that alternative endeavor be yielding?" That is the
> opportunity--true--cost of indulging some half-wit and why I measure my
> associations and discussions carefully. We can apply the same concept in
> many other arenas.
>       For example, when standard hiring protocols (mandating open
> searches, free and fair competition for positions,  selection criteria
> directly related to performance imperatives of the position and selection
> criteria evenly and fairly applied to all without fear or favor) are
> violated--especially at a State institution where they are mandated by
> law--in order for someone to pack in loyalists and toadies, there are
> direct costs and there are opportunity costs.
>       The direct costs include: extra costs of training someone not the
> best and most qualified candidate; extra costs for consultants bringing in
> skills and knowledge the person hired was supposed to have and that the
> better-qualified-but-not-hired person did have; extra administrative and
> legal costs from the incompetence and/or toadying of the less-qualified
> hired and paying back having been hired through toadying and "loyalty;
> extra costs associated with new employee searches and training associated
> with employee turnover and loss of morale connected with the hiring of the
> unqualified; extra-costs associated with having the mandated work of the
> unqualified done properly; etc.
>       But there are opportunity costs far more staggering and damaging.
> For example, if less than the best qualified teacher is hired, not only
> are the students suffering a less-than-the-best-qualified teacher, they
> have been denied better. The true costs are not simply the salary and
> benefits of the less-qualified, they are represented in all that was lost
> for the students and the institution by not having hired the best
> qualified; Allan Derschowitz, the noted Harvard attorney, once told a
> crowd of older Germans that they too were victims in that among the Jews
> and others killed in the Holocaust, might have been someone or someone's
> child who could have produced cures for cancer earlier and saved some of
> their relatives.
>       And there are additional direct and opportunity costs. When
> less-than-the-best-qualfied or totally unqualified administrators are
> hired without free, fair and open competition, there are direct costs
> associated with the grossly disproportionate and unconscionable salaries
> and benefits accruing to someone unqualified, but again there are
> opportunity costs. There are extra direct costs and lost opportunities
> (costs) associated with dampened morale, cynicism, lost of trust and lost
> productivity when personnel protocols are selectively applied or not
> applied leading to the unqualified being hired. Again, there are extra
> direct costs of consultants bringing in capabilities that the hired were
> supposed to possess and didn't, but there are also lost/missed
> opportunities from lack of strategic vision and planning as a result of
> the unqualified being hired and promoted. There are direct costs and lost
> opportunities from misallocations of scarce resources as a result of the
> incompetence and/or toadying of the hired but unqualified or less than
> best qualified. There are direct costs and lost opportunities when the
> credibility, effectiveness and stature of the whole institution are
> damaged and are widely perceived as having been damaged through
> incompetence and/or insider fixing. There are very real direct and
> opportunity costs on students--and their families--who seek and fail to
> get the best possible education that could be delivered but is not
> delievered as a result of the incompetent, unqualified,
> less-than-best-qualified or even corrupt being hired or retained or
> appointed to trustee positions.
>       For all of the above and many other reasons, those who circumvent or
> corrupt hiring protocols or resource allocation processes, or those who
> aid-and-abet and cover-up the same, in order to favor trusted insiders,
> give payback for favors or pamper their own insecurities by having less
> qualified than themselves/servile toadies around them, are the lowest kind
> of organisms and thieves. They are not only robbing potential applicants
> of their civil, human and legal rights to free, fair and open competition
> and to be assessed fairly for positions mandated to be open and breaking
> the law, they are robbing the students, employees and the whole
> institution from obtaining the best qualified and all the direct benefits
> and lost opportunities as a result of not hiring the best-qualified
> through free, fair and open competition. They are putting their own narrow
> and selfish insecurities, megalomania, niches and inner agenda ahead of,
> and with no regard to, the staggering potential material and human direct
> and opportunity costs inexorably associated with such behavior.
>       All of the above considerations and costs apply to all institutions,
> not only educational institutions. The same applies when
> less-that-the-best qualified are hired, retained or promoted through
> processes that are less than free, fair and open. There is simply too much
> at stake, in direct and opportunity costs, to tolerate less than the best
> possible gathered and applied through the best possible means. And those
> who do not do, but know and do not say, are no better than those who
> actively do what those who know will not say; they are symbiotic.
>       James Craven
>       Clark College, 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd.
>       Vancouver, WA. 98663
>       (360) 992-2283; Fax: (360) 992-2863
>       blkfoot5 at
>       *My Employer Has No Association With My Private/Protected
>       Opinion*

More information about the Marxism mailing list