I wrote to the UC flack

Post #409,353 by rcareaga 4/14/16 4:11:32 PM 4/14/16 4:11:32 PM Reply	I wrote to the UC flack Dear Ms. Topousis— Alas, you are named in the Sacramento Bee story about this sorry Google-scrubbing affair, and it is in the nature of your employment that your email address is a matter of public record, so no doubt your inbox runneth over this afternoon. I will hazard a guess that some of the entries are uncivil. Mine will not be among these. Over the years of his employment, this Nixon-era UC alumnus has very occasionally had to speak on behalf of his employer, whose policies and programs he has come, in the twilight of his career, fiercely to despise, so I find myself in sympathy with anyone whose livelihood compels her to deliver the substance of such remarks as “We have worked to ensure that the reputation of the university, which the chancellor leads, is fairly portrayed, We wanted to promote and advance the important teaching, research and public service done by our students, faculty and staff, which is the core mission of our university.” Weasel words, of course, and probably difficult to deliver with a straight face or without a gag reflex. I do not blame you for defending this expenditure of UC funds (wrongheaded not merely because it was bound to come out, but in and of itself), since your livelihood requires it of you, and unless you had a hand in recommending this initiative, yours would not be among the heads I’d care to see roll. But as a UC alum and as a taxpayer, I would like to see whatever credulous vice-chancellor signed off on this folly demoted to managing the dorm food service at UC Merced, in which realm further damage to the University proceeding from his or her cynical mendacity may be reasonably contained going forward. cordially, Rand Careaga UCSC 1976
Post #409,354 by drook 4/14/16 4:23:26 PM 4/14/16 4:23:26 PM Reply	"going forward"? Have you been embedded in the corporatocracy for so long that you just blurted that out unthinking, or was it intended to stick out from the preceding prose? -- Drew
Post #409,356 by rcareaga 4/14/16 5:47:31 PM 4/14/16 5:47:31 PM Reply	Depends. Does forty years count as "so long?" It was an email, fercrissake. I was just proactively drilling down so I could add value to the poor woman's best practices in order that—yes, going forward—she can add value to her core competencies in a goal-oriented, results-driven synergistic process. granularly,
Post #409,358 by Another Scott 4/14/16 5:55:14 PM 4/14/16 5:55:14 PM Reply	rofl. :-)
Post #409,359 by rcareaga 4/14/16 6:12:06 PM 4/14/16 6:12:06 PM Reply	We swim in jargon here at BDS For most of my years at the old Flatline, Comatose, Torpor & Drowse prior to the merger it wasn't so bad, but then came 1995 when, god help us, the old board bought an off-the-shelf package from some bandits who styled themselves "management consultants," and o my word, we were off to the races: "process improvement teams" up the wazoo. To their credit, most of the old-timers (I was a junior old-timer by then) treated this nonsense with the contempt it deserved, or at most paid it lip service merely. A few, and a savvy fraction of the younger cohort, recognized a gravy train when they saw one, and rode it to glory. We're still afflicted with many of them in senior slots today, most of whom aren't worth the pillows it'd take to smother 'em. It got much worse after the merger (an unholy union that has resulted, as has become clear in retrospect, in the junior partner poisoning and then devouring the larger). Seventeen months and change. I'm betting the UC Davis chancellor will retire before I do, though. cordially,
Post #409,363 by boxley 4/14/16 8:10:24 PM 4/14/16 8:10:24 PM Reply	good old pip's I recall them well along with the bi-annual reorg tango de merde always look out for number one and don't step in number two

Welcome to IWETHEY!