“Doing much”?!
Donald Rumsfeld (yeah… that extremely popular ex-Defense Secretary of the “greatest nation in the world”) has a quote, that stroke me as impressive (something unusual about him) – “If you are not criticized, you may not be doing much.”
I think you know what he was trying to justify (at least if you’re an aspiring leader living on this planet), but I brought the quote to your attention for another reason.
Interestingly enough, the institution that is meant to inculcate the ideals of the Western enlightened world in the slightly underdeveloped minds of the “communist-born” youth is trying to obstruct its own efforts. It was an amazing revelation to find out that JMC is the most expensive major at AUBG, and therefore a burden for the administration (implication: the students should be happy with whatever they have and not complain about inadequacies).
Student media? Oh, wow… the accreditation committee was “genuinely impressed” by its activity at AUBG.
However – the team did not notice the fact that the AUBG student media is doing a “bad PR job” for the university, being too critical of the administration and the major issues that we encounter. If the accreditation team would not miss this, JMC would probably receive unsatisfactory evaluation because of the inefficient censorship practices of the local “Department of Truth.”
Student representatives are appointed to different university committees to (as their title would suggest) represent the interests of the students and communicate the latest information to them. And yet, they are implicitly told that in order to keep their position and add another impressive line on their CVs, they should be very cautious with the information they give out to others, and particularly – to the student media.
The prospective leaders are indoctrinated with ideas about freedom, active civic participation and need for reform and progress. The majority stays indifferent. While a small number of those who want to make a change, to apply the ideals of the “Free Thinkers” and actually improve by voicing concerns, are told to shut up and follow the apathetic mob…
This is a somewhat lousy post… I just wanted to say, that no matter what, we are at least supposed to be living in a free world… Something you’re unhappy about? Work to change it… And if you are criticized for it, you can be proud to know that “you may be doing much” – at least that’s what one of the recent leaders of the global “neo-empire” (which we all are so eager to follow and join) would have said. 
Comments
Comment from Dan
Date: March 23, 2007, 5:53 pm
So, you would rather be censored by the so-called “Department of Truth” and never be able to publish anything? Or publish stuff underground and try to evade whatever implications afterwards?
It is true there are problems. Point me some place where there are no problems and I will stop 
The fact that the JMC department got past phase one of the accreditation is good news for the JMC students, first of all. Imagine if they were denied accreditation - what good does this bring to current juniors and seniors, for example?
I guess, I am happy student media is trying to dig real problems and not only lick asses and praise SG and AUBG.
And yes, hell yes, I condemn those people that want just stuff to put on their CV and don’t give 2 pence about anyone else
Comment from Thegreathero
Date: March 23, 2007, 6:19 pm
hehe
Seems you totally missed one of my points…
Well, the thing is i strongly disapprove of our own “depatment of truth”… and wanted to point out, that while they are basically brainwashing us with their “bright” ideas (which i didn’t say i dislike - at least not all of them) and requiring us to adhere to them, when we actually DO - we get penalized…
I wonder - is it THEM? is it US? Or is it the bitter past of the region, that requires the current attitude of the “censors”? As far as i know, all of them are from the US (or at least - were educated there)… so is the BG setting affecting them in any way?!
As for the problems… i didn’t say we can eliminate them all. But at least we can identify and try dealing with them… somehow. While the apathetic attitude won’t get us anywhere, even if one is a senior…
Comment from Mock
Date: March 24, 2007, 4:33 pm
hey.. no relly, what is the Department of Truth? JMC? THen who is THEY?
it seems i dont get the pun either..
Comment from Thegreathero
Date: March 24, 2007, 4:44 pm
By “Dept. of Truth” i meant the highest authority that tries to control (= censor) the information - i.e. our administration…
Comment from Mocke
Date: March 31, 2007, 9:41 am
ah, that makes sense.. coz’ i thought you were referring to literally dept. of truth: jmc
Comment from Thegreathero
Date: April 1, 2007, 11:05 am
Read 1984, by Orwell
Comment from Mocke
Date: April 4, 2007, 8:37 am
i have read that, dear
Comment from Thegreathero
Date: April 4, 2007, 9:59 pm
oki! plz accept my apologies - didn’t mean to insult
i thought it’d be pretty clear to anyone familiar with the book - apparently, not… 
still waiting for more posts…
Comment from HEy
Date: April 5, 2007, 5:35 pm
I’m not sure I get you either.
And please, the AUBG student media is such a bad PR for the university, please. I haven’t seen one single article that criticizes AUBG in anyway for quite a loooong while. Point to one in the past month, and I’ll shut up. What stops you from criticizing? Again, who exactly is “them”? Who in the administration? What are they going to do to you? Expel you? Hardly. Fail you? Unless they’re a prof, they can’t. Make you look less popular? Eh, no. Then what?
You guys are lying to yourself that you are censored. Not so much as far as I can say. It is more you censoring yourselves. And not being willing to do the dirty job.
Comment from Thegreathero
Date: April 5, 2007, 6:41 pm
Aha… An outsider, huh? Doesn’t know the whole story…?!
Well, my point was not that the admin. can actually DO something to us, but apparently they’re abosultely unhappy about what the student media has been doing lately. And that’s exactly my point - we could have done a much better job in “criticizing”, and yet, they see the negative stuff ONLY…
We’re a tiny community - if they’re unhappy about something, they know their “channels of influence”…
Though, yeah, you’re right - we gotta be much better in constructive criticism…
Comment from Zomb1
Date: April 21, 2007, 4:44 pm
Again, how exactly are “they” trying to influence what is published?
>> Apparently Stud Reps are “implicitly told that in order to keep their position and add another impressive line on their CVs, they should be very cautious with the information they give out to others, and particularly – to the student media.”
What? Told by who? I am not trying to defend anyone who is a Stud Rep only for another line on the CV, but how did you come to this conclusion?
Comment from Thegreathero
Date: April 23, 2007, 9:48 pm
Well, I happen to write for DeFacto and during the numerous conversations I had with the Stud Reps when doing the research for some of the stories, that was the first agreement we had - “everything off record; just background info; i’m not authorized to talk about it…”
As for “censorship” - I didn’t mean exactly that they are successful in limiting the “freedoms”. My point was to point out the very intention to do so and the sheer determination with which they attempt to enforce it…
Comment from Tornitori
Date: April 24, 2007, 1:35 pm
Ts, ts, ts Thegreathero!
Generalizing is a sin in journalism and you should know that. I happen to be a Stud Rep (and fortunately not one of those who do it for just a line on the CV).
Many committees, especially the ad hoc ones, require you to not leak information outside because that would jeopardize the work of the committee. Faculty Research committees are a good example of this.
Don’t blame it on all StudReps just because you ask the wrong questions.
Comment from Dan
Date: April 24, 2007, 4:14 pm
Indeed, it can happen that you are required not to leak information.
But..these committees are required to post there minutes and make them public. And that is not that common lately.
Explain, how would giving some information jeopardize the work of a committee? You are not asked to give away bank account numbers or SSNs. Or are you?
Comment from Tornitori
Date: April 25, 2007, 1:24 am
Well, when the committee has to select a new professor you cannot expect to have minutes posted. The making public of the names would influence the work of the committee. The feedback of the students, in the case of the selection committee, comes in the form of a kit of general features a good professor should have. If students would know that current faculty members have applied for , let’s say, a full time position then their judgment would not be fair. Furthermore, it is just not ethical to make the names of the candidates public.
In other committees, i.e. the standing committees, where the activity follows a more stable path there should be minutes posted, though.
Comment from Dan
Date: April 25, 2007, 11:28 pm
No. The point is that you are not forced to give names. Yet more general information should be available (e.g. nr of people that applied, the opinion of the committee about the candidates without specifying names, etc.)
Comment from ToobGagma
Date: November 16, 2007, 11:54 am
Two new studies show why some people are more attractive for members of the opposite sex than others.
The University of Florida, Florida State University found that physically attractive people almost instantly attract the attention of the interlocutor, sobesednitsy with them, literally, it is difficult to make eye. This conclusion was reached by a series of psychological experiments, which were determined by the people who believe in sending the first seconds after the acquaintance. Here, a curious feature: single, unmarried experimental preferred to look at the guys, beauty opposite sex, and family, people most often by representatives of their sex.
The authors believe that this feature developed a behavior as a result of the evolution: a man trying to find a decent pair to acquire offspring. If this is resolved, he wondered potential rivals. Detailed information about this magazine will be published Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
In turn, a joint study of the Rockefeller University, Rockefeller University and Duke University, Duke University in North Carolina revealed that women are perceived differently by men smell. During experiments studied the perception of women one of the ingredients of male pheromone-androstenona smell, which is contained in urine or sweat.
The results were startling: women are part of this repugnant odor, and the other part is very attractive, resembling the smell of vanilla, and the third group have not felt any smell. The authors argue that the reason is that the differences in the receptor responsible for the olfactory system, from different people are different.
It has long been proven that mammals (including human) odor is one way of attracting the attention of representatives of the opposite sex. A detailed article about the journal Nature will publish.
Write a comment