The Joys of Servility

What’s especially hilarious is that many people who are happily nodding in agreement with the point of my preceding post (i.e. the leader of a huge organization who gets a sizeable remuneration for this job is responsible for whatever happens to the organization) are the same ones who had hissy fits when I suggested that Cecile Richards was responsible for the collapse of the organization she leads that happened on her watch.

The only difference between Richards-worshippers and Bush-worshippers is that they choose to be servile to a different very rich person. What these poor, facile creatures take for political opinions is simply a medieval need to be loyal to a feudal overlord.

It’s incomprehensible to the servile how one can possibly support ideas or principles instead of worshipping very rich people they have invested with magical significance. Ideas, to them, are nothing but a pretext that leads to the really important task: selecting their lord and master whom they will serve with all the passion of their sniveling little souls.

Rate this:

28 responses to “The Joys of Servility”

David P. Bellamy

October 18, 2015

This is disturbingly similar to something that I have argued for years. We are not headed toward nouveau fascism, but toward nouveau feudalism.

LikeLike

Shakti

October 18, 2015

A pox on both your houses, you servile villeins who serve villains you call heroes! It is only, I, a learned member of the university who travels in the littoral zones of crumbling nation states, who understands the greater picture beyond your silly allegiances to the House of Bush or the House of Clinton or the minor house of Kardashian!

For all the shouting over the videos, one cannot deny that Planned Parenthood has always been on the defensive and is distressingly passive for a one issue organization over the last ten years, and you just can’t place all the blame on the religious right. You can say the same of NARAL. For these reasons and others, I’ve refused to renew my membership. A quick Wikipedia search shows Richards’ been riding the coattails of her mother through various non-profits.

Wayne LaPierre gets paid almost twice as much and is far more effective for his organization, which Congressmembers actually fear and respect. :p

LikeLike

Clarissa

October 18, 2015

Exactly. 🙂

Planned Parenthood ‘ s mission is crucial, the work it does is indispensable but its current leadership sucks. I don’t understand why whenever I express this simple thought, people react as if I said “Death to reproductive rights!”

LikeLike

Reply
1. djiril
  
  October 18, 2015
  
  Well, I can tell you that it feels like you’re just adding more fuel to the anti-reproductive rights fire. Any mistakes that Richards has made are only on anyone’s radar right now because of people who are actively trying to do away with the services that Planned Parenthood provides, and I doubt attention to Richards’ flaws as a person or a CEO at this moment will have any outcome besides diminishing the availability of those services.
  You also haven’t posted anything that I find especially horrifying about the way that this particular organization is run. You’ve brought up some things that may be a problem with the nonprofit sector in general, but you’ve brought them up in a way that is completely focused on Planned Parenthood. At a time when I am completely terrified about what is happening to reproductive rights in general, I am having a hard time sharing your outrage.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Clarissa
    
    October 18, 2015
    
    I think we can agree that PP is under enormous attack at this particular point in time, right? Do you believe that the enormously well-paid leadership of the organization should bear zero responsibility for this development and we should just blame everything that is happening today on evildoers, terrorists, Osama, WMDs, etc? If so, then how exactly is your position different from “Bush kept us safe, 9/11 is somebody else’s fault”?
    
    As for the rest, I don’t suggest paying more attention to Richards. I suggest firing her because the organization started collapsing on her watch. If the collapse of the PP we are witnessing right now isn’t horrifying enough for yoh, then what would be? The organization is on the brink of not existing but “Richards kept us safe”?
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. djiril
      
      October 18, 2015
      
      Well, maybe you’re more up-to-date on this than me. What collapse? The only thing I’ve been hearing is that they will no longer be accepting reimbursement for fetal tissue donation. In what other way is it collapsing?
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
      1. Clarissa
        
        October 18, 2015
        
        Well, if in your world nothing whatsoever happened to make PP’s position today any different from what it was a year ago, then what is there to discuss? I wonder how we even know Richards’ name given that it was completely unknown to most of us 4 months ago. I’d love to move to your world, to be honest, and pretend that this disaster isn’t happening.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
        
        djiril
        
        October 18, 2015
        
        So the fact that it is in the news at all is a “collapse” to you, regardless of the fact that this “scandal” was completely engineered from the outside?
        I agree that the person in charge is responsible for what happens to some degree, but it seem to me that what you are saying here is less like blaming Bush for 9/11 and more like blaming the architect of the World Trade Center buildings for the fact that they fell down.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Clarissa
        
        October 18, 2015
        
        Yes, just as I thought, engineered from the outside, evildoers, Osama, WMDs. People we don’t happen to like should be responsible for doing their job and people we don’t shouldn’t be. If Bush messes up it’s his fault. But if Richards does it cannot possibly be.
        
        As I said many times, I can respect any political belief but only if it’s genuine political belief and not a way of signaling tribal allegiances.
        
        LikeLike
        
        djiril
        
        October 18, 2015
        
        For the record, I don’t claim to know whether we could have reasonably expected Bush to prevent 9/11.
        I am curious to see what you think Planned Parenthood should have done differently for the last ten years. From your previous posts I gather that you think they should have:
        
        -not hired Nuctola or fired her the minute the video came out
        -paid the director less money
        -negotiated a lower prince for the abortion pill
        
        Anything else?
        
        LikeLike
        
        Clarissa
        
        October 18, 2015
        
        And right now there is still time to throw out Richards and hire someone efficient. Someone who will be able to keep at least the basic information about the organization in mind and somebody who will not sit limply by, as these horrible videos surface and investigations begin.
        
        For the truly enormous amount of $600,000, she could at the very least be expected to come up with these strategies on her own. All I care about is results.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Clarissa
        
        October 18, 2015
        
        As for whether Bush could or couldn’t have prevented 9/11, who cares? It happened on his watch, do he’s to blame.
        
        LikeLike
        
        djiril
        
        October 18, 2015
        
        Well, I’m still not convinced that the things I listed above are fatal flaws that have brought the organization down. None of them are a source of outrage for me. I was kind of hoping you had another reason that I would actually recognize as a serious flaw in Planned Parenthood’s leadership.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Clarissa
        
        October 19, 2015
        
        There is a bizillion and one indication that the rich spoiled brat leadership of PP is not even trying to earn its enormous salaries. One example. I’m sure you know that abortions are a teensy percentage of what the organization does and that the bulk of services it provides has nothing to do with abortion. You and I know this but many people are entirely unaware. Would it be too onerous for these hugely overpaid folks to come up with a social media campaign that would firmly link the words PP and “a healthy full-term pregnancy”? It’s extremely doable, why isn’t it being done?
        
        Another example. As a long-time donor, I get letters from PP every year asking for donations. The letters are the most indifferent, inane thing ever that is likely to awaken enthusiasm in no one. Would it be so impossibly hard to create a campaign that would first up supporters? This year, by the way, I got no letter at all. Apparently, at this point in time, supporters are not needed.
        
        I’d think that these would be the things that the leadership invents and puts in place. Richards, on the other hand, doesn’t even manage to keep the basic information about the organization in mind, let alone come up with something new.
        
        If I did my job – the one for which I get paid exactly 10 times less than this spoiled brat – as well as she does hers, I’d be on the street a long time ago. For the super rich, however, everybody is ready to bend over backwards to offer them the benefit of the doubt. We fuck up and we pay. They fuck up and again we pay.
        
        LikeLike
  2. Shakti
    
    October 18, 2015
    
    Sneering aside and the videos aside, Richards has been head of Planned Parenthood since 2006. Planned Parenthood has always been under attack in those ten years. Since then there’s been a constant, incredible erosion of reproductive rights even from obstensible allies on the rare occasion somebody tries to do something progressive (like the health care act) instead of reacting to something regressive. What did they do to pressure the Democrats? Nothing! From single issue organizations! I get email after mail after phone call asking me to donate money or sign a petition prefaced with all kinds of terrible news and whatever the organization asks is the same and whatever the heads say is exactly the same. It is not zealous advocacy I have seen in any way shape or form from any of these mainstream reproductive rights organizations. None of these congress people care about useless petitions/phone calls from Planned Parenthood supporters or NARAL supporters because they face no political consequences for pissing them off — even in liberal districts. This approach is fine with noncontroversial causes popular among ladies who lunch but doesn’t work in fighting fanatics or bringing out partisans for your side.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. Z
      
      October 20, 2015
      
      Agreeing with Shakti. PP, NARAL, have not had zealous advocacy and have been entirely too defensive.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
      1. Clarissa
        
        October 20, 2015
        
        And for $600,000 per year, I think the organization’s leader could have noticed this and started doing something about it.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply

sternococktail

October 18, 2015

Why not merge all, or most, issues about women’s rights into ONE organisation? It would pack more punching powers, and the Wingnuts could no longer attack one organization after the other. Besides recruiting as many allies as possible, and avoiding create enemies outside the mainstream of the most important issues, showing an united front outwards gives the impression of strength. “Together you stand, divided you fall”. To split the forces is not good, as general Custer discovered too late.

A real big organization would also create dissension and discord among the opponents, as they will have to try to organize too, but that would create internal conflicts as there are many different kinds of nuts and nuttiness, and the Wingnuts are too nutty to keep their heads cool and cooperate. They have reached the dogma of the one-cell personhood from several different angles, and they have no Spanish Inquisition or party whip that can make heretics conform in fear of punishment.

It would also be easier to get representation in different power organizations and in decision making bodies, if one representative is sent instead of the case when many smaller organizations are fighting to get the coveted post. And the media people are stressed and lazy and prefer talking to one instead of seven or so. Also, the name of the umbrella organization would pop up in the news-stream and into people’s minds when it is mentioned more frequently.

Did you know, that the USA together with Papua New Guinea are the only two countries in the whole world that haven’t introduced paid maternal/parental leave? And Papua New Guinea is now negotiating and preparing to follow the example of the world’s majority.

LikeLike

Clarissa

October 18, 2015

Yes, and it’s an absolute disgrace. Family values, my ass. What family values without a parental leave? For shame.

So yes, I agree completely.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Dreidel
  
  October 18, 2015
  
  Who should pay for this parental leave — the private companies that employ the parents (as is done with paid vacation time), or the state taxpayers where the employee works, or the federal government?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Clarissa
    
    October 18, 2015
    
    There is no need to invent this wheel. There is enormous experience of everybody else who is doing it. And that is really everybody else.
    
    People who pay huge amounts in taxes, like we do, like our friends do, wouldn’t mind a small part of these taxes going back to us and not to enrich yet another idiot like Cecile Richards or Lloyd Blankfein.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. Dreidel
      
      October 18, 2015
      
      That doesn’t answer the question of who pays for it. Some of us don’t think parental leave is the taxpayer’s responsibility, and most small businesses can’t afford to add the cost to their expenses. That fact that most other countries do it is irrelevant.
      
      Cecile Richards and Lloyd Blankfein aren’t on the public dole. They work for private corporations, and in a democratic capitalist system, those companies are free to pay their employees whatever they believe they’re worth.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
      1. Clarissa
        
        October 19, 2015
        
        Yes, they are both on the public dole. Remember 2008 and the bailouts? You and I gave the money to keep Blankfein in expensive ties.
        
        And Richards would have no job at all at this moment if the Democratic parry weren’t so dedicated to keep that job in existence that it’s risking a government shutdown over it.
        
        Capitalist system, schmapitalist system. We all saw back in 2008 that for big banking corporations what we have in place is a fully Soviet system of the company messing up and the government bailing it out. Let’s drop the empty terminology and look at the substance. Blankfein is, for all intents and purposes, a governmental employee whose every risk is backed by the government.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
djiril

October 18, 2015

Aren’t you describing the National Organization for Women? It seems to have everything you just described except for being in the news.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Dreidel
  
  October 18, 2015
  
  You’re right. NOW makes noise about every issue that it considers to fall under “women’s rights,” and Planned Parenthood isn’t a “rights” organization. It’s a service agency providing women’s health care services.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply

Evelina Anville

October 19, 2015

I certainly agree that Richards makes more money than she should. But that’s true of all nonprofits. I think the CEO of the American Red Cross is making too much money for instance. I would prefer if all non profit CEOs were capped at 150k– which is still a hefty salary. But I actually think that there should be a national maximum wage that everybody in the country should adhere to. So that’s just a different issue with me.

As far as the Richards/Bush comparison. That only works if you agree that a a true scandal or disaster happened. To me, the PP “scandal” is akin to the Clinton e-mails. I continue to see nothing wrong with fetal tissue procurement. So just like I don’t hold Clinton responsible for the “e-mail scandal” that happened on her watch, I don’t hold Richards responsible for this “scandal.” To put this in Bush terms, if somebody for instance doesn’t think 9/11 is a bid deal (but that seems a bit unimaginable), then it would be logical they wouldn’t mind 9/11 happened when he was president. By contrast, there are people who are sincerely aghast at the Clinton e-mail issue and those people think she shouldn’t be elected president/subject to criminal prosecution.

From the outset, you have had an issue with the fetal tissue video (much of your criticism seems to be centered around the fact that Nucatola was drinking wine and eating during the discussion), so it follows that you hold Richards responsible for this. I don’t have an issue with what Nucatola did so I have no particular anger towards Richards and think Richards has done reasonably well during her hearings. The major difference is that as a pro-choice person, you are in a minority position here. Very few pro-choice people have an issue with fetal tissue procurement. So I don’t think it’s an issue of blindly following Richards so much as just not having an issue with the “original sin” of the fetal tissue video.

You do bring up some good points that PP needs a “marketing facelift” and perhaps PP needs new leadership. I wouldn’t be opposed to replacing her. I just don’t think she’s done anything particularly objectionable.

LikeLike

Clarissa

October 19, 2015
“As far as the Richards/Bush comparison. That only works if you agree that a a true scandal or disaster happened.”
- Here is the problem: if I brought my organization (my department, my university, etc.) to an equivalent state of affairs, I’d be fired immediately and nobody would care. This happens every day to people in my income range, and nobody has a word to say about that. My problem is that you, me, everybody we know are held to a much, much higher standard than these enormously rich people. I see a problem with that.
“From the outset, you have had an issue with the fetal tissue video (much of your criticism seems to be centered around the fact that Nucatola was drinking wine and eating during the discussion), so it follows that you hold Richards responsible for this.”
- Yes, I hold the leader of an organization responsible for the behavior of the employees. I’m held responsible for the behavior of my RA. Why should Richards be held to a lower standard? And my problem with the Nukatola psychopath is that she was trying very hard to ingratiate a sales rep. This is very suspicious and, as of now, PP still has not provided any explanation for this bizarre behavior. I can only conclude that something extremely shady was happening. And by the way, if I were filmed partying with a textbook sales rep and reporting to him on our department’s teaching practices, I’d be in deep, deep trouble. Why should Nukatola be held to a lower standard?
“I wouldn’t be opposed to replacing her. I just don’t think she’s done anything particularly objectionable.”
- What I think would make sense is to hold people with enormous salaries to a higher standard than people with lower compensation. Richards is not a uniquely skilled specialist, she’s a dime a dozen paper-pusher. Why are we waiting for her to do something “particularly objectionable” when every single person I know can be fired on a whim at any time? There is unpleasantness linked to her name. That should be more than enough to kick her to the curb. So yes, I do believe that it’s some weird worship of the ultra rich at play when people give Richards one opportunity after another in situations where they would have fired their nanny, cleaning person, plumber, or tutor a million times over. Even though the nanny and the plumber really need the money and Richards really doesn’t.
I just want people to start thinking about the enormous double standard here.

LikeLiked by 1 person
Reply
1. Clarissa
  
  October 19, 2015
  
  And just in case people think I’m exaggerating about the sales reps, here are two stories that I personally witnessed. A colleague talked to a sales rep, asking if there were new textbooks available. This was discovered, and she was written up on insubordination, there was an investigation, and her life was poisoned by that for a whole year.
  
  I also was once caught talking to two sales reps in my office. No boozing was involved, I had not invited them, they just walked in and I wasn’t prompt enough in shoving them out. Well, I got a dressing down for that which I’m not likely to forget.
  
  I also have a story about meetings with sales rep from a medical field (dental) but I didn’t witness it myself. It’s a second-hand story.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply

Clarissa's Blog