|
Edward R Weick wrote:
When
I started working for the government as a fresh college graduate a very
long time ago now, I had several job offers from the private sector.
I chose government out of misplaced idealism and the misconception (perhaps)
that this is where the most important social decisions were being made.
My parents both convinced me that was possible if you worked in
a small enough institution (a school) and were the administrators or married
to one of them. Connections were and are everything if you
wanted to get something done. But you have to be comfortable
with politics. I was handing out political cards and flyers
from the age of eight, all with a note from my father talking about
how important the candidate was for the schools.
Today that would be illegal. Divide and conquer is the stupid
rule today and mediocrity on both sides rules.
As a
public servant, I moved around a lot, always looking for a place in which
I could do some good. This got me something of a reputation as a
malcontent and non-player, perhaps demonstrating that I too was not really
suitable for working within government. However, when I look back
at it now, I must admit I had a very interesting and rewarding career,
and thoroughly enjoyed it.
I had a similar situation in the Universities and Conservatories
where I taught. But I was asked to devise my own classes and
they were outside the regular curriculum as well as bringing in a sizeable
non-matriculated fee to the schools. I also wasn't greedy.
When I ran head on into the NYTimes reviewers they complained and I left.
I was right as the musical world now likes what I did and has gone in the
direction that I said it would but the short term was very unpleasant.
I had the same experience working in religious institutions.
Now they look back on my time with them as some sort of "Golden Era."
You figure it.
I also
worked for a large corporation for a couple of years, and felt that that
environment was more inhibiting and restricting than most of the things
I did with government.
Absolutely. Economie of Scale is the Economie of Dopes.
Today they are up on Ecstasy. That is why I am
so pushy about economists. I believe that they have provided
the theory that makes us impotent when we criticize the regular market
insanities. I haven't read it yet but the teaser on Klugman's article
on Ralph Nader (someone I basically agree with but would never vote for)
in today's NYTimes sounds like it is beneathe his intelligence.
That is the problem with so many economists. They aim too low.
I have
no objection to cleaning house, but I'd suggest that one has have one hell
of good idea of what the objectives of doing so are, and that one can indeed
maintain balance and stability, before one does it.
The answer is to clean slowly and to judge your results carefully.
The key is the children and the people who have already given their lives
that you may have a decent standard of living and a peaceful world.
If you can't take care them then it isn't worth sh.......
There is no substitute for experience. Junior Shamanism
(science) is not a bad idea, the problem is that the theorists all want
to see whether it worked in their lifetime and that impatience
is the ally of genocide or at least more bad taxes, like Reagan in 1986
who took my money for the Arts and gave it to the wealthy who were supposed
to give it back themselves but didn't.
Good to talk to you Ed. Hello list.
Ray Evans Harrell, artistic director
The Magic Circle Opera Repertory Ensemble, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Working for a resident chamber opera center in every city of America
of 100,000 or more"
|
