Cheap Shots and Bad Arguments

[kokopelle]

I was listening to Fresh Air on NPR this morning. A segment featured the former deputy director of a government initiative. He has just published a book outlining his disagreements and desires for changed based on his two year (I think) stay in the government agency. The former deputy director was sincere, walking the line between compassionate anger and being a voice for change. He really took to task the political guys above the agency, saying that they only gave lip service to the goal of the agency.

The rebuttal to the former deputy director came from his former boss. Ouch! She had stayed with the initiative, leaving just this year after four years of service. While I did find her sincere enough, when she wasn't spinning like a top, I took issue with some of the arguments she had. She basically said:

1) The guy was happy when he left, so why is he writing a disgruntled tell-all book now?

Is this suppose to imply that the former deputy director has been corrupted or just isn't stable? I see this as a real cheap shot, as there are people who "put up" with their jobs, even to the point of mouthing nice things about the place. And, in the former director's defense, he had nothing but praise for his co-workers. He instead took issue with the political oversight, those who get the money, above his group.

2) Though it took time, the initiatives that the deputy director was speaking of did finally get funding approval. This happened after he left.

This is a weak argument. Did the initiatives get full funding approval, to the amount that the top executive promised? Probably not.

3) There was full support from political guys. Everyone was on board. Maybe the deputy director only saw the reactions from the intern-flunkies, because goodness knows everyone else was fully committed. Besides, the deputy director didn't know the "full picture". His comments are questionable because he was really a marginal player. AND, the former deputy director didn't name-names, so who knows who he was talking about?

LOL... this is the most insulting of all the arguments. The former deputy director's experience was his own. He knew what he saw. He didn't name-names of all the players because that would truly be career/political suicide. He did name the top guy as being two-faced, and boy is that already getting the former deputy director some heat.

The whole thing came off looking like a long-knives smearing attempt. The big-guys are really pissed. The former boss was pulled in to do damage control. This just makes me feel all warm-n-fuzzy about human nature (NOT).

Comments

[stargazercmc.livejournal.com]

I think I saw the same guy on The Colbert Report last night. Was it the former deputy of the person in charge of Faith-Based Initiatives? He has a book out spelling out for people that George W. Bush and his cronies are NOT Jesus Christ. He was very complimentary of his coworkers on The Colbert Report, too.

[greensh.livejournal.com]

Yep... that's him. I wanted to take to task the behavior and not the cause. The link in my original message will bring up the NPR interview.