Doing the right thing in uncertain times

(Note: I wrote the original post about 10 months ago, but am only publishing it now. I have edited it since then, both for content, clarify, and style. But it's essentially the same post.) 

I won't disclose what I do for a living or where exactly I work, but I can say that I work in an academic adjacent job at a very big public institution with locations in five cities and possibly more than 20,000 employees.

My employer has apparently commanded all its units to eliminate DEI requirements for hiring and for assessing job performance. 

The details are frustratingly vague, and the process by which my employer arrived at this decision is even vaguer. It's not clear who in the institution's top management are responsible for the order. It's not clear why they are making the order. Have they been threatened directly by the present administration? Are they acting in compliance with a recent (last summer) memo from the Department of Justice? Are they doing anticipatory compliance in the hopes that the institution will not be a target for more drastic changes?

Read below the fold for more:

Myth busting doesn't work: Lipoprotein(a)

Here is another of my occasional posts about how "myth busting" doesn't work.When you see someone offering to refute a "myth" with "facts," that's usually a sign that you're about to see an unhelpful, or even dishonest, argument. Not always and not necessarily, but usually. 

For this post, I'll be talking about a "myth/fact" sheet offered by the American Heart Association about lipoprotein(a), or lp(a).  

The American Heart Association offers a "myth/fact" sheet [PDF] about lipoprotein(a), or lp(a). In this case, it's less dishonest than it is unhelpful and perplexing--and clumsy. Read below the fold for more.

Reflections on Pluribus, season 1

Here are some more or less random reflections on the TV show Pluribus. This isn't a review. And I'll assume you've seen the show. So I won't be summarizing much. 

Spoilers follow below the fold for the show and two other shows, Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul.

Reflections on "Severance" [the television series]

I've just finished watching the first two seasons of the Apple TV series "Severance." Apparently, the creators are working on a third season. I have some thoughts so far and would like to share them.

I should warn you right off the bat that this blogpost has spoilers, some of them major. So you continue reading at your own risk.

Weaponizing "weaponizing"

One of Mr. Trump's first executive orders is titled "Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government."  (Full text below the fold)

In that order, Mr. Trump complains that the Biden administration had engaged

in a systematic campaign against its perceived political opponents, weaponizing the legal force of numerous Federal law enforcement agencies and the Intelligence Community against those perceived political opponents in the form of investigations, prosecutions, civil enforcement actions, and other related actions.

For the sake of this blog post, let's not dispute that claim. Let's assume it's generally accurate. With that assumption, what is Mr. Trump's solution?

[read below the fold to continue]

Half-useful advice

The Cleveland Clinic has a short article on Seven Early Warning Signs of a Heart Attack. It's useful, but only half-useful.

It's useful because it lists symptoms that many of us might not think of when it comes to heart attacks.

1. Pressure or tightness in your chest (rather than pain).
2. Pain in areas such as your arms, jaw, neck or back.
3. Cold sweats.
4. Heartburn or indigestion.
5. Shortness of breath.
6. Nausea or vomiting.
7. Unusual fatigue.
   

I can easily see laypeople not knowing, for example, that cold sweats, arm pain, nausea, or "unusual fatigue" might augur heart trouble. So in that sense, this article is useful.

But what I'd like to see is some sort of discussion on how to interpret these symptoms. Not all arm pain, for example, is heart related, not even most. It's unclear when to be concerned.

The article offers the advice that "[i]f there’s even a chance you think you’re having a heart attack, act quickly to get emergency care." The problem is, there's always "a chance" you're having a heart attack. How do you know when it's a big enough chance to be concerned as opposed to, say, something that theoretically could be happening but is probably not?

I don't mean to glib here. Heart attacks are scary. If someone thinks they're having one, they should call 911. I also understand that public health messaging has to look at worst case scenarios and even "most plausibly bad case scenarios." If I were writing such articles, I'd want to err on the side of encouraging readers to believe false positives than to believe false negatives.

But I'd really like some guidance on how to balance out those types of symptoms.

Unsolicited advice for pro-Palestinian activists

I have very complicated views, rational and emotional, about what's going on in Israel and Palestine. I won't detail them here. I'm not ready to. Instead, I offer advice for those who advocate for the Palestinian cause:

Dedicate the October 7 anniversary to mourning the victims of Hamas's attack. Set aside, for one day, all talk of why Israel is in the wrong. Set aside, for one day, all talk of why the US response is insufficiently pro-Palestinian or too much pro-Israeli. The day before and the day after the anniversary--discuss your critiques. But dedicate the day to mourning the violence that set off this round of the conflict.

I advise that because it's the right thing to do. We should acknowledge and mourn victims. 

But it's also tactically wise. Doing what I suggest demonstrates that the activists are not guilty of the blood lust they're so often accused of. Dedicating the day to flipping the narrative of "I don't approve of what Hamas did, but...."* to "It's wrong what Hamas did" and "The people who were murdered and kidnapped were human beings of intrinsic value, loved by others, and capable of all the good and bad anyone of us is capable of"--doing that centers the humanity of the activists and underscores the sincerity of their wish to establish a peaceful solution.

If the activists can't do that, then one might doubt their sincerity. To be clear, some lacking sincerity doesn't mean all or even most lack sincerity. And lack of sincerity doesn't necessarily mean the insincere are wrong.

*For the record, I don't necessarily criticize people for saying "I don't support x, but...." because talking any morally complicated problem sometimes requires us to say "but," "however," and "nevertheless."