Faculty Job Application Research Plans (UPDATED)

I am serving on a faculty search committee right now and reading a bunch of applications. Some of these fucken dipshitte applicants are providing research plans–the summary of current research and future directions to be taken when the applicant starts her own labbe–that are nearly fifteen motherfucken pages long with nearly one hundred motherfucken references to the literature. Who the fucken fucke is telling these poor fuckes that this is reasonable!?!?!?!?

A research plan should be an absolute maximum of three pages, including the references list. If you can’t explain why I should give a fucke about your research in three pages or less, then I probably *shouldn’t* give a fucke.

UPDATE: Effective research plans *do* have a few figures–three or four–frequently including model schematics, as well as a modest number of references (fewer than ten). The point is to make it as easy and efficient as possible for the reader to get the gist of what your research is all about and why it is going to exert a sustained substantial impact on your field.

Hilarious Link Spam

How fucken hilarious is the body text of this link spam I just deleted?

I be enduring read a scarcely any of the articles on your website in the present circumstances, and I definitely like your fashionableness of blogging. I added it to my favorites trap stage roster and disposition be checking promote soon. Cheer repress in view my position as highly and fail me be acquainted with what you think. Thanks.

Privilege and Oppression

I am sure it is exhausting and disheartening to be constantly smacked with other people’s privilege, and then to have salt rubbed in the wound by the additional smack of “and we’re only going listen to your experience of oppression if you couch it in terms and with a tone *we* deem acceptable”. My personal philosophy is if someone is sharing an experience of oppression in relation to something I have said or done, I shut up, sack up, and accept their experience in the terms and with the tone it is delivered.

I figure it’s a lot worse to experience oppression than to be a privileged person having someone say something “mean” to me, so I give a very large benefit of the doubt. All one needs to say–rather than getting defensive–is “Gee, I hadn’t seen it that way, but I will definitely think about it now that you point it out.”

In the broader scope of human interaction in privileged environments, there are a lot more constraints on how the oppressed can interact with others and present themselves than on the privileged. This explains why in an environment that is supposed to be “safe”, the oppressed sometimes feel comfortable just fucken teeing off once in a while. Fucketonnes of frustration and rage and powerlessness are being suppressed all the fucken time, and if the shit leaks out once in a while among friends, the benefit of the doubt should be extended.

Social Media

Fucken twittering facebooking gibbering fucken imbeciles voluntarily delivering their private lives to fucken sociopathic corporations for resale to other fucken sociopathic corporations. I’ll fucken hammer a billion nails through my fucken dicke and pour a trillion gallons of gasoline on it and light the motherfucker on fire with a fucken thermonuclear bomb before I’ll involve myself in that fucken vicious destructive garbage. Fucke me.

Conservative Consistency

Stan Collender–a very smart dude, but living in the past–doesn’t understand why “conservatives” are all for fiscal restraint and government efficiency, yet against red-light cameras and TSA body scanners. He thinks these “conservatives” are being inconsistent, because red-light cameras and TSA body scanners are automated devices that make it cheaper, easier, and more efficient to catch red-light runners and (for the sake of argument, but not really) prevent bombs from getting on planes, and thus a positive in terms of government fiscal prudence.

However, there is abolutely no inconsistency at all when you take account of the psychology that motivates current day “conservatives”, which is that of greedy petulant children. *They* should be completely unobstructed in pursuing their own ends without any government interference—-i.e., “freedom from tyranny”–and the government should lavish spending on *them*–i.e., “essential government services”. However, those they consider “others”, the poor, non-whites, foreigners, intellectuals, liberals, muslims, etc, should be subject to intense government scrutiny and control–i.e., “protecting our freedoms” and “keeping us safe” and “maintaining accountability”–and the government should spend nothing on them–i.e., “eliminating fraud and waste” and “shrinking government”.

This then explains exactly why these “conservatives” dislike red-light cameras and TSA body scanners: because they fail to discriminate in providing the “freedom from tyranny” that conservatives demand for themselves while still “protecting our freedoms” and “keeping us safe” and “maintaining accountability” in relation to the poor, non-whites, foreigners, intellectuals, liberals, muslims, etc. These devices are equal opportunity and fail to provide greedy white assholes the privileges they demand.

And this also explains exactly why “conservatives” drive themselves absolutely shitnuttes apoplectic about Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi traveling by privileged means that absolve them of having to deal with any TSA screening at all: Because those privileges are for supposed to be for the enjoyment of greedy white dude asshole Real Americans, and not some elitist liberal cunts.