Dear Michael,
I recently observed the rediculous attempt by one guy in our University to change his traditional role. We all knew him as the deans “Lap Poodle”, a guy who had the official function as a speaker for the research departments, but in fact never showed any ambition to help the scientists. Quite in contrast to his duties, he only enforced the deans policies when it came to further reductions of the research sector. So quite in violation of his official duties, i.e. representing the researchers interest to the dean, he in fact did exactly the opposite: promoting and justifying any adverse decision of the dean and the university administration. This was as we knew this guy for the last years.
But recently, for some reason, his “star declined” and I don’t know why, but he lost his prominent position as the dean’s lap poodle. First we greeted this new development with a sort of “Schadefreude” (I think you will understand this term, which from German made it into many other languages). But what happened next left me simply speechless: This guy now wants to turn into the leader of the anti-dean scientist coalition. So he not simply changed his mind in face of the ungrateful move of the deans office, but he wants to turn from one privileged position to another one, so to say from the farmers lap-poodle to the leading wolf.
I recently observed the rediculous attempt by one guy in our University to change his traditional role. We all knew him as the deans “Lap Poodle”, a guy who had the official function as a speaker for the research departments, but in fact never showed any ambition to help the scientists. Quite in contrast to his duties, he only enforced the deans policies when it came to further reductions of the research sector. So quite in violation of his official duties, i.e. representing the researchers interest to the dean, he in fact did exactly the opposite: promoting and justifying any adverse decision of the dean and the university administration. This was as we knew this guy for the last years.
But recently, for some reason, his “star declined” and I don’t know why, but he lost his prominent position as the dean’s lap poodle. First we greeted this new development with a sort of “Schadefreude” (I think you will understand this term, which from German made it into many other languages). But what happened next left me simply speechless: This guy now wants to turn into the leader of the anti-dean scientist coalition. So he not simply changed his mind in face of the ungrateful move of the deans office, but he wants to turn from one privileged position to another one, so to say from the farmers lap-poodle to the leading wolf.
Funny, how similar types of characters you can find all over the society and in different cultures. So often I am disgusted to see to what extent the Iranian society is coined by political opportunism, and how little support the minority of brave political activists receive. Large parts of the society simply decline to the pressure and indoctrination of the inhuman regime of the mullahs and their thugs. But I am sure, as soon as the IRI regime will begin to fall apart, many of the former 120% supporters will present themself as leading characters of the green opposition movement.
How similar the human characters are, here in the free and democratic West or there in an undemocratic society.
best greetings, Take CareGhazal
Dear Ghazal,
ReplyDeletethanks for this funny observation and you conclusions. In particular I am happy to hear this critical comment from you. Since there is the sad tendency for woman to always follow the “Leader of the Gang”. It has been even shown by behavioural tests in psychology, that for the average female those men are most desirable, who manage to stay on top of any organisation (could be the army, or an orchestra, or football team). It is paraphrased that nothing appears so appealing than power.
It leaves me with some relief to hear that you have obviously another standard to judge people. I was always wondering what you think of the James Bond role model ? He is quite the opposite of a man who desperately looks for a safe chair at the top of an institution. Bond is the lonely hero, and it is his integrity, paired with humor and intelligence what makes him so immortal look here http://persian-cat.de/?p=1147). There is one persistent fact in Bonds character, and this is his rebellion against the established structures. He might fight his countries enemies, whom he hates, but the surpreme commanders and clerks and managers at MI6 and the ministry for internal affairs he only treats with condescendence.
So yes, there is obviously the Lap-poodle character (who as you suggested might occasionally wants to change the line-of-fire) and the Bond character. No question whom I give my preference.
TAke Care
Michael