A point of further clarification regarding Project Vote Smart
(No Ratings Yet)It was brought to my attention that some of the posts on this blog cast project vote smart in a negative light. Unfortunately, that is the cost of having an insider conversation about what each everyone of us agrees to be a vital and necessary organization. Dialogue, however virulent, is a necessary part of democratic social orders. With that caveat, I wanted to start a positively oriented post, to let our friends in Montana (some of whom are avid readers of this blog ) know that this “two-way medium” - can work in their favor.
While in Montana I started to comprehend the genius behind PVS, but it wasn’t until I moved to our nations capital - that I came to fully appreciate how it embraces the “non-partisan” approach. When an organization claims to be a “non-partisan non-profit” it is claiming to be a 501c3 tax deductible organization. The IRS actually requires these orgs to state that they are “non-partisan”, just like companies are technically “apolitical” (non-profits and companies get around this by forming PACs-527s or 501c4s to directly impact elections). Project Vote Smart went beyond that, and is to the furthest extent I have seen a truly “Partisan Free” organization. Like it or not, they provide a great set of empirical research to those ambitious enough to learn about the candidates.
Another aspect of Project Vote Smart which merits lauding, makes itself abundantly obvious once you read Washington’s Farewell Address. Although much of the address was actually written by Madison and Hamilton (read ‘Founding Brothers’ for a more eloquently stated premise), one portion of the work which is distinctly Washingtonian, is the importance of “institutions of knowledge” for the democratic nation.
“It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.”
Vote Smart, at it’s core, is one such institution. Empowered by the internet, it reaches 3 billion people with necessary and important information. At the very least, PVS is a challenge to the historical status quo. “Vote for me because I am your employer”; “Vote for me because I have your exact interests in mind”; “Vote for me because I will bring you prosperity”; “Vote for me because I will save you”; “Vote for me because while you may hate me, the other person is worse”. For the first time in the history of Democracy, these arguments may now be fact checked against voting records, issue statements, interest group ratings, candidate responses and not to mention basic biographic information, which seems so hard to find.
Yet another important aspect of Project Vote Smart is the community of idealistic young persons, who have and are dedicating portions of their life to make this happen. We come from different parts of the country/world, political spectrum and party affiliation working toward what we believe to be a primary pillar of democracy (the same passion that led us to pvs, is the same passion which drives us to improve upon it). None of these people would honestly deny the sacrifice of both Mr. Richard Kimball and Ms. Adelaide Elm Kimball in carrying the burden of this project for so many years. Noone denies that it would have been easier for both of them to pursue any number of more lucrative professions.
With that being said the younger generation (that is to say my generation) is very different, than all those that proceed us. We are information savvy; we are passionate and pissed-off; we do not like that status quo; (we want diversity in our leadership by gender, race, class and ideology); we are not afraid to speak our mind (which makes us seem disrespectful, though we are well intentioned) and we have grown up with the web - enabling us to communicate, organize and achieve the unprecedented. We are the future, empowered by tools like Project Vote Smart we will go far.
on July 16th, 2007 at 2:50 am
First off, let me say fine post Andrew. We should hear from you more often, you should really kick that addiction to work.
Well as much as I had hoped something else might get posted to distract me, I guess its fitting I should write some manner of a response to this, seeing as I can only assume this feedback is at least in part, if not primarily, directed at my comments.
I’d like to echo Andrew’s sentiments that the mission of Project Vote Smart is a highly respectable one, and one I believe in and support with my whole heart (though I suppose it might surprise some of you to find out that I have one.) I certainly hope that my comments have not been construed as disparaging the mission, nor dismissive of its potential. It is indeed this strong attachment I have for this mission that instructs me to make the comments I have. I love my country, and thus I am duty bound to criticize my President when I think they are in error, this situation is no different.
I have serious reservations about the current and foreseeable future leadership of PVS. I won’t deny either of Andrew’s claims (that Richard and Adelaide have both put laudable effort into the project, and both could’ve certainly pursued more personally remunerative careers.) However, my stomach churns at the respect he shows in speaking so highly of them. During my stay in Montana, I was subjected to serial and sometimes egregious acts of personal disrespect from both Richard and Adelaide and thus will never again deign to allow them the slightest courtesy.
As for my comments, these have merely been spur of the moment thoughts, and though sincere, are certainly not thorough. Despite my (sarcastically) vainglorious blogging alter ego, I don’t flatter myself that these comments are being read by an audience much wider than those privy to the circumstances underlying these reservations, and given that I already write with excessive frequency, I try as best I can to moderate the volume (this post not withstanding,) so please forgive me if I have appeared vague or vulgar due to omission.
Richard Kimball has overstayed his use to the Project, it is really that simple. He is a fossil with a balloon-tipped RV full of antiquated ideas trying to avoid his inflated ego and lead an organization that should (and I hope will) be at the forefront of the information revolution. The way that Richard can best serve the Project at this time is to step down, return to his family’s house and be the Jimmy Carter of PVS. And I challenge anyone who truly cares about the mission of PVS and would dispute this claim to provide their reasoning for public consideration.
To close, I must introduce my new tagline that I intend to append to all my future posts and lengthy comments:
Greyson C. Ruback
*All opinions expressed herein are solely the opinions of their author. If you have any questions, suggestions, comments, constructive criticism, or effusive adulation please send it to GRuback@msn.com.
on July 16th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
No offense Greyson, but I have a hard time listening to criticism of PVS (even if I agree with some of the criticism) by someone who hardly spent any time there. It seems interesting to me that some of the people with the harshest criticisms, are from those who spent the least amount of time and effort at PVS.
on July 16th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
I certainly didn’t want to have to return to this post, there are much more interesting topics out there to discuss, but I have no other way of responding to Erin, and I have now been personally attacked. (You have to love a post that starts with “no offense” and ends with “you didn’t put any effort in.”)
To set the record straight (hopefully for the last time on this blog, please direct any more pot shots at the email I listed):
I am not criticizing PVS in its everyday capacity. I have all the professional respect for the few people I know that are still there (Carolyn, Kira, Sara Brady, JJ, and even Lisa Coligan does her job to the best of her capacity given the constraints in dealing with such an array of obstacles,) and I know that they are working tirelessly to keep PVS running and expanding as best they can. I sincerely applaud the efforts of everyone working at the Great Divide Ranch.
As for my time at PVS, I spent about 10 weeks at the ranch, which is the length of stay for any intern, and 5x the stay of the typical visiting member. To all accounts I have ever heard from my supervisors (including Richard Kimball) I fulfilled all my work-related tasks with the utmost care and efficiency, and no one will deny the effect I had in bringing life to the social community of the ranch, during and since my stay. Thus your intimation that I put little effort into the Project is particularly disappointing, especially seeing as you had no first-hand experience in working, or in fact socializing with me during my entire stay.
Unfortunately, I had the gaul to assert privileges granted by the State of Montana in securing my place of residence and in seeking compensation for my computer monitor that PVS groundskeepers had ruined by shooting high volumes of water through my window, and thus was dismissed from the Project, given no explanation and 30 minutes to move all my belongings off premises. (For those interested I have still received no compensation for my monitor, but am generally chalking it up as an unrecognized donation at this point. As I don’t want to see the Project pulled into a matter purely as the result of an obtuse obstacle from the top.)
I could continue to expand on my personal experiences at the ranch, as well as others I witnessed or have heard on good confidence, and would be more than happy to provide this information to anyone that is interested (see the above e-mail,) but in the interest of moving this debate on I will cease here, content that I have defended the dismissal I have received from a former colleague. I truly do hope, however Erin, that you don’t take offense to this, and only work to more carefully choose your words in the future, as I don’t truly believe you meant to cause me any offense.
on July 17th, 2007 at 8:33 am
The only comment I am going to make in a public forum on this issue is a request you, Greyson, quote people’s actual words rather than the intent behind or meaning of those words as you interpret them.
Erin referred to you as “someone who hardly spent any time there” and again when she ended her post “…the people with the harshest criticisms, are from those who spent the least amount of time and effort at PVS.” She did not say “you didn’t put any effort in.” To quote her as such misrepresents what she was stating.
on July 17th, 2007 at 11:21 am
I do just want to clarify what I was saying. Yes Greyson, you may have spent 10 weeks at PVS. However, for many of the other staffers who spent a year or more at PVS, it hardly seems to me that you know enough about the Project to truly make some of the comments about the organization that you do. I wasn’t just aiming my comment at you but at many people I have heard make comments about the organization (not necessarily on this blog, but in general.)
In regard to my comment about the least amount of effort. I will not name any names regarding my opinions of people’s work, however I will say that certain people made a great deal of effort at PVS to help the organization grow in ways they believed beneficial. When those people make criticisms, I believe them to be more valid because they worked hard to try to help the organization. I will not apologize for my words because I truly believe what I said. However, I now realize that perhaps I never should have said anything to avoid petty arguments.
I hope this blog actually continues to be what I believe it was supposed to be in the first place, not just a place to tear down one organization simply because someone has a bone to pick.
on July 17th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
I’ll agree half with Josh on this one, I actually was going to put a paraphrasing disclaimer, but I write so damn much and use too many parentheses as it is, so I decided not to.
However, there is no way that you can honestly tell me that any neutral-minded person would not take that post as a direct shot at my work at PVS. And thus, I see it as far from a “petty argument” when my reputation has been directly called into question, (except in the manner that it was quite petty for you to call it into question to begin with, rather than directly refuting the opinions which are so concisely delineated in this post.)
The post specifically mentions me, and invalidates my opinions for not staying there longer (even though the length of my stay was totally an affect of the problems that I see in the organization: cliqueness and poor diffusion of power and information, and was not shortened by my choice, but by the manifestation of these problems.) Then in the next sentence of the same paragraph it opines that most of the harshest criticisms (which again suggests me) come from people who don’t spend time (which she has already established includes me) AND effort. She doesn’t use OR effort, she doesn’t separate the thoughts into a whole different paragraph with more supporting facts, in the end she brings effort into the conversation for the first time, and that can only be taken to be attached to the previous discussion. Otherwise it is just a bad string of ideas put together. You can’t honestly tell me that you’re talking about Josh or Matt here, nor Tulley or Andrew or anyone else that has voiced any opinion on this issue here, but me. This is no place to be complaining about unnamed others making comments that don’t appear here, unless of course you intended to lump me in with them, as any reasonable person can only assume you did.
I find the idea laughable that someone has to spend more than 3 months working within an organization before they could possibly make any informed opinions, (not to mention the 12 months of semi-following the progress of that organization since, or years before my departure, and plenty of respectable secondhand sources within the Montana community that have further enlightened me on the subjects I have spoken on, while I was at the ranch.) I certainly respect the opinions of people who have put years of time in at the ranch, and actually anyone in here’s opinion for that matter, and I would agree in some respects that some deserve to be heard with more weight than mine (however to this point they have remained silent.) I would, however, also stress that my opinions are the result of an inside look at the workings of the administration that can only possibly come when one is put through the rigors of the dismissal process with Richard and his henchmen. Simply put, I have nothing to lose while speaking about PVS, and so I withhold nothing. I certainly don’t want to see the organization hurt in any way, and there is no malice intended behind these words, whereas I certainly could supply them with it if I chose. Moreover, my opinions were not stated as facts, but in an open challenge to anyone who could refute them (and you are more than welcome to try.) If I am really in error, I would like to be enlightened so I don’t continue making ignorant comments. That is why I felt necessary to clarify my thoughts on this post, in order that any ignorance they contain could be corrected and to prevent anything they don’t contain from being attributed to them. That is the purpose of discourse in the first place.
I certainly hope we can put this issue to bed, at least as this blog is currently concerned. There are really a million more important and interesting things happening that we should be discussing. If anyone has any further comments regarding only me, my stay at the ranch, the validity of my opinions, or any structural aspects of my comments, please direct them to my personal e-mail. If anyone can correct or refute any of the specific comments I have made, then I implore you to provide them for all to see, in the interest of full information.
Thanks to all of you again for the discourse.
on July 25th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Greyson, you are all like “blah blah blah”. You should be more like “blah blah”.
ps. You have some shit to get over. After getting off of your crucifix every day you should realy find something better to blather about than how PVS wronged you.
Next time find a better summer camp.
on July 29th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Greyson,
I remember at PVS that we plugged your monitor into a computer and powered it up and it worked just fine. You should have just taken it with you.
on July 29th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
As much as I didn’t want to drag this back up to the top… please please send any more of these comments directly to my e-mail… and please if anyone wants to attack the message instead of these continual attacks on the messenger please feel free, I’d love a real debate.
Meagan, the monitor you are talking about was the one that was lent to me as a replacement, which I kindly left behind because it wasn’t mine and wasn’t even half the monitor that mine was, so it was no suitable replacement. I did take my monitor with me, I still have it because I have considered legal action, and it is still ruined because of the negligence by PVS personnel in spraying water through my window. I’d be happy to give anyone who comes by a demonstration if you still don’t believe me… I’m not a liar, or an idiot, nor am I trying to bilch 100 bucks out of the company that I donated my time to for less than half its market value. Please don’t suggest that Meagan, I like you.
As for “Mr. Scooter,” I think the blatant ignorance and disregard for the mission of PVS that he displayed in his post is enough to discredit it, so I won’t bother.