Category Archives: Personal

Deming and Rocketdyne

Sometime in late January of 1987, almost one year to the day after the Space Shuttle Orbiter Challenger was destroyed as it ascended to orbit, I was assigned by the temp agency I was using at the time to begin work on the Space Shuttle Main Engine team at Rockwell International’s Rocketdyne Division in Woodland Hills, CA.

Prior to that fateful date I had, with one exception, never worked at a company with more than a dozen employees. My family’s wholesale food business, at its peak, was only my father, brother, me, and one employee and most of the numerous jobs I had held over the previous 20 years or so were similarly small.

Rocketdyne employed several thousand people, most of whom labored at our campuses in Woodland Hills and Canoga Park, CA. It was a division of Rockwell International, which employed over 100,000 people world-wide. It was a jarring transition to go from small (really small) businesses to a multi-national aerospace conglomerate. However, having been somewhat of a space-cadet, i.e. enthusiast most of my life, I was thrilled with the opportunity.

A year later on 1 February 1988, I was hired to work in Engineering Computing on the Flight Ops team – a position I would not have dared to dream of filling. Nevertheless, there I was helping our nation’s space program get back on track. It was truly a dream come true.

At the same time, I was becoming aware of the unique way in which large organizations conduct themselves. Some of it wasn’t pretty. I first encountered the business philosophy of W. Edwards Deming soon after I was officially hired as I was lucky enough to have a colleague who was a student of his. Deming had written a book (he wrote many) in which he laid out a fourteen-point explication of his concept of TQM (Total Quality Management).

I was enamored of his positions, as they coincided with my growing understanding how things worked in virtually any organization. I had long been someone who looked for and found ways in which to improve the processes and procedures of any organization I was involved with, and Deming’s philosophy made a great deal of sense to me.

At the same time, I was becoming increasingly aware of the reality that many companies, including Rocketdyne, were honoring those principles in their breach, not their adherence to them. As I was studying Deming’s 14 points I began to realize just how thoroughly many of the managers I encountered were oblivious to the virtues Deming laid out.

Somewhere around 1990 I decided to see if I could capture the differences between what Deming offered and how Rocketdyne was actually doing things. I captured Deming’s 14 points and then created Rocketdyne’s 14 counterpoints. I’ve kept them over the years and am here sharing my understanding with two screenshots of those differing points of view. Please keep in mind not all managers were as controlling as the worst of them. I was lucky to work under the supervision of several truly wonderful managers in my nearly quarter century of employment there. Regardless, I think my analysis was reasonable, even after over 34 years. You?


How About It, Men?

Every man who denigrates the Barbie movie should be required to watch this powerful soliloquy as many times as necessary to get it through their thick, manscaped heads that we (men, that is) need to be supportive of women’s equality (and, I might add, bodily autonomy).

Women DO hold up (more than) half the sky. Why TF wouldn’t we want them by our side, not behind us? With us, as equals.

Let’s try matriarchy for a couple thousand years, MK? It’s only fair. I, for one, would welcome it. Women deserve it, IMO.


Half The Sky!

Every man who denigrates the movie should be required to watch this as many times as necessary to get it through their thick, manscaped heads that we (men, that is) need to be supportive of women’s equality (and, I might add, bodily autonomy).

Women DO hold up (more than) half the sky. Why TF wouldn’t we want them by our side, not behind us? With us, as equals.

Let’s try matriarchy for a couple thousand years, MK? It’s only fair. I, for one, would welcome it. Women deserve it, IMO.


A Chatbot Experiment

Is Marxism Still Relevant in the 21st Century?

Karl Marx, the bearded revolutionary with a penchant for manifestos, left an indelible mark on history. His economic theories and philosophy of dialectical materialism ignited revolutions, shaped political landscapes, and inspired countless thinkers. But in the 21st century, with globalization, technological advancements, and shifting social dynamics, one can’t help but wonder: is Marxism still relevant?

The Spectre of Capitalism Haunts the World

Marx’s core critique of capitalism remains eerily relevant. He argued that capitalism inherently generates inequality, with the wealthy owning the means of production (factories, machines) and exploiting the labor of the working class for profit. Today, we see this play out in stark income gaps, wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, and precarious job markets that leave many struggling to make ends meet.

Globalization has further intensified these issues. Corporations can now exploit cheap labor in developing countries, further widening the gap between rich and poor. The 2008 financial crisis, triggered by reckless financial speculation, exposed the inherent instability of a system driven by the pursuit of profit at all costs.

Technology: Friend or Foe of the Proletariat?

Technological advancements, a cornerstone of the 21st century, present both challenges and opportunities for Marxist analysis. On the one hand, automation threatens to displace large swathes of the workforce, potentially exacerbating unemployment and inequality. On the other hand, technology can also be a tool for empowering workers. Communication platforms and social media enable workers to connect and organize across borders, potentially building solidarity and challenging corporate power.

However, the benefits of technology are not evenly distributed. Access to education and training is crucial for workers to adapt to changing technological landscapes, but these opportunities are often limited by socioeconomic factors. The digital divide can further marginalize vulnerable groups and exacerbate existing inequalities.

The Metamorphosis of Class

The nature of social class has also undergone significant transformations since Marx’s time. The traditional working class of factory laborers has shrunk, replaced by a more diverse and service-oriented workforce. This makes it harder to identify clear class divisions and build class solidarity.

Furthermore, identity politics have risen in prominence, with groups emphasizing shared experiences based on race, gender, or sexual orientation. While these movements are crucial for addressing specific forms of oppression, they can also complicate the traditional Marxist focus on class as the primary driver of social conflict.

Beyond the Manifesto: Rethinking Marxism for the 21st Century

So, is Marxism still relevant? The answer is not a simple yes or no. While some of Marx’s specific predictions haven’t materialized (like the inevitable proletarian revolution), his core critique of capitalism’s inherent inequalities remains as sharp as ever. However, to remain relevant in the 21st century, Marxism needs to adapt to the changing realities of globalization, technology, and the evolving nature of social class.

This could involve developing new strategies for worker organizing that leverage technology and social media. It could mean acknowledging the importance of identity politics while still recognizing the role of class in shaping broader social structures. Ultimately, a 21st-century Marxism should be flexible, adaptable, and open to incorporating new ideas and perspectives.

Marxism may not offer all the answers, but it provides a valuable framework for analyzing the power dynamics and inequalities inherent in our current economic system. By critically engaging with its core ideas and adapting them to the realities of the 21st century, we can build a more just and equitable future for all.

Remember, the conversation on Marxism’s relevance is far from over. This blog post is just a starting point. What are your thoughts? Do you think Marxism still has something to offer us today? Share your views in the comments below!


A Health Update

Last year, around about this time, I began having difficulty with my stamina. After numerous tests, it became obvious I was struggling with Bradycardia (slow heart rhythm). I wore a Holter monitor for a week and on one night my heart rate dropped to 26 bpm. I could barely walk from the bedroom to the kitchen without getting winded, tired, and feeling a strong urge to just sit or lay down.

After several conversations with a cardiologist (who is now MY cardiologist) I decided the best path forward was to have a pacemaker implanted in my chest. On March 8 of last year, the surgery was performed and the difference was striking. However, along with the auto-immune skin condition I’ve been dealing with for over two years, I found it difficult to come anywhere close to returning to a relatively normal life. I still tired fairly easily and, to make things worse, in the past four or five months I’ve been experiencing arthritic like conditions in my ankles, knees, elbows, wrists, and (worst of all) fingers. Try opening a bottle or tying your shoes when both your index and middle fingers are excruciatingly painful when any pressure is applied.

Finally, things are beginning to look up, though I still have to deal with a 90-day regimen of a drug I will be starting soon, which I hope will help relieve the joint stiffness and pain. Tonight I went to the gym for the first time in I can’t actually remember. I worked my biceps, triceps, and a teeny bit of pecs. I then did a 15 minute hydro-massage. It felt really good. Looking forward to building my strength and stamina before my 77th birthday this June.

This is what the Holter monitor I wore looks like. This is NOT what I look like and, given my age and disposition, likely never will look like, but I wore one like this for a full week. Showering was fun!


More Than 2 Dozen Jobs!

In my 76 years on this planet, I’ve worked no less than 2 doz jobs, ranging from short order cook, busboy, waiter, restaurant manager, truck driver, forklift driver, butcher, jewelry bench worker, and wiener clerk, to legal secretary, project manager, knowledge manager, and business manager.

I retired from Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, where I worked on the Space Shuttle Main Engine program for nearly a quarter century and I am neither an engineer nor a scientist. Now … in a desire to get out of the house and make a little money, I am beginning a job working as a clerk in a liquor/convenience store. It’s low pay, low stress, and part time (26 hours/week).

My experience runs the gamut from highly physical work to entirely knowledge/mental work. If I’ve learned nothing else, it’s that there’s no such thing as a menial job. There is dignity and sanity in working at virtually any job. I know this one won’t tax my intellect, but I’m looking forward to it.


Rudy Colludy Gets What He Deserves

Rudy Giuliani is getting everything he’s deserved for freaking ever. In the nation’s knee-jerk, jingoistic response to 9-11 he undeservedly was referred to as “America’s Mayor”. Phuque that! He was never such a thing. He was barely New York’s Mayor, representing the oligarchy over all else. I wish I believe in Hell, because he would surely burn there in eternity.


Way To Go, Colorady

Colorado license plate spelling out NO-DKT8TR
Colorado Supreme Court makes the right decision, IMLTHO.

Shopping During the Apocalypse

While looking for something else, I stumbled upon this piece I wrote going on four years ago. It holds together, so I thought I would share it even though its current relevance is questionable. It was written in April of 2020. Consider it an historical document. :0)

I admit it. I’ve gone shopping during our state’s (California) lockdown. For groceries; only groceries. It’s difficult to lay in a month or so’s supply of perishables like bananas (which my youngest thrives on), eggs, and milk. Things like that.

In the past, B.C.V., before Corona Virus, shopping for us was pretty ad hoc. Although we made lists, we had separate ones for Trader Joe’s, Vons, and Smart & Final. We also shopped occasionally at Sprout’s, Stater Brothers, Ralph’s, and a local mom and pop called Green Acres. We would go at least three, sometimes four times a week to pick up fresh produce, dairy, and re-stock our cupboard and freezer. Actually, I forgot to mention Costco which, last time I went (just before the State was locked down) was a freaking nightmare.

So, I’m now basically shopping only once a week, but there are some things we’d like to have available that generally aren’t carried by all of the stores, which is why we normally go to more than one during any given week. This is making it a bit difficult to hold down the trips to only one. In the past week, I went three times.

Inasmuch as I’m nearly 73 years old and have numerous comorbidities (none of which are acute, but they’re active and I take meds for two of them) I’m reluctant to leave the house. However, I’m even more reluctant to expose my wife or daughters to the danger of infection. My oldest has had lung issues when she was a toddler and my understanding is the disease can leave survivors with impaired lung function. I would rather risk my health than hers . . . or my other daughter’s . . . I’ve had a wonderfully rich, often exciting life and they’ve got a long way to go. My wife’s lungs are worse than mine, so I don’t have to balance anything with the decision for her to stay indoors.

I was pleased last week to find that Trader Joe’s, like most local markets, was reserving one hour each morning for those considered more vulnerable. The way they have approached it is to form two lines; one for the elderly, immuno-compromised, and pregnant women (they say nothing about pregnant men; guess that would be another story!) and one for everyone else. They only allow twenty shoppers at a time in the store so, each time the 20 who were shopping are finished, a worker sends in 10 from each line. Last week I was handed a disinfectant wipe upon entry, which I used to clean the cart handle and my hands.

The store was stocked to the gills. I had never seen it so full of just about everything they normally carry. Lots of fresh veggies and fruits, frozen food almost spilling out of the cases, eggs fully loaded, and plenty of dairy, meat, etc. Lots of alcohol as well. I was in and out in about 15 minutes. The lack of crowding means it’s easy to maintain distance from other shoppers. It also makes checking out go quickly and smoothly.

This past Monday, when I returned for my weekly trip, I wasn’t handed a wipe, though I’ve become adept at not touching my face until I return home, unpack and put away the groceries, and ever so thoroughly wash my hands . . . after which I can scratch every damned phantom itch that was plaguing me from the moment I entered the store! I also wore a mask this time, which I found in the garage. It’s an N95, which I purchased about a year ago, when I was doing some woodworking and needed to ensure I wasn’t inhaling sawdust as I was sanding my project. I did feel a wee tad guilty about having the kind of mask that HCWs are having a hard time finding these days, but I got over it.


SCOTUS would be crazy not to rule in favor of Smith.

I see the speed with which the Supreme Court has accepted Jack Smith’s request for a hearing on the issue of Presidential Immunity in the January 6 prosecution of Trump as a golden opportunity to cement their “supremacy”, and create a modicum of good will at the same time. It’s kind of a Marbury v. Madison moment for not only the court, but for the entire judicial system.

Maybe they’ll cave, but I think the odds of their taking the opportunity to make a major consequential decision that will inure to the benefit of the judicial system (and the nation) are high.

After I posted the foregoing to Threads, a friend offered his opinion that Clarence Thomas would side with Trump, adding “for starters”. I responded as follows:

Actually, no, I don’t. I suspect he might. There’s lots of evidence to suggest he would do that, but there are long-term, historical reasons why this is a deeply historical opportunity for the court to strengthen the ruling of Marbury v. Madison. If you’re not familiar with the ruling, Britannica explains:

Marbury v. Madison is important because it established the power of judicial review for the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts with respect to the Constitution and eventually for parallel state courts with respect to state constitutions.

I may be wrong – perhaps crazy – but what remaining legal spidey sense I have (it’s been over 47 years since I graduated law school) tells me this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to further cement the court’s power to be the final say in matters of constitutionality.

It doesn’t have to be unanimous, though I believe there are powerful and important reasons for the court to rule en banc.

If they pass up this opportunity to strengthen the position (and power) of the court to rule on the constitutionality of both legislative and executive acts, as well as make a decision that seems – prima facie – in line with our country’s stated objectives for existing, I would be surprised. Not necessarily shocked, as they are dominated by RWNJs. However, I think they could write a decision that could conceivably be as momentous as that of Marbury v. Madison. Furthermore, from a political perspective, I think such a decision would serve to blunt some of the criticism certain members of the court have been receiving, though it should in no way negate the egregious performances of those who have accepted bribes from wealthy patrons. That should NEVER go away!