Category Archives: Professional

Evolving with AI

If Artificial Intelligence takes over in the future, and that seems to be what causes the most hand-wringing nowadays, wouldn’t it most likely follow that we will have evolved into cyborgs? Is there anything actually WRONG with that? Unlike Data, from Star Trek: The Next Generation, we’d almost certainly bring our emotions with us (unless evolution proves them to be detrimental to our long-term survival.) It can easily be argued that emotions, at least destructive ones, are not in our overall best interest, while positive ones are evolutionary assets.

When you think about it, doesn’t it seem strange, if not useless, to worry about our evolutionary path going forward? Artificial selection makes it clear we can at least guide that path, so it’s surely important to understand how we have evolved and then project those changes that may or may not require our attention. So thinking about where we’re headed is useful. My contention is that worrying about it is, well, a waste of time.

I have no doubt we will one day be a true spacefaring species; that is, if we don’t kill ourselves off first. That should require some hefty biological, psychological, and perhaps a dozen or so other aspects of the human being, changes in order to adapt.


The Crisis of Leadership: Toxic Masculinity, Bullying, and the Betrayal of Accountability

The meeting on February 28, 2025, at the White House, bringing together Donald Trump, J.D. Vance, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, serves as a stark illustration of the political, economic, and social chaos that toxic leadership has wrought on the United States. On one side of the table sat Trump and Vance, embodying the very traits that have plunged America deeper into division and dysfunction—traits of toxic masculinity, bullying, gaslighting, and victim-shaming. On the other sat Zelenskyy, a leader of integrity and composure, whose professionalism only magnified the disgrace of his American counterparts. This juxtaposition was more than symbolic; it was a glaring indictment of the corrosive leadership that continues to undermine the United States and its standing in the world.

Toxic masculinity, as personified by Trump and echoed in Vance’s rhetoric, has become a cornerstone of American political dysfunction. Their performative bravado and obsession with power over progress perpetuate a culture where collaboration is seen as weakness and empathy is dismissed outright. Trump’s tenure has been a masterclass in this destructive ethos, where bluster replaces leadership and domination replaces diplomacy. Vance, once a self-styled critic of Trump’s excesses, has since become a sycophantic disciple, mimicking his mentor’s disdain for nuance and complexity. Together, they exemplify a system that rewards aggression over thoughtfulness, leaving the American people to bear the brunt of their failures. This toxic culture has seeped into every corner of American life, from policymaking to public discourse, eroding the very foundations of democracy.

Bullying has become an accepted strategy in their political arsenal, weaponized to intimidate opponents and silence dissent. Trump’s long history of personal attacks, from mocking disabled reporters to belittling political adversaries, has set a precedent for cruelty as a form of governance. Vance, too, has adopted this playbook, using inflammatory language to marginalize those who challenge his agenda. This normalization of hostility has turned public discourse into a battlefield, where the loudest and most caustic voices drown out reasoned debate. The result is a nation more divided than ever, unable to agree on even the most fundamental truths. Meanwhile, Zelenskyy, facing a war in his homeland, demonstrates the strength that comes from uniting people rather than tearing them apart. His calm resolve in the face of existential threats is a sobering reminder of how far American leadership has fallen.

Gaslighting, a hallmark of Trump’s reign, continues to sow confusion and distrust among the American public. From denying election results to dismissing the severity of crises like COVID-19, Trump has repeatedly manipulated reality to serve his own ends. Vance, despite his past critiques of Trump’s dishonesty, has embraced this strategy, casting doubt on credible institutions and experts. This deliberate distortion of truth not only erodes public confidence but also paralyzes meaningful action. When leaders deny facts and vilify those who challenge them, they create an environment of apathy and hopelessness. Zelenskyy, by contrast, has faced unimaginable challenges with honesty and transparency, fostering trust among his people and the global community. His leadership underscores the moral bankruptcy of those who would rather gaslight than govern.

The culture of victim-shaming perpetuated by Trump and Vance is perhaps the most insidious aspect of their toxic leadership. Rather than addressing systemic injustices, they shift blame onto the very people harmed by them. Whether it’s dismissing the struggles of marginalized communities or ridiculing survivors of abuse, their rhetoric perpetuates cycles of oppression and inequality. This refusal to take accountability emboldens abusers and undermines efforts to create a more just society. Zelenskyy’s leadership stands in stark contrast; he has consistently championed the resilience and dignity of his people, refusing to vilify the vulnerable even in the face of extraordinary challenges.

Compounding this crisis is the complicity of women who support leaders like Trump and Vance, enabling their toxic behavior and policies. Their subservience to patriarchal norms legitimizes the very power structures that oppress them. This dynamic is a critical but often overlooked factor in America’s current turmoil. By propping up men who embody toxic masculinity, these women reinforce the cycles of inequality and dysfunction that plague the nation. Zelenskyy’s leadership, grounded in mutual respect and shared purpose, offers a stark alternative to this corrosive dynamic.

As the meeting unfolded, the contrast between Trump and Vance’s bluster and Zelenskyy’s quiet professionalism could not have been more glaring. While Zelenskyy sought solutions to a war that threatens global stability, Trump and Vance seemed more interested in posturing and self-aggrandizement. Their presence was a reminder of everything wrong with American leadership: the prioritization of ego over ethics, power over people, and division over unity. In Zelenskyy, we see a leader who understands the gravity of his responsibilities, who values truth and accountability, and who inspires rather than alienates. In Trump and Vance, we see the embodiment of a toxic culture that has brought America to the brink.

It is time to reckon with the consequences of this toxic leadership. The United States cannot afford to continue down a path where aggression, dishonesty, and victim-shaming are rewarded while integrity and collaboration are dismissed. We must demand better from our leaders and ourselves. The contrast between Trump, Vance, and Zelenskyy is a stark reminder of what is at stake: the very soul of our democracy and the future of our nation. Let this meeting serve as a wake-up call, not just to those in power but to every American who believes in a better, more just future.


Paine’s Nightmare

We’re about to find out just how many “summer soldiers and sunshine patriots” have managed to ascend to positions of power and influence in our country.

I fear such knowledge is going to be deeply disappointing and demoralizing. I will be surprised if even half of elected Democrats rise to the occasion. I hope I’m wrong.


Why Are People Giving In?

In his book, “On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons From The Twentieth Century”, the very first lesson Timothy Snyder presents us with is “Do not obey in advance”.


Yet this is precisely what the mainstream media (including MSNBC and even Comedy Central) are doing wrt the “candidacy” of Rapey McEarGotNicked. They’re cravenly removing shows that might “offend” Trumplethinskin, ostensibly in the forlorn hope that if he wins they’ll obtain or retain access to him during his admin, er reign as King of the World.

Another admonition from Snyder; “Be calm when the unthinkable arrives.” Unfortunately, if my admittedly unscientific analysis is correct, this is what far too many of us are doing on the daily. I say this because of a couple of things.


One – Facebook provides a range of reactions for posts and comments. These are “Like”, “Love”, “Care”, “Ha Ha”, “Wow”, “Sad”, and “Anger”. I see lots of people reacting to news of Mango Mussolini’s outlandish “positions” (especially Project 2025) with “Sad” rather than “Anger”. Being sad is debilitating. Being angry is energizing. It can, and should, lead to dogged determination to resist, whereas being sad leads to fear, anxiety, and panicked paralysis.

Two – On Threads which, despite being a META product like FB & IG, doesn’t provide for a range of reactions, I consistently read comments by people who are afraid or uncomfortable. Hardly any are angry at what’s going on with the Treason Weasel’s “campaign”.


What we face with the prospect of another Trump Presidency is objectively horrendous, yet many seem to be paralyzed and incapable of doing anything other than complaining and expressing their fear for the future.


Maybe I’m off base here, but I believe they are doing what Professor Snyder is admonishing us against, i.e. obeying in advance or, to put it more succinctly, giving up.


WE NEED TO DO BETTER. Only 112 days remain for us to educate and fire up the electorate, especially the large chunk of people who don’t ordinarily vote.


PS – I’m a 77-year-old, straight, cis gendered, white male who lives in SoCal, is retired, and has enough retirement income (thank you Social Security & Medicare) to squeak by almost no matter what happens. Nevertheless, I care about my fellow meat sacks and, especially, my two adopted girls. For this reason I will not obey, either in advance or afterward. There’s just too much at stake.

Hasta la victoria siempre. ¡Venceremos!


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?


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!


Hardly Frightening!

Bruce McCandless – Feb. 7, 1984

This photo is often shared and referred to as a “frightening picture”. From the first time I saw this (which happened 40 years ago this Feb. 7) I found it both thrilling and a testament to what human ingenuity can accomplish. To me it also represents how, despite his apparent loneliness in the vastness of space, it took his crew, the NASA team below, and thousands upon thousands of people to make that one act happen.

It should be noted that another astronaut, Bob Stewart, completed a similar mission while both of them were aboard Challenger, flying mission STS-41B. There does not seem to be a photo of Stewart’s space walk.

He may look lonely out there, but the reality is he’s a member of a huge team of fellow humans who make such a feat possible. I suspect that’s true for just about all of us if we’re to be successful.


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.


I Was Just Passing The Time

When I first ended up at Rocketdyne (it was serendipity, not a conscious move) I was gobsmacked knowing I was working on the Space Shuttle Main Engine program, with bonafide rocket scientists and engineers. It was 1987, almost exactly one year since Challenger exploded and I was working on the FMEA/CIL (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis/Critical Items List) in anticipation of the shuttle’s return to flight. There were frequent dead times while I waited for an engineer/scientist to bring me their work so I could input it into the format we were using to present the information.

I was just going through a folder I found stashed away that’s chock full of some of the things I created back then while I was bored. Keep in mind we only had dot matrix printers and early IBM PCs. I’m pretty sure we were using IBM XTs running Intel 8088 processors. Anyway, here’s one of the things I put together to assuage my boredom back then.