June 20, 2008 by fbk.

Five members of the Supreme Court of the United States have made another power grab.  Perhaps it is time that Congress acts to impeach these rogues.  Better that than that the people rise.  Eventually, if Congress doesn’t do their job, the people will.

Posted in Government | Print | 2 Comments »

May 15, 2008 by fbk.

It really is terrible when one really doesn’t feel like complaining about anything much.  How can one be a curmudgeon if one is reasonably happy?  Thus the very dry blog these last few months.  Must be spring fever.  As the weather heats up, I’m sure I’ll get crankier.

Posted in Human Nature | Print | No Comments »

February 7, 2008 by fbk.

Well, with the news today, it is time for me to make a decision as to where my support should go.  Initially, I was supporting Fred Thompson, but he dropped out.  So, I shifted allegiance to Mitt Romney.  Now, he’s dropped out.  Remembering my previous Presidential election year choices, I now realize that I am a serious jinx.  So, the only thing I can do now is to make the worst possible choice of whom to support.  It’s really a win-win for me.  If the new person I support is the worst choice and drops out, it’s good for everyone.  If the new candidate takes it all the way, I’m on the winning team.  Either way works well for me.

So, Senator Clinton, I hereby officially throw my entire support toward your campaign.  (Expect to be pulling out within the week.)

Posted in Politics, Culture | Print | No Comments »

January 31, 2008 by fbk.

The Presidential primaries present an interesting conundrum this year.  The front runners of the moment are a 1940’s-style Democrat (Big Government CAN do it all, strong on defense) and a 1970’s-style Democrat, who looks and talks like Jimmy Carter, but actually votes to be strong on defense in the Senate.  Both have proven to find the truth a highly-elastic material.  The net difference between the Republican and Democratic frontrunners is that one of the two has real testicles.  Of course, they originally belonged to her husband.

Many might consider this to be an unfair characterization of Senator McCain.  He is a war hero, after all.  But, that war ended more than thirty years ago, and while he may have had a backbone against the North Vietnamese, he’s never shown one against the Democrats.  He’s thrown more punches, literal and figurative, at his Republican colleagues than at the Democrats.  He talks much more like Walter Mondale than Ronald Reagan, with references to “greedy people on Wall Street who need to be punished” and “for patriotism, not for profit.”  Anyone remember his comments from 2000 about the Christian right?  I could believe much of what he says coming from a John Kerry or Dennis Kucinich, but from the Republican frontrunner?

I cannot see myself voting for this man under any circumstances.  So, where does that leave me if he gets the nomination?  He can’t be trusted on Supreme Court nominations.  He has flip-flopped on what sort of Justice he would nominate.  Right now, he’s trying to claim to be conservative, but he’s had a reputation as a maverick for much longer.  There are also rumors that he has said he’ll only run for one term.  That means the day he takes office, he’s no longer beholden to the people who elected him.  He can follow his true inclination without worry about upsetting all of those wacko right-winger types, who just happen to be the bulk of his party.  I wouldn’t trust him on any issue.

On economic issues, issues of freedom, paying attention to the Constitution, and big government programs, he aligns pretty well with Senator Kennedy.  In fact, McCain is to the left of the former Senator Kennedy who became President.  John F. Kennedy at least understood the power of tax cuts to free the economy.  McCain would be likely to let the tax levels rise back to the former levels under Clinton, if not higher.  He certainly has no clue about regulation and its effect on the economy.  Comparing Senator McCain to the average Democrat would only yield a slight divergence on winning the war in Iraq.  But, despite many of the things she has said about the war, Hillary Clinton’s voting record isn’t that different from McCain’s.

If we’re going to get basically the same results either way, with one result being an economic disaster, wouldn’t it be better to let the Democrats have the White House for four years, and let them get the blame for the recession caused by economic ignorance?  If the candidates are so close on the issues and neither is a disciple of the truth, what’s the downside?  If McCain gets elected and does as expected, the Republicans get blamed.  I don’t consider myself so much a Republican as a conservative.  But, most of the other conservatives are in the Republican Party, and what hurts the party will hurt the conservative cause.  I’d much rather see the Democrats take it on the chin as they did in 1976-80.

I can’t quite bring myself to think that I’d vote for Hillary, but I’ve actually been considering it, which scares me.  How many other conservatives are thinking that Hillary might do less damage than McCain?  How many conservatives will just sit out the general election if McCain is the Republican nominee?  How many will seek a third party, such as the Libertarians?  How many will just hold their noses and vote for McCain?  I don’t have the answers to any of these questions.  But I have a feeling that if McCain gets the nomination, nothing good will come of it.

Posted in Politics, Human Nature, Government, Culture | Print | 1 Comment »

January 10, 2008 by fbk.

More and more in my working life, I seem to encounter bloviators.

Over a year ago now, I was helping out on a project, and needed some information and clarification to get them where they wanted to be.  The executive in charge tried to answer my question, and his lack of true knowledge didn’t stop him from unleashing a torrent of words to flood the Mississippi and entire Midwest.  Now, I wound up having a very good relationship with this fellow, and we are working together again, but he’s a man who talks.

Eight months ago, I was on a two-week assignment, and 90% of it was hearing the engagement lead go on and on about how we couldn’t do what we were supposed to do because we didn’t have the knowledge.  When I finally paid enough attention to figure out what the windbag was going on about, I pointed out that we did know enough, and then took over the project and started assigning jobs to the other people, who were all senior to me.  It took me fifteen minutes to accomplish what he spent hours saying couldn’t be done.

Previous and subsequent to that, I had to put up with another fellow, not nearly as bad, but still one who talked too much.This fellow was a geek about certain topics, and could go on forever about them, whether he actually knew anything or not.

Then there was the Alpha Bore, who has been the topic of a few posts here.

Now, on a new project, I once again encounter another bloviator.  If he’s on the phone, one question can spur him to review the whole project history and future.  An e-mail with a simple statement or two can get a return reiterating everything that was said three times.

When did we shift idolizing from the strong, silent type to the chatty, say-nothing huckster?  When did men start thinking it was okay to say nothing, so long as it was said in quantity?  Was it a matter of the wars of the last century that turned men into taciturn doers rather than tsunamis of statements?  Whatever the cause, give me men who speak seldom and move the world with their actions.

Posted in Human Nature, Culture, Manners | Print | No Comments »

December 13, 2007 by fbk.

I’m out to change the world, again.  I’ve decided that my goal for the next ten years is to eliminate all accounting and IT departments in America.  Both are departments based around functions, being techy or good with numbers.  I want to see departments built around true business processes, departments with one primary output.   Instead of “Accounting,” let’s see a department of Monitoring, Measurement, and Management.  Instead of just measuring the money and being involved in three or four pieces of different processes, let’s have a more holistic view that measures quality and suitability as well as profitability.

And, instead of having a bunch of support departments based on functions, like HR, IT, Facilities, etc., why not have departments that deal with support in stasis and in adapting the corporation.  The problem with an IT department in most modern organizations is that its fingers are in everything.  Most large corporate changes wind up funneled through the IT department.  Need a new purchasing system, or even an ERP?  Give the project to IT.  But most IT people eat with their fingers and speak a foreign language known as GEEK.  Ask most IT folks what the impact of a project to the business is, and they’ll give a blank stare or spew technical facts and figures.  Give an IT project manager an opportunity to change the business, and the solution is usually hardware and software.  What about the people?  What about training?  Do we need to change the facilities?  Oy!

Yes, I know there are many good IT project managers who really do understand the business and all of the “soft” issues with change, but running changes out of an IT department is usually asking for trouble.  If you are adapting the organization, there ought to be multiple views: people (HR), technology, etc.  And that ought to be in an adaptation department.

So, take all of those support departments, moosh them together, then split them into departments for maintaining stasis and for adapting the organization.

There’s more to my thoughts than this, but accountants and IT professionals should be forewarned: I’m out to change your lives and organizations.

Posted in Ideas | Print | No Comments »

December 9, 2007 by fbk.

Les reminds me of many of my rants about poetry and modern poets in my earlier years.  I’ve calmed down a bit on the subject after finding formalist poetry magazines and that there are still writing programs where forms are taught.  All is not lost on the subject, even if one might think so if all one sees is Poetry.

But, today, I come not to rant about poetry, but to share a bit in this season of sharing.  It seems your humble curmudgeon is associated with an organization that does a Christmas collection program every year for a local shelter.  And so, I buy a stuffed animal to make a child smile.  This year, the critter that attracted my eye was a big ape or monkey-like thing.  Its arm and leg on each side are of a piece and adjustable as to length.  So, the owner can make their monkey have short legs and long arms, long legs and short arms, or medium length limbs all around.   Or even one leg short with a long arm and the other side with a long leg and short arm.  I’m sure this fellow will be quite fun for any child.  But, a store-bought monkey is something anyone could have.  It isn’t unique, even if nice for a child in a shelter for battered women and children.

So, I usually decide to include a little poem to make each stuffed animal a little more unique.  I print the poem off on nice paper, roll it up as a scroll, and tie it onto the animal with a ribbon.  Here is this year’s inclusion:

Montmorency “Monty” Monkey

His arms and his legs can be long or quite short
and he’ll misbehave like a terrible sport.
He’ll bounce all around like an acrobat clown
erasing all traces of gloom or of frowns.

There are other things that our Monty might do
Like waltzing around in your mother’s best shoes,
Or swinging from lamps to go hanging on Gramps
And drawing the curtains to climb like a champ.

A monkey’s a monkey and not like a child,
Who could not misbehave and never runs wild.
So, play all you want with wild Monty the monk,
But do be polite and don’t act like a punk.

Posted in Poetry | Print | No Comments »

December 2, 2007 by fbk.

It may be that we’ll soon be seeing a new face…er…well, having a new voice on the blog.

Just thought you should know.

Posted in Attila the Hun School Announcements | Print | No Comments »

December 1, 2007 by fbk.

Have you ever noticed how easy it is to put up with poor manners on the part of a decently attractive member of the opposite sex?  Things I’d strangle a man for, I just shrug my shoulders when a pretty woman does it.  Thinking about this recently, I was wondering if I’m really a total, unreconstructed chauvinist male of another era, or if it’s just something deep-seated in human nature.

One example is talking too much.  Dominating conversations is certainly an example of poor manners.  Admittedly, my standard of what constitutes talking too much may be more stringent than most anyone else’s, but people ought to watch cues and stop or slow down on the cascade of chatter.  But, with a lovely lady, I might just stop listening to what she’s saying and think about other things, rather than interrupt her or send her on her way, as I would with a gentleman who violated the same rules.

Yes, for any who are curious, the drift of my thoughts does tend to go toward, “I wonder what she’d be like in bed,” or, “I wonder what she’d be like in bed with a ball gag?”  I am a male, after all.  For instance, in my youth, I had this one supervisor with magnificent legs…

But, is it really a favour to such women not to stop their rudeness?  (Well, with my former supervisor, I really had no choice, and her legs were exquisite.  Did she think that my eyes were tilted down out of respect for what she was saying?)  Wouldn’t it be better to stop them and help coach them on being concise?  And wouldn’t it save trouble later when something has to get done quickly, and you have to send the little chatterbox out of the room to get the work done?  I have a feeling that this is a much more universal trait.  Why else would the phrase, “Yes, dear,” ever have come into the lexicon?  It’s purely a statement said by someone thinking of the efficacy of ball gags, while not paying attention to the chatter.  So, I’m fairly sure this trait is universal among men. 

I don’t know if it’s true of women, though.  If a real “dreamboat” sails by and is dominating the conversation, do woman tune out, nod occasionally, and think about the man’s features?  Of course, this really begs the question whether women ever pay any attention to anything a man ever says, or if they’re always focused on their internal monologues.  I’ve certainly known some women who paid attention and conversed equally.  But I’m nobody’s dreamboat, more of a nightmare harbor tug.  So, what about it, ladies?  Do you do the same as men, and let things pass more when the person being rude is pleasing in other ways?

Posted in Human Nature, Manners | Print | 2 Comments »

December 1, 2007 by fbk.

In an earlier post, I mentioned a fellow I called the Alpha Bore.  Despite the promise to myself, I have been to dinner with him several more times.  And a few of those times, we dined together alone.  He has shattered all of my theories about him.  When dining alone with him, he is really quite good company.  There were companionable silences.  There was conversational back-and-forth.  The few stories he told were new, funny, interesting, and appropriate to the conversation.  So, I must come up with new theories to explain his behaviour with the larger audience.

The best initial theory I have developed is self-defense.  Did I mention the other fellow we are often out with is also a bore?  So, maybe he talks to preclude this other guy from carrying on?  He had worked with this fellow before, and they had eaten dinner together many times.  Maybe, the Alpha Bore had just heard the other fellow’s geek-out topics too many times and developed this strategy as a defensive ploy?  The only semi-hole in this theory is that he was also this way when it was a different third person.  Now, that person is pleasant enough.  Even when on geek-out subjects, it’s easy enough not to mind.   (Perhaps another post about that later?)  But perhaps the Alpha had also had enough of that person in previous assignments?  This is possible.  The only thing is that I know that I’d bore myself with such a strategy.  If the company talks too much, I’d rather ignore them than try to out-bore them.  Still, it could be an explanation for this fellow.

Another explanantion that I’ve tried to fit onto the fellow, is that maybe when we’re out with a larger group, the other members are responding with interest to his stories.  Maybe when we’re one-on-one, he picks up on strong cues from me to just-shut-up-and-eat-I-want-to-watch-people-not-hear-you-babble.  But it strains credulity that anyone could be responding with that much interest.  And I was watching the others to a certain extent.  I really didn’t notice anything that would bring on such a thorough cascade of words.

Another theory is that he likes to show off in a crowd.  After all, he isn’t bad when it’s just the two of us.  Maybe it’s larger groups where he feels the need to be dominant?  This theory might be workable to explain things, although maybe the word dominant is the key?

I did tag this fellow the Alpha Bore.  And maybe it really is an Alpha thing.  Could it be that he only feels the need to demonstrate conversational dominance if he’s challenged?  One on one, since I have no interest in conversational dominance, he may not feel the need to talk so much.  But when any of the others are about, he talks.  Admittedly, if he didn’t, either of the other two certainly would.  So, maybe this is actually his way of asserting himself as the Alpha?  This is about the best theory I now have, unless a mixed explanation is the reality.

Humans are complex enough creatures that it may well be a mixture of self-defense, alpha dominance, reading signals I’m not seeing since I’m not speaking, and sheer crowd-wowwing.  Whatever the true case, the Alpha Bore can be very decent company at dinner, so long as nobody else is there.

Posted in Human Nature, Manners | Print | No Comments »