I’ve worked with Boards of various sizes and shapes throughout my career.  I’ve found there are a variety of “types” who seek opportunities to be on Boards.  Their motivations range from altruistic hippie to maniacal grasping wanna-be dictators and everything in between.

Being on a Board is about shared decision-making, or at least that’s the theory.  I’ve found that few Boards work that way because although most decisions are made by a majority vote of all Board members present, the decision is usually made before the vote through the political machinations of the Board.

There are phone calls, there are coffee meet and greets of sub-committees, there are parking lot cabals, there are urinal stall lobbying sessions, there are powder room conferences.  All of these back room political maneuvering procedures contribute to the vote, and usually determine it.  Few times do Boards actually do battle in a public meeting, but some Boards are certainly more fractious than others.

One of the more sinister ways that Board members act is by launching missiles.  I’ll define a missile as sort of a nasty blog post, but in this case it is sent out by email or memo to a limited audience, the Board.  It is meant to assert a point of view by bullying, it is meant to assert power, it is meant to hit directly while avoiding direct confrontation with the true target.

Board missiles are a means of instigating revolution from the shadows.  Board members who do this get onto Boards for power but they are weak at direct confrontation so they maintain a large arsenal of missiles.  A leader of a Board might try to conduct negotiations with missile launchers for disarmament, and the missile launcher might even concede that missiles are not helping the progress of the Board.  But as soon as the launcher is challenged in a way that makes them feel less powerful; for instance, a decision is made about the brand of water the Board drinks at meetings – this is to be done without a Board vote – the missile launcher lights the fuse and sends off a devastating barrage, injuring everyone, creating shock and awe, and sending timid members running for cover. 

I suggest that the Board should immediately circle the wagons and launch their own barrage to destroy and crush the insurgent and/or to take out the launcher.  Missile launchers fall into the maniacal wanna-be dictator category, but they aren’t brave enough to be a leader of a direct revolution, they’re subversive terrorists because you may never suspect they’re against you even when they’re smiling at you across the table. Terrorists attack when and where you don’t expect them to.   The Board is better off without these types of members, because you can never negotiate peace with a terrorist and their ultimate goal is not to be in charge, but to have in control.

But, what made me cranky was the rest of us imbeciles who slowed traffice for miles because some idiot in a mercedes crashed – probably driving like the meth addict – into a ditch off the road and into a barbed wire fence.  Skid marks across the highway indicating too much speed on someone’s part, the driver of the mercedes or some other crank addict - like the jerk in the big white boat swerving around the lanes.

I’m so tired of idiotic drivers.  I see people constantly with their cell phones pressed to their ears because they are SO IMPORTANT that they can’t wait to get off the highway to talk, and they’re so impoverished that they can’t afford a blue tooth.  I think there ought to be a law that anyone with a driver’s license should be required to buy a blue tooth device WITH their phone and if they’re caught driving with their phone in their ear like some Paris Hilton debutante, they should be locked up.  Drivers do not concentrate with the damned phone in their ear, period, end of story, don’t bother to comment to the contrary, I’ll trash it anyway.  It is not possible to drive and hold your phone to your ear and do a good job at driving, you suck at driving when you are talking on the phone – or God forbid texting.  We need much higher fines for talking on the phone while driving and even higher fines for texting while driving.  These people are more dangerous than drunk drivers.  Where’s MADD on this issue?

 Maybe MADD is too busy talking on the phone on the way to their manicure to pay attention.

I deem that this message is worthy of a Golden Crank award.

Congratulations! to the staff at Maroochydore High School, Queensland, Australia for your excellent display of crankiness. I hope your Principal finds unemployment a lot less stressful than working for the public.

You may display the award icon proudly on your web site. This is the first Golden Crank ever awarded so you should very proud of your accomplishment!

I was visited by my former foreign exchange student this week.  He had come back to California for his high school reunion from Finland.  He’s an amazing young man and was an amazing kid.  He spent a year living with me and he dove into every experience without fear, well, including the pool at the welcome party where he dove into the pool and conked his head on the bottom.  No long term impact thank goodness!

But he played football, he wrestled, he went to all the social events, he made friendships that have lasted ten years. Not that many 18 year olds could leave their homes and go half way around the world and live with a stranger and just live each moment to its fullest.  He was an inspiration to me then andhe remains so now.  He’s just such a happy, balanced person, very rare.

I am a little tired after his visit because we stayed up late on most nights to talk and talk.  We went out to a blues club and we ate out, too much food!  But it was wonderful to have him here again. 

So, if I am a little cranky, you can blame it on my lack of sleep!

1. War in Iraq
2. War in Afghanistan
3. 2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts
4. Recovery Act.

The article goes on to point out that only two administrations have ever had balanced budgets, Truman and Clinton  (both were Democrats) (but then, the Right would likely argue, the surpluses were the result of Republican policies before these people came to office, or the surpluses occurred in spite of the liberal spending policies of the Democrats, something like that).  It also points out that if the current tax breaks are allowed to lapse, the income will be 3.7 trillion dollars over the next ten years.  The impact on the middle class is slight, the impact on the rich is more significant.  George W. (admittedly someone that the Republicans have relegated to the Voldemort and Schwarzenegger [and soon Whitman] category “he/she who must not be named”) entered office with a surplus, and exited with a 1 trillion dollar deficit (per the article).

If all of this is true, did tax cuts result in a better life for middle class America?  And if not, then what is the argument for continuing the tax cuts?  Does trickle-down economics really equal trickle down poverty?

I read the SF Chronicle today and it had some interesting stories, that amused and annoyed me.

• Meg Whitman, on the eve of a visit to a conservative enclave Lancaster (all desert areas are currently blazing red due to sweet retirements of the boomers, the last generation likely to enjoy that) that she will defend prop 8 in court.  You go girlfriend, define yourself, make promises, just remember that we will remember them.
• The Exotic, Erotic Ball is moving to Richmond, California.  Hmmmm…now that’s a brave move.  Somehow, I don’t think the people of Richmond, for all its problems, are going to stand out on the street corners and welcome you in wearing your leather, chains, and lace.  Is Richmond really that desperate for income?  Maybe so, maybe so.
• The REALLY interesting article is one by C.W. Nevius, “Schools need to do a lot better for their customers”, I was initially intrigued by the title, then after reading it I was just nauseated.  What the article discussed wasn’t about creating good schools for all students, no, it was about creating room in good schools for “nice people”, for people who have the background, education, and experience to raise money for the schools.  C.W. wants SFUSD to make changes so that these “valuable” people don’t leave.  The article is about the difficulty some “good” families are having getting their kids enrolled in “good” schools.  Wow, I thought, with SF Unified having ten schools among the bottom 5% of the state in performance; that is, FAILING miserably.  I wondered where on earth is C.W. Nevius’ compassion for those kids and families and why wasn’t the slant on the article?  How about an article that addresses, “What should be done by the School District AND the commuities about the bad schools where some “good” families might have to send their kids”.  I mean HELLO! the problem isn’t that there isn’t room at the schools the “good” families want to enroll in, the problem is that there aren’t enough good schools.  And the root of that is that some of the schools really STINK.  But all C.W. wanted to discuss was the need to be more fair about the enrollment process at the GOOD schools so that the GOOD families won’t leave the city, heaven forbid.   I am still nauseated.
• My last cranky bullet today is the whole Clemens debacle.  I mean sincerely, can we get real for just a minute? CONGRESS politicians have the right to PROSECUTE people who lied TO them?  I mean, holy crap, are you kidding me?  I think we need a new law about them lying TO US, don’t you?