The C/ZI Terror of Money - Business Good to the MAX!

It is possible, for those who have lost their focus, for billions of dollars in corporate or business worth to actually do good. People can benefit, society can benefit, the ways and means of greed undercut if these rather significant amounts of money can be aimed at bringing about serious change. Unfortunately, you can hardly see that these days. (No Trumpisms, please!)

When the parents of Facebook announced their Chan/Zuckerberg Initiative (C/ZI), I was thrilled. I believe it will bring us the force needed to literally reclaim control of the 1%; to redefine and direct it as it should be.

Not only was this announcement heartfelt and deep -- anyone understand what Deep Learning is? Critical thinking? -- it came across very sincere. Just as importantly, though loosely disguised as a letter to a little girl with a genderfluid name of Max, it was in reality a massive idea built around an innovation in business generosity. I can’t know whether they have devious intentions (it is always possible), but what they did, in fact, was very directly, very clearly spell out a plan that seems so straightforward it’s almost unbelievable. They not only agreed to give away 99% of their personal wealth, they opted to do so using a standard, not terrible, everyday ordinary business model that transforms their transactional realities into social and cultural awesomeness: They set up a conventional LLC instead of relying on the charitable tax covers normally used to establish a self-gratifying philanthropic foundation that avoids taxes and mostly squirrels away money for lifetime after lifetime.

That people cannot -- or won’t -- see this is sad to the Max.

Their actions are, in so many ways, the very founding of what Impact Investing is. To date, the idea of blending the values of profit and purpose has hit home with many corporate and philanthropically minded persons; but, in my opinion, mostly as an excuse to make their perception of capitalism come across feeling nicer than it really is. I happen to believe that this is exactly what charitable foundations do day in and day out. When Bill and Melinda Gates have an intensive ipso facto hands-on control of the money they gave for public benefits, they use it to advance a personal agenda and avoid taxes accordingly even while doing great stuff.

The Chan/Zuckerberg Initiative, at least as far as we can tell right now, suggests otherwise. Using the LLC model, they are directing their money to good and still ensuring that it is subject to tax requirements. It is not hidden behind foundation benefits that completely avoid taxes and tie up the dollars for all kinds of misdirected use and abuse while people in need go hungry.

The Cha/Zuckerberg Initiative is instead taking quality giving to the MAX, and it is happening without many signs of cheating the system. Of course the lawyers and tax advisors will get in the way and people will scream about what actually happens to the money, but that is more about our inability to see the good that is being posted right in front of our faces … and that’s a very deep and disturbing form of cultural terror that makes me worry a lot.

Of Fly-by Parks and Dronebrellas

The time is coming that soon there will be places dedicated to taking your drone out for a walk … or a fly. Maybe even a good-natured race with other enthusiasts. Xmas is coming, literally and figuratively, for those in the drone market … and the rest of us better stake out our safe places.

Imagine the size of a space needed to have a designated drone flying and racing space! Not to mention the worries about what all those eyes in the sky, zipping and zapping here are there, are taking in as they buzz us and everything within reach of a publicly dedicated buzz zone. (My mind wonders here, BTW, to prescription medical marijuana for some reason.)

Some time ago -- always way ahead of the game -- I suggested that what was needed as a Dronebrella -- some kind of device capable of opening on demand to put a shield over us, electronically protecting us from being “reigned on” from being “seen” or invaded from above. It is already the case that, if I said something using words like terrorist, bombing, etc. in this post, there could be a camera up in the clear blue skies checking out my activities. And that’s not a sporting threat.

Funny thing is people have such different perspectives on drones -- similarly to the layering of a wedding cake, at least one commentator has already noted -- that it’s already hard to say whether what they do above us will be for good, bad, or just annoying reasons. Likely the latter, but who can say for sure?

I seriously believe it won’t be long before someone makes the device that will allow us to walk along in our small electronic bubbles, shielded in part from being seen from these eyes in the sky and separated even more from the humans we supposedly share the lands with.

What that will mean as we all bump and bounce into each other is hard to say, but I do hope that dronebrellas can have other duck and cover benefits. I wouldn’t mind a safe and secure place to watch the drone races while secretly downing a bite or cake, or maybe even a place where I can cut out a different bight of what lies ahead.

Selective Socialism & Dickle-Down Consumption Taxes

Made a joke about this concept -- assuming it is one -- this AM, pre-coffee. Not always a good idea. I believe this one might just fly though, given some of the other nonsense that has been floating around the Twit-filled virtual-verse, mostly by Conservatarians, about inventing a new consumption instead of income tax.

They are running from the idea of equality and desperately need something to anchor their philosophical babies on. Only thing is we know all too readily that this is just another ill-informed Reaganesque slice of deception intended to refill the dickle-down septic system.

Still, if digitalized in the name of blended values, I'm game to give empowered technology a shot.

Who says consumption (i.e., sales-type) assessments have to be blindly equal? Instantaneous monetary systems are more than capable of making generally agreed upon classification assignments of the size of the tax we each pay as we conclude any transaction. Them little nano monsters the rich embed in the financial sector can play both sides of opportunity if they are programmed too!

Why shouldn’t the uber wealth-gluttons pay, say, 20% tax on basic necessities while mere humans pay … say … 2%? If we are burdened with tax assignments, we might as well use them to make the buying field balanced.

I wasn’t around when it was done but setting up Social Security assessments such that everyone paid the same for a limited period of time likely made some semblance of actuarial sense -- I’m willing to concede that (though I’m really skeptical about what history has recorded). But even so, the game has changed and the exploitatively well “algorithmed” profit-takers are advantaging universal access and prosperity at the expense of the rest of us. Blending the values of profit and purpose can easily compensate for this, if we might be willing to label that approach a form of … perhaps … selective socialism?*

Democratic socialism sounds good to some but seems naive in the face of massively manipulative online resource games.

And given this, I’m willing to bet someone else’s money to at least give it a try.

* In fairness, others previously came up with this term. I’m twisting it to a particular snarkism. And "dickle-down" as a term ... not sure that worked at all, but I do like the feel as it rolls off my brain.

Chewing on the STEM

Heartbroken. Devastated. Lost in my AM grounding of breakfast confidence.

Twits of various types; Tweets, of course; at least one notable scientific/geopolitical assessment, AKA a World Health Organization presentation all suggested today a devastating lesson: that bacon, ham, and sausage add up to health as zero sum as that offered by cigarettes! Oh. Come. On! SHOW ME THE NUMBERS!

For some time I’ve been teasing people with a proposition I’m now willing to bring out of the closet. The nation should scratch all efforts -- and I mean all efforts -- at teaching math in conventional ways in our schools. All math initiatives should be directed towards instructing children about the satiating numbers tied into the vast array of recipes for making, preparing, selling and consuming food -- preferably healthy and smart food, I guess.  

If you look at the whole menu, such numbers would indeed add up.

How food is grown, how it is harvested, what is done to GMO-itize, all of these activities can and should be understood in terms of the 0s and 1s of what we consume. Kids, and their parents, should be fed glutenous servings of numerical digital transactions about everything from the physics of seed germination to the human biotransformation of vitamins and nutrients to the business of making and selling the good, bad and fast versions of the stuff that ends up on our family plates.

Human survival is massively dependent on us crunching down orders after orders of food-related mathematics, and we might as well get used to swallowing these caloric calculations -- the bitter ones and the sweet ones.

I believe a formulaic case can be made that we can no longer deal with the operational mechanics of most mathematical transactions anyway. Does anyone actually know what happens when spreadsheets or algorithms digest the digits we feed them? Which adds up convincingly to the idea that if we teach children to perform the operations of the tastiest aspects of the math about what they eat, they’ll get the idea behind what math matters and be able to do their own calculations later using just as healthy of logic. 

I haven’t swallowed the supersized logic of the STEM meals being offered because it is overloaded towards heavy, fatty profit-taking, thus mostly being an exercise in filling the bellies and bloating the bottom lines of businesses that savor the science, technology, engineering, and math of their own excess. A totally immersive menu of the numbers associated with food (and the culture of eating, IMHO) could do better. And, with a little practice, I'm willing to bet that we could show our work as they numbers added up to giving us lucious and filling first through courses, some of which should be offered as amuse bouches by those who appreciate the ROI to having us all at the table of change. 

Barack2.0

As I've been saying with snarkitude for some time, the perfect role that the administration should be playing -- as should any and all Democrat contenders -- is that of the voice for continuing what Obama has done. He, like Hillary, played the role of more conventional politicians to get into office, and, I believe, wanted to do more of that. But when push came to stubborn, he had no choice but to be creative, knowing change through action is better than no change at all. And that will likely continue to be necessary as Ryan seeks to establish himself as the despot of the failed Republican mess.

Hillary and Bernie should review Barack's accomplishments and shape their strategy, point by point, on what has been started. Which should include letting it be known that deviations from progress will not be easily won by the Do Nothing Party.

Wanna get there first? You could just buy the shirt ... or take a look here from time to time!  http://SuperBowlSF2016.blogspot.com. (My attitude extends to other markets as well!)

Child Care Kills Our Geniuses

The MacArthur Genius Awards are beyond exceptional. Hats off to this funder.

That more of the uber-wealthy with their criminally insane excess profits don’t do this kind of investing boggles my mind, but such is the reality of boundless selfishness, if I might hitch a ride on someone’s papal dress tails.

But here is not the place ponder this shortcoming at the moment. It is, instead, necessary to draw attention to a single quote in an article posted today in the New York Times by Robin Pogrebin about the award dollars to be given to Ben Lerner by the MacArthur bunch. In case you don’t know of it, each of 24 winners receives $625,000 that they can spend without restrictions (none) over a period of five years. It is food designed to feed their gifts.

So, naturally, as expected, honesty comes pouring forth from the mouths of babes; the poignancy self-evident as can be seen in this paragraph from the Times:

Ben Lerner, a Brooklyn novelist, poet and critic, said the fellowship might enable him to spend less time teaching and more time writing (partly because it could help cover the cost of child care for his 2-½-year-old and 3-month-old). “It takes away all your excuses to not be doing the most ambitious work,” he said. “It means you don’t have to take on more things. You use the money to make space for the work.”

Your kids and those horrific costs of child care -- those little bratty excuses.

Seems we, as a supposedly sophisticated society, have fewer creative geniuses and all-in innovators than we may be entitled to because … well … we can't have those and educationally ready children too. Wow … what a cultural commentary.

This likely hit me harder than most people because I’ve had the pleasure of working in the field of family care services in the past, even developing a model, enterprise-based child care initiative for an outer Bay Area county. Not to mention that I happen to be spending some time (likely pro bono) trying to find a potential funder (or Impact Investor?) with the foresight and genius of his/her own who would consider underwriting the expenses to build a better preschool system -- one that works without sucking all the life out of family or smart parents.

The philanthropic sector is sitting on tons of dollars, much of which does nothing except help the rich school their egos and legacies. I for one would rather see more of that money made available for kids to free up and ready their minds and the creativity of their parents. Child care is clearly killing too many geniuses, and as a maturing nation, we ought to be able to stop this from happening, right MacArthurs?

Good Pope Trips

His trip was undoubtedly successful. Even those of us who are blessed with a profound and deep disrespect for what religion is all about found him a fascinating aberration to watch. For institutions built on faith, there is little higher praise.

But he tripped and fell towards the end like so many others have and will likely get a headache from this stumble (just as have past SCOTUS members, BTW). 

It is painfully clear that he, like the other men left by uncertain organizations to their own devices, do not understand sex, identity issues and women are all about. He and most formal religions continue to get hung up on past ignorances and ill-informed attitudes, laying traps for their own logic. 

To end his great Norte Americano trip by saying little more than offering platitudes and promises that he will do better on sexual abuse, and then by adding on that elected officials can blatantly discriminate in behaviors like marriage equality that make their beliefs uncomfortable … hummm ... these are the signs of much learning that even a godsend needs to do.

It is possible that the Catholic Church can do better. It's people hide behind better knowledge. They should, could and would do more if the wisdom of these masses was unleashed with the added faith of women and persons of various human orientation. To pretend that these issues can be left hanging on old precepts is a big, hurtful weakness … and it could end up being the source of his ultimate downfall.

Two-Spirited Bullessness

HAPPY BIRTHDAY THOUGHTS: We could, should and, were it not for a few moralists, would do this better. Let's give it some thought: 

I can’t help it; it’s a weirdness in me. I like when families struggle to accept the gift of pending two-spiritedness in their kids. If you don’t know what that means, stop reading. You might figure it out and your soul will burn! And that would be a waste because I won’t be there to make s’mores!

Two-spirited people, as some of our Native brothers and sisters used to conceive, were people born of a delicate balance between genders. As with everywhere else, social circumstances helped them identify with one gender or the other -- sometimes with biological match, sometimes not -- letting the final determination come about through life situations and the fit of the individual’s humanity. That’s not a bad thing and it is something that parents, schools, communities and even religions should figure out how to come to terms with.

I used to joke about how feminine I am though few people would or do agree with that when they meet me. In fact, since being gay is in favor at the moment -- though we don’t get all the good brownie points like we used to; it seems we’re everywhere! -- I sometimes get the feeling people say I’m lying even about being gay, thinking I’m just trying to be artsy, hip and cool! Trust me, the one who claims that title knows better!

The thing about this issue is that it can be hard to watch when a culture is so wholly unprepared for the learning that lies ahead, even by those of us who want more of the awareness to happen. Most people think that transgenderism is the next great barrier for the LGBTQQ communities, and it probably will be. But it still makes people uncomfortable when parents take an active role to minimize their gender-based bias their kids experience.

“We want him/her to decide, so please respect what she/he wishes.” Okay … but that’s hard to do in quick or passing situations. And, like much in life that we have been ill-prepared for, this one puts a lot of us off balance. We can’t say it’s up to the two-spiriters to take the lead because, right now, they tend to be young, very young, like my nephew young -- and the result is many people fumbling through the encounters.

If society took it upon itself to grab this bull (bulless?) by the horns -- decorative or otherwise -- the end result could become a lesson in overcoming our gender missteps in the past.

It’s my birthday and other than the obvious fact that Google seems to know that, I want to leave this observation as a gift to all. Nativisms aren’t always as savage as we like to think.

A New Rattler for the Human Good

America (and the world) needs to think differently and call that newness something else. We have a new snake to catch.

I was reading a Tweet this AM about the forces of corporations, media, government -- the holy trinity of failure or obfuscation. We may also elect to be charitable during harsh times, of course, or become alienated from humanity in spiritual ways … or simply to do as many of us do: have more wine.

But there has to be another option. Another force that is more powerful, overriding, able to cross borders and cultures in a single bound, and that comes together for a different, a unifying purpose. A strength that is not only self-sustaining but well protected by a societal rattle that sounds a warning of wonder to keep us on the right path or that promises to scare away other forces of evil. 

As I was thinking this AM: We need (at a minimum) a name for such a force. And we need to harnesses it collectively to do what needs to be done without someone, anyone (which I can say instead of "something" since corporations are people too!) taking a cut, worrying about their selfish interests, or otherwise controlling and manipulating a key part of that process for their own greed. 

To me, there is a place for the holy trinity within reason: government collect taxes, provide for common defenses (on a limited and smart, peaceable scale) and offer needed services? Ok. Corporations make reasonable profits and pay fairly those who do their work? Sure. The media inform and stimulate debate? Great.

But there is that other thing. What do we call that sense of collective consciousness that activates itself to bring us together and be a guardian "rattler" against the others that seek to slither in and misdirect us all the more? How do we train the former that we want, and learn to avoid the latter, the bad snake of deception and deceit? 

Yep, that’s the something that's missing; that's what we need and need to name. Or so says my post-vacation mind as I jump drive myself out of one desert and into another where the wrong snakes still live?

The Hill Haters

RANT OF THIS CYCLE: I find it rather disturbing at how many people so readily turn their anger against Hillary Clinton. The email nonsense is as good a reflection of this as is "the real" Trump embarrassment a reflection of everything that could possibly go wrong with the spoiling of an American. Yet he gets further rewarded (like he needs it), and she has to work harder to prove the negative of a strong and committed woman.

If The Hill is guilty of anything -- I doubt she is and was annoyed when she apologized -- it is of demonstrating as clearly as possible that the US is so badly behind in the creation of, evolution of and use of electronic transmission and communication systems. We really are. (Which, BTW, is why otherwise smart people think yelling about drones is so important. It is a natural extension of the military hate that we've built into our culture!).

In simple, very simple terms: We all know how to email, though with very little recognition of the hows and whys of what it does let alone of the implications of putting messages into the virtual spaces. Yet we do it, and we have convinced ourselves that it matters little. And I blame this ignorance on the government haters who use all of their energy to try to hold back the water of progress. If conservatarians hadn't weakened government with budget starvations so badly we'd have smarter systems, and we'd take pride in learning how to use them. Instead, we flounder and throw darts at others.

Stupid hating.

She did the same as we all would have done -- likely no more or no less. Her "fault" lies in doing it with the confidence of a woman who has grown used to being wrapped in the comfort of visibility. For this she needs to be recognized, not pressed and pressed and pressed and then hated. It's just nonsense, no matter what is in her emails.

The Hill Haters are that way because they have entirely given up on understanding the processes of technological advancement, and so they are taking out their frustrations and lack of understanding on a resilient, visible, female target. Perfection is fleeting, but many women deserve more credit for what they do than we give them.

Women know that they have to work too much harder to get to and stay in the domain of the successful. That so many of us (often men) denigrate that by making this woman fight to stay where we SHOULD want her to be is ludicrous ... and we should be as ashamed of that as we need be of letting Trump yank our chains.

Honey Our Cheeses, please

If the world had to go without honey -- I mean, as in a hypothetical pollster asking a for-instance question -- most people would likely shrug, "Oh, that's too bad." Ask the same of the disappearances of their cheeses, however, and we'd see an avalanche of verbal horrors that might have frightened Wes Craven into an earlier grave.

People love their cheeses. Particularly, it seems, the well-off ... people and cheese types, I mean. The more exotic and tangy or deep and musky, the more the better. But what of the honeys? There are literally hundreds of kinds of the sticky sweet variations from nearly every part of the planet, ranging from pure white to nearly pitch black.

Yet, we merely grunt at the loss of a little of the gold.

And the reason: Because honey is, generically and globally speaking, the product of simplicity and of the poor. While cheeses, on the other hand ... well ... they so nicely seem to represent a diversity of the slices of the good lives of those who savor and favor the gourmet niceties of the world.

Which gets us back to the point of no panic for the loss of honeys (and the bees). It seems we think we can live with sugar or corn syrup. But without the cheeses of the fortunate?

What would happen, after all, if the nectar of the greens went away and we could no longer enjoy the molding of the ... hey ... wait a minute ... the nectar of the greens? Isn't that what makes the honeys?

Well, yes, of course, it is. But it is also true for the cheeses. Think about it. In reality, honeys and cheeses are made out of the same basic ingredients, the juices of various plants and flowers. What results in the differences in their substance are the efforts of the beasts and the process that make them into our goodies.

Cow lactations (though other mammals too) transformed chemically with the help of heat and humans, in the company of a panoply of temperate molds, turns milk into the smoldering cauldrons of what eventually dries and hardens into cheese. But for honeys, the magic is in the digestive steadiness of the bees and their nearly OCD infatuation with storing their sugary yumminess in a sterile and outrageously clean environment -- a capacity that makes them useful to save lives, heal wounds and pretty much last forever.

Which means if we pair them as belonging together, wouldn't we get closer to what could or should be happening? If we got the rich and the poor consumers of each to come together, might not we create an environment of consumption that favors both and brings more resources to bear for both?

In many countries that are struggling with economic and natural disasters, bees are saving forested areas and provide income to individuals who desperately need assistance. And cheesemaking is rescuing small farms and local harvestings.

But why should they do that? Suffer or thrive apart?

In a hypothetical question, after all, I ask you: Who the hell wouldn't love more and affordable pairings of the finest of honeys and cheeses from 'round the planet?

Honey my cheese, please.

Black is the New Political Happy Color

Blazing a Bright Trail: Personally, either Hillary or Bernie would please me. She's not yet fired up and his visions aren't broad enough, but their foundations are solid though I've made it clear that I believe #WomanPresidentMatters.

Which is why my message remains sound. They need to stop planning and thinking and strategizing privately as if what matters are their secret goals. Instead, they need to openly huddle around ideas that grow what Obama has already done and say to themselves, "What would a black president do?"

Black is the new happy color in politics and change agents need to wear it proudly.

Seems trite and borderline offensive if you react emotionally, but not if you give it a bit of consideration. Having been blocked from using the full presidential capacities of his office, Obama rode out the game of niceness until he was forced to say enough: "we have to do what is right." And in so doing, he turned to his grounding and began his executive initiatives that have lit the way toward bringing core justices into the open -- which, of course, is exactly what is causing conservatarians to be so disoriented that they actually believe the glowing White Trump is a savior.

As such, the smart path either Hillary or Sanders needs to "Bern" has to be one that continues what their predecessor started. They can readily blaze and expand the same old trail comfortable all while steadying the course the black guy saw and charted successfully. History is going to show that Obama did well on many fronts.

For an avowed Democratic Socialist or the first female Commander-in-Chief to deviate from these steps in favor of building strategies just to call them their own does a disservice to the heart of Obama's efforts. Plus, such traditional approaches would play all the more into the hands of the opponents who will try to use all types of corporate tactics to derail their more solitary struggles.

If either allows this, then they would be culpable in pushing the black guy deeper back into the bus of progress from which he escaped. On every front, black is the Democrat's happy color! Take pride in that.

My Shot at Gun Change

I was approached -- some might say confronted -- in my Twitterverse the other day about gunsense. What would I do, Mr. Smarty Pants, communist-loving, anti-freedom monster who has no respect for the misdeeds of the past? How would I go about taking away all the guns ... I mean, it's not the NRA's fault ... people die every day in Chicago!

Which was essentially the gist of their ramblings. But it got me thinking. I haven't really seen anyone planning out a multi-part strategy for ridding the nation and our enforcement sectors of the guns they really, really, really don't need and shouldn't have. So while I answered off the cuff, in retrospect, I kind of like the tendencies in my brain fart.

So here's my take on how to set our culture on the course of gun change:

PART 1: Start by doubling the size of America's law enforcement community. Yes, that's what I said. Double the size of America's law enforcement troops.

But the fine print is important; the caveat has to be that these officers would only be armed with the monitoring technology to watch what they do, and would then be given access to a growing and major investment of the armaments for quality community and neighborhood empowerment.

For each officer on the street with a gun, another mirrors him (or her) with the wisdom of other tactics.

PART 2: See, without guns, these officers would be forced to use and showcase the core ideas of protecting and serving the citizenry. In so doing, they would readily demonstrate to the troops who remain married to the idea that they are more than happy to pry guns away from someone else's cold, dead fingers, that there is a better way.

And low and behold, very soon it will be possible to begin phasing out the Wild West officers, replacing them with justice lovers who glow with the authority of respect, not with the fear of guns.

PART 3: For good measure, however, I would add one more element. We have proven that quality, interesting social media and commercial messages work. So I would get corporate America to see the wisdom of the ways that they can play to send out the message to everyone that guns are about as far from cool as possible.

And presto-chango: We've fixed an entire culture without so much as giving up a core freedom.

Your move gun buddies. Show me the selfie perspective you have on what it will take to fix this messed up part of the American society.

Don't Tax, Don't Pump

PBO DOES THE O BUSINESS JUSTICE: President Obama has effectively driven a stake through the heart of the oil creatures. What’s all the more impressive -- and what I believe may become the heart of his legacy -- is that he did so relatively quietly and without lots of squirming and kicking. 

Similarly to the way that he executed the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell changes that have fundamentally improved the military (that’s creepy to say!), the president has issued orders and played out his legislative cards so that our culture is moving away from petroleum consumption towards alternative fuel sources -- as if we’ve accepted that there are all types of viable energy orientations we aren’t afraid to share a bunk with.

This is justice doing in action. Well done, Mr. President.  

The extraordinary accomplishments in this field, as with his directives toward equality on many fronts, weren’t cut out of oily whole cloth. Many helped lay the groundwork over the years, preparing the pump to disappear.

But knowing when to say enough, when to lay down one’s well of treasure so as to get away with it almost noiselessly is good leadership; knowing how to do it without causing the gushers of anxiety that others expect when they are forced to shower naked next to their enemy … that’s hella wella impressive drilling for success.

Go read a book called Blessed Unrest. I’ll let you get what you get from it, then, if anyone asks, I’ll happily give you my take on what it means and why it lead us to where we are, where we should be, and even all the more where we could be in the forthcoming decade. Or at least over the course of the next nine years, right, Madam President?

#WomanPresidentMatters

Progressives fall into as many traps as other political enthusiasts, even those they (we) don't love so much. This was my point in my last posting about how Opposites Distract. You can feel The Bern (or the Sand) of Senator Sanders and of The DonDon Trump, but among wildly different outlier crowds. But like it or not, both crowds are outliers and need to be considered that way. Trump's are unreasonable; The Sand's are not.

Which is why it isn't acceptable for us to let get lost in the shuffle the fact that being a female president likely matters; matters a lot.

As I was arguing about this in my Twitterverse, the New York Times came out with a piece about the momentum to put a woman in charge of the global UN establishment. Women do things differently, regardless of other factors like their policy inclinations. And the world needs a different, more gender-sensitive perspective.

So why not the same for The Hill(ary)? Arguably, President Obama was doubly challenged by his foolish haters because of what he wanted to do AND because of the color/shade of his skin. They built a massive, systemic wall of opposition to force him back because he is a Black guy who carries all that means in reality with him.

Color, for people of color, cannot be ignored no matter what us "white folks" wish for. Doing so erases the awareness they struggle with across their lives. The same is true for gender. Men or women cannot wish gender into oblivion.

Unfortunately, those feeling The Bern of Sanders are forgetting this and need to consider it seriously. As great as he is, he is less likely to be selected as the party nominee than Trump is to lead the crazy folks! And though I applaud the enthusiasm of the B men and women, I would rather that energy be directed toward forcing all of our best resources together into one campaign aimed SPECIFICALLY to continuing what President Obama, as a Black president, started.

Remember, technically, one person has to be President and one VP; and they have various benefits and obligations. But the leadership team can be a team, a marriage. And nothing would stop that gathering from having an awesome team of its own who advice (without consent) on directions.

If The Hill and The Bern do this, we all win and we do it with respect to the important factors that shape great results.

But the important thing to remember is that, like The Hill or not, this thinking and acting outside of the election boxes cannot be done by Hillary alone or by her friends or funders. It needs to be a strategy undertaken by the army of women who see its value. They then become the power that keep the leaders heading in the "feminine" ways.

This logic is so clear that, to be honest, I didn't think it needed to be debated by progressives (Social Democrats or otherwise). Sadly, the #BlackLivesMatter confrontations with patterns of prejudice sent signals that women should be reading for the same reasons. Black lives are impacted more horribly than are white ones across the socio-economic spectrum. Women live through similar blockades of their own, and we as collective allies ought to see this -- see those troubles coming -- and fight them, not the vicious anti-Hill, anti-women tactics that further get in the way.

If it's good enough for there to be a world of momentum to have a woman lead the UN, there should be ten times more momentum to recognize that an American #WomanPresidentMatters. With respect, Senator Bernie, burn up the VP slot as an ally to a gender title wave, don't pretend it isn't there. And Joe: Don't run. Be part of the gender team for a new genderation!

NOTE TO TWITTER FOES: This is not the detailed piece I promised, more of another version of my argument. My full response is in the works in another format, but I'll share.

ObamaDare -- The Doctrine of the Ranger Ladies

If I’m right about what will be the Obama Doctrine once he’s given up on us, the inclusion of women into combat will occur by November, regardless of whether the leadership of the forces agrees or not. The Lady Rangers will become all they deserve to be. And it will be a huge symbolic reflection of the most important decisions he’s made to date. His initiative is to change the American fighting strategy from the inside moving out, and I agree with him.

Rather than ending the wars and conflicts the US is involved in -- and, out of technological necessity, evolving into drone tactics -- he is opting to fix the internal injustices of the machines behind our wars. If he can do that by installing/instilling equality and interpersonal humanity into the ranks, the armed troops of the future will be better than they are today. And we may no longer have to use the  “Axis of Evil” mentality that has driven the world against us everywhere (i.e., terror, anti-Americanism).

By daring to question and force operational changes, Obama started massive transformations of ideology inside the rigid male universe of fighting. But he couldn’t do that and give away all his chips by also unilaterally ceasing the wars that Reagan started and Bush, out of ill informed bravado, exacerbated. So rather than ordering a wholesale end of hostilities (and closing Gitmo, etc.), he traded that authority for other forms of compliance -- including letting women, LGBT, gender justice inside.

Obama coulda, woulda, perhaps shoulda done it differently in a perfect, dictatorial world. Since he couldn’t, he went for a tradeoff, accepting a philosophical shift first. Having achieved that, his legacy will be sound and -- with any luck -- the next, female Commander-in-Chief will have a foundation to correct the damage done by decades of foolish old-fashion war.

In selecting this route, Obama required that we continue for too long the hurt that is still in place. I think the Iran agreement is a logical extension of his ObamaDares ideas. Nuclear war, after all, is a dead concept. It’s better to build better soldier systems for future conflicts, even at the cost of keeping in place the errors of the past.

The Trump vs The Sand - Opposites Distract

They can deny as they will, but Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump share many commonalities. They are both outliers looking to capitalize on numerous systemic weaknesses.

RE THE TRUMPSTER: I personally think Trump is unworthy of his glorification; and, I trust, time will eliminate him from realistic consideration. But regardless, he does reflect something of importance: bone-shaking conservative fear. Just as with Reality TV, he reflects the assumption that the world can be as comforting and simple as many have come to believe it can be -- something they learned in school and have had reinforced from our culture's celebration of thoughtlessness.

The fact that technology has transmogrified (shape-shifted) this juvenile optimism right out from under them leaves them uncertain, worried, wanting easy answers. Donald Trump offers a false sense of confidence that not all is lost, that the good old days of racial, gender, and global understanding (White, US, men first) will return, though in their minds they likely will be ablt to regain their anchor without giving up on the fun shit the virtual universe offers for blowing up evils.

RE THE SANDERS: Sanders, on the other hand, offers the promises of a collective that looks forward and sees cherished ideals warping to within reach. Digital connectivity, data gathering, interactive awesomeness, global visioning: these realities are coming into focus, being usable, and affirming expectations. Their easily upgraded promises are turning out to be very damaging to conservatarian beliefs. The future is progressive; and it has very little to do with many of the foundational beliefs mom and dad and our founders lead us to expect. Which is good, exciting, inspirational. And which is why so many people have taken to jumping on board the good-ship Bernie without deep consideration to what his major changes will require.

Personally, I love Bernie. But more I love the reality that Hillary should be the presidential candidate and Bernie the Second Lady. There has been little leadership as influential as the hiring of a Black Commander- and Administrator-in-Chief, and the same will likely happen if The Hill takes over for two terms. Imagine what can result from the fact that, if she wins and wins again, an entire American generation will have been raised to voterhood without living under a white, male leader?

Both The Sand and The Hill should be stating what they are going to do to move the good the O has done forard. This I would love because it would not only feed the fear of the Trumpeters but nurture the opportunities that the Sanderites revel in. And we can hardly ask for more than that form any US election.

A Model New Confederated Presidency

HILLARY MARRIES BERNIE

I wrote about it previously, but I think it needs clarification. The progressive community needs to press the definition of what is allowable in the selection of our next President (P) and Vice President (VP). The rules for filling the positions are simple (citizenship, residency, age), and have been accepted to suggest that individuals must fill each job. But I don’t see any reason why, in practice, a team of leaders cannot achieve all the better, unified ends.

The entire idea of a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY assumes that we have token leaders, individuals who fill the slots that mirror the voices of their collective. Under a “confederated” presidency and vice-presidency, the same would happen except that the individuals would be more open as the figureheads of a collection of smart folks with specific ideas to achieve -- pragmatic administrative and executive directions. Once such individuals are properly elected following the existing rule, they can easily stay true to their unified ideas as long as they follow other Constitutional and executive rules and regulations. It wouldn’t be the much different from what the registered parties do in campaign mode, except that this advisory team is about progress, action, success and team input in doing their work, not raising money and complying with every outside stakeholder or interest factor. In theory, I can't see why there would be any problem with an immediate past P or VP joining the team as an extension of sustaining a smooth foothold into a new administration.

Hypothetically, what this could mean in practice might play out like this: our new Confederate President (whom we might call Hillary) would work in full partnership with an Independent VP (say, a Bernie), who together would be the figurehead leaders of the greater advisory body of a few vocal and respected others (let’s call one Elizabeth, for example), who would spend the campaign time outlining, sharing, debating and recommending ideas for the individual tokens to stay true to once the individuals were duly elected. CP Hillary would win the title, pay and benefits -- and be the final arbitrator of disputes in practice -- but IVP Bernie could carry on with nearly equivalent passions and convictions grounded in the core expectations offered by the full team. Technically, all decisions would be signed off on my the CP and then used by her and the IVP to further their transparent collective efforts, but it would quickly become obvious that they were in the same game together, making them a great example of a the new shape of a fair, just and equitable Confederated Presidency.

The US doesn’t have -- and its Founders might not have envisioned -- a team leadership model like this; and there are technical issues the IVP would face regarding the use of the word confederate. But, with the integration of new interactive and participatory technologies, we have to learn to adapt the voting system to our immediate and better needs. The Democrat and Republican operatives can still continue their fundraising and stakeholder appeasement requirements, but hopefully not at the expense of getting work accomplished.

Upload those thoughts, please. Lawyers and historical quibbleists, line up to the right.

Nuking ISIS

Don't freak. It just means
garden. No one is nuking
the chicks.

I have no idea why people think this negotiated agreement is about nuclear weapons. Such instruments of annihilation are about as relevant today as Donald Trump's thinking. Military mass destruction is not going to be used by any country now or in the future, and we (as well as countries like Iran) know that. The only chance of an explosion of this type comes from the uncontrolled, nearly unstoppable action of the garbage of unaligned terrorist ignorance (usually spiritually based) that is deadset on self-destructive insanity.

Which brings us to ISIS. If this treaty works, Iran will end up -- intentionally or not -- creating a culture much less appealing to these suicidal elements. Local citizens will, in fact, be able to regain a foothold for planting the seeds of progress, and likely end up harvesting much more respect for the US. Such a garden of opportunity is no place for the fatalism that prevails right now.

Commentators looking for simplicity, puppets of militarism (you know who you are!), Obama-haters, talking GOP fools: Get off your lazy butts and get into the field being provided, and then give credit where it is due. If anything -- unless killed by a capitalist Monsanto mentality -- will most likely have the impact of nuking ISIS and other streams of This agreement will likely nuke ISIS and other streams of animosity toward reason. And if that happens, it will be well worth the cost of recognizing that we live in a world that is ready to harvest a new beginning.

The FOIA Class

We're quickly developing an entire class of talented, motivated, angry cyber justice seekers with a predominant skill: filing FOIA paperwork. At least it seems that way. And while that is great for the depth of truth and wisdom they uncover, it might also leave us unarmed for the kind of proactive potential buried within the golden wisdom being found. There may be a reason the word ACT is in the law: to bring about action.


Wouldn't it (couldn't it, shouldn't it!) be better to take this talent and redirect more of it towards creating a citizen's militia of forward-looking, open-sourced, justice-loving progressives who can all be armed with the techno-wizardry required to seek out and stop all types of terror and militaristic missteps? We have the digital ways and means to do this, but the glory is in uncovering secrets. The values, however, will come from turning financial, governmental and media resources towards using more of that massive amount of data and facts. Yet at this point we are leaving too much of this wealth untapped for its empowerment potential. 

Don't get me wrong: the FOIA generation is a good thing. I'd even consider marrying some of those who made this trend fashionable. But that doesn't mean we're not coming up short on its potential. Do the digging, but do the work of justice too. 

Wedding-in-Equality - Bernie or Hillary, Do You?

Since we know unusual marriages don't bring about instant global destruction, the time is right for the two leading-- and likely only real -- Democrat contenders to propose to each other and then go public with the details of who they could build a better relationship. Who is to say the they cannot "conspire" to create a new, informal, progressive leadership marriage with one of them effectively dressing up as Joe Biden and the other being a continuation of Barack in CEO drag? As great as Bernie Sanders is promising to be -- though we have to wait to see what the hounds do once fully unleashed -- his success would be compounded by a benefit factor of 1000 by sharing the position with Hillary. Why can't they just confess as part of their vows that no matter which one gets to play the sexy role of Glory Queen-in-Chief, the other will still serve in really in what amounts to a co-equal position? I realize it would take some work, but ... then again ... it might even show the world that it is possible to have an opposite gender relationship that actually works for a while.

Personally, I would put Hillary into the traditional slot of the groom because women deserve to be there, even if this means Bernie gets to get prettier in the dressings of public visibility sometimes. It has taken President Obama most of his term to get to where he can now keep up with his vows because the system is so rigged towards hetero dictatorialism, democracy or not. If we're going to change the vision of the marriage that is the platform of national leadership he started, why do we have to go back to a new commitment ceremony again? Can't we expect them to make a promise of equality going in and let the love of change blossom from there? I say we can, we should and that we need to start acting likev...