2Bit Rigged Legal Tenderings!

The exhale and snicker with relief that, for now, bitcoiners get away with because a judge ruled that its chits should not be called money seems at best disingenuous. It's like a presidential contender celebrating his commitment to gender justice by bashing every woman in site. No one believes the plea. And in the long term, the results are hardly going to be as settling as the happy crowds suggest.

Pretending that bitcoin is NOT money comes across as a case of trying to play and rig the system at the same time. It's a lot like an effort to stack the worth of one's golden coins and deluding one's self into believing these piles will never tumble. Rather transparently wrong and self-serving.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m hardly an expert on the technology of cybercurrency, thus not an expert on all of the intricacies that MIGHT go into a legal argument. But I don't believe I need to be to recognize the bad move this decision portends.

Then again, in reality, this site exists because of the pending blockchain tsunami (the Blockchain Revolution as it has been smartly called) not because of coinage arguments, no matter whether in the shape of bits or bytes or any other kind of tender.

The BlockChain Society we envision seeks to cash in on how the chained together existence and decentralized nature of a node-based society bodes well for the building of a healthier, smarter, more empowering society. The money is even a bit of a necessary distraction, necessary mostly because it would be nice to have some rich and powerful looking our way.

So let's agree to agree that everyone accepts that Bitcoin is money and it needs to be accepted as such. It will go nowhere pretending otherwise. Not to mention that failing to do so will generate ungodly degrees of cognitive dissonance among the banking types who are already all over these ... things ... called bitcoins!

It's better to simply start working towards monetary compliance. I for one don’t want you distracted by a small issue like this when the real work of blending the values of profit and purpose into a new and better Blockchain Society lies just ahead around the bend of the river of change.

[NOTE: For those interested, I just started creating a CrowdRise site for soliciting business backing. You got it, for money. That site doesn't accept bitcoins. I have to deal with this just as I have to learn how to collect them, but that doesn't mean we should hold up on building the foundation for our better society. Should one of you desire to exhibit her or his charitable side, in hopes of the promise of future ROIs ...  https://www.crowdrise.com/bcvesting----impact-based-blockchain-investments]  

Join TheConversation(.com) on EnGENDERment

I don't generally post just memes, but what the heck. I found this article and pulled a quote because it relates so well. Thought you might enjoy:

Halloween Bowls of PrEP

Most of what I will say here would likely drive public health and medical researchers nuts. But ... be that as it may be ... the fact is that as a nation (and the world) we ought to be treating HIV/AIDS prevention and care medications suck as Truvada like Halloween candy. Bowls full of these PrEP pills should be put about in places so that anyone in need can come knocking and grabbing without charge and without worry. This is the happy-go-lucky approach to sexuality and it needs to be the same for prevention threats. At worse it will bring about some vocal screams and monstrous agreements to do more.

Drugs like Truvada, when used in any way, shape or manner close to the ways directed, are so effective at suppressing the virus that latches on to the human immune system that it is basically a full and undisputed cure. A recent article on TheConversation.com notes that the biggest issues regarding the drug are connected to costs and who pays for the meds ... NOT the efficacy of the drugs themselves. PrEP fixes those who are sick and stops the progression to a disease state for those infected -- at rates that are so close to 100% it is ridiculous. And where the percentages are lower the obvious answers are cultural and community-based.

I say this knowing of the consequences. The likely results will include overuse of the pills. It could possibly lead to a global evolutionary adjustment so that the ingredients become less successful eventually. And surely, it would unleash a sexual revolution where people are basically forced to confront safe and unsafe issues head on. Which, to me, is a great thing.

The fact is that learning -- I’m mostly speaking culturally in this context -- is a painful and expensive process. But we cannot overlook that reality, no matter whether we get there with guarded steps for some or by inundating the entire populous with what might be too much of a great thing. In the early drug availability efforts, when HIV/AIDS was at its horrible worst, we tried slow and steady approaches. The cost was horrific for the deprived and vulnerable. The issue being: the cost and who paid ... as well as whether the drugs worked.

We have eliminated one of those considerations. In the PrEP iteration, we don’t have to accept that; plus, we have an added benefit: science innovation isn’t stopping. New generations of medications and helpful monitoring technologies will ... are emerging quickly. This will mean Truvada et al. will depart and better options will takeover anyway -- very likely before biophysical reactions occur from the excessive availability of Truvada.

Add to this the fact that other types of modern technologies that capture and display images of what is really happening to people across the planet and it will become impossible for medical caregivers to keep good drugs away from those in need, even if they have to get them by creating unsafe, criminal, and oppression-heavy underground market and supply alternatives. This helps no one and could send us off on other deeply disturbing tangents.

Placing the meds in locations where they can be taken as needed (in conjunction with a immersive media and community empowerment campaign) will solve the most direct issue and allow us to see what happens as the illness is rapidly chased away.

Halloween is supposed to be scary. And candy is bad. But together the social experience works. It seems only fair that we extend the same sense of unity to other domains where a few monsters might scare some sense into our cultural fears.

Obama Momma Initiative (#EngenderedLivesMatter)

OMG! the timing is perfect for an OMI! If nothing else, it will give the CGIers something more to dry about. Like it or not folks, #EngenderedLivesMatter … in a girl and boy kind of way!

With a woman as Commandress-In-Chief and a nation fed up with the condescending attitudes of old, tired, fearful, and angry men (particularly those with my pale persuasion), there could hardly be a better chance for outgoing President Obama -- likely the best American leader for the coming reality -- to move ahead rather dramatically by forcing our great nation to come face-to-mirror with our gender avoidance tendencies.

The Clinton Global Initiative (CGI)(paired with 66 member Global Coalition, which their work likely helped inspire) charted an undeniable course for a much different, unified multinational look at the world that is shaped much less by machismo militarism. Which lays the foundation for another broad-based effort to give voice to the women (and girls, hopefully with men and boys as allies!). A perfect place to position an OMI, Obama Momma Initiative, that we could all so admire!

Ironic, wouldn’t it be? An OMI would put President Black Man (hand-in-hand with his magnificent FLOTUS Black Woman wife) very aggressively alongside our nation’s first President Woman! An outstanding arrangement that could readily marry the progressive ideals of the past with the coming eight years of global gender realignment!  

It might just be me, but the entire idea of an OMI would be very true to the original concept behind the 1980s Take Our Daughters To Work Day event a few years ago -- though I would hope it might go further towards what I recommended back then.

Taking women and girls out to do the work is a perfect invitation to invite the men and boys home! The world needs a collaborative effort to do more than just recognize the power and empowerment potential of the women and girls of the planet. It also needs to facilitate a better future when the men and boys get why #EngenderedLivesMatter … a fantastic OMG moment for a well-tailored OMI!

Don't Killer Our Robots

Dallas went where technology has not gone before: towards making cyber abilities a tool of security reactiveness. Explosively destructive reactiveness.

The apparent mastermind of the Dallas police slaughter was brought to an end by having a remote detonation device (C4 from new reports) advance, trap, then explode proximate to him, taking his craziness out of public danger.

Law enforcement, faced with an untenable reality wrapped around today’s gun-heavy culture -- literally surrounded themselves by an armed and frightened, poorly regulated public militia of bad ideas! -- showed it could do what it does well -- turn technology into a killing machine. And who can argue with their result?

The bad guy had a gun, an assault weapon that gun advocates openly praise -- one able to fire scores of projectiles per minute; you know, something every squirrel hunter desperately needs! -- knew how to use it, and had isolated himself in a position where there was no way out.

So they did what they could: turned our robots into a killing machine.

This article in the light of morning following the Dallas Blue massacre captured the significance of this decision well. David A. Graham posted in The Atlantic a short piece entitled “The Dallas Shooting and the Advent of Killer Police Robots.” The piece says, with a seeming sense of pride, that "While many police forces have adopted robots—or, more accurately, remote-controlled devices—for uses like bomb detonation or delivery of non-lethal force like tear gas, using one to kill a suspect is at least highly unusual and quite possibly unprecedented."

Possibly, but this was not a tactic pulled out of the blue. It was a natural continuation of a trend that seems to favor using technology for law enforcement benefits over other viable options. And why not? Technology on many levels has been shown to be useful for numerous tactical advantages for the “good” guys, and there will undoubtedly be a hue and cry for more.

Where the danger with this lies centers on the imbalance caused by such a visualization -- namely, that cyber options are best considered to support or reinforce killing opportunities. But this is itself such an injustice. The real benefits of digital advancements lie in the fact that we can plug them into numerous positive and peacefully empowering efforts and strategies and make them work for the betterment of society … not just as another means to the end of an unfortunately set of circumstances; circumstances setup, one can argue, by global military over-reliance on weapons of massive assault potential to begin with.

Technology is well prepared to become part of the EMPOWERING heart of hyper-modern community policing methods, should we opt not to clothe it otherwise before we figure this out.

It is possible that good and engaging technology can quickly become a disarming police resource far more powerful than any type of guns, any militarization of weapons, or the entire notion that cops must be explosive representatives of front-line authoritarian control forces.

From communication platforms to decentralized connectivity and deep levels of participatory interactivity, cyber linking abilities may be able to redesign policing in ways that stop criminality before it organizes -- even in the minds of the crazy -- at the same time that it shines the light of honesty on well-doing and wrong-doing law officers who wrap themselves in the clothing of power.

SMART -- meaning technologically grounded -- community-policing strategies paired with smart and controllable guns will, in combination, add up to seeing technology as a friend of cultural ease - not just as a tool against ugly force.

I’ve previously elsewhere - and firmly believe now - that blockchain-based approaches offer many avenues to virtual empowerment (way more than financial or banking models). One such path could and should include making assault-style weapons monitorable and controllable. IMHO, there ought be no assault-capable guns on the streets of a just America that can discharge bullets at ridiculous RPMs (rounds per minute); at least not without there being equipment that can “see” these weapons through the eyes of public cyber guardians. In this day and age, neither cops nor bad folk should have dumb guns.

And the way to do this is by building the next generation of community policing around updated technology aspects that look well at technologies. This is not only doable, I envision that it may be feasible that it will make routine police positions such that they would no longer need to carry guns -- and when the soldiers of democracy don’t think guns are cool, the enemies of it will not either.

Robots will become increasingly sophisticated law enforcement intervention instruments quite quickly. As a society, however, it is up to us to make sure that this choice does not require making robots explosive devices for extreme actions. Technology is smarter than that, and we ought to be too.

IoT4Gs - A Special Place in Acronym Hell for Assault Guns

The Coming Internet of Things All For GUNS!

I like it when I have an inspiration of creativity, particularly at someone else’s expense! I mean, that’s what Twitter and the Social Media Zoo are all about, no?

Had the chance to ruffle some feathers on Twitter last night, poking the worried and armed about the path of the future for guns. I’m convinced -- even as a person who cares little for and knows little about guns -- that Smart Tech is going to deliver the death shot to Dumb Guns and ultimately disable the antics and tactics of organizations like the NRA, which I lovingly refer to by its actual efforts, the National Ridiculous Ass.

And by technology I’m thinking mainly of the rise of the Internet of Things … of EVERY and I mean EVERYTHING … and the damage these advancements will inflict on those who think guns are somehow exempt from progress. They clearly know little about node-based blockchain potentials.

As I’ve sought to explain routinely, why do folks believe that when my toaster will speak to my e-toothbrush that will then communicate with my refrigerator to alert the farmers who produce healthier food to send it to my grocer who can have it remotely delivered to my home … that when this happens … like in a year or two … guns are going to be left out in the old-fashioned wilderness all by themselves?

Because gunners take confidence in such self-deception. Because groups like the NRA have convinced them of this. Because they believe the Second Amendment has anything to do with their personal ownership of guns.  

Because those who fight for guns at any cost -- even the cost of 100 lives per day -- have such extreme separatist identities that they refuse to join the here and now. Instead, they prefer to be left alone with dangerous boy toys with SPM capacities that serve no humanitarian purpose.

Bad people are not coming to get most of us … or if they are, it will be through software and hardware. Smart Guns (over Dumb Guns) anticipate and adjust the odds … actually in favor of good gun users.  

Which is why I believe that there truly is a special place in the hell of twisted reasoning for such thinking. And it will only take a slight modification of the IoT acronym to play the appropriate changes out. An IoT4Gs … an Internet of Things for Guns … will serve to distinguish for most people that this special place deserves special consideration. Once so accepted, specialized and targeted changes can follow.

The emergence of blockchain and related connectivity processes and lifestyles (which I write about on another site, http://MyImpactView.wordpress.com) is perfectly armed for this assault on Dumb Guns. And that assault with the purpose of regaining control and management of guns is happening quickly. Which is why I suggest we get ready to play out the process in ways that work well with true and actual social and community interests.

There is something called Stuxnet, which is a form of malware … software and programming designed to infiltrate and disable machines and such as they operate. The time is nearing when this same OFFENSIVE capability will find a place in assault weapon oversight … which is why it deserves a classification of its own.

Iot4Gs works for me.

Hacking Hillary's Digital Comfort

We seem to want to punish candidates for being comfortable in their digital suits. 

Nearly all of us want, actually demand technology that gives us the best of access and convenience without the worries of having that comfort hacked apart (or open). But when politicos accept a similar desire -- when they show that they are comfortable and confident in their abilities -- some decide that they must stab that integrity.

This is likely Hillary Clinton's issue in regards to her email discomforts. She exemplifies comfort in her skills, including those that make her try to address criticisms when she ought not. 

There does not appear to be any element of what she did (or didn't do) regarding her email decisions that cannot be explained away as her simply shrugging with a sense of ordinariness concerning her digital tasks. She has likely accepted certain patterns of behavior as forms of efficiency -- behaviors that her staff at the State Department offices would normally seek to understand and adapt to. 

Most folks who depend on modern comm systems don't react with extremism -- and definitely not paranoia -- to the routine use of computerized techniques to move their work forward. And it seems we should want this for leaders in jobs that have massively complex schedules. Such a pattern fits what she said about setting up systems at the State Department. Her actions can be understood perfectly like this and carry no burden of bureaucratic deception, nor, of course, of any kind of criminal intent - other than the crime of caring about doing her work with digital speed. 

NOTE: The decision announced by the FBI on July 5, 2016, affirms the lack of criminality, but draws what appear to be undue inferences from her otherwise routine activities. If details are released, we can better judge me perspective. 

Hillary could easily have been doing what was necessary to do her job based on the level of comfort she has developed. Having others spend time worrying about this - and screaming chicken-little alerts - made any and all decisions she made seem exaggerated, thus causing her to overreact defensively to the whole idea of sophisticated technological advances by the State Department. Which was something that a recognized former Secretary, namely Colin Powell, expressly sought to counter. Hell, he even cashed in his top-notch, unimpeachable credentials when he was in office to force more reasoned reliance on technology. She could have known that from him and thus been sensitive.

Powell was SoS from the years 2001 through 2005. Have your social media and email skills and comfort evolved since then? Do you accept that you can carry on your professional work using such methods without grand thoughts of the vulnerabilities of the apps you use? 

The chances are that your skills have improved and that you work on systems without freaking out about them. The same is very probably true for Hillary as she took her position there 5 or more years later. Hacking during that time was nowhere near as prevolent as it is now. Unfortunately, an unforgiving few have turned their personal levels of tech craziness against others, and thus made her actions look sinister. 

Coulda Shoulda Woulda elements of her team and her decisions been better? Sure, I guess. Maybe by introducing deeper layers of distrust that undercut the comfort we want to value in the use of technology. The tech and security experts need be more responsible for this going forward, not backwards second guessing otherwise reasonable routines.

Hillary deserves being noticed for her comfort, even if comfort stil requires more learning. 

Biometric BIO NET TRICKS

Sweaty palms, dirty fingers, discharged batteries, bloodshot eyes: the signs of despair that, oddly enough, truly worry cyber novices. How can we trust technology, one can hear them scream, if the ordinary markings of a working man (and we are talking men here!) are so easily able to derail whatever technologies are put between a man and his right to be armed, dangerous, and carelessly free?

To them, the science is a fiction that has been shown to be false because, already and without signs of hope, biometrics have come up short.

But what’s funny is that they are probably right. Except not for the reasons they obsess about. Biometrics come up short because there are other, less biologically exact measures that are better and will soon be proven to be able to guard and activate devices with extreme precision -- mostly without regard to the blood, sweat, or tears of the humans hiding behind their walls of protection. The protective methods of tomorrow have to do with the patterns of our actions, our behaviors, and the devices that we latch on to, not so much the biological bits or bytes our bodies project. And guns are a perfect companion for this evolution of security progress.

Which means, by looking at this situation as a whole, the setback for technology comes from the fact that biometrics have already been shown to be something of a trick pulled on the networks that connect us. It is almost as if someone has tried to cash in on the sensitivity we have for all things related to our unique bodies by making it appear that our individuality is not up to the job.

Before getting into this a little deeper, first a note: I use guns as an example here (once again) because the issues are timely and dramatic. And because the topic aligns so well with people's perceptions that if something is tied to their deeply individualistic being ... it has to be good, and powerful, even empowering. Few of us want to accept the notion that who we are as unique individual humans is insufficient to keep us strong, and well, and ... well ... safely unique. Thinking otherwise acts to reinforce the notion that we are subject to the whims of others to keep us secure.

Meaning ... they want to believe that if biometrics will work ... that's awesome. They can say, "I told you! I can be the source of my own survival ... especially when protected by a fast-action assault weapon aimed at those who dare attack me, my home, or my family!" 

But proven to be easily derailed, biometrics comes up short and there can be no better alternative. In fact, most are willing to draw rapid conclusions based on only the scantest of evidence. Which is where the problem lies. They have been convinced, one, that biometrics are beyond repair as a safety lock for guns, and two, that because of this there is no market and thus no desire to make those efforts work better. Biometrics have failed the technology tests ... so ... "thanks ... I'll just stick with my dumb guns instead of what you say are smart guns!" 

What they have missed is the depth of the deceptions about the failure of biometrics has been internalized as part of an intentional strategy by groups like the NRA. Gun enthusiasts have been led to believe that smart tech cannot work on guns because gunner men have dirty, moist hands, wear gloves, and can't be bothered to plug in their guns, thus leaving that equipment subject to the failure of bad batteries. 

If biometrics fail this simple test ... technology cannot exist between a man and his guns. Period. End of story. Go away. Leave me and my weapons of mass protection unhindered by progress. There may be an Internet of Everything, but EVERYTHING does not include guns ... it's in the Constitution ... somewhere ... that bearing arms means bare of technology.  

End of biometric story: biometrics is nothing but a trick and they cannot even achieve the potential that our individual bodies deliver so much better.

Only thing is: this is not where the issue is today, and not the course for the technologies of tomorrow. The existence of a massive, smart, and rapid fire system of behavioral information gathering ... blockchains of knowledge ... this is where the future of security access lies. And this has little to do with biology. The systems that will really unlock the weapons of pure destructive force will be those that validate who we are through the devices, practices, and activities of living, not of the functions of our bodies. And those metrics are proving to be rather impressive. 

Can you imagine systems being able to make decisions to confirm who we are in less time than it takes the hordes to beat down and eat our children?

To many, this is not conceivable, and as such is the result of the great Bio Net Trick that fed us biometrics first and that now feeds us the believe that such systems are less human that the owners of guns.

Yet technology has no such bias. It favors fast and smart decisions and is more than capable of making just such decisions -- way quicker than most of us are willing to accept. It may even be able to measure your need for a weapon significantly before the attacker gets physically near you -- assuming such a thing might happen -- and possibly even days before. The proof of concept has been established. Software can tell when a bout of depression is heading your way, and when certain evil folks are practicing routines that indicate their evil intentions ... evil aimed at a social institution, important people, or even us as particularly distinct individuals. This isn't science fiction, just cyber science ... and taken on its merits, the making for some very smart gun options.

Start thinking about this. Biometrics is, even by accident, a BIO NET TRICK .... We have been led to believe they cannot meet the human standard, and thus they have no right to exist. That other collectivity technologies are better than humans too, well that thought cannot measure up against the notion of human superiority either.

The New York Times recently asked, “Just How ‘Smart’ Do You Want Your Blender to Be?” It is a silly but good question, and one that we need to ask ourselves about ourselves as human machines too.

National Ridiculous Ass.: Splayed By Their Own Gun Petard

We lost the kids -- big and small ones -- when Super Mario let his plumbing heroism get displaced by MMOFPS’s -- Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooters. The poor little guy and his plumbing buddies got so lost hunting for CAPS of their own concern that they missed that others were discharging in the form of very realistic, rapid fire destructive calibers against anything that so much as wiggled.

And, alas, severe damage against good tech was done. From that period till now, generations of participants on virtual killing fields have grown up (either from being actual little people to becoming gamer adults) thinking that the splay of bullets even from a virtual weapon were worthy tools for destroying life’s challenges (or challengers). Super Mario and his do-good friends were rapidly transformed into symbolic relics whose noble intentions -- to scare away evil with a wrench! -- could not possibly stand alone as realistic weapons against the evils of human transgression.

Rescuing the damsel in distress gave way to accepting that the true fun of interactive existence came with blowing away enemies at such astoundingly fast rates that we could collect points for our efforts.

A game of Warcraft, perhaps, but still something that could readily take the competition of life to new and daring platforms of conflict and revenge ... pretty cool, huh?

And since Mario gave up, it has gotten worse. And a good part of the blame for which is now landing in the lap of the iconic ugliness of fear that sells membership of its own to other kinds of killing fields: the NRA, which I prefer to think of as the National Ridiculous Association.

Rest easily, however. There are signs that the nefarious methods and unadulterated madness sold to the public by this corporate front have themselves gone too far. Slaughtering Mario and all about him is too much. 

The NRA and all that it represents in gaming America has set the issue such that it is about to be splayed, one might say, by its own gun petard -- and this is a good thing. We might even get Mario back.  

We need to understand why this change is happening and what it will take to give our sweet animated characters back the tools of morality. But rest easy, that transformation seems under way. In future posts, I'll talk more about smart guns and smart ammunition and why the NRA has done so much damage to the very game it is playing.

Bernie Missed His Ship of State

Thanks artist for making this cartoon grabbable. 

I said it at the beginning of the primary mud-wrestle and repeat it here now and then (since I have a talent for being ignored): if Bernie was true of heart about doing his campaign differently … breaking the model … rejecting the established patterns … he would have approached the operations and collaborative far more proactively as a demonstration of his philosophy.

He wouldn't even have had to change his one-tune speech to showcase how his revolutionary ideals could be brought to life -- particularly for a guy with little track record of implementing grandiose offerings. Instead, he used his offering spaces simply to stir anger and disrespect for all things status quo. A visionary for radical re-empowerment could just as easily have called upon entire fields of the artistry and science of advocacy and unrolled tactics that directly exemplify his supposed better ways and means -- something I fundamentally agree needs to happen.

EMPOWERology, as I've dubbed it, is my effort to begin formulating a discussion of just such a creative hybrid of the proven methods of science with the artistry of advocacy )or perhaps the other way around -- the art of sociology and the science of change?). Seen this way, tactical efforts and movers for transformative notions can move out of the laboratory and into the streets for social and political betterment.

But I wax philosophical. What does this mean in real campaign life?

It means that in looking at the vote-catching process, the Constitution doesn't require a certain way to win or which steps to take, other than its minimum personnel expounding of qualifications, and the implied requirement that the one person who garners the votes get the job.

Accordingly, it is perfectly legitimate for a draconian candidate like a Sanders, for example, to have said upfront with a positive tone: "Isn't it awesome, this force of Hillary’s? About how her experience has created a magnificent resource within the first exemplary female candidate?” Then, moving into an action phrase, he could add: “I would love to be the president who unleashes such magic as part of my executive and administrative intentions. She's better than I am on those fronts and as such I promise to you all to fill in the gaps she cannot reach. I think I'd be better in this regard by pairing her strengths with mine -- which center on the passions for really drastic and disruptive changes. My speeches are gonna show you how this will work."

Hillary, on the other hand, might then have been able to join the party of collaborative, affirmative support by saying things like, "This Bernie guy has truly lit a fire under the desires of our young and disaffected. That ability will be an undeniable addition to any presidency, and I would be honored to use his abilities as my right hand of progress.” Her commitment then becomes: “If he wants a great cabinet space, he has it. If he would prefer to be the engine behind implementing what I unleash from my bully pulpit -- maybe as an outside agitator! -- so be that. Either way: judge me on my special capacities to be America's first Madam President and I will nurture the best he and I share as members of the family of progress.”

Ok, silly, dramatic, obviously not conventional; absolutely idealistic. Sweetly affirming, nearly to the point of giving one a sugar rush.

But be that as it may, I offer it as a way of highlighting the way forward for the fired up populous Bernie has relentlessly attracted. It would have been a remarkable differentiation made all the better by a tsunami of fun, praise, and even entertaining winning for both sides.

In the end, one of them would have to take the title and perks. But they could add on a swearing commitment to even more. The Founding Fathers - undoubtedly with the frustration of the Founding Mothers who were probably left out of the conversations -- gave us no collaborative leadership mechanics of this nature. But the best minds ought to have been able to figure this out for themselves while being productively and pragmatically disruptive and without taking their eyes off of any prizes.

Neither Hillary or Bernie really needs the retirement package; nor do they probably care that much for some of the formal designations in the ancient history books that would go to the one who took the glory. Each, however, coulda shoulda woulda benefited without question from being that force for electoral improvement.

Hillary didn't try probably because she knows how to use the existing tools and tactics to her advantage, and it would mean a lot for a woman who we now know will win to give up that gender upgrade of our country’s commandership.

Bernie, on the other hand, would have benefitted enormously and not ended up scrounging to be noticed. Unfortunately, he decided instead to magnify the anger and fire up blame without engaging better ways to change. And in so doing, he missed the boat he could have captained.

The Devil We Frack - Over the Hill Warning

Causing a purposeful, wholesale revolutionary explosion of new energy alternatives, without knowing whether those efforts might lead, let alone whether they are obtainable, desirable, or even conceivable other than in the hopes and dreams of the perpetually wanting .... Going cold-turkey away from fossil fuels ....  

Unfinished, uncertain thoughts. I'm really not sure what to say. Hardly anyone who is paying attention wants or likes the idea of fracking. Yet the fact remains that no matter how we try to get quickly from where we are to a better energy future will require us to put enormous, nearly unfathomable degrees of faith in a simple notion. Fracking was its own step towards hoping that giving up coal could be a painless transfer of addictions ... one that might get us to a place where our choices were not burning a hole in our vision of a cleaner, healthier modern future.

These kinds of meandering thoughts about our next energy choices could and should be seen as scary; they are. But they are real. I happen to come across a quote from Nolan Bushnell in a fun and simple book called Digital Destiny, where he was saying, “Everyone believes in innovation until they see it” (p283). 

For new energy options -- particularly ones that we want to instantly flip on for better results and an uninterrupted flow of convenience -- this wisdom is truly the case. We can opt for more Earth-friendly ways, almost as readily as a president can say “Do Ask, Do Tell." She can order bits and bytes of such a transition to happen on many fronts by lighting up a few executive action fights. Getting such an order to have sufficient power to achieve its desired goals ... well ... that's another thing.

Arguably, this is exactly what soon-to-be President Hillary Clinton is trying to tell us when she stumbles through her explanations about fracking. Using fracking as a desirable anti-coal approach was accepted as a viable way to give America a sense of energy production destiny. It existed, scaled readily, and seemed reachable and reasonable as a sidestep. Then, as we discovered its true ugliness, all kinds of forces turned against that momentum and demanded a different, quick other-menu of choices.  

But towards what ends? Full solar? Total wind? Ocean wave harnessing? Something all the more unique that can drop down from the Silicon sphere? The mechanics are intense and still uncertain. Are they better than what we have? Are their harmless technologies as perfect as some of us hope for?

There are risks in halting what we have going on right now; lots of them. Presidential contenders like Trump (and to some extent Sanders) exist because the noises of crowds are screaming of a loss of faith and uncontrolled uncertainty ... with no ends of stability in sight. There are folks who serious fear change and want to go backwards.

But there is a different reality before us. Dramatic change on top of change is coming fast and we cannot and should not disregard its many implications. Nor accept that understanding what it means will be easy. We've jumped into a digital future and need to come to terms with that fact. Fracking is a technological "upgrade" in the petroleum sector ... and it turned ugly quickly. 

Shawn Dubravac says in his introduction to Digital Destiny: “Digital technology resides in the same realm as these transformational technologies, and we cannot undo what has been done. This is our digital destiny. This is not what might happen if we choose this road over another. This is what will happen regardless of which road we take.”

Hillary is starting to get ready to go "full Oval" as she finishes her campaign. She seems to be trying to get us to pull together thoughts and ideas. The public has shown dramatic opposites about what it can handle. Maybe we might give a better listen and try to help Madam President think more about taming the devil we already frack? Maybe it will be worth the effort. \

Sander's Sin of Prideful Division

If Senator Sanders is going to come to the point of accepting his defeat by aligning himself with other non-traditional candidates -- Green, Independent, or a made-up compilation -- I request that he please do so now, early. The sin of such an intentional act of redirection could be costly to all things progressive and democratic if done at the last moment. We know what is happening because of spur-of-the-moment actions by the monster whose name we dare no longer say. But for the good gals and guys, doing the same would be nothing less than a degrading sin of pride and hurtfulness.

If, Senator Sanders, you are to do this and do so earlier rather than later, you would give those of us with more confidence in the ideas of hope to offer better ideas you might want to consider. Anointing a figurehead out of frustration does little but bring about ugly ramifications that might even distract from the biggest loser’s self-immolation.

It takes a lot of talent (and transparency) to be a successful presidential candidate. Hillary has shown the strength of her convictions on both and many other fronts. Opening the doors to another just so you can say you did … well, that would really not be a dope path to any kind of revolution. I don’t think you will do this but the pressure is going to mount -- let’s hope you don’t feel the burn to respond out of a philosophical obligation or, heaven help us all, out of some notion that it will help clean up the campaign administrative burdens heading your way.  

If you are going to use the sin of prideful division Senator Sanders as a purposeful derailment tactic, turn it into an exercise in empowerment. Talking, asking questions, twisting your frustrations towards ongoing progress? Hillary (and we) will withstand the pull of less worthy choices but the work to get your efforts back … now that could readily be a whole different sin of indulgence.

Hillary vs Trump-tanic: Betting Smart on Goldman Sachs

“It’s just business” is essentially the refrain of those who have come to believe that Donald J. Trump has anything to offer the political discourse. They allow him to get away from explaining his existence by saying that anyone “outside” of politics has to be better than any part of those inside the establishment -- and besides, his ugliness is “just business.” It’s just business when he says and does anything to make outrageous and unearned profits.

Whatever happen to the good old proverb about “the devil we know versus ….”? I’m not sure, but what is clear is that we ought to take a hard look at this promise from some surprising sources. There is abounding evidence that many of the companies that appear to be too big to be measured by normal standards of decency are learning valuable and useful social/cultural lessons. Obviously, the mind of Donald the Dumpster fell off this track, meaning that even if his human soul was salvageable, he would likely still miss out on the movement towards imbuing positive capitalist developments into “smart” and “sustainable” Impact Investing … the latter being the basic idea that money can and should be used as a means to earn reasonable profits in ways that align to socially beneficial purposes.

The Trump-tanic of business is sinking fast, and we ought to pay attention before deciding too vehemently on the bet Hillary Clinton has made on companies like Goldman Sachs.

For the fact is that one of the better companies that exhibit an amazing propensity to learn is the constantly attacked Goldman Sachs. Without going into details here -- since people tend to gloss over them, which likely explains the mess the country is in with our business sectors anyway -- look at just two issues concerning GS: it’s move towards alternative energy and its interest in Impact Investing.

I mean, by the way, literally LOOK IT UP. The evidence is abundant that this is a company that is trying. And this could well explain who they hire to listen to. Go here, for example, and see this article by GreenTech folks: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/goldman-sachs-sees-transformational-moment-in-renewables-investment . After wondering about whether this is a PR ploy on the part of the company, here’s what the head of GS’s sustainable sector says:

“It will be important from a societal perspective, and it will be good business for us and our clients,” Bernstein said. “We want to be extraordinarily focused, involved and have the best franchise in the area. That’s how we think about it.”

And regarding Impact Investing … their commitment to putting better money into their corporate spreadsheets is impressive. They were one of the first to put their money where their mouths are, and in ways that should rattle other traditionally exploitive money takers: http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/social-impact-bonds.html 

I confess without hesitation that I back Hillary Clinton to be Madam President. We’ve earned that privilege, she the right to represent our interests. As for Trump, he’s a social and generational error with wasteful access to attention-getting ways and means, thanks to unfair and exploitive jumpstarts and white, male privileges. 

But my animosity against him aside, stop dissing Hillary without factoring in the possibility that she could well know where Goldman Sachs is heading and thus made a smart decision to be on the side of a movement geared towards better learning. No chance there those who refuse or are too self-obsessed to listen. As I said, the Trump-tanic is sinking and we as a nation need to get away before the force of descent drags us under with it.