Travel Pananoia

Flight travel post 9/11 has become very hazardous and laborious, especially for USA based passengers. As is often the case, reactions turn into over reactions...often times without foundation or reason. This seems to be happening on both sides of the travel security equation. Governmental security continues to over react to many perceived terrorist threats, while travelers often over react to new processes put in place to secure the general travel public's safety.

The most recent illustration of this phenomenon is the John Tyner pat down case in San Diego. According to the Youtube taping of the incident by him, he refused the machine scan process and chose the optional "pat down" method...but took exception when they said they would be touching his genital area. When told by a supervisor who was called into the situation that he could submit to the process...or leave and not fly today...he chose the later. He was escorted by TSA and police to an American Airlines counter who refunded his non-refundable ticket. During that process, TSA management with the police came back and asked him to resubmit himself for the screening or basically be charged criminally on some sort of code that they didn't seem to mention. Apparently those charges have been filed with an $10,000 fine attached. Now Mr Tyner and other citizens are going more public with their fight against this perceived governmental tyranny.

Personally I see paranoia and over reaction on both sides of this conflict. I think the general public wants security to be thorough and secure the people who are allowed to travel with them. I would rather go through the scanner machine than to be physically patted down...yet many people, apparently including the pilots union...are paranoid about over exposure to that technology for health reasons. I supposed if I had to be scanned multiple times every day, I might have the same concerns. I don't have that concern for occasional flying. If someone doesn't want to go through that machine, then pat downs make sense somewhat. Yet, I think the genital touching is going overboard on that front as well.

My biggest disconnect with the TSA approach is their "randomness" approach of who they pull aside for more thorough examination...and on the other hand their paranoia about "profiling" people. This has never made sense to me. If your typical "terrorist" is of Arab decent and between the ages of 18-40...I don't "get" pulling American retirees in wheelchairs over to one side for a "pat down" or sniff test. With today's access to technology and ID verification...these people should be screened and risk levels accessed on each passenger long before they even reach the airport. The Israelis do this and they seem to have a much better record of controls on flying terrorists. They also are not afraid of "profiling" the bad guys.

Unfortunately, many of us normal citizens are now getting paranoid about traveling and the overt governmental presence and oversight of our lives. 9/11 caused in my opinion an over reaction on the government's part in suspending many privacy rights and freedoms granted by our constitution. The "Patriot Act" was supposed to be a "temporary powers" type of bill that has somehow turned into a permanent contract with our government powers. We are rightly paranoid when our government can arrest or search us without due cause or process of law. Many of the attitudes and tactics being used by our government are reminiscent of the "Gestapo" tactics of the Nazi era. They used many of the same justifications and stirring of paranoia to gain the upper hand over mass civilians in limiting their rights and freedoms. Travel is now just another extension of overstepping governmental regulation into our way of life.

Thanks to the immediacy of internet media we are now seeing natural balance and access of information...as well as disinformation...being distributed to the masses. Hopefully this will help us find a balance of what is acceptable between government actions and the constituents they serve. We need balance and reason instead of over reactions and manipulation of emotions. We want our governments to get the bad guys without making us all suspected criminals. The problem is that at the end of the day "humans" are on each side of these conflicts. Humans run our government bureaucracies. Humans run the airlines and travel agencies. And of course, the general public is full of humans. All are imperfect and we all need to work together to arrive at the balanced common good.

I am convinced most disconnects in this dynamic is based on egos and human pride. All the role players in the San Diego pat down incident to me are so representative of the various factions in this "play". You have the systematic messaging and direction given by particular TSA "worker bees"...who when faced with a John Q Public that doesn't agree to the process calls over a manager of bigger ego. When that person doesn't succeed in getting compliance from the citizen...they make it into a scene with uniformed police escort away from the "security area". The worst part of the TSA reaction was when they brought in the "suit" management guy who is determined to "win the argument" and "complete the process" whether the civilian likes it or not...at the threat of criminalization and hefty fine. That was way over the top and too authoritarian a position for a "public servant" to take on. You are there to get "terrorists"...not turn a citizen into a candidate for being one. STUPID.

The overarching sadness for me in this "dance" is that all sides are playing roles that perpetuate the problem. The more authoritarian governmental entities become, the more rebellious become various sectors of citizenry. This has the potential of pushing more and more bystanders into the side of the "terrorists". It's kind of like the psychological aspect where if you accuse someone of being a criminal or treat them like one long enough...they will start acting on the notion. It is negative psychology on the grandest of scales.

I hope all the publicity on this issue affects reason and brings positive change for travelers as we approach the holiday travel season. Meanwhile, I will try to reduce chances of conflicts with the "authorities" as much as possible while traveling. I will probably chose the machine over the pat down...and dress as little like a terrorist as possible, including leaving the wheelchair at home.

Why no one invades Switzerland

This video underscores one of the reasons Switzerland has little history of invasion and a very low crime rate. As the Swiss gentleman in the video says towards the end..."the key to freedom is to be able to defend yourself".

My fellow Panama blogger Sam Taliaferro posted this video with his comments about Panama passing new gun restriction laws. I agree with his sentiments. I continue to get alarmed that world governments in general are trying to disarm their citizens...while at the same time producing more weapons for "the State" than ever before.

In an ideal world or Utopia...you would not need firearms unless you hunted for survival food and clothing. But as long as so much of the world continues as the old "wild wild west" of crime and lawlessness...it is a foolish notion to take all armaments out of the hands of the law abiding.

I prefer Switzerland's model where they train their citizens in firearm safety and how to shoot. I believe in having harsh laws against those who use firearms in a crime...yet I still believe the best deterrent to crime is being prepared with equal or superior "force" in your personal space. Governments that don't support this approach in my opinion are suspect in their motivation. If they are the government OF the majority of the people...why should they be afraid of armed constituents? I understand taking guns from outlaws and convicted felons...but not law abiding citizens. At least in true constitutional republics or democracies...this should NOT be an issue.

Election Day

Tomorrow brings a new mid term election in the USA. There seems to be a quiet acceptance that the "Republicans" will be taking over in Congressional leadership capacity. Personally I'm not sure it will make much difference who controls congress as a majority of congressmen in recent decades seem to me more "self" or "special interest" serving than to their "constituents".

I personally have the following core sentiments regarding this (and all recent) election:

While having lost faith in most of our political leaders, here is hoping tomorrow's elections in the USA brings forth more TRUE leaders who will represent their CONSTITUENTS versus "special interests" or party "platforms". I support any candidate (Republican, Democrat, Independent, Conservative, or Liberal) who stands for a strong Constitutional government with limited roles their constitution grants them. Their role is primarily to defend our borders and EVERY citizen's rights to privacy and the individual pursuit of peace, prosperity and happiness. Lets call it a return to "freedom and justice for ALL".

Another interesting quote that struck a chord with me today on the populace and politics...

"I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand "I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or "I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!" and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations..." Margaret Thatcher, 23 September 1987

Here's to hoping some Constitutional "freedom lovers" make it into office tomorrow. It's up to you America...

Controlling Drugs

After reading the obit of one of America's leading experts on the history of drugs in America, David Musto, it reminded me of many observations and articles read over the years on this subject. I have alluded in other blog posts to some of my viewpoints on the "drug war" my country is losing and the monies wasted in the wrong directions...but I have not clarified my thoughts in writing on drugs overall.

One of my fundamental disagreements with the world-wide "drug wars" is that YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE MORALITY FOR ANY SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME! During my relatively short lifetime, we have seen TRILLIONS of dollars spent trying to control the supply of what are deemed "illegal" or "illicit" drugs...with much of that money coming from heavy "sin" taxes on "legal" drugs/substances such as tobacco and alcohol...which substances kill hundreds of thousands of people every YEAR! Most of us have seen people close to us affected or dying from using these substances, yet...they remain legal while substances such as Marijuana...which have scientifically been proven to have medicinal properties for some diseases...remain taboo and illegal. My opinion is, if you are going to legislate limits on one harmful substance, you need to put limits on all. But of course, prohibition never worked and will never work. And lets face it...SOME companies and rich families make a LOT of money on those products/substances in worldwide distribution.

In addition to the societal costs of fighting global "underground" suppliers to our addictions...we continue to criminalize the sick and demented addicts among us...without getting to the root of the cause. Our institutions just drive many of these forces and appetites underground which has now established huge resources and revenues that will never be documented or enter mainstream commerce. We have created two economies...and two macro classes in our global population; traditional/formal markets and underground/informal markets. Global economies cannot be truly measured without taking into account those informal markets.

PRIMAL MESSAGE: We will never eradicate the supply if we don't affect the demand.

In my broad travels and experiences in life, I have observed many aspects of the "drug dilemma" fairly close and personal through some people close to me. Substances from alcohol to Marijuana to "prescription narcotics" to harder drugs have affected the personal lives of many potentially great people who have been in my path. That makes it a very personal and emotional issue by nature. Anyone I have known who overcame addictions did so by PERSONAL CHOICE, not by edict or legal decree. Even legislated drug treatment programs mandated by a court on someone are a waste of time if THAT PERSON is not ready to change their lives and actions. Some of the most obvious hypocrisies I have seen on this issue are "blasted" cocktailers spewing forth about putting "druggies" in jail. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.

I grew up in the late 60s and early 70s when "illicit drugs" and "free love" became more mainstream aspects of American culture. The boomer generation and large economic growth of those times fueled a consumerism that was insatiable. With new wealth and independence came new levels of greed, debauchery...and emptiness...as people began discovering how money and freedom alone does not bring happiness. As people began to express their "freedom" and "success" by throwing out many cultural taboos and traditions...individualism became more rampant and the rule of law in governments and religions were questioned and/or disregarded by the growing multitudes. Individuals were allowed to explore their natures and had the economic freedom to do so. With this new wealth and boredom came the tendency to "medicate" both legally and illegally any ache, pain or depression we were experiencing. Have a headache? Pop an aspirin. Pulled muscle or back spasms? Pop a big dose of Ibuprofen or some sort of steroid. Feeling depressed? Here...take the latest version of psychotic drug recommended by your psychiatrist. The problem with all this "cause and effect" was that these substances taken over a long period of time can kill us by affecting other organs as side affects...and often taking medications only cover up "symptoms" of a real problem or health defect. What is the morality of that? Even after adjusting for inflation, we now spend as much on health care every 10 days as we did in the entire year of 1950. That's the cost of drugs for ya...

As I now look back to those times (60s-70s), I begin to see the roots of current political and religious realities. Forgive me if I am too "general" in some of my comments for the sake of brevity and blogspace...but drugs has for me become the main "battle ground" for the cultural wars in our society. There are also a number of ironies that to me are so obvious...

The more society's institutions try and place dogmatic controls on the behaviors of its members, the more various factions go in extreme opposite directions. Most humans/individuals have the constant battle between what they WANT to do as individuals and what is ACCEPTED by their peers and fellow members of society. Some of us obviously stray more independently than others.

Dr. Musto's work also pointed out "...the close correlation, historically, between public outrage over certain drugs and their use by feared or hated minorities." This governmental "war on drugs" has become a "class war" and against the people themselves...not the drugs or addiction. This is most evident when you see poor black or minority young men incarcerated for years for possession or sales of drugs...while rich and "pretty" white actresses who are repeat offenders serve no more than a few hours of a few MONTHS conviction. I am a white person who is enraged by this lack of uniform justice in my home country.

This is a huge subject I know...but I think the macros can be summed up quite easily. The "war on drugs" by all statistics has been a failure...BECAUSE...with all the trillions spent we still have more and more addicts, pushers and kids BUYING the stuff...both legal and non-legal substances. And while they succeeded in reducing the drug supply chain in Colombia...it has only been replaced and multiplied in Mexico which is almost in a state of anarchism as the money and supply has been pushed CLOSER to the users by this drug war. Ridiculous!

I know many people who come to Latin America and elsewhere to load up on "legal" prescription drugs without prescriptions and are as "addicted" to them as any heroin addict. The false morality of this is huge. Just because drugs...or alcohol...or tobacco are legal doesn't mean you have license to destroy your health with them. To this end...ALL drugs should be legal and controlled by society for societies sake. This would take most of the drugs off THE STREET and put them in pharmacies or clinics where they belong. People should not be convicted for using them, but for losing control on them. If someone wants to OD, it is their privilege and personal responsibility regarding that possibility. If they affect or damage someone else while out of control...that is when institutions of society should step in to protect victims and the rest of society.

It is my fundamental belief that if government and religion put the same amount of money and effort into helping educate and treat the USERS of drugs...including warnings about the legal prescriptions of synthetic drugs that are killing many people... the war on drugs could be turned around. Yet, I fear there are many dark forces behind the scenes that are quite happy having the war as it is. Ongoing, never ending churning of funds through their grimy big hands/accounts that perpetuate the cycle of devastation and destruction...mostly to the poor and minorities who some people want to keep minimalized. And lets face it...drugs also keep the rich and beautiful aloof to what is really going on as well.

Final quote from THIS LINK...

"One of the defining characteristics of the drug war is politician’s ignoring expert findings and providing demagogic enforcement measures to placate idiot & ignorant voters. And never, ever, EVER considering de-criminalizing and harm reduction allied to social reform."

Burkas or Bikinis?

I woke up dreaming this morning that I was talking with a group of attractive and sensually dressed young women about their conservative religious views on sex and relationships. I must admit that the visual aspect of this dream was enjoyable...yet I woke up bothered by the conversation. Weird huh? But actually as I think about it perhaps this dream is all about some lifelong conflicts I have observed within myself and society as a whole. How do we handle the many mysteries and disparities on relationships between the sexes? Why do we place so much emphasis on fashion and appearances? Should it be a "religious" issue? Is there any "correct" or rational position between "Burkas and Bikinis"?

Now, I understand when a man starts writing on themes touching on the opposite sex or regarding feminism and roles between the sexes...many women's hair starts raising on the napes of their necks. Blood starts rushing to their heads and a sensitive, understanding male should probably get ready to make themselves scarce or just button up. As many of you know...I have never been very smart about that. I have had my share (probably more) of discussions with female friends and family members on these sensitive issues...but I haven't really written much about it...so watch out...here comes.

I won't cover all the issues in one blog obviously...but I will try for now to address some macros and micros on my observations on the feminine mystique and battle between the sexes. It goes without saying that my views are from a "male" perspective...and while I like to think of myself as "enlightened" or semi-educated...I'll state from the outset that I am probably too conservative for the feminists in my views...and to liberal for the ultra-conservatives. That means I probably will never achieve majority support of my views. Still, I hope my experiences can at least just be another voice in what I think is one of the least discussed or understood challenges in the world...the relationship between the sexes.

A long time ago I read the now famous book "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus". While I found the book somewhat over generalizing, I think it made many valid observations about the ongoing differences in how men and women think, feel and act. But I think the subject is much more convoluted than Dr. Gray gets into in this book...it is much deeper and conflicted than just being from "different planets" or going back to caveman or "Tarzan and Jane" type analogies.

Much of this theme, like religion and politics, is REALLY subjective and if every person in the world is so unique...well, start combining people two by two and you have some REAL unique and different experiences in life and living. There is no exact science here...and this subject probably is at the core of modern day psychology. Not the origins of "man" or "who am I"...but more about who am I in relationship to him or her.

Here are a few of my basic observations or thoughts:

Its easier for the rest of the animal kingdom. While many species do unite for life and make families...most of them have very short life spans. They don't have to spend 50+ years together, therefore they don't have as many issues about "getting old together".

Most animals mate on pure instinct and "animal attraction". In the human race we have much more to consider such as do we come from the same class or background, will they get along with my friends and let me see his or her financial statement.

Many species, such as Deer, have special mating or "rutting" season. During this time the male testosterone is highly elevated and the females hormones somehow know to respond and get ready for mating season. Of course, in Gods infinite wisdom regarding survival of the fittest, the Bucks grow horns to fight with...mostly fighting over which Doe he is going to conquer. The biggest buck gets first choice of the Doe. Hmmm, maybe we humans evolved from Deer...you know...ultimate fighting, boxing, various macho sports where we elevate the victor to the spoils...including the prettiest women. Another big difference is that people tend to be in "rutting season" every weekend. We and the rabbits...

We are the only animals who put on clothes and hide our "private parts". Whether this goes back to Adam and Eve in the "Garden of Eden", I don't know. Somehow I think it was more tied to the rationality of man when he saw that "all men were NOT created equal" and wanted to cover up that fact.

I have been privileged...or confused...in life to grow up in these modern, "interesting" times. It is just in the last century that women were given democratic rights to vote in much of the first world. It's only in the last century or so that women were "permitted" to work in traditional, wage earning jobs outside the home. Even with the advent of rapid "modernization", we are still fighting wars/conflicts over cultural and religious issues...may of which are based on women's rights in many of what we call "backward" cultures.

Even within the USA during my lifetime we have seen a shifting of values between the sexes. We have the fundamentalist religious right fighting culturally and politically to preserve values of family, home and traditional "Patriarchal" roles in society between men and women. We have gone from Victorian traditions to "free love" of the 70s to now growing acceptance of "Burkas" for Muslim women in our country. Talk about diversity!

In the midst of all that you have had the growth of "Feminism" or "Feminine Mystique" where women have demanded greater autonomy and participation in life's political and business decisions. I have always respected and supported equal rights for women...and in many ways I see them as the "stronger" sex. I am convinced most of us men would be much more "wimpy" about enduring pregnancy and the hard work of raising children and homemaking. There is an alarming growth in America of single women raising children without support from a husband or male counterpart. I respect the ability of some of those women to do that...though it is obvious to me that this is not the ideal way to live and raise kids. Yet, there are some tough women stepping up to that challenge. My mother was one of those.

Where the feminist movement loses me is when they overshoot their goals or go to extreme positions that most of their fellow females are not even in line with. I truly understand women's nature of reacting or rejecting centuries of subjugation by Patriarchal societies and religions. The animalistic raping or killing of women and children by "warriors" that even continues in many parts of our conflictive world today is inexcusable and calls into question if such men have ANY intelligence or soul. I guess not. To this end, I believe there is a fundamental nature between men and women that men should protect them...not beat and/or rape them. Sex should ALWAYS be consensual like with most intelligent beings. Unfortunately we have some very deviant creatures that have evolved over time. Personally I think those deviants should be castrated...applying basic "old testament" justice to such deviants.

On the other hand...I believe that whether you want to admit it or not...humans are VERY sexual in general. Obviously some cultures and traditions more than others embrace or allow for their sexuality. Unfortunately, mankind has been continually manipulated and "controlled" regarding their sexuality by the institutions and "powers that be". While I know arguments can be made that we are better off with strict rules and mores instead of just freely expressing our sexual natures...I think instead of making things "better" in understanding our sexuality, we have just clouded the issue and our natures with layers of guilt and cover-up to where most societies have no room for educating their children on sex without some form of prohibition and guilt tripping attached. In my opinion, this has been some of the root causes for so much deviant sexual behavior in our society. It seems to me that when people are forbidden to do something...their curiosity and drive to do so becomes that much stronger. You have MANY people living dishonestly about their sexuality. Many deviants and dysfunctional people come out of the most strict, legalistic cultures when it comes to sex. In my opinion, the "educated" world is very backward and conflicted in its expression or pursuit of sexuality. I would venture to guess that most marriages within a few years become very devoid of sexual intimacy. Why is that? Natural...or learned behaviors?

In the midst of these natural tensions between the sexes we now have growing extremes between the liberal and conservative views on the subject. With the advent of "Democracy" and "civil rights"...you have many people advocating freedom to wear anything...or nothing...in public places. On the other hand, you have extreme Feminists pandering against making women "sex objects"...they don't think women should dress differently from men or provocatively if they want to gain respect and equality with men. Then you have ultra conservative groups within Islam, Christianity and other religions who want their women to cover up for an entirely different reason. They still view women as "property" or UNDER the man as head of household. To that end they don't want "their" woman objectified by other men...nor do they apparently want to be "tempted" by seeing other women's flesh. Apparently some people just can't see a little hairy leg without going into lusting convulsions. God apparently is NOT happy with our viewing the opposite flesh.

Well, let me summarize with a few of my admissions or viewpoints.

I have seen a lot of "flesh" in my day...but the sexiest women are those who show "just enough" but don't throw it all out there "in your face".

The art of seduction is waning in the world

I never understood scantily or seductively dressed women in public who took offense at being stared at by men. If they don't want to be observed or "lusted after"...cover up! And women who don't understand men looking at those scantily clothed women...don't understand men.

I have never understood fat men or women wearing skin tight clothing or "speedos"

I have never understood the sexual depravity I have seen in many fundamentalist religious men I have known or known of. Get honest...and get some help.

I believe "sex education" is a natural thing and doesn't need to be taught with all our adult biases and baggage. And yes, some people are more "sexual" than others. Be open and don't guilt trip the children.

There should be no laws regarding sexual activities between consenting adults. We may not like or understand the proclivities of another person...but that doesn't give us license to judge or control THEIR behavior. The only necessary laws are to protect men, women and children from unwanted advances and sexual aggression.

True equality between the sexes should include equal "freedom" (if so chosen) to explore other relationships or experiences. The macho double standard regarding sex we see throughout our societies is just that.

For me, the ideal would be we could all run around naked and somehow still see and respect the individual beauty and personality we all have. People who are "naturalists" or belong to Nudist colonies I think are pursuing this honesty. I am afraid until our world gets more honest about the nature and importance of sex in our existence, we will forever be dealing with false ideas of who we are and how we tick. While we have grown up being polite, respectful and very PRIVATE about sex...I'm not sure that has helped us much with the population boom...or the problem of pedophilia.

Burkas...or Bikinis? Depends on who's wearing them. Beyond that, it should be every womans choice.

Deductive Reasoning...a dying art

Maybe it is just me, but I am having a huge disconnect with a lot of core logic in today's world. Its seems that with "new math" and modern education coming into vogue, somehow common sense and deductive reasoning has flown out the window.

Granted, deductive reasoning is not fool proof or always arriving at truth. If your premises are bad, many times your conclusion will be also. Being a proponent of "cause and effect", I think most of the world's problems can be traced back to poor premises...and primarily a lack of historical understanding or perspective.

Disconnects in our deductive reasoning is the primary cause in my opinion of the new subjectivity for words and labels. For example, what does it mean when someone says "they are Christian" or "they are Muslims"? What does it mean when someone is labeled a "Republican" or a "Democrat"? Unfortunately you have a LOT of people tossing around these labels either in self description or in defining others...yet I tend to often have big disconnects between the labels and what/who that person is or says. So what is changing...the premise or the conclusion?

I still believe in logic and "deductive reasoning". I still believe 2+2=4 and that love begets love and hate begets hate. While I don't think we can totally predict the future, I think we can have a pretty good idea on some of our deductions...

The chasm between fundamentalists versus secularists will continue to widen as more of the world becomes aware of the premises of the other through shrinking geographic access and technology/communication connections.

The poor and uneducated will be THE battleground for dominance in both democratic and dictatorial government systems. It will always be the rich/educated "few" against the "masses".

Future wars will be fought via technology and ideology rather than guns and bombs.

"Capitalism" and "Communism" will become insignificant words as both systems continue competing for economic world dominance and defining economic models. I predict Asia/China will continue to dominate in this arena while current first world powers continue to decline.

"Singularity"...where human intelligence and computer intelligence unite...will transform the world in the next 40-50 years.

This aspect of "singularity" is probably the greatest factor in determining the future of mankind. While I continue to value the "heart and soul" of man...it alarms me how far away our emotions have taken us from solid, deductive reasoning. If and when we arrive to the point where computer intelligence and human intelligence intertwine, it is my hope that it will restore congruity and reasoning as applied to the world's problems.

My fantasy is to have a big deductive "computer" listening in on discussions/speeches at the "United Nations" and US Congress sessions...tied into big flashing neon signs flashing immediate responses to illogical arguments and proposals. I would love to see computers expressing immediate responses of "Illogical", "Unreasonable" or "untenable" to the vacuous rantings of people like Chavez, Ahmadinejad and other crazed lunatics leading various nation/states in our world. We also could use instant computer gratification when it comes to economic and tax systems. We need to somehow restore deductive reasoning to our greater human logic.

I am reminded of one of my childhood TV shows from the 60s, "Lost in Space", where the Robinson family were constantly dependent on the computerized wisdom of "The Robot". When the whimsical machinations of "Dr. Smith" got too far out of hand or the "kids" would wander off into danger...it was always "Mr Robot" who came to their rescue with solid information or practical solutions to the situation at hand...or even many times sacrificing his own welfare to protect the "weaker" human being. Is computerized intelligence capable of emotion as well? Only time will tell.

I for one am rooting for the day when our human race is more controlled by computerized "deductive reasoning" than the fanatical, ideological and emotional rationalizations that are currently destroying our natural order.

PS. For extra credit, I highly recommend reading and following one of the world's most brilliant minds on the subject of "Singularity". I have played Ray Kurzweil's keyboards over the years...but his greatest contributions are still ahead of him. Here are a few links of interest:


Ray Kurzweil: How technology's accelerating power will transform us

Ray Kurzweil - Futurist

Water...the blue gold of the next millennium

I was impacted by the Cinemax showing of this documentary "Flow...For Love of Water" which can now be viewed on demand from YouTube starting with part one as linked above.

We hear and read a lot about climate change, ecology issues from deforestation and strip mining everywhere...but comparatively few see very little coverage of what I think is THE ecology issue of our times...WATER SUPPLY.

We consistently complain and worry about the prices and supply of oil and gas related to our economies and cost of living...yet we don't flinch at buying a pint of bottled water for $2 in some stores. The primary driver of this phenomenon is our concern over drinking clean water as we recognize that our world's water supply is becoming more and more toxic by the hour.

Having grown up in the "Great Lakes" state of Michigan...my life has been blessed with tremendous times spent fishing, boating, skiing and just looking out over beautiful fresh lakes and streams. While I don't mind walking the fine ocean beaches you find in Florida, the Caribbean or California...I still prefer the fresh air of "sweet water"...the stuff you can drink, swim, and frolic in without being covered with salt and saline. I've tasted a lot of desalinated water from the oceans, but you can't beat the purity and good taste of mineralized sweet water from a lake or stream.

Of course, from the business side we all now know that waterfront lands, whether salt or fresh water, is always going up in price. Waterfront or view is a given as the most secure land investment one can make. I have acted on that. Yet, as this film so effectively depicts, our world's water supplies are now being controlled and affected by somewhat sinister forces and organizations that supersede our "ownership" of waterfront properties.

What God took a few million years to put into natural flow and motion, men and nations have now changed all of that for some pretty selfish concerns. I believe what I have read from many sources...that our world has millions who are hungry and thirsty NOT because of shortages of water or food, but simply because of manipulated distribution issues and hording for a few.

As this film points out so vividly, millions of people are being displaced every decade or so by huge conglomerates and countries who are "damming up" various rivers and lakes to divert water from one source to another. While there are a number of examples of positive effects and progressive results from this (such as the Panama Canal)...there are also hideous examples of taking from many to give to a few. And of course, history is full of wars and conflicts over watered lands and regions.

I will let this movie speak for itself...but I challenge every rational one of us to keep an eye on this subject and speak and act out where we can on protecting the quality and "ownership" issues of the world's water supply and quality. It's not that we have less of it...water is totally recycling...but we have less quality and uneven distribution of such in this shrinking world we live in. My parents brought me up with a solid respect for conservancy and responsible care-taking of nature. My Mom and Step dad were heavily involved in conservancy organizations throughout Michigan...and I am proud of them for that. Unfortunately, most of the world is naive and complacent about water...possibly the most important product of nature in life...the foundation of our whole food chain.

Here is a quote that struck me recently..."a lot of people live without love, but I don't know anyone that survived living without water...". Yet, we now live in a world where BAD water is the root cause for millions of deaths. Our pollution of the water and food chain are killing us faster than all the wars combined. What are we going to do about it? Water weighs heavily in my investment strategy in this life...and responsibility for clean and distributed water should be at the core of our moral fiber.