Note: This is a new kind of online protest that uses blogs to spread a petition globally. To participate, just add your blog by following the instructions in this blog post.

This not an issue of partisan politics, this is an issue of basic human rights and democracy. Please help to prevent a human tragedy in Burma by adding your blog and asking others to do the same.

By passing this meme on through the blogosphere hopefully we can generate more awareness and avert a serious tragedy. As concerned world-citizens this something we bloggers can do to help.

How to participate:

1. Copy this entire post to your blog, including this special number: 1081081081234

2. After a few days, you can search Google for the number 1081081081234 to find all blogs that are participating in this protest and petition. Note: Google indexes blogs at different rates, so it could take longer for your blog to show up in the results. Also note — if you want an accurate count of the number of blogs that joined this petition, make sure you scroll to the bottom of the Google results and click to view results that were omitted because they were similar.

3. If you know how to add tags to your blog posts, add the Technorati tag 1081081081234 to your post as well. This will make your post findable sooner in Technorati.

THE SITUATION IN BURMA AND WHY IT MATTERS TO ALL OF US

There is no press freedom in Burma and the government has started turning off the Internet and other means of communication, so it is difficult to get news out. Individuals on the ground have been sending their day-by-day reports to the BBC, and they are heartbreaking. I encourage you to read these accounts to see for yourself what is really going on in Burma. Please include this link in your own blog post.

The situation in Burma is increasingly dangerous. Hundreds of thousands of unarmed peaceful protesters, including monks and nuns, are risking their lives to march for democracy against an unpopular but well-armed military dictatorship that will stop at nothing to continue its repressive rule. While the generals in power and their families are literally dripping in gold and diamonds, the people of Burma are impoverished, deprived of basic human rights, cut off from the rest of the world, and increasingly under threat of violence.

This week the people of Burma have risen up collectively in the largest public demonstrations against the ruling Junta in decades. It’s an amazing show of bravery, decency, and democracy in action. But although these protests are peaceful, the military rulers are starting to crack down with violence. Already there have been at least several reported deaths, and hundreds of critical injuries from soldiers beating unarmed civilians to the point of death.

The actual fatalities and injuries are probably far worse, but the only news we have is coming from individuals who are sneaking reports past the authorities. Unfortunately it looks like a large-scale blood-bath may ensue — and the victims will be mostly women, children, the elderly and unarmed monks and nuns.

Contrary to what the Burmese, Chinese and Russian governments have stated, this is not merely a local internal political issue, it is an issue of global importance and it affects the global community. As concerned citizens, we cannot allow any government anywhere in the world to use its military to attack and kill peacefully demonstrating, unarmed citizens.

In this modern day and age violence against unarmed civilians is unacceptable and if it is allowed to happen, without serious consequences for the perpetrators, it creates a precedent for it to happen again somewhere else.
If we want a more peaceful world, it is up to each of us to make a personal stand on these fundamental issues whenever they arise.

Please join me in calling on the Burmese government to negotiate peacefully with its citizens, and on China to intervene to prevent further violence. And please help to raise awareness of the developing situation in Burma so that hopefully we can avert a large-scale human disaster there.

This just in. The Chinese Government, in their ongoing campaign against the Dalai Lama and Buddhism in Tibet, have announced a new law making it illegal for a Buddha to reincarnate without a state permit. This law is designed effectively to put an end to the form of Buddhism practiced in Tibet within one generation. The Tibetan monastic system is organized around reincarnated "tulkus" who are usually identified though a battery of tests at a young age and are then tutored and groomed to run monasteries and monastic schools when they grow up. This new law  will make it a crime for anyone to be identified as a reincarnated lama without state approval — meaning that from now on the Chinese government will be in a position to appoint or deny whoever they select to lead the Buddhists of Tibet. Of course the irony is that the Chinese state is atheistic and in making this law they seem to be contradicting themselves in admitting that Buddhas exist and can reincarnate. But furthermore, the notion that the Chinese state is qualified to identify or approve reincarnated Buddhas is patently absurd. This is one more unfortunate step in China’s 50-year cultural genocide of the Tibetan people.

This is quite an amazing video clip — a news anchorwoman on MSNBC took a heroic stand and refused, on air, to lead with more news about Paris Hilton, despite her fellow anchormen and her producers trying to force her to. They actually almost get into a scuffle as she tries to burn the story with her lighter on camera! You’ve got to watch this. Mika Brzezinski has just proved she is perhaps the only major network journalist in America with a spine. She should get an award for this. Where do I sign up to join the Mika Brzezinski fan club?

This article in the Atlantic Monthly presents the best analysis I’ve seen of the strategic situation on the Korean penninsula, and various US options (and potential mistakes to avoid). It’s really a fascinating read, and quite educational, for anyone concerned about what might happen in that arena.

I am concerned by what I’m viewing in our national media lately. Viewed from
outside (and also from wihtin the USA), it would appear that our nation
is obsessed with, and plagued by, an increasing spree of horrible crimes and
abuses of human rights. Is this really what it is like to live in
America, or is this simply the media’s extremely biased reporting?

The media of any social organization, whether a small community or an entire nation, serves as the primary means by which the members of that organization understand and assess the state of the whole. As such the media serves a function to a collective that is similar to "self-awareness" in an individual person. Self-awareness is a feedback loop. It not only serves as a mirror by which an organization can view reflections of its state, it also conditions the planning and execution of further actions by its organization. When people look in the mirror of the media, they not only understand the system they are in, but they also may make choices and further actions based on what they see there.

The pivotal role of media as the central influencer of societal psychology and behavior is often underestimated. And it is through this lens that I view the recent headlines, which are primarily focused on school killing sprees and abuse of children as of late — with sadness and concern. By sensationalizing such tragedies, and providing lurid details over and over again, the media is actually contributing to the ongoing proliferation of these same behaviors. While I’m not suggesting that censorship is a better alternative, I do think that leading mass media organizations, in their blind quest for more attention and ad dollars, are behaving irresponsibly by sensationalizing — indeed almost celebrating — murder, torture, sexual abuse, and other horrible acts as if they are the latest attractions in some kind of societal variety show.

These atrocities should be reported, but the style and manner in which they are reported should be the opposite of sensationalism. They should be more like funerals — which is after all what these stories are really about. There should be an element of sadness, respect for those affected, concern for those who might read or view such images and stories, and restraint. In particular details of how various horrible crimes were planned and executed are not necessary and not beneficial in telling the story — they only serve to inspire, trigger and teach would-be copycats to do the same thing. Furthermore by rewarding perpetrators of such crimes with massive publicity (which in many cases is what such egomaniacs are hoping to achieve by committing their crimes) the media is actually playing right into their hands.

As usual I have a radical proposal to fix this: What if the media gave exposure to stories in direct proportion to the number of people actually affected by those stories?

What if stories were evaluated on several dimensions to determine how much exposure to give them — for example, geographic range, number of people directly impacted, political relevance, etc? The size of a story would therefore be determined by its real effect on the population. Contrast this to what the news media does today where in fact the prominence of a story is often inversely proportional to the number of people directly impacted by it. The media currently amplifies the most shocking news, regardless of how many people are directly affected or involved. A shocking crime that directly affected only 2 people is quickly amplified to the main national headline of the day for a population of 300 million. That is simply out of balance with reality.

For example, horrible as they are, the recent school killings only directly affect a relatively tiny percentage of the national population: So why should they be the main focus of the national news headlines for weeks on end? According to this proposal, such stories would be mere blips on the collective radar. They would not be headline news for the entire nation, and/or if they were they would quickly fall out of the headlines. I’m not downplaying the importance of these stories to the affected people and communities — nor am I downplaying the broader significance of the trends they may be indicative of — I’m simply pointing out that these stories, tragic as they may be, get disproportionately too much national media exposure compared to other stories that affect much larger segments of the population such as for example — stories related to the economy, the environment, the war and upcoming elections, etc.

If the news accurately reflected the issues and stories that affect the
population, in proportion to the real impact those issues and stories
have on the population and the number of people directly impacted, then the news would be a lot less sensational,
and a lot more substantial. This would also be better for the
collective psyche. Instead of the media feedback loop focusing
increasingly on sensational atrocities that affect only small numbers
of people, the feedback loop would focus on the larger issues.

Consider this analogy — only a small percentage of the population is
or ever will be criminally insane. Yet the media focuses a relatively
large percentage of its coverage on the crimes comitted by criminally insane people. This has the unfortunate effect of focusing the attention of
the vast majority of non-criminally insane citizens on acts
of criminal insanity. One cannot help but wonder whether by doing this,
the media is actually driving up the amount of criminal insanity in
society? It’s a reasonably hypothesis. And in fact, such effects can be verified
in simple experiments. Whether with oneself or a group of people,
if you obssess about any particular issue over and over again and it will
start to become the main thing everyone thinks about — and this in
turn will start to drive further behavior around that very issue — it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.

We can see the roles of feedback in driving behavior in other areas as well — For example positive thinking, positive affirmations, positive
feedback, and positive role models lead to more
positive behavior by individuals and groups over time. Similarly, negative thinking, negative
affirmations, negative feedback and negative role models lead to
negative behavior over time. Our media is obsessed with feeding us
negative images of our society, ourselves, and our world — this cannot but have
the effect of generating increasingly negative assessments, experiences
and behaviors that further verify this negative world-view.

It’s a "chicken-and-egg" situation — the media leadership would answer this challenge by saying, "we just report the news. If you want to change the news, change society." But that’s just not accurate. In fact, the media is not an objective reporter, there are all kinds of biases, not the least of which are commercially-motivated. The bottom line, as it’s oft said in newsrooms around the country is, "if it bleeds, it leads." That has nothing to do with objectivity and everything to do with competing for eyeballs, ratings, and ad dollars. There are two ways to fix this chicken-and-egg problem — change the egg (society) or change the chicken (the media.) I am proposing that we change the chicken — which is a lot easier than changing the egg. Getting a few dozen national media organizations to be more objective and less sensationalistic is easier to accomplish than  going out and changing the minds and behavior of 300 million people — yet it will have the same long-term effect! And this is the beauty of this approach. Since the media is really functioning as the self-awareness of society, if we recalibrate the media, this will effectively recalibrate society as a whole. The fact is this is already happening — just in a negative direction. It would only require a small effort to make it trend towards the positive.

There are very few positive stories, very few positive role models, and
very little to be happy about in the media today. But this is not an accurate
portrayal of the society or world we live in. In fact, there is so much
that is good in our communities, organizations, societies, and
ourselves. Why is this not portrayed in the media with equal or greater visibility? It’s true that fear,
horror, taboos, crime and conflict grab people by the adrenals and get
their attention — and that leads to short-term attention and ratings gain. But long-term it
leads to societal decay. It’s really no different than a drug addict
chasing after quick fixes at the expense of their long-term health.
Isn’t it time our society started looking at the media feedback loop
more responsibly? And isn’t it time that people start complaining to
the media about their unbalanced and biased coverage of current events?

Unfortunately humans are incredibly short-sighted — we tend to not see
or pay attention to anything outside of the immediate present in space
and time, and when it comes to thinking about societal health we are
particularly myopic. After thousands of years of western civilization
we still do not think about the health of our civilization with
anything close to the models or discipline that we use to think about the
health of the human body. But why don’t we? Why isn’t societal health more of a science today? Why is it still a subject that is relegated to a few non-profits and philosophers on the fringes? Why isn’t it taught in medical schools or the equivalent? Certainly we can and do
measure the state of our society in many dimensions? And we
certainly can see, and prove, the short-term and long-term causal
effects of laws, policies, and even the amount of violence on
prime-time television. So why do we not take this more seriously as a society?

Perhaps it’s the tragedy of the commons at work — everyone feels that
someone else will take care of this, or at least that it is someone
else’s problem. In the end everyone takes care of themseleves and their
own families, but the larger community is left virtually unattended to
– save for those who would take advantage of it for their own (usually
commercial) ends. Eventually the societal psyche becomes so polluted, neglected and abused that it falls apart entirely. This is when you have sudden changes — regime change, economic meltdowns, civil wars, dictatorships, and takeover by extremism and hate-oriented movements — such as the rise of Nazism in Germany in the 1930′s. It is guaranteed that just as is the case with the physical environment, the social environment will also oneday be everyone’s problem, unless we take steps now to guide it in a better direction.

I don’t know how to get the media to report stories in proportion to
their impact, as I have proposed here. But I do know that it would make a
huge difference by reducing the number of sensationally violent and
negative stories in the media every day. This would in turn lead to a happier, more emotionally healthy and less
violent society, with a more positive collective self-image and culture. If in
addition the media actually made an effort to report good news even slightly more than bad news that
would further improve things in dramatic ways.

Imagine the effect on your own psyche by thinking just a few positive, compassionate, life-affirming, happy thoughts every day. Now imagine that times 300 million people. Good news can be just
as entertaining and interesting as bad news, but it has a much more
beneficial long-term effect on the viewer and on society as a whole.

Further Reading:

• School Shootings, What was the Motive?
• Guns Have Three Ends

I recently listened to a talk by Dr. David Martin, given at the Arlington Institute, a think tank I advise. You can listen to it here. It takes some patience to get to the main point — but you will be rewarded with a mind-blowing new perspective on what may unfold in the next few years.

Dr. Martin describes why he predicts a very likely total collapse of the US Banking system in 2008.  Even more surprising is that he explains how the only hope for bailing out the US economy at that time may in fact be Muslim financial institutions — the financial entities of the Muslim world — because they are the most cash rich entities on the planet, and unlike our banks they are not exposed to intangible asset risks.

In other words, as Dr. Martin explains, if for no other reason than this, we should think twice before bombing Iran and the rest
of the Middle East back to the Stone Age — they may in fact be our
economy’s only hope and we may soon be in dire need of their help. This is a radical hypothesis, but based on very realistic data and in particular, new laws that are going into effect in the global banking world in January, 2008. On the other hand this could be Y2K all over again.

In any case, this is one of the more intriguing ideas I’ve come across in a long time. Please listen to the talk and then share it with other people. Dr. Martin’s hypothesis may or may not be correct, but it certainly should be heard by more people so that it can be debated and brought to the attention of global decisionmakers as soon as possible.

Chinese officials are preparing to "strike hard" against civil unrest. Are they planning another Tiannamen-style massacre? There is something fundamentally wrong with a government that has to torture, repress, and murder it’s own people (and its neighboring peoples) on a regular, systematic basis in order to maintain stability. China isn’t the only country guilty of such crimes, but they are certainly the most visible. As one of the largest, and most important, nations on earth — and as a key member of the global community — China really should hold itself to a different standard. Just because protestors are comprised of disenfranchised peasants, workers, students and ethnic minorities does not mean that their lives and causes are without value. In fact, the whole point of the Maoist revolution was ostensibly to liberate the lower classes from oppression — so I find it very ironic that the regime that grew out of that revolution is now actively oppressing the very same people it was formed to liberate. Worse still is that the Chinese government — with or without Google’s support — cannot possibly succeed at a policy of repression in the long-term. Eventually, the more acts of violence that are perpetrated against the Chinese people, the more disillusioned those people will become. And eventually the regime will fall out of favor and be dissolved. Since that is the inevitable outcome of the current direction of Chinese policy, why not just spare the needless loss of life, and take a different approach now? The Chinese government should find a way to listen to its people and work with them to build partnerships and solutions from the bottom-up instead of forcing them to comply from the top-down. Anyway, what I say doesn’t matter — I’m sure the Chinese government is not reading this blog. Fortunately, capitalism is like a virus, or an acid, that is already colonizing China and will inevitably result in a shift to something like democracy there, eventually. It’s just too bad that so many people have to suffer in the process.

Oy Vey. CNN just reported that Virginia Democrats are rumored to be asking Ben Affleck to run for the Senate. Note to the Virginia Democrats: Ben Affleck is an A-C-T-O-R not a politician. Am I the only one who is completely fed up with actors running for (and holding) public office? I mean what exactly are their job-qualifications anyway? Pretending to be someone they are not for a living? Memorizing scripts? Drinking, gambling and carousing? Clowning for the cameras? Hmm.. Come to think of it, maybe actors are ideally qualified to be politicians. But not good politicians.

I’m sorry but why in the world should Ben Affleck be in the Senate? What exactly does he know about being a Senator? Besides, he hooked up with Jennifer Garner — something I, and legions of other Alias fans, will never forgive him for. Is he just jealous of the Governator? Or this all just a publicity stunt for an upcoming Sequel to some horrible J-LO movie in which Senator Ben and his kid’s nanny, J-LO, team up to save the world? Come-on, people, what happened to the concept of real Leaders, you know — statesmen — people who actually have some actual understanding of Government, let alone experience?

We wonder why America is not what it used to be. Well, perhaps it’s because the government is increasingly run by showboating businessmen and Hollywood celebrities with no political experience, instead of real public servants with a lifetime of practical wisdom about how to grow and lead a nation.

I voted Democrat in the last election, but to tell you the truth, as
far as I can tell the Democratic party doesn’t have a clue what this
country, and the people, really want and this latest Affleck stunt is
proof of that. Folks, we don’t want Actors — we want Leaders. Real
leaders who have their own original ideas and can think and speak
without reading a script, and who have the guts to stand up for what is
right (no matter how much private-interest money is at stake).

I think we need a new party — not the Greens, not the Democrats,
not the Republicans. The fact is the Democrats have become completely
uninspiring and
spineless, the Republicans are becoming increasingly right-wing, and
the Greens seem to be a bit fringe for mainstream America. Frankly,
these parties all just suck in my opinion. They’re all a bunch of
extremists in one form or another and I don’t think their leaders are
representative of what the American people really need or think
anymore.

It’s time for a new and untainted, centrist, and down-to-earth
party. A party that speaks the truth, faces the facts, and does what is
necessary to navigate the long-term complexity of our modern world,
instead of pandering to lobbyists and giant corporations for short-term
gain and good opinion poll numbers. Instead of leaders who either try
to please everyone all the time or who are mainly concerned with
themselves and their cronies, we need leaders who skip the long
vacations and dinners and golf outings, to roll up their sleeves
solving problems. We need leaders who have the courage and conviction
to do what’s right, or what’s necessary, for the majority of the people
in this country (rather than a select minority that happens to be in
power at a given time) — even if it’s sometimes unpopular or means
they might not get re-elected.

This new party I have in mind would be realistic instead of idealistic.
So how about calling it the Real Party? Isn’t it time for something
Real? Aren’t we all just tired of all these fakes pretending to care,
pretending to lead, pretending to know what they are talking about?
It’s time for Real leaders.

In the next election (if we even have one), I want to vote Real.
Just give me a qualified Real candidate to vote for. No actors need
apply.

by Nova Spivack, Minding the Planet, http://www.mindingtheplanet.net

This news article reports that the FBI is investigating a situation in which mobsters deliberately contaminated their drug money with a virus in order to deter in-house theft by members of their organization. Several years ago, during the days of collective paranoia following 9-11, I started thinking about how to combat potential terrorist threats — and one of the threats I came up with was precisely this threat of contaminated money. Because money travels in a “viral” manner along social and economic networks it represents a perfect vector for spreading a contaminant. While the effects of such an attack would be minimal in terms of actual fatalities, they would potentially be enormous in terms of panic and disruption to our way of life.

I knew it was only a matter of time before this threat materialized somewhere in the world: Now it seems that an actual case has emerged. While the money in question did not represent a large sum, and although viruses (at least) have a relatively short shelf-life, it is an example of a scary new kind of threat that governments need to prepare to defend against. Below are some thoughts about a potential worst-case scenario and various countermeasures that could be implemented to protect against it.

Here is a hypothetical worst-case scenario: imagine what would happen if terrorists contaminated $30 million of small-denomination US dollar banknotes with weaponized anthrax (which can survive for a very long time outside of a lab) and then put those notes back into circulation in several major cities. A month later they then announce what they have done. By that point the contaminated notes have circulated through countless banks, ATM machines, cash registers, wallets, people’s clothing and homes — in short, a large scope of potential contamination exists. The public and the news media panic –suddenly nobody knows whether their $10, $20 and $50 bills are safe to touch, let alone use. People are advised not to use, touch or accept such notes. Leading health authorities go so far as to advise people to throw away or burn their money as well as anything that may have come in contact with it — their wallets, their credit cards, their clothing, etc. Furthermore even the act of coming into contact with potentially contaminated notes in order to dispose of them is risky –and so people don’t know what to do. People are advised to use credit cards for all transactions — but this cuts out anyone who doesn’t have a credit card as well as any business that doesn’t accept credit cards. Furthermore, since plastic credit cards may have come in contact with the contaminated notes in people’s wallets, they too are suspect and may be risky to use. Only telephone and Internet transactions are “hands off” enough to be completely safe. But not every consumer, nore very business, is capable of online payments for every single transaction they do. As a result the consumer economy grinds to a screeching halt.

Possible Countermeasures:

What is the solution? How can we prepare for, defend against, and mitigate such a situation?

My first recommendation is that banknotes should be regularly tested, according to a random sampling schedule, in several major cities, for the presence of potential contaminants. This is not so easy as it turns out that all banknotes carry a large amount of bacteria and other contaminants naturally. Therefore the testing must specifically look for unusual contaminants or unusually high levels of common contaminants.

Secondly, all banks, cash registers and ATM machines should at the very least have built-in UV emitters that destroy viruses and bacteria on any banknotes that pass through them. While this will not protect against radiological or chemical contamination it would protect against biological agents. Since most notes eventually pass through cash registers and ATM machines this measure would help to prevent the spread of any biological contaminant.

Thirdly, there should be a method for replacing contaminated banknotes on a large scale if necessary. Every banknote has an unique serial number. A system should be devised whereby people can bring their banknotes to a location that will take them and provide uncontaminated replacements. To accomplish this effectively, banks should be used as the distribution points for this process. Each bank should be provided with a system for in-taking potentially contaminated notes, logging their serial numbers, photographing them, and destroying them — and then issuing a replacement note to the customer.

Fourthly, as a short-term emergency solution there should be a system in place that can switch the entire nation or any city to digital cash immediately. To do this, every citizen and business should be provided with a free digital wallet that can be accessed via Internet or telephone. The owners of these wallets should be enabled to put money into them, and to transfer funds between them, and with draw money from them. Paypal would be a suitable infrastructure for this. This solution would not work for everyone — not everyone has a bank account or credit card or even a permanent address — but it would work for a large percentage of the population and for a short term would keep the economy running.

From the Truly-Ludicrous-Department, the Senate may attempt to ram through a horribly shortsighted and backwards copyright bill. This bill would, among other things, eliminate centuries of fair-use precedent, make skipping commercials on digital recording devices a crime, and would make many uses of p2p networks, digital music players, digital sampling, and other forms of fair-use, crimes. The effect of this bill, if it passes, will simply be to force even more of the US technology and online services industry offshore; it will reduce the size of the US Market for emerging media devices; it will reduce our international competitiveness as a technology-leading nation; it will stunt innovation in next-generation media and online services; and it won’t stop anyone from filesharing anyway. What a waste of legislative energy.

Can someone please make a really good, free, open-source, cross-platform tool for making "darknets" for private, secure filesharing with trusted groups of friends? If such a tool were created (and designed to be really secure so that only invited parties can see into it), then that would pretty much end all these silly attempts to prevent filesharing.

The world has changed, but instead of accepting this fact and adapting laws and business models to fit it, the lawyers and legislators are trying to make even more restrictive laws in a futile attempt to turn back the tides of technological and social innovation. It’s never worked in the past and it won’t work this time either. In the age of information, information business models must evolve. You cannot limit information or control it effectively once it is digitized. Instead, business models should be developed that leverage the fact that "information wants to move freely" — the fact that digital information tends to spread faster and more widely than printed or analogue data is a blessing, not a curse. The problems of marketing and distribution are no longer obstacles or cost-centers because people are empowered to transmit information they like to others who might like it too.

So where will the money be made? Instead of charging for information licenses content providers should start to focus on making money from the "halo" around each information object. For example, from related services and transactions around the information.

For example, instead of charging a license fee to download and own a musical recording, why not charge a fee for a service that supplies high-quality recommendations for music to listen to that you are likely to like; or a fee for a service that aggregates all the music and video you are likely to like and makes it available to you on-demand from anywhere via high-bandwidth streaming to your devices? Instead of paying per-item, users would simply pay for access to the library, and/or for use of bandwidth.

Superdistribution, which I have written about elsewhere, is another way to make money from filesharing. Contrary to preventing filesharing, it actually encourages it, because sometimes people downstream will end up buying things as a result. For example, suppose you could download and listen to any song for free, for the earlier of a certain number of times played or a certain number of days. After that date you either must pay or lose your license. However, the price you pay gets lower and lower as the number of further people you pass the music on to increases, and the number of people they pass it on to increases, and so on. And it gets even lower if some of them eventually pay to license the song. In other words, if you spend your labor to market a song you could get a discount or get it for free, or even make a profit. Now that is empowering customers to be product evangelists!

Or another example of a business model: why not start simply asking for optional "tips," payable in micropayment denominations from people when they listen to music they like — people are not averse to supporting bands they really enjoy, just look at how they put money in the cup when listening to a good street musician — as long as they know the money actually goes at least in part to the bands!

Or for example, instead of forcing TV viewers to watch commercials they don’t want to see, why not provide optional commercials that target different types of interests and enable users to opt-in to get them during a TV show, or after it. For example, when watching a sitcom, perhaps a viewer might want to know where to get the clothing, music, furniture, or gadgets featured in the episode. These are just a few ideas for "next business models" that are based on empowering content consumers and allowing information to be unconstrained.

Wow, this is big news for Sun: The next version of Solaris will be free and open-source, and will also run Linux apps without any changes. Sun will make money from enterprise support and solutions, as well as related hardware sales. This may be what it takes to bring Sun back from the brink and make it truly competitive again. The advantages of Linux are not so compelling for enterprises compared to a free Solaris, which is arguably a far more sophisticated and tested OS. Furthermore, with Sun backing it up with a worldwide service and support network, I can see many enterprises deciding that for "professional, mission-critical" applications free Solaris plus Sun Support would be a more reliable choice than going with Linux. Finally it seems Sun is "drinking the Cool-Aid" — now, let’s see if they have the guts to open-source Java next…

A Russian academician has predicted that bird-flu will stem to humans and kill up to one billion people around the world within 6 months of an outbreak. He says it is highly probable that a pandemic could take place within the next year. There is no evidence cited for his claims however he refers to studies to this effect allegedly in hands of US authorities. We’ll be tracking this meme as it develops to see if it is credible. Please update here if you get further data. Editor’s Note: The World Health Organization is organizing an emergency summit to develop strategies to combat the threat of this potential pandemic.

Disclaimer: I try to keep this blog non-political. I am essentially a political centrist — I tend to judge each politician, plan and party on its merits rather than by any rigid ideology or party-line. I generally find most politicans, political plans and political parties to be less intelligent and less long-term-oriented than I would wish them to be. As a result, from my perspective, choosing among them is often a matter of choosing the lesser-of-evils. So by posting this article I don’t want to give anyone the impression that I am a partisan person or that this site is partisan. Far from it. In fact, as you can probably see from this site’s content, having an open mind is one of my core values. I also have lots of friends on both sides of every major issue, and they’re all intelligent people whom I respect. There are liberal ideas that make sense to me and also a lot of conservative ideas that make sense to me. May the best memes win!

An article has just come out that is so significant I think it deserves wide exposure. The American Conservative Magazine — the voice of conservatives in America — has officially endorsed John Kerry instead of Bush. Now that’s unprecedented. It shows that there is a tremendous split taking place among conservative voters.

Read it yourself, here. It’s really something. I would be interested in hearing comments on this article from both conservatives and liberals.

Recent data indicates that the pace of C02 buildup in the atmosphere is moving faster than expected, raising speculation of the dreaded “feedback effect” kicking in. Computer simulations have predicted this, now it may be happening — or it may just be a temporary anomaly. In a few years we will know, once we have more data. If indeed feedback is taking place, predictions indicate that massive global warming effects will take place much sooner than expected. Time to invest in that houseboat you always wanted?

On Thursday a mushroom cloud of approx. 2.5 miles in diameter was detected in a remote region of North Korea, near the border of China. This corresponds to the expected diameter of a 10 kiloton bomb. Strangely, the US media has not reported this event widely. It has been reported that the US intelligence community is still trying to figure out whether or not the blast was nuclear. I find that doubtful as we have satellites that can easily detect the signature of a nuclear blast anywhere in the world. If North Korea has the Bomb, we are in big trouble.

This article was submitted to Minding the Planet by a reader, James Clayton Napier, the author. It’s an interesting inside commentary on how TV News works (or doesn’t work, as the case may be) — NS

“Images can either imprison or liberate us.” –Roberto Assagioli

Feature stories are vanishing from TV news broadcasts. The public speaker, television feature reporter, and movie maker are storytellers. While there is an underlying structure to what the person in each venue does, a structure the audience is often unaware of, there seems to be a trend these days away from content (a central focus) and a movement toward the shock value of an experience—what is said, what is heard, what is seen.

The adrenalin response becomes, in this context, more important than the cognitive ability to process (think about) what one is experiencing.

An example of this is the “shock quotient” sought by many local and national television newscasts which is resulting, more and more, in the disappearance of feature stories that uplift the viewing audience. These “feel-good” about-your-community stories are vanishing from TV news broadcasts and being replaced with news stories directed at target audiences that Orlando Sentinel syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker says are “culturally locked in perpetual adolescence.”

Shock value is in. If the story bleeds, it’s likely to lead, be the top story in that evening’s newscast.

Having created over 2,000 feature stories over a nine year period during my tenure at a CBS-TV affiliate in Texas, I know the importance of preserving the broadcast tradition of telling the stories of local unsung heroes, innovators, and visionaries — material routinely overlooked by the “ratings hungry” TV news outlets.

For nine years, my photographer and I traveled Texas looking daily for interesting stories about people who were making a difference in the lives of others.

These were not the lead stories at 6 & 10 — slots reserved for the dramatic “hard hitting” news stories you might call,”Why are you living in this community, it’s so scary?”

Still, to the credit of my news director who felt my stories were important and fought to keep them on-the-air, my positive, upbeat storytelling played an important part in our station’s offerings and ratings success.

My phone rang often with a viewer telling me, “I rush home to see your stories every day.” I received hundreds of letters with messages such as, “I’ve lived here all my life. I had no idea what you showed us today even existed.” These viewers appreciated being told they lived in a community with good people around them who were making tangible contributions.

Sensationalism dominates newscasts nowadays. For example, TV news operations are in the business of looking for ratings grabbers: fires, wrecks, and crime scenes — anything that will jump out at the viewers at the top of a newscast. “People say they want more positive stories, but when we tried that we lost viewers (which translates into lost advertising revenue) to our competitors,” a TV news director friend mentioned to me recently.

Solid reporting, beyond the easy, sensationalist fare, requires independent thinking and motivation.

One station I worked for assigned each news reporter to a beat. A beat means city hall, county commissioners, the police and fire department, the state capitol. It was the reporter’s responsibility to bring story ideas to the morning news meeting. Rarely did a reporter come to the meeting with an original story he or she wanted to do. Most waited to be assigned a story from the news desk (a task usually taken on by the news assignments editor or, in small markets, the news director).

I’ve seen more than one news director frustrated by young reporters’ lack of curiosity about their community.

A news director I used to work for told me, “When I started in this business twenty years ago, we had a solid core of proven journalists working for us. Over the years, the commercial aspect began to dominate. I’ve been forced to hire younger and younger people who do not read, write, or deliver material well at all. The newsroom has become a kindergarten. As the news conglomerates purchase stations, they are focused on the bottom line — profits. I’m forced to hire reporters at wages barely above minimum wage. All they apparently want to do is serve their six months here and move on to a larger TV news market, make more money and move up to an even bigger market.”

Another veteran CBS employee told me, “We have people on the air now who are younger than some pairs of shoes in my closet. And it shows!”

Local broadcast news has become more about ratings and station profits than solid news gathering, compiling lists of trusted sources, compelling writing, and good storytelling. The term “seasoned reporters” is rarely heard. The traditions of Edward R. Murrow, Douglas Edwards, Walter Chronkite, Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, and the early journalistic years of Barbara Walters at NBC are all but lost on today’s generation of new hires who have only the vaguest ideas of the standards, values, and news ethics that were so important to these broadcasting legends.

Younger reporters, with their eyes on the next job, rarely stay with a station long enough to understand local issues. It takes time and commitment to get to know people who can help you when you need a sound bite on a certain issue.

A TV news reporter must cultivate friendships at every level (political and social), leave a business card with every one he/she meets, and obtain contact information. I know a seasoned reporter who had a file with hundreds of contacts. When assigned a story, she knew exactly whom to call to get the background information she needed to write her piece.

The professional reporter must also have the ability to write a great story and the skills to edit video to match audio, even if another person in the newsroom is assigned to edit their story.

What’s involved is caring enough to get all the necessary pictures and sound bites at the scene. Once in the editing bay, there’s rarely a chance to go back and shoot the footage that was overlooked! When crucial visual and sound elements are missing (which happens often), it’s usually because the reporter didn’t know what his/her story was about and failed to instruct the photographer regarding camera angles, close-ups, medium-shots, and establishing shots.

When I first started doing daily feature stories, it was an uphill battle to convince station management that they were a legitimate part of a local newscast.
The photographers said, “Features are not news. The’re soft. They have no action.”

The people in sales told me, “Viewers will lose interest, we’ll lose ratings, and we’ll have to lower our sales charges to advertisers if we can’t continue to deliver the audience our clients are paying for.”

In other words, if it bleeds, it leads.”

At first the station higher-ups thought feature stories about the unsung heroes in the community were a waste of time. “Not exciting enough,” was one viewpoint I heard.

I held fast to the belief that a balanced and fair newscast includes stories about the people who are making a difference in their community.

Our “Live at Five” program, showcasing my daily feature story and live segment that I introduced, quickly shot to #1 in the ratings and stayed there.

Soon the sales department began selling my “Live at Five” feature segment, as a package, to local advertisers. The TV ad sales people told me our “Live at Five” show was on in most businesses around town. It was a “hot property.” Area businesses were willing to pay premium prices to have their ads placed before and after the segments called “James’ Corner.”

Our ratings soared because those stories made people feel proud to reside in Central Texas.

I pointed out in a news meeting a few years ago that people do not move to an area because it leads the state in murders. They do not choose an area because it’s a terrible place to raise kids, the schools are unsafe, the water supply bad, and the taxes high.

The unfortunate trend in local news is shorter and shorter stories, with newscasts “stacked” with twenty or thirty tapes—tell the day’s bad news quick, quick, and even more quickly. “Must compete with the viewer’s jumpy attention span. Keep the newscast moving, moving, moving—faster, faster, faster.” Pause and reflect? Waste of time!

I’ve found that the feature story needs at least two minutes of airtime — even more when the subject matter (or person themselves) is compelling. A slower-paced story provides an opportunity to let people know, “Our station cares about news — all the news that’s relevant to your life. That’s why you’ll find a balance of hard news, weather, sports, AS WELL AS the story that says, “Aren’t you glad you live here? There are many good people in this community. This is the story of one of those folks.”

“The brain works on energy and energy illumines reality,” the British novelist Colin Wilson wrote. “Imagine the difference between a picture gallery with the sun shining through and the same gallery at night, illuminated by a half dozen candles. The pictures would lose a whole dimension of meaning by candlelight.”

Throwing the spotlight of meaning on today’s global news by the in-depth way a story is covered, letting us see a particular event’s many kaleidoscopic facets from many angles, and not caving into political or advertiser pressures (which means that certain diamond sparkling aspects of a story will never see the light of day) must be replaced by the next leap forward in television news: giving us the detailed and comprehensive information we need (presenting all sides of an issue)to assist our own very good minds in making relevant choices that matter.

Every person or nation has a story. TV news is brilliant when it comes to showcasing the worst aspects of human nature. It’s time, I believe, to build an information hi-rise that includes the best that’s in us as well.

I’ll never forget an individual who volunteered his time and energy collecting and repairing bicycles which he, and a group of local police officers, distributed to inner city children on Christmas day. The looks on these children’s faces when they saw THEIR special bicycle was, as the credit card ad says, priceless.

He phoned me several days later. “I was feeling pretty down on myself until I heard you say all those nice things about me in your story. Then, I saw the looks on those kids’ faces…”

“To the dull mind all of nature is leaden. To the illuminated mind the whole world sparkles with light.” –Ralph Waldo Emerson

James Clayton Napier spent twenty years as a radio and television broadcaster, interviewing people from every walk of life. He also taught television news and communication courses at three universities. James is presently Media Director for an educational corporation in Arizona (Brainspeak.com).

There has been much recent discussion lately about alleged evidence that the Bush administration is issuing terrorist alerts for political gain. While I am not taking a position on this issue, I do have a suggestion that could eliminate any doubts, and in the process protect our upcoming elections.

In order to prevent the possibility that national terrorism alerts might be issued for political gain by an incumbent Presidential administration, the right to issue or imply terrorism alerts and the right to postpone elections, should be given to a bi-partisan committee. This policy change should be instituted immediately.

The Bush administration repeatedly claims that it is not using terrorism alerts for political gain. If this is the case, they should be happy to accept this proposed policy change. If the present administration refuses to endorse such a change in policy, we should then rightfully question their motives for not wanting to do so.

The President, the current White House administration, and its appointees in DHS and various defense and intelligence agencies should not have the right to issue a terrorism alert or interfere with the electoral process in any way, without prior 2/3 majority approval by a bi-partisan committee. Violation of this policy should have serious consequences — such as potential impeachment proceedings and/or forfeiture of an election.

This is the only way to guarantee that the threat of terrorism is not used for political gain, for example, during the upcoming elections, such as in this scenario.

I should also note that the Bush administration (or any incumbent administration) would benefit from doing this in that it would help to restore their credibility on this issue. It would also benefit the nation by removing doubt about the veracity of terrorism alerts.

If you are concerned about this issue, please pass this idea onwards to people you know who might be able to get this to key policymakers fast. This idea could very well help to save the upcoming elections, and our democracy.

Minding the Planet Channel Mob

I wonder if anyone from MoveOn.Org or the Republicans will notice our GoMeme experiments? (Not that I’m taking sides — I’ll simply be happy if somebody wins the election!) Grassroots political campaigns could potentially really benefit from the techniques we’re testing here. For example, imagine a “blog meme” for a political campaign — a meme that states some useful facts about a candidate and their opponent, perhaps has some survey questions and a GUID, and has the added benefit of a cool Improve-Your-Google-Ranking-By-Hosting-This-Meme candy coating? Wow — it could spread the message to a lot of blogs pretty quickly if done right. That might actually work. But I try to stay out of politics, so I’m not taking sides here or endorsing anyone. If you read this and know the “right people” — feel free to suggest the idea to them.

by Nova Spivack
Originally published on July 28, 2004; Updated on October 10, 2011

http://novaspivack.com

Should there be a Constitutional Separation of Corporation and State?

Today our American democracy faces a new threat to its integrity, a threat even greater than terrorism in the long-term. This threat is the corporation. In this essay I propose that it may be time to introduce a new principle into our democracy and a new amendment to our Constitution – a formal “Separation of Corporation and State.”

To illustrate this point, consider an earlier “separation” that has been essential to our democracy — the Separation of Church and State. What would America be like if the Constitution did not provide for the separation of Church and State? Would it be a nation that protects and celebrates freedom, equality and pluralism? Or would it be a nation, not so unlike those presently under the sway of fundamentalism, run by religious lobbies, religious police, and fanatical extremists?

I have nothing against religion – in fact I am religious myself – but I don’t think religion should have anything to do with government, or vice-versa. This is in fact one of the key ideas in our Constitution. Many of our Founding Fathers were deeply religious, but they recognized the need to make a clear distinction between their religious ideals and their political ideals. Thus over time a Constitutional separation of Church and State was formed — a separation that would not only protect the integrity and objectivity of government, but also that of religious institutions.

However, although they were well-aware of the risks of mixing politics and religion, our nation’s early Constitutional scholars were not as concerned with the risks of mixing politics and business. And why should they have been? At the time corporations were not nearly as independent or influential as monarchies and the Church. They were not considered threats. It would not be until later in the Industrial Age that corporations became a serious political force to reckon with. But one might well wonder whether our Constitution would have included protections against corporate influence had corporations been more of a force at the time it was devised.

Today corporations are becoming the single most powerful force shaping our societies and governments. While corporations have great potential to benefit society and even governments, they are entirely selfish entities – they have no accountability to the public, and no responsibility to ensure the public good. A government that is influenced by corporations can easily become a government that caters to corporations, a government that is effectively run by corporations. Such a government is not representative of its people anymore. It is therefore not a democracy.

Corporate influence on government, if not carefully regulated, is a threat to democracy. It is a threat to the American way of life. This threat to democracy may not be as dramatic as terrorism, but in the long-term it may be far more damaging to society. In fact this threat was foreseen by some of our most visionary leaders:

“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. … corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong it’s reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”
– Abraham Lincoln

“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private power.”
– Franklin D. Roosevelt

Because this threat was impossible to envision at the time our nation was formed, our Constitution was not designed with specific countermeasures and as a result our leaders, our government, our democracy, and our citizens, are presently without protection from political influence and manipulation by corporate interests. The danger of this is that our government may be run by corporations, or at least key decisions may be based on commercial interests. But is it democratic for national decisions to be driven by corporations that are only responsible to their shareholders? Are We The People represented by the corporate decision-makers and politicians they fund?

Are we living in a true democracy when many of our highest elected officials continue to receive money from, and hold stock in, large corporations they formerly worked for, or may work for when they are out of office? Are we living in a true democracy when our leaders are able to award lucrative no-bid contracts to their former employers? Are we living in a true democracy when public policy is influenced by corporate-backed political lobbies that spend millions of dollars to influence key decisions and elections? Are we living in a true democracy when the same people who start and run our wars also benefit financially from lucrative military industrial contracts? Is this ethical? Is this what our Founding Fathers intended, or is our Shining City on the Hill starting to get a bit tarnished?

I ask you then: Is it time to modify the Constitution to specifically provide for a formal “Separation of Corporation and State” in our democracy? And if we don’t take action, can our democracy survive?

One viewpoint on the matter is that we should not enforce a specific Separation of Corporation and State but rather seek to provide ethical guidelines to corporations and politicians — in other words, we should simply trust politicians and business people to maintain ethical boundaries and act appropriately. But can we really rely on them to self-regulate? Can we trust the foxes to guard the hens? After all if politicians require corporate endorsements and funding, or at least the absence of corporate interference, to win elections and stay in power, and if corporations in turn require political influence to cut costs, increase profits and beat the competition, can we really trust them to not do deals with one another?

As America and the world enter the twenty first century there appears to be a blurring of the distinction between capitalism and democracy. Many Americans, let alone others around the world, may not even be aware that there is any distinction at all! In fact, capitalism is not a form of government – it is an economic framework while democracy is not an economic framework, it is a social system. They are not one entity, they are two complementary systems. While they are often found together and have the potential for profound symbiosis (and in fact cannot really thrive without one another), neither is a sufficient substitute for the other.

For example running a corporation exclusively according to the rules of democracy is probably not good for the bottom line, but neither is running a nation exclusively according to the rules of capitalism good for society. These two forces must be balanced appropriately. In a corporation, democracy must take second place (although I argue elsewhere that perhaps corporations should be at least more democratic than they presently are). In a society however, democracy must take first place; it must never be overwhelmed by capitalist interests.

If there was no separation of Church and State in America, both our government and religious institutions would suffer. Similarly, in the case of the tension between capitalism and democracy, the only viable, sustainable, and effective path is to maintain a very precise balance. If this balance is not maintained, neither democracy nor capitalism can function with full effectiveness and everyone loses in the long-run. Short-term thinkers may gain temporary benefits by taking advantage of imbalances of this nature, but only at the expense of the many, and ultimately even at their own expense.

From the perspective of John Stuart Mill, who advocated the philosophy of “the greatest good for the greatest number,” we must not give in to the temptation to seek short-term gain at the expense of long-term sustainability. Ensuring that this does not happen is essential to the sustainability both of democracies and free markets. Unrestrained capitalism is a cancer – ultimately it consumes everything in its path.

At the same time, unrestrained democracy can easily devolve into socialism and economic gridlock – the death of the free market economy, and stunted growth. Only a very delicate, precise, and carefully enforced balance between capitalism and democracy can ensure both long-term homeostasis AND growth – a sustainable civilization.

The issue of the Separation of Corporation and State runs deep – it is not only our problem, it is everyone’s problem because America is now leading the world. Our American democracy is the template for new democracies, an example for others to follow. And now that we are in the business of seeding new democracies it is even more important that we practice what we preach. What kind of democracies are we really making in other countries? And what kind of democracy are we ourselves really living in now? What kind of standard – what kind of a template – are we providing for others who would emulate us?

What makes this nation so great is that it stands for something – it always has. We stand for freedom, we stand for equality, we stand for justice, we stand for tolerance, we stand for opportunity, we stand for human rights, we stand for democratic principles – and in fact, we stand for balance.

Balance between opposing agendas, opposing priorities, opposing points of view, has always been the heart of our nation’s underlying philosophy. This willingness to live by, and fight for, these basic rights and principles is what has made us great, what has given us moral authority on the world stage. It is also what has made the idea of America – our cultural meme – so contagious. If we forget this balance or fail to preserve it, we may lose everything we have worked for, everything we have attained, and the whole world will lose alongside us. What a lost opportunity that would be.

Americans need to think about this issue carefully. The very heart of American democracy and capitalism is balance. To preserve this balance, we must adapt and evolve our nation in the face of change. Today that balance is threatened – some would argue it is already gone – due to corporate influence over the political process. In other words, our nation is at risk of losing its heart.

The question is not therefore, “should there be a Separation of Corporation and State” but rather “how can we realistically and practically ensure a Separation of Corporation and State?” Should we add new protections to the Constitution in some way? Should we legislate? Should we simply “let the market sort it out” or trust our leaders and corporations to self-regulate and do the right thing?

I am a dedicated capitalist; I have benefited from the free market and I believe in self-organization, creative chaos, and bottom-up emergent solutions to complex distributed problems. So I would not advocate restraining capitalism to such an extent that it loses its edge. Capitalism is a reflection of nature, of evolution itself – a basic creative process that leads to innovation, growth, optimization, and development that can benefit individuals and societies in incalculable ways.

Without capitalism democracies lack energy and cannot thrive, grow, innovate and reproduce. Yet at the same time, I believe deeply in democracy and the basic principles that America stands for. Without democracy – true democracy – capitalism becomes malignant, destructive, and cannibalistic.

I would not want to live in a non-capitalist society – how boring, how complacent, how uninspiring and uncreative that would be. But neither would I want to live in a world controlled by corporations that are solely conditioned by profit motives – that would be a world raped of every natural resource, polluted to the point of being uninhabitable, commercialized and dumbed-down to the point of total conformity and cultural decay — a world completely for sale and thus completely sold out.

Because neither of these extreme futures — democracy without capitalism, or capitalism without democracy, is acceptable, I believe it is time to really address this issue of the Separation of Corporation and State as a society, and as a marketplace. Because if we don’t find a new balance between capitalism and democracy we will lose both.

But is it too late? Is it futile to address this issue? Some would argue the Great Sell-Out happened long ago. Others might even go so far as to suggest that it is not even a meaningful question anymore — that nations are no longer the primary actors in the world, but rather that we have already begun evolving a new world order that transcends nations altogether – a world governed by interacting transnational corporations – what we might call corpocracies that are the new units of civilization. But I hope that’s not the case. I believe we still have a chance at restoring the balance we’ve lost.

It is not too late to save democracy. We can and must evolve our democratic system to adapt and survive in a world of giant global corporations. While it is impossible to prevent interactions between government and corporations, or between our political leaders and corporate entities, we may be able to find ways to protect governments and politicians from corporate influence.

What would be some concrete steps to implement this proposed separation of corporation and state? As a first step, I think there should be a serious effort to revise or eradicate the concept of corporate personhood.

Beyond that, we could perhaps require that government officials sever their financial relationships to corporations while they serve in office, and perhaps even for a year or more after their service ends (provided the government still pays them during that grace period). For example it might be considered unethical and unacceptable for a top government official to leave office and immediately go to work for a major lobbying firm, or to receive huge payments for speaking or doing other favors for corporations, at least within some period of time after they serve in office.

In the case of certain high elected or appointed officials such as presidents, vice-presidents, members of Congress and the House of Representatives, cabinet members, chief regulators, and Supreme Court justices, the rules might even be a bit stricter. For instance, in the case of Supreme Court justices for instance, it might be time to require that not only they, but even their spouses, should have no financial connections to corporate influences.

A more moderate approach would be to allow financial connections to corporations while serving in a top government role, but simultaneously to more tightly regulate and monitor them — even for some time after a person serves at a high level in government.

We could also apply stricter controls to corporations and how they fund political lobbies and campaigns, and how they promote and sell products and services to the government. What these controls might actually be, and how to police them, is a topic for further thinking and debate.

These are just a few example ideas, and I’m sure much better solutions could be proposed. Beyond merely pointing out the imperative we face, and providing some examples, I do not have the answer, I do not know the formula for the balance we need to create. This is a question for people far more qualified and knowledgeable than myself to address – a question for our political leaders, our business leaders, our political scientists and Constitutional scholars, and our community activists.

But one thing is certain: The separation of corporation and state, or lack thereof, is an issue which will have the most profound effect on our nation, our society, and the rest of the world. It is perhaps the key challenge that America must address as we enter the twenty-first century.

A Japanese report reveals that Syrian equipment and technicians were on the train that exploded in North Korea recently. Furthermore, the report alleges that North Koreans in “protective suits” were dispatched to remove the bodies and equipment from a special section of the train. Hmm…has anyone checked the site for radioactivity?

A leaked secret report by top Pentagon analysts claims that within 20 years Britain could become “Siberian” and Major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas. In addition the report warns of nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting around the world as massive climate changes reshape the planet.

As I’ve said all along, “The Geek Shall Inherit the Earth.” Here’s more proof. A Michigan couple has just named their new baby as if it were a software upgrade. Read the article.

Jon Blake Cusack, from Holland, Michigan, told local newspapers the US practice of adding “Junior” or “II” after a boy’s name was too common. So, when his son was born last week, he decided on the name Jon Blake Cusack 2.0, as if he were a software upgrade. Mr Cusack admitted that it took months to persuade his wife, Jamie, to accept the idea. His wife Jamie Cusack said she asked several friends if they approved of the name. All the men, she said, felt the name was “cool”. However her women friends were less impressed. “There’s a lot of new features from Version 1.0 [Mr Cusack himself] with additional features from Jamie,” Mr Cusack said.

I read today with disgust further testimonials of shocking atrocities from defectors from the Gulags in North Korea. If you aren’t aware of the situation, you should be. Perhaps more than any other nation today, North Korea is engaged in systematic, large-scale human rights abuses — in particular, as the above cited news report alleges — chemical weapons experiments on living prisoners, including experiments on entire families. The only word to describe this is “evil.” This regime’s utter lack of humanity really frightens me — it appears they are experiencing a mass-psychosis on a cultural level. How did it happen? Why did the world let things go so far off course in North Korea? It reminds me of the Killing Fields. How can this happen in this supposedly “civilized” day and age? The horrors taking place in North Korea are widely known among governments but almost never discussed as a public issue. I feel so sad for the people living in the living hell of these concentration camps. I think we need to raise awareness of what is going on by blogging about it. In some small way that may eventually make this issue more of a public debate.

Paul Davies has put forth an interesting proposal for a one-way trip to Mar as the most cost-effective way to establish a permanent human presence on Mars. It’s a smart and novel idea.