At some point in time the world as we know it will cease to exist and it will return to a time when there will be no humans to contaminate the remainder of the existing earth. It will not happen unless we as individuals destroy the earth with some of our devastating weapons. It will in all likelihood not occur in our lifetimes but at some point the earth is going to do exactly as it did to the dinosaurs; cause them to be an extreme example of what can happen to any species the earth chooses to do.
The earth may simply shudder and quake and remove all inhabitants in a final act of desperation to replace what was once a lush and beautiful planet suitable for life. It will then take thousands of years to regenerate and begin to support life as we currently know it. There will appear, a new race of people's and they will receive a second chance to care for the planet. Among these new inhabitants there will be something very similar to an archaeologist who will search the remaining parts of the earth to determine what may have happened and what existed before the great loss of humanity.
They will over the course of time to discover cave drawings, hieroglyphics, and colorful pictographs. But they will also discover that there was a rich and vibrant written and spoken language that was a part of the lost civilizations. But they will be baffled by the fact that the many languages used were being replaced at a later time by pictures that we now call emoji's. There will be years of speculation as to what happened to the language that allowed people who were now gone communicate in such a meaningful way through the spoken word and instead replaced it with very strange pictures reminiscent of the earlier pictographs. There will be the clear thought that perhaps the entire population of the world had somehow gone mute and lost the ability to speak and write to allow the free expression of ideas and thoughts. They will be great speculation as to the reason for the overall collapse of human thought. They may even entertain the possibility that humans had simply become lazy and simply didn't have the time to talk anymore. They will of course then find that the strange pictures were also mixed with text but that sometimes the text in the picture didn't make sense. For example, when someone had offered condolences on the death of the individual that the accompanying picture showed a smiley plate face crying. They would then of course had to figure out which was more important; the written condolence, or the picture.
Of course this post is simply my tongue-in-cheek commentary about how we tend to abbreviate ideas rather than express them in clear terms. For the vast number of people in the world of texting perhaps emoji's are the best way to quickly express an idea. But one thing we can be sure of is that the earth will clean itself of carbon dioxide in the air and all of the asphalt that covers much of the earth. I just hope I'm not around when the earth finally gets upset to get a new start.

 
 
 
 

Most of us are aware that when we use the internet that we are being followed by the services that we use. This is of course based on the business model that most social media, apps, and commercial enterprises use. They make money by selling your information to advertisers and share personal preferences and buying habits. This is nothing new and has been based on our IP address (Internet Protocol) from your internet service provider. It also operates on the same IP if your cell phone uses  Wi-Fi from your home router. But, when you travel outside of your service you are assigned an IP address but it changes  as you go to different Wi-Fi location. So, following you across different devices has becomes more difficult; that is, until now.
Adobe, a company better known for Photoshop and PDF files, says the new Device Co-op initiative it is organizing will help companies offer more personalized experiences and make ads less annoying by filtering out products and services you have already bought or will never buy. Under the initiative, Adobe can tell you're the same person on a home PC, a work laptop, a phone and a tablet by analyzing past sign-ins with member companies. The simple translation is that they are making it easier to find you and harvest data!
So far about 60 companies have signed up including, Sprint, Subway, the NFL, Allstate, Lenovo, Intel, Barnes & Noble, Subaru and the Food Network. Adobe says the program links about 300 million consumers across nearly 2 billion devices in the U.S. and Canada. The only apparent way around this increased scrutiny is by using mirrors and the sun to communicate but then some parasitic "entrepreneur" will figure out how to monetize that as well. Happy Trails!
 



 

There was a time when if you had some medical concern you'd simply make an appointment at the doctors and there was an established protocol that was followed by both patient and doctor. There would be a discussion about the symptoms and concerns that you had about your current medical condition. The doctor would obtain more information verbally and then conduct a medical examination in an effort to determine what might be causing the problem. Based on that examination and verbal history, the doctor would make a diagnosis and recommendation about the possible treatments available, including both the downsides and the potential for relief of your symptoms. The information that the doctor provided was based on his observations, knowledge of your condition, and his or her knowledge about the condition being observed. This procedure was time-honored and followed a precedent that had been set over a long period of time. But that has changed, and that is the basis for this post.
Since the advent of advertising on television, radio, and magazine print extolling the virtues of all of these new and wonderful medications available for almost any disease, condition, or concern about your particular illness, the patient now has what they consider to be useful information and the ability to make recommendations to the doctor. But the question must be asked; are these marketing advertisements really useful and do they contain enough information for a patient to be fully knowledgeable about their potential use for their condition?
Based on the barrage of these commercials on television the answer for me was is a resounding no! They are typically 30 second vignettes showing some medical condition and 30 seconds of side effects sometimes including death. They offer very little information that would help the consumer to be more well-educated and to really be able to make a suggestion to a doctor who knows and has seen many conditions that are similar or the same. It seems ludicrous to make a recommendation to the doctor based on a marketing tool that is designed to sell medications. Assuming that the patient does not have a medical degree or some expertise in their condition it seems unreasonable to expect that the doctor will accept the recommendation of the TV commercial. Of course it is possible that the patient has done a reasonable amount of research into the medication and can intelligently have a conversation that may assist the doctor in making a better decision. But how many patients really take the time and energy necessary to investigate all of the data about a particular medication and present it to the doctor for his consideration?
But it is also important to recognize that drug companies are constantly meeting with doctors trying to sell them on the idea that their medications are exactly what the doctor should be prescribing. At this point it is the doctors responsibility to recognize that they have an obligation to be aware of the potential applicability of this new medication for its intended purpose. Of course at the same time pharmaceutical companies are handing out free samples to the doctor so that he/she may prescribe them based on availability and not necessarily on all of the background information. We have to remember that the drug companies are in the business of making money and they depend on salesmanship to move their product. I would hazard a guess that most doctors are in a position where they have to make a decision to investigate on their own whether or not there is real potential for a new medication to truly be useful. But there is one complication and that is simply that doctors are under a great deal of stress to see as many patients as possible leaving them less time to search out information that may be helpful in their prescribing habits.
My own feeling is that there has to be trust in the doctor that you are seeing and that you become your own advocate and ask about contraindications, side effects, and potential use of a new medication. And if you do get a new medication that you read the data sheet that is included with the medication by the pharmacist. I also feel strongly that the FDA should ban these commercials ( as most countries do), based on the fact that they really are not useful but are simply advertising tools that promote the pharmaceutical companies and are not in the best interest of the patient. If we really want to be healthy we must be responsible enough to question not only the advertisers, but to challenge the doctor with good, well thought out, questions, and to promote a good interesting dialogue with your provider. To your good health!
 
 
 
 
 

I have to begin this post with the fact that I have always respected the office of President of the United States. But, I have not always respected some of our leaders because they failed to treat the office of president in a manner that reflects our national standing and role as a democracy that has a rule of law. Additionally, there are protocols connected to the office that may not be written but which are well understood. One of the most important is that our president be rational when dealing with all problems, international and domestic. But it appears that rationality has taken a vacation by the current president.
To be fair, it is important to remember that the "police action" with North Korea, (not a war) ended with an armistice and not a peace agreement. However, there was a war between North and South Korea.  North Korea considers this an ongoing war with the United States as its enemy. This has been true since the ending of hostilities in the 1950's. Since that time North Korea has been a rogue nation believing that the US would eventually re-start the conflict and reunify the country with South Korea.
Many US  administrations have tried to negotiate with NK but they have done so with carrots and not sticks. We give them money, food, and try two party, six party diplomacy and they continue to starve their people and disregard any agreements. Meanwhile the North Korean leaders have been at work spending our resources on missiles and nuclear weapons. So, the mantra that North Korea should not be allowed to be a nuclear nation has been a dismal failure. That horse left the barn a long time ago!
So, what can we do to ease the threat to the US and its allies? The answer is clearly complicated and will take a measured approach. One possibility is to use the UN which is a paper tiger and bowl of moving jelly to go beyond sanctions and send diplomats to broker a controlled nuclear state. (Both the North and South were admitted to the general assembly in 1991). During the initial conflict the UN did send peacekeepers from multiple countries to South Korea. But, now consider the second option and that is China. They control the destiny of the North and are the main pipeline of food and energy. But wait! Didn't the Chinese send troops and arms to North Korea during the conflict? Yes they did, and they want to keep a foothold in that part of the Pacific. But so did Russia, another unlikely partner with the US! So, we are working with limited options, but should we not do? Act irrationally!
And now we get to the kids in a sandbox. Both Kim Jon-un and the president are acting like kids in elementary school. Who has the biggest stick and who will poke the status quo in North Korea? Kim Jon-un has no rules in his leadership role but our president does have to follow accepted protocols. But he continues to draw lines in the sand and they are constantly crossed without consequence. NK keeps sending ICBM's over Japan's airspace and the UN slaps his hand again. The president calls him Rocket Man and threatens to eliminate North Korea. This is not diplomacy, it is idiocy! BTW, North Korea's UN ambassador has said that the president has  declared war on NK. In point of fact only Congress can declare war!
The world is watching what was a respected democracy being weakened by a twitter account. Please take away the presidents tweets and educate him about how to be an effective leader and not  a school child.

 

Note: I used this image in a 2012 post on violence but it just seemed appropriate, Ken.
The question of how we communicate and whether or not it has become more hostile, crude, and uncivilized, seems to be a frequent topic of conversation. And, as I thought about it, I came to the conclusion that it is not a yes or no question but rather more related to context. I will try to clarify that thought with some examples.
It occurs to me that in my daily life with ordinary people that I really don't know, there is very little noticeable difference over time. I talk to other customers in stores, strangers hold doors open, and say thank you as always.  Clerks are typically helpful, and people at supermarkets return their carts to an appropriate location. Of course, I am discounting the shoplifters, purse snatchers, and drivers in parking lots that hit a car and just leave without reporting the accident. And I am also leaving out the drivers that tailgate, blow their horns needlessly, and feel it necessary to let a minor driving error turn into road rage! Maybe it is more than context.
For example, politics has always been a contact sport and there is frequent bickering between differing points of view. This goes back to our founding 240 years ago. Our founding fathers, (and mothers), had differences but they settled them civilly. But, it is important to remember that they all came from relative wealth and similar education. I am not suggesting class distinction, but it does matter what and how we learn to comport ourselves. Of course, the fact that we have rules and laws to guide our behavior helps, but how we react to any given situation is to some degree learned.
But it seems as if the tables have been turned since the inception of social media has made communication less personal and more susceptible to coarseness. When it is possible to hide behind an anonymous screen name the accountability is no longer in play. There are no consequences when critical and harmful comments are made. The dialog may be simply a useless troll or someone who has a valid philosophical difference with posted thoughts and ideas, but constructive discussion has to have rules and guidelines.
Frequently when I am watching YouTube videos and I find them to be a waste of time, the information is wrong, or the video is just poorly done, I move on. But, checking the comments there are many examples of derisive language, unreasonable criticism, and pure venom. The same is true on Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms as well. So, what is happening to our sense of openness to other's thoughts and ideas?
My simple observation is that we have become more intractable in our ability to consider those ideas that we do not believe are possible. And, when we encounter an oppositional view, we dismiss it and in the process are allowing coarseness in our own thinking. It seems like I may be naive but if we don't respect alternative ideas, we are cheating ourselves. I am guilty of this as well but I am trying to change my process of thinking to at least consider the fact that I may be wrong! I would like to return to civility even if it is just in my world...
 

While most consumers are at least following if not embracing the world of "smart devices" I am becoming more concerned and probably a little more paranoid about privacy and data being misused. Let's look at some recent events and see how the fourth amendment to the Constitution is potentially being used against us.
A man in Ohio claimed he was forced into a quick window escape when his house caught fire last year. His pacemaker data obtained by police showed that was not the case and he was charged with arson and insurance fraud. In Pennsylvania, authorities dismissed rape charges after data from a woman's Fitbit contradicted her version of where she really was during the reported assault.
Incredible amounts of information collected from our phones, fitness bands, smart toasters and thermostats, are increasingly being used in US legal proceedings to prove or disprove potential evidence. In a recent case that made headlines, authorities in Arkansas sought, and eventually obtained, data from a murder suspect's Amazon Echo speaker to obtain evidence. One thing that all of the devices have in common is the cloud; of course that is the mysterious place that data goes to be "safe and secure". Pardon my sarcasm as the cloud is in reality a large company of servers that are used to store information for a price. That price includes being hacked, breaking down as the Amazon AWS S3 servers did recently, and cloud purveyors selling information as television company Vizeo did secretly. The US Federal Trade Commission in February fined them for secretly gathering data on viewers collected from its smart TVs and selling the information to marketers.
So, where are we in our search for answers as to why the smart devices and those that are an  integral part of the Internet of Things (IoT) can be used against us as well as for us by looking at the fourth amendment to the Constitution:
 
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
 
But the key to our security is in the phrases "unreasonable search and seizure"  and "probable cause". These terms have been at the core of our security for a long time and we know from experience that when a local or federal jurisdiction seeks a warrant based on either phrase the bar can be moved depending on the information that the court is provided. For example, if the police have a warrant to search for stolen property and in the process see growing marijuana, they can seize that under the probable cause phrase.

But. here comes the tricky part of my concern for personal security. When you're smart device sends your data to the cloud, it is going to a third party and it is no longer in your personal possession! So, all  the police have to do is raise the question of probability that there is information relevant to a crime and request the data. And, unless your cloud service explicitly says that it protects your anonymity, you may no longer be protected by the fourth amendment.
There is a lot of activity in the courts regarding the cloud data and whether or not cloud providers can either sell or give your information to other parties including local and federal authorities. But, there are some steps that we can take to safeguard our data. First, read the agreement provided by the cloud provider to determine if they have a policy about protection. Second, decide when you're smart device is allowed to collect and send data to the cloud. Third, either back-up your photos and sensitive data using either standard recording media or use your own server made from an old computer or a readily available server. Fourth, be aware that many websites are using and sending data to the cloud about you and your searches.
The internet is really the wild west and perhaps we should add the word "ass" to our smart devices. That smart ass may be used against you! Just an observation...
 
 
 

The concept that we have of the Forth Estate (newspaper and news) today has its roots in the late 1700's in the UK. Now, we consider news and newspapers to be the balancing power to the three branches of government and have expected those sources to provide some clarity to major news stories and, hopefully, to be a bastion of truth. But we are slowly being led down a primrose path of entertainment and seeing less news of importance.
But, in reality, the concept of the dilution of news in favor of entertainment/sensationalism began formally with William Randolph Hurst in the late 1800's. Hurst realized that it you put a photo of a car wreck on page one more newspapers were sold. And his newspapers thrived and beat the more conservative newspapers of the time. And now with the advent of the internet, social news outlets, and  cable news, along with the networks, the truth becomes difficult to find.
For example, the recent election and the run-up campaign, focused on the "shoot from the lip" candidate because it was "entertaining". And the ratings went up for all of the sources as Trump defied convention and the words seriously and literally became meaningless. So, he got free coverage, news outlets made money, and the important news of the day was relegated to page two or deeper. So. despite the fact that we have more access to information than ever, we are treated to sound bites, fake news, and talking heads who have no clue as to what they are talking about. These pundits are filled with opinion and speculation.
While it is clear that most news outlets are financially driven, they are also agenda driven. Whether it is left, right, or center, news providers have a message to carry. That is generally a fact of life. And we always have a group of politicians who have a simple job; don't answer the question and deflect serious journalists from getting real and substantial information.
So a budget that may gut essential services, bills to reduce safety regulations, are passing while  house and senate hearing are forced to investigate the latest twitter allegation. So, it becomes a search for some semblance of fact and trying to determine which information is simply a shiny item.
It seems to me that is has become a case of "due diligence" and requires comparing information from several sources to determine what is real from what is opinion and speculation. And, perhaps more significant, we have to look at information that does not simply reflect what we think. I find that it is more difficult than ever to find accurate and timely information that will chart our future but it is worth the effort to dig for the closest thing to the truth.
 

I recently celebrated a birthday and when I first turned on my laptop I was greeted by the Google homepage shown in the screen grab cover photo. And that caused some very mixed concerns that I would like to share with you.
I think by now we all realize that the internet is more than a simple data storage and information place. It is a service that is more about the collection of useful material that will have financial value. A good example is with the use of "cookies" which are small pieces of text that are tied to your web address and identify you to sites that you visit. As in the world of real cookies, some are good and some are bad. A "good" cookie identifies you to sites that you regularly use and automatically logs you in without having to provide your email and password. You can see this if you periodically clear your cookies and find that Amazon doesn't remember you.  But then there are the tracking cookies that amass data and send it to collection sites for the exchange of money. And virtually all websites have cookies to identify you.
And so begins the profile about you that allows sites to target advertising and recommendations on YouTube. Google is reading your emails and if you mention a product an ad will show up soon and probably even emails promoting similar products. And, the cookies are stored on your computer or phone and not on the sites servers!
And now we get to the birthday greeting from Google. At first I thought that it was like Dana Carvey's Church Lady said; "Well, isn't that special"!  But on reflection it was a little creepy. Google has an algorithm that compiles birthdays and ties that information to each of us personally. I don't know Google or anyone there so it is simply an effort to be more friendly. A birthday greeting from someone I know or readers that follow my site is nice but from Google it is just more data that they have on me. They already know what size socks that I wear! Perhaps they will be "friendly" and write my epitaph when the time comes... Ken.
 
 

Phineas Taylor Barnum (P. T. Barnum) is one of the 19th century's most celebrated innovators and carnival hucksters. Born in 1810 and until his death in 1891, he was a well known self-promoter, author, congressmen, and salesman. Often misquoted as saying that "there is a sucker born every minute", that may well been his reason for success. He seemed to know what the public wanted to hear and see and he provided the entertainment for a generation seeking the unusual. The following excerpt is from the Encyclopedia Britannica:
"Casting about for a legitimate undertaking, Barnum outmaneuvered wealthier bidders to acquire John Scudder’s American Museum, in New York City, a five-story marble structure filled with stuffed animals, waxwork figures, and similar conventional exhibits. The new owner rapidly transformed the museum into a carnival of live freaks, dramatic theatricals, beauty contests, and other sensational attractions. Although driven at the outset of his career by a desire for wealth and fame, Barnum may have been basically motivated by less selfish reasons. “This is a trading world,” he wrote, “and men, women, and children, who cannot live on gravity alone, need something to satisfy their gayer, lighter moods and hours, and he who ministers to this want is in a business established by the Author of our nature.” Playing upon the public’s interest in the unusual and bizarre, Barnum scoured the world for curiosities, living or dead, genuine or fake. By means of outrageous stunts, repetitive advertising, and exaggerated publicity, Barnum excited international attention and made his showcase of wonders a landmark".
Of course, Barnum was a more complicated man than I can cover in this short post. He was a member of the Connecticut House of representatives for two terms, married twice, (marrying a woman 40 years younger than he was after his wife's death, a philanthropist, and a business tycoon. He wrote several books including "The Art of Money Getting".
 

The question remains as to whether or not he could have been elected as a President of the United States. He was an egocentric man who had a need for self promotion and a desire to succeed at business. He did have some political background, but it was limited. He was, at times, both a democrat and a republican.
But it is clear that even without social media he was well-known by the public and certainly could have given the ruling class of politicians a run for their money. Of course, most political leaders of his time would have been shocked if he had run and won an election.
A disclaimer: In no way am I making any inference about the contemporaneous time in our history where someone like P.T Barnum could be a President. Any inference would have to be provided by the reader!

In my previous post I said that I would try to be more optimistic about the election and I will try; really. The primary reason for some optimism is that we seem to be experiencing a reasonable transfer of power, which is at the core of the democratic process. The choice of the personnel being selected is not mine to make so I have to rely on the President-Elect to choose qualified advisers to guide the country during the next four years.
Having said that, I would be misleading readers if I failed to say that I have concerns about the coming presidential term. We have an incredible array of both domestic and international problems and they will demand diplomacy and clear and direct leadership. And this is where my concerns become troubling.
We have become tone deaf during a very long and tedious run-up to the election. All candidates say and do whatever they can to garner votes and support and this time has been a bit different with some real animosity on all sides. There is a general perception that there was an intentional effort to separate and divide the voting public which has not happened in our history.
But, the real question is how much of the campaign rhetoric was simply vote-getting and how much was a true indicator of what will be reflected in our upcoming government. So far, I am not encouraged by the long list of promises made during the election that can only be implemented by congress.
It is true that politicians are seldom able to carry out their desire to change Washington and "drain the swamp". Whether it is on the road to the White House or in the State of the Union address, there are checks and balances to block unrealistic expectations. Not to mention lobbyists,  corruption, power seekers, and a congress that is more interested in themselves than in the welfare of the country.
But words count and whether it is from the President- Elect or the President, there is an effect around the world  and around the country. Politicians learn quickly that they have to filter their comments and think about what they say and how they say it.  But it is ludicrous to perpetuate the idea that what a candidate or President-Elect says shouldn't  be considered literally or seriously accurate. And the media should not be held liable for recording actual statements that any candidate uses as a tool to get elected.
And now, some closing thoughts: First, this page will not become a political football but simply, as always, will remain observations about our world and society. Secondly, I will not pay attention to the pundits or surrogates as they spout words without substance. And third, as in past elections you can color me concerned and I will be doing my own thinking and research...