"Evil requires the sanction of the victim."
  Ayn Rand

I have not posted anything here in quite some time. The reason is not a lack of things to write about, but just the opposite; the world is going nuts and who could possibly comment on all the things worthy of notice? It's overwhelming.

I just saw something on the news that moved me to reach for the keyboard though. In a story about Bernie Madoff - Mr. Ponzi writ large - we got another of those "poor victim" snippets - a couple who had invested their life savings with the culprit and lost it all. Whatever considerations I might personally have about this couple and the possibility that their own greed led to their own disaster, their story demonstrates something that is clear to me - something that, as usual, puts me squarely on the non-popular, heretical side of things.

There is no doubt that 99% of the population, when hearing of fraud schemes like this and others, and seeing victims like these and others, see it all as a call for greater regulation of the stock market. I, on the other hand, see it as more evidence that regulation will always fail. Why? These victims are not just victims of Bad Bernie; they are victims of two other contributing factors:

1. Their own laziness in not using due diligence before parting with their hard earned cash, and,
2. Government fraud.

Government fraud? Yes. The government (by force) assumes the role of protector - defending us, presumably from our own stupidity, we being such poor hapless, mindless waifs in the eyes of the power-elite. It takes a monopoly position in governance of trade in all things including stocks by way of laws creating regulatory agencies - in this case, the SEC. So, as with everything else, the public assumes it is safe because Big Brother government has everything under control. And, as with everything else government touches, it fails. Do government police forces actually apprehend and bring to justice all criminals? Do government infrastructure agencies deliver great roads and ports etc.? Do government wars on abstract nouns ever end in victory? Does government get anything right?

These are simple questions with, to me, obvious answers:

If there were no government regulation of the trading of stocks and other securities, would this couple be in the position they are now?
Of course not!

If there were no government regulation of the trading of stocks and other securities, would this couple have perhaps used their brains a bit before handing their wampum over to a stranger?
Of course they would have!

Caveat emptor works.
E Pluribus Unum victimizes.

"I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office."
George W. Bush

I watched Bush's final press conference last night. Pretty sad. I think if I were to sum up this guy it would be as follows:

He's a kid. A somewhat slow, affable, not badly intentioned, but irresponsible rich kid who got in over his head. A dilettante. (Rather like me except that I am somewhat smarter than him and he is infinitely richer than me.)  Everything he has done has had that "son of a rich guy" feel to it. Everything has been like a toy for him to play with and if he broke it, no big deal. His failed oil company, The Texas Rangers, the Texas Governor's office, then the Presidency.

If you think about his first campaign and his first few months in office he did not seem like a bad guy. In fact he spent more time on vacation than working, which is not a bad thing in my view, and he was pretty laissez-faire (or ignorant) about what went on in other countries. Then came 911 and I think it was like "Oh, wow. Now I can play with the big boys" time. It was as if the thought of taking the job seriously had never actually crossed his mind before. He actually thought he could be a serious president because the opportunity for war was handed to him. Of course he was out of his depth and had to rely on what the neocon cabal fed him. And since then I suspect he has been aware that virtually every move he has made has been the wrong one but is just not bright enough to know exactly why or what to do about any of it. I don't think he is a fundamentally evil man, just a fundamentally frivolous and not too bright boy.

As for Obamarama, there are a million things that could be examined about "The One" but I'd sum up my view, or suspicions actually, about him simply. If it had been on his watch would he have signed the Patriot Act and the accompanying Draconian bills into law or would he have said "I am not going to sign laws that violate the Constitution"? I think there is zero doubt about the answer. And the difference here is: Bush is a dimwit and just doesn't get it. Obama is brilliant - and therefore evil. In other words, Obama will prove to be  just another US President except that he is semi-black.

C'est tout. End of mini-rant. 

"We cannot make good news out of bad practice."
Edward R. Murrow

Amidst all the major news stories of the past week (the US government trying to figure out how to give rich people more money while making the poor taxpayers whose grandchildren will be paying the interest believe it is somehow for THEIR benefit, and the pathetic inexorable genocide in Trans Jordan) two "minor" items caught my attention.

The first was that Britain has banned sales of 100 watt incandescent light bulbs and will, over the next few years, ban all incandescent bulbs. The reason is obvious; those hideous fluorescent alternatives that cast a light making everyone look like Nosferatu or Casper the Ghost are "energy-efficient". That is, it's a great opportunity for the government cynics to appear as if they actually give a damn and are doing something about the environment. Yuck. Of course many members of the public are not thrilled and bought up every incandescent bulb they could get their hands on. I imagine bulb manufacturers are pretty pleased though. I mean it's perfect, isn't it? Now the public cannot buy what it wants but must, by law, purchase an alternative it doesn't want but that the manufacturers can charge 10 times as much for.

The first point reminds me of a similar stupidity in the US; banning toilets with large capacity holding tanks. This, we are supposed to believe, will save precious water. Huh! The results were twofold. Firstly, booming traffic in smuggled Canadian toilets (is there a Commoda Nostra in the making?), and secondly, people simply flush two or three times, thereby using more water. Politicians and bureaucrats!

The second item is actually more disturbing personally. It should be clear from earlier posts that intellectually I am anything but big on patriotism and national pride, subscribing more to Oscar Wilde's view that "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.", but my genetic tribal imperatives do from time to time compel me to feel a degree of either pride or shame in Canada's actions. This week it is unmitigated shame. Canada, long a refuge for those from south of the border who just don't care for the thought of going abroad, be it Indo China or the Middle East, to murder people, has started to reverse its position and taken to sending people back to the Empire to face jail terms or whatever punishment the Praetorian Guard might have in store. Shame shame shame. Be they draft dodgers or volunteer army deserters who have seen the light and decided killing foreign babies is not fun, I do not care. You do not punish  someone for doing the right thing.

Washington: Jump!
Ottawa: How high?

"Better to burn out than to rust."
 Neil Young

This past weekend, it being rainy, cold and unplanned, I indulged myself by watching two of my many favorite films. The first was the 90's hit,"Shakespeare In Love". What a pure delight! Tom Stoppard is one of those writers who makes me think I should confine my writing to emails, grocery lists and the occasional letter to the editor. He is brilliant, witty and just plain smart. The masterpiece script aside, the movie was wonderfully directed, acted and filmed. (Doubtless my love of the film is in part due to the fact that I could watch Gwyneth Paltrow 'til the cows come home. Besides possessing a unique beauty she is, IMHO, perhaps the best actress of her day.) This film is tied with "As Good as it Gets" as my all time favorite romantic comedy.

"Shakespeare in Love" naturally led me to my second DVD - something from my youth: Franco Zeffirelli's "Romeo and Juliet". I imagine this play is regarded by most Shakespeare experts as one of The Bard's lighter, less significant, works but I have always loved it. Mind you, I am a hopeless romantic on the level of a sighing middle-school girl, so perhaps it is to be expected. The play has been filmed many times but this particular version is particularly enchanting, in large part because of the actual youth of the lead characters. It also introduced the movie world to Michael York, a hugely under-appreciated and under-exposed actor, and is worthwhile for just that. Granted, Zeffireli did take some liberties - actually eliminating a scene or two - but I personally think his choices were wise.

I have seen the film many times but this time, as it ended with the Chorus' famous line "For never was a story of more woe than this of Juliet and her Romeo" the most peculiar thought entered my mind. Usually I'm on the verge of tears. This time though I thought:

"Wow. These guys were so lucky! Madly, hopelessly, to the core of their beings, in love for a few days and then dead! Dead, before they can come to discover that the cute little way the other curls an eyebrow or eats his/her spaghetti has, with time and familiarity, become something that makes them want to smash the other's face in. Dead before they wake up in the morning, look to the side and think 'Shit. Still here!' Dead before they are consulting friends and the yellow pages for the name of the most cutthroat divorce lawyer in town."

Oh happy dagger, indeed. A perfect love story.

____________________________________________________________

There is something I find amusing, in a sick way, about this latter film. In the play as written, Juliet is 13 and Romeo 14. In this case the actors themselves were both underage - perhaps 14 and 15; I don't recall exactly. Finally, both actors appear nude - Leonard Whitting's bare ass in plain view and Olivia Hussey's boobs. I could be wrong, and feel free to correct me if I am, but, by my interpretation, all three of the above points violate Canadian and American child pornography law, and the producer, director, cameramen and others associated with filming Romeo and Juliet were criminals and should have been in jail.

As Mr. Dickens once said… (At least sometimes)The law is an ass.

"All I can do is be me, whoever that is."
 Bob Dylan

Recently I was waxing enthusiastic to a friend about an artist/tune I had heard (Sia / Soon We'll Be) and she asked what kind of music it was. I found myself fumbling: "Not rock… not exactly pop… not jazz…". I simply couldn't come up with an accurate label.

It made me recall an incident in the late 80's. My significant other at the time was writing a paper on the subject of Reggae for her Ethnomusicology course. I arranged for us to have dinner with a music business acquaintance in Toronto who was an expert. It was a fruitful meeting that not only helped my gf produce a paper that her professor subsequently used as a teaching aid, but opened my eyes to many things about the social/political origins of one of my fave musical genres.

During the post-meal chit chat the subject of awards came up and Daniel suggested it was becoming a difficult subject, citing as an example the fact that the previous year Sade won an award as "Best Jazz Vocalist". (Was there ever a woman as utterly cool as Ms Adu? Not in my mind.) The point was obvious: if Sade is a Jazz artist, what were Ella Fitzgerald and Mel Torme? Labeling had reached a difficult point.

When I was a teenager, popular music was simple: There was rock and there was R&B. You liked one or the other. The kind of music you  listened to was part of who you were - a big part of identity you were developing. There were vague sub-genres, of course. Did you like more edgy, blues influenced rock or lighter, melodic pop. Were you a Stones guy or a Beatles guy? And in the UK there was that peculiar war between rock'n'roll (rockabilly - old school - Elvis, Gene Vincent, et al) and rock leading to the infamous Mods/Rockers weekend punch-ups in Brighton. (To learn about that amusing social blip check out the under-rated, overlooked classic film backed by The Who: Quadrophenia.)

Naturally, as recording technology developed, communications media grew and more talent entered the pool rock and R&B evolved giving rise to Disco, Fusion and everything since. Early on though, it was reasonably clear-cut: Rock or R&B.

I often tell people I am glad I am not really young. The pressures, the influences, the choices are just so much greater than those that my generation or Gen X had to confront. I often think we older folk just don't get how hard it is for kids. Aside from drugs, sex, politics etc. I wonder that all teenagers are not barking mad when they now have to choose which of the following define them (courtesy of Wikepedia) - and this is just from one genre - electronic:

    * Ambient
          o Ambient house
          o Ambient industrial
          o Ambient techno
          o Black ambient
          o Dark ambient
          o Drone music
          o Lowercase
          o Psybient
          o Space music

    * Breakbeat
          o Baltimore Club
          o Big beat
          o Broken beat
          o Chemical breaks
          o Florida breaks
          o Nu skool breaks
          o Progressive breaks

    * Disco
          o Cosmic disco
          o Eurodance
          o Euro disco
          o Hi-NRG
          o Italo dance
          o Italo disco
          o Nu-disco
          o Spacesynth

    * Downtempo
          o Acid jazz
          o Balearic Beat
          o Chill out
          o Ethnic electronica
          o Glitch
          o Illbient
          o Minimal Electronica
          o New Age music
          o Nu jazz
          o Trip hop

    * Electronic music
          o Berlin School
          o Electroacoustic

    * Electro
          o Electro-hop
          o Electro backbeat
          o Freestyle music
          o Techno bass

    * Electronica
          o Electropop
          o Folktronica
          o Glitch
          o IDM
          o Nu Jazz
          o Trip hop
   
    * (UK) Garage (UKG)
          o 2-step
          o 4×4
          o Bassline
          o Breakstep
          o Dubstep
          o Funky
          o Grime
          o Speed garage

    * Hardcore/Hard dance
          o Bouncy techno
          o Breakbeat Hardcore
          o Breakcore
          o Darkcore
          o Digital hardcore
          o Doomcore
          o Freeform hardcore
          o Gabber
          o Happy hardcore
          o Hardstyle
          o Jumpstyle
          o Makina
          o Noisecore
          o Speedcore
          o Terrorcore
          o UK Hardcore
          o J-Core

    * House
          o Acid house
          o Bubblegum dance
          o Chicago house
          o Dark house
          o Deep house
          o Disco house
          o Electro house
          o Fidget house
          o French house
          o Freestyle house
          o NY Garage
          o Ghetto house
          o Grind house
          o Hi-NRG
          o UK Hard house
          o Hip house
          o Italo house
          o Jumpstyle
          o Kwaito
          o Latin house
          o Merenhouse
          o Minimal house/Microhouse
          o Progressive house
          o Scouse house
          o Skacid
          o Tribal house
          o Tech house

      * Industrial
          o Ambient industrial
          o Cybergrind
          o Dark ambient
          o Dark electro
          o Death industrial
          o Electronic body music
          o Electro-industrial
          o Futurepop
          o Industrial DnB
          o Industrial metal
          o Industrial rock
          o Industrial techno
          o Japanoise
          o Martial industrial
          o Neofolk
          o Noise
          o Power noise

    * Jungle music/Drum and bass
          o Clownstep
          o Darkstep
          o Drumfunk
          o Futurestep
          o Hardstep
          o Intelligent drum and bass
          o Jump-Up
          o Liquid funk
          o Neurofunk
          o Raggacore
          o Sambass
          o Techstep
          o Trancestep

    * Rock/Punk influenced electronic music
          o Alternative dance
          o Cyber metal
          o Dance-punk
          o Dark Wave
          o Digital hardcore
          o Electroclash
          o Electro rock
          o Electropunk
          o Ethereal Wave
          o Industrial rock
          o Industrial metal
          o New Rave
          o New Romantic
          o New Wave
          o Synthpop
          o Synthpunk

      * Techno
          o Acid techno
          o Detroit techno
          o Freetekno
          o Ghettotech
          o Jtek
          o Minimal
          o New beat
          o Nortec
          o Techno rave
          o Schranz
          o Wonky techno
          o Technopera

    * Trance
          o Acid trance
          o Ambient trance
          o Classic trance
          o Dream trance
          o Euro-trance
          o Hard trance
          o Hardstyle
          o Nu-NRG
          o Progressive trance
          o Tech trance
          o Uplifting trance
          o Vocal trance

    * Psychedelic trance/Goa trance
          o Dark psy
          o Full on
          o Nitzhonot
                + Uplifting
          o Psyprog
          o Psybient
          o Psybreaks
          o South African psytrance
          o Suomisaundi

    * Nu rave
          o Hardcore breaks
          o Rave breaks
          o Jungle techno

    * Chiptune
          o 8-bit
          o Bitpop
          o Demoscene music
          o Chiptune
          o Nintendocore
          o Picopop
          o Game Boy music
          o Gamewave

    * Oldschool jungle
          o Ragga-jungle
          o Intelligent jungle
          o Darkside jungle

Lables! Yikes!

"A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it."
Rabindranath Tagore

Everbody knows computers can now beat the greatest Chess Masters in the world. Computers can calculate a zillion times faster than people. Eventually computers will be "smarter" than people. Everybody knows that. Everybody but me, I guess.

Many years ago, while employed by a major Canadian bank and attending a week-long workshop, I heard an amusing story about nascent computer technology. It seems the CIA had developed a translation program and wished to test it. Not being entirely dim (despite so much evidence that they are), the CIA smart guys knew that simply having the program translate something from one language to another would be an inadequate test of its ability and usefulness. So they tested by inputting in one language, having the computer first translate into another then taking that translation and re-translating it back into English. The other language was Russian, logically. One test phrase used was "Out of site; out of mind." In she goes…tick tick tick… and out comes: "Blind and crazy."

Now that was almost 40 years ago. Obviously things have changed. Computers and
programs had moved light years ahead and such silly errors could never happen. Well, maybe.

In an earlier post I mentioned that this blog had been blocked in China and the only
conceivable reason I could come up with is that the word "democracy" pops up here and there on the site. I also pointed out how crazy this is because where the word
appears, it is in an entirely negative context. But, clearly, the Chinese censorship
software must be "out of sight; out of mind".

Recently I have encountered a similar foolish failing. Google, among others, spends
gazillions perfecting algorithms allowing them to match advertising content with
either webpage content or other user-related information that might indicate an
interest or preference. They are the kings of the hill in this and have made more
money than Midas doing it.

So, some months ago I joined an Asian "dating" site (not really that - more like a social networking site). On my profile page I prominently put wording to the effect that I am 100% straight and did not desire to receive any messages from shemales, ladyboys, or whatever other euphemism of the day a particular homosexual might use. It was not a nasty notice; just a notice. So - maybe you can guess - now almost every page I load on that site includes a large, colorful ad for 'thailadyboy' or some such thing.

Computers are not "smart" any more than a lawnmower or automobile is "smart". They are mechanical devices that, within the limits of their human programing, perform arithmetical calculations, compare and contrast, and issue commands to other equally dumb mechanical devices. They do not imagine, conceive, or create from nothingness.

No doubt many would argue that they do now, or at least will in the future. I doubt it.
Why? I suppose a religious person would say it is because a computer has no soul. Me, I'd say it is because a computer has no "soul".

"Knowledge becomes evil if the aim be not virtuous."
Plato

A long time ago I commented on what seemed to me to be absurd anomalies in Google's Page Rank system. No doubt they have a formula for determining their numbers but it would seem to elude both myself and millions of others. It almost appears to be random, but I wonder sometimes if it might not actually be more sinister than happenstance.

When I started using this site as a personal blog it had a modest Rank of 1. After a month or so I posted a few paid posts. During the same period my daily visitors increased by several hundred percent and the number of inbound links rose substantially as well. However, my Page Rank disappeared entirely. The site became more popular but the Rank went down. The only other change - my paid posts. Hmmm…

I stopped writing paid posts many months ago because, without a Google Rank, it was simply not worth the effort. When I did write them I would spend between 45 minutes and an hour considering appropriate content, quotations, and picture. Without a Page Rank the only opportunities available to me were $5 or $7 posts. Hardly worth it.

To my current point: I have not even bothered to check my page rank for months, but last night, out of curiosity to see if Google had maybe taken its rationality pill, I decided to have a look. The results were much as I remembered except for one glaring difference.

I checked 4 sites:

1. This blog, with daily hits rarely above a dozen or so.
2. Bluesky Sportfishing (www.blueskysportfishing.com), a site I maintain that gets 2-3 dozen hits a day.
3. Fashionese Daily (www.fashionesedaily.com), a close friend's site, and a very popular site with upwards of 1000 hits a day and a forum memberships of over 2000.
4. Sineira - my personal business site that gets no more than a few dozen hits A MONTH!

The results:

First, inbound links:

Three? Wha!!!!!!

This would all be just amusing were it not for the fact that Google is messing with people's income with its "system". They are powerful. They are necessary. Too powerful. Too necessary. Microsoft has been dragged into court several times because of its alleged monopoly of the desktop market. In my view, Microsoft does not wield anything like the power of Google when it comes to the Internet and its commerce. Google, with it's mysterious search and rank systems, even the guiding principles of which it refuses to disclose to the public, affects people's lives.

I do not know what they are up to, but I have a feeling it is not "good".

When someone tells you that something is "not about the money", you can pretty much be sure "the money" is exactly what it is about. Similarly, I think, you can probably be confident that when someone adopts the motto "Don't be evil", evil is exactly what they will turn out to be.

"Marketing is the devil." - Billy Bob Thornton

Marketing mavens (and I used to be one) have been very clever over the years in finding a variety of imaginative ways to lure us unsuspecting fools into purchasing things we neither need nor really want. Everything from medicine to Presidential candidates is now served up in packages designed to make our mouths water. Usually this does not bother me much unless there are lies or gross distortions (as with Presidential candidates. hahah). Sometimes though, bearing in mind that there really is no such thing as a free lunch, I wish they'd forget the gimmicks and just give me the product at the best price they can afford to, period. A good example of such a case would be frequent flier miles on airliines. What an absurd waste of time and effort.

Another dubious move that started years ago has reached ludicrous proportions. That is, publishing a "price" and then, usually in small print, indicating that there are "surcharges" to be added to set the final price. At first, such things were generally annoying, but minor; perhaps an additional 5 or 8 percent. Now they have reached truly bizarre levels of absurdity and insult.

I just went online to check fares from Cebu to Jakarta with Cebu Pacific Airlines. On the date I chose, the fare appeared as approximately 2,700 Pesos. However, the fuel and tax "surcharge" amounted to 5,600 pesos. More than 200% more than the "fare"! A "surcharge" is supposed to mean an additional charge added to the normal price of the product or service being sold. For example, buying tires in Ontario incurs a special $5 tax levied only on that product and no other. That is a surcharge.

However, call me crazy, but it seems to me that the price published by Cebu Pacific (and others) is NOT the price for the service offered. That is, unless the service being sold is that of providing you with an uncomfortable seat to sit in while stationary for a few hours along with some crappy food and maybe a movie. Unless they know of some way to fly their planes to Jakarta without fuel, that fuel is an integral part of the service being sold, is it not? How can the cost of that fuel be deemed a "sur" anything? They might just as well publish their price then add a "landing gear" surcharge or a "wings" surcharge.

If this seems persnickety, just imagine walking into your supermarket, picking up a liter of milk marked "$1.00", taking it the checkout where you are told "That will be $1.00 plus a delivery and stocking surcharge of another $1.25." Tell me you wouldn't smash the clerk's face in with the carton of milk!

Marketers. Lawyers. Politicians.
Let's flip a coin to see who goes into the drink first, shall we?

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it."
George Bernard Shaw

So the election is over and apparently history has been made.

As with all elections, after months of the media dissecting the campaigns and lives of the candidates, we are now subjected to the post mortem and the speculation about the future. This time though we have an added feature on the news/punditry/talk show scene. This time, everyone, regardless of party, predictions, or political persuasion is falling all over themselves to gush with patriotic pride that America elected a black man or an African American. (Amusing, given that if one subscribes to the definition of "African American" that includes descent from slaves, Obama is neither "black" nor "African American").

Apparently it matters not that:

1. George Bush is about the most unpopular President in history and whichever Republican followed him had an almost insurmountable barrier to overcome.

2. America is in the early stages of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and a bad economy is almost always the death knell for the incumbent party's candidate.

3.McCain's running mate was, rightly or wrongly, perceived as a mindless and even dangerous twit.

4. The vast majority of Americans are sick to death of Iraq and while Obama declared his intent to get the troops out (Big Lie #1), McCain talked in terms of a 100 year occupation.

5. Nary a negative word about Obama was heard from the putatively neutral media throughout either the primaries or the election campaign.

6. Obama spent more than twice as much as McCain

7. Obama's campaign was a well-oiled, cyber-age, savvy machine while McCain's was a slapdash, scattered and amateur embarassment.

8. Where McCain's public speaking was stiff and contrived, Obama showed himself to be the country's greatest orator since at least Reagan.

9. Despite all of the above and more, McCain garnered 45 million votes.

None of that matters. What matters is that the fundamental decency and wisdom of America shone through, once again a beacon for all of us unfortunates who were born elsewhere.

The mantra of the moment is, in one form or other:

"Only in America could we see something like this happen."

Yuck!

Only in America? Gimme a break. It could not happen in Canada, Britain, Australia, or scores of other countries where it did not take over 100 years and a bloody struggle for blacks to get something resembling civil rights?

As a Canadian, I am insulted when I hear this self serving claptrap.

"The lust of avarice as so totally seized upon mankind that their wealth seems rather to possess them than they possess their wealth."
Pliny the Elder

I caught the Letterman show last night and his first guest was Ted Turner - founder of CNN, yachtsman and America's Cup winner, and, of late, philanthropist. The discussion naturally turned to the current financial crisis. In it, billionaire Turner said the first intelligent thing I have heard on television since the world economy started to unravel. An inexact quote:

"Perhaps people are going to have to change their lifestyles. Start playing Bridge with the neighbors and so forth."

Here here!

I recall that in the mid-to-late 70's television was dominated by a number of shows that extolled the virtues of simple lives with basic values. The number one show for years was something called "The Waltons", about a Depression-era, rural family in America. People loved it. Then something happened and we were inundated with such things as "Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous", glorifying ostentatious wealth and conspicuous consumption and suddenly, if your were not rich - or at least could not appear to be rich - you were nobody. A bumper sticker of the day summed it up nicely: "He who dies with the most toys wins".

A line from Oliver Stone's later film, "Wall Street", put it well too: "Greed, for want of a better word, is good."

So, am I some sort of Puritan, thinking we should all be Amish or Luddites, poor and humble? Of course not. Within reason, greed is good. It promotes creativity, production and benefit for many. Without greed we'd probably still be living in caves. However, greed to the exclusion of all other motivators leads us to exactly where we are now: the brink of disaster.

It's interesting. In the past twenty years we have made enormous advances in technology and all but the poorest among us can enjoy them. But, I ask myself, even though I can "connect" with hundreds of different people online do I actually "know" any of them, or them me? Even though I can watch a zillion movies at a time, how many of them are worth the hours they take from my life? Even though I can carry a thousand tunes on my pocket cell phone, how many do I listen to? In short, am I, or anyone else, happier with our zillion gadgets than when entertainment so frequently consisted of playing cards or chatting with friends and neighbors or curling up with a good book and a hot tea?