Posted 23 January 2010
by Jake Dunagan at 9:59 AM
[reposting to fix permalink]
by Jim Dator
Is a 2050 alternative future coming true?
In the decision of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission announced on January 21, 2010, the US Supreme Court declared that corporations, which are legal creations, have the same right to spend money supporting a candidate for election as Americans human citizens have to speak in support of a candidate. Corporations are thus persons with political rights equal to those of American citizen Homo sapiens.
This is a huge step towards achieving the "Orange" (Continued Growth) scenario of Hawaii in 2050 that Jake Dunagan, Stuart Candy and others developed for the Hawaii 2050 kick off event of August 2006 {attached below}. In that alternative future, we posited that corporations would be able to run for elected office as candidates, since corporations had been recognized by the Court as having the full rights of humans.
I don't think we anticipated the Court would extend that recognition so soon, but it is often the case that the future arrives sooner than we think it will.
This scenario was of course only one of four alternative futures that we developed for Hawaii in 2050, and by no means our preferred future. But it shows that, no matter how ridiculous it might have sounded in 2006, the Court's arguments in 2010 are very close to those in our Orange Scenario for 2050.
Under the assumptions of this Continued Growth scenario, we declared that the government of Hawaii in 2050 was a commission form elected by corporations. However we noted:
"There was of course a challenge as to the constitutionality of this form of government. Since the commissioners are chosen by corporations and not citizens, it was said to violate Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution that states "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." However, following the reasoning in the 1886 case, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, wherein the U.S. Supreme Court held that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights and protections the Constitution affords to any person, the constitutionality of the Hawaiian commission form was upheld."
Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission brings us one step closer to that future.
At the kickoff of the conference in 2006, there was a debate set in 2050 between two corporate candidates for Commissioner, one represented by a human and the other by an avatar. The narrator introduced the debate:
"Hello, I am Squire Squireson, your moderator and chair of the Commission election board. Welcome corporate delegates in attendance and our home webcast viewers to “Decision 2050!” coming to you live from the fabulous Dole Underwater Hotel and Casino. Tonight we feature our top two candidates for Governor of the ruling Commission of Hawaii in a debate on key issues affecting the future of the State.
As you know, we hold elections every four years for offices throughout the Ruling Corporate Commission. Voting takes place by an electoral college of 150 leading businesses and business organizations. These debates are an important opportunity for you—as corporate electors—to evaluate the candidates on their merits.
While there are minor candidates running, even some individuals and small businesses, we at the League of Corporate Voters do not feel that these candidates will improve the discourse and will in fact, only distract corporate electoral voters from a full appraisal of the major candidates’ positions. And let’s face it, since the US Supreme Court allowed Corporations, AS LEGAL PERSONS, to run for public office and develop the Commission system, mere individuals do not stand a realistic chance in any significant electoral race.
So, without delay, allow me to introduce the candidates.
First, on stage left, we have the 2-time incumbent Governor, Aloha Nuclear and Water, represented as always, by their CEO, Mr. Roger Hazelwood.
And making their first foray into Hawaiian politics is the rising challenger for the office, the legendary entertainment, gaming, computing, and design firm: Kobayashi Virtual Concern, represented tonight by the lovely an talented (you all know her) Angela Kim Irifune.
CorporateGovernorDebate.doc
Labels: campaign, corporations, democracy, governance, HI2050, supreme court
Posted 22 January 2010
by dator at 9:46 PM
Honestly, I try not to get too hysterical, but this was the worst domestic political news I have heard in years. I've been spinning for days about it, it seems. How does one shake stuff like this off? For those who who haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend the Canadian documentary
The Corporation (2007) that I show to my students. It really gets into the 'psychology' of these legal 'persons' and provides some sobering insights.
And I like Kobayashi, for the record:)
Jim Dator wrote:
>
> *Is a 2050 alternative future coming true?*
&
by dator at 5:52 PM
Is a 2050 alternative future coming true?
In the decision of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission announced on January 21, 2010, the US Supreme Court declared that corporations, which are legal creations, have the same right to spend money supporting a candidate for election as Americans human citizens have to speak in support of a candidate. Corporations are thus persons with political rights equal to those of American citizen Homo sapiens.
This is a huge step towards achieving the "Orange" (Continued Growth) scenario of Hawaii in 2050 that Jake Dunagan, Stuart Candy and others developed for the Hawaii 2050 kick off event of August 2006 {attached below}. In that alternative future, we posited that corporations would be able to run for elected office as candidates, since corporations had been recognized by the Court as having the full rights of humans.
I don't think we anticipated the Court would extend that recognition so soon, but it is often the case that the future arrives sooner than we think it will.
This scenario was of course only one of four alternative futures that we developed for Hawaii in 2050, and by no means our preferred future. But it shows that, no matter how ridiculous it might have sounded in 2006, the Court's arguments in 2010 are very close to those in our Orange Scenario for 2050.
Under the assumptions of this Continued Growth scenario, we declared that the government of Hawaii in 2050 was a commission form elected by corporations. However we noted:
"There was of course a challenge as to the constitutionality of this form of government. Since the commissioners are chosen by corporations and not citizens, it was said to violate Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution that states "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." However, following the reasoning in the 1886 case, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, wherein the U.S. Supreme Court held that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights and protections the Constitution affords to any person, the constitutionality of the Hawaiian commission form was upheld."
Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission brings us one step closer to that future.
At the kickoff of the conference in 2006, there was a debate set in 2050 between two corporate candidates for Commissioner, one represented by a human and the other by an avatar. The narrator introduced the debate:
"Hello, I am Squire Squireson, your moderator and chair of the Commission election board. Welcome corporate delegates in attendance and our home webcast viewers to “Decision 2050!” coming to you live from the fabulous Dole Underwater Hotel and Casino. Tonight we feature our top two candidates for Governor of the ruling Commission of Hawaii in a debate on key issues affecting the future of the State.
As you know, we hold elections every four years for offices throughout the Ruling Corporate Commission. Voting takes place by an electoral college of 150 leading businesses and business organizations. These debates are an important opportunity for you—as corporate electors—to evaluate the candidates on their merits.
While there are minor candidates running, even some individuals and small businesses, we at the League of Corporate Voters do not feel that these candidates will improve the discourse and will in fact, only distract corporate electoral voters from a full appraisal of the major candidates’ positions. And let’s face it, since the US Supreme Court allowed Corporations, AS LEGAL PERSONS, to run for public office and develop the Commission system, mere individuals do not stand a realistic chance in any significant electoral race.
So, without delay, allow me to introduce the candidates.
First, on stage left, we have the 2-time incumbent Governor, Aloha Nuclear and Water, represented as always, by their CEO, Mr. Roger Hazelwood.
And making their first foray into Hawaiian politics is the rising challenger for the office, the legendary entertainment, gaming, computing, and design firm: Kobayashi Virtual Concern, represented tonight by the lovely an talented (you all know her) Angela Kim Irifune.
Posted 02 January 2010
by dator at 11:52 AM
NAME IN THE NEWS
Jim Dator
UH's director of Futures Studies says Hawaii's future depends on developing sustainable industries, not relying on tourism and military
By Christine Donnelly
POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Jan 01, 2010 Honolulu Star-Bulletin Jim Dator doesn't predict the future, he prepares for it. And the director of the Hawaii Research Center for Futures Studies says that as much as Hawaii residents may bid good riddance to the rocky first decade of the new millennium, and assume that 2010 can only be better, that prospect is far from certain.
DENNIS ODA / DODA@STARBULLETIN.COM
The end of the first decade of the 21st century seems like a good time to check in with UH futurist Jim Dator, who assesses Hawaii's economic and social prospects. Above, Dator posed for a photograph on his condominium lanai in Waikiki.
"I don't want to sound too negative, but there are some very worrisome factors," said the University of Hawaii professor, whose center is affiliated with the UH political science department.
Hawaii, dependent as it is on tourism, military spending and imported oil, must develop ways to sustain itself or remain buffeted by outside forces, said Dator, 76, who joined the UH faculty in 1969.
Besides teaching, he advises governmental, military, business, educational, religious and public-interest organizations around the world, often facilitating dialogue between groups that have competing or conflicting visions for the future.
His wide-ranging interests are reflected in his academic background, which includes a doctorate in political science from American University and certificates from the Virginia Theological Seminary and Yale University's Institute of Far Eastern Languages.
He and his wife, a lawyer, raised four children in the Waikiki condominium where the couple still live.
QUESTION: What will Hawaii look like in the next few decades? I don't mean just physically, but also culturally, politically, economically?
ANSWER: As a futurist, I seldom use the word "will" because that implies an ability to predict, and we can't do that. What we can do is look at all the available information and decide what scenarios seem most likely, given the wide variety of factors that affect any outcome. ... So I would say that in Hawaii we can expect the continuing demographic change in which the once-dominant Japanese group becomes smaller. ... It will be a culturally different mix than we've had in the past 20 years (with a growing percentage of Caucasians, Filipinos and Pacific Islanders). ... Hawaii has an increasingly aging population and a moderately low fertility rate, and so, combined with economic factors, we can expect a slightly lower population over the next 10 years.
Q: What about politically?
A: Going along with those demographics we can expect a continued weakening of the dominance of the Democratic Party and certainly of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party in Hawaii. However, if the economic situation eventually gets as bad as I expect that it could, then political radicalization could occur. If the worsening economic situation really gets desperate then we could see a left-wing rise or even an ultra-right swing ...
Q: Why do you think Hawaii's economy could get that bad?
A: Our major economic bases at this time are tourism and U.S. military spending and both of those are very fragile and not very good, if you are interested in local sustainability. Over the years I have been using the phrase "the unholy trinity plus one" to describe in a metaphorical sense the concerns I have about Hawaii. These factors need to be studied as one, thought of as being integrated, rather than as separate issues. They must be dealt with together.
Q: What are they?
A: One is peak oil, or the end of oil, or the energy transformation that must come. It's suggesting, in effect, an end to oil before a comparable energy source comes online. And that certainly will affect tourism and everything else in Hawaii. Our food is shipped in. We use oil to generate our electricity. No other state is as dependent on oil as we are.
Q: What's the second factor?
A: The second is environmental issues, the questions of global climate change, global sea level rise. Absolutely nothing done in Copenhagen or anywhere else has made the slightest dent in that problem from a policy perspective. More likely than not there will be severe environmental challenges for the state and the world. It's not that Hawaii is going to be uniquely impacted, but that the availability of leisure time and money and so forth will change as the rest of the world deals with this. They just won't have as much time or money to devote to leisure travel.
Q: And the third factor?
A: The third factor is the economy itself. Since the early 1980s, the global economy ... has been growth based upon debt. This was described years ago by Bush the elder as "voodoo economics," and that, in fact, is what it is, and what the whole U.S. economy has been since then, based on the hope that people would be willing to go increasingly into debt. So the U.S. economy has been one bubble after another, based on a huge number of highly complex debt instruments that have now collapsed in a heap. And yet the very same instruments are still being used, and new debt instruments have been created, in the hope that the economy will continue to recover this way, built on more debt. But eventually the falseness of this type of economy becomes apparent and cannot be sustained.
Q: It sounds pretty grim.
A: It's extremely grim. So those are the three elements of "the unholy trinity," but let me explain the "plus one." The plus one is the fundamental inability of the American government to do anything about it. We're in a really untenable position as far as using deficit spending on the part of the government to get us out of our problems. We in Hawaii are very definitely the canary in the coal mine here, and, therefore, we need to do much, much more to become self-sufficient in terms of energy and food over the next decade.
Q: What about the short-term outlook for tourism in Hawaii? There's supposed to be an uptick.
A: If there is a slight upturn in the economy, and if China is able somehow to continue to avoid the deep negative consequences of the global economic crisis, then tourism could see an uptick from Asia, from China. But China is also suffering from all the things I just mentioned: It's aging, it's building debt. ... So for the long term, tourism would not be our major industry ....
Q: What might replace it?
A: This is where the right-wing, left-wing extremism element comes into play ... I don't want the article to say that I am predicting that these things will happen. I'm just saying that the possibility that they could happen is sufficiently great that there needs to be a public discussion about how to prepare and therefore prevent this scenario.
Q: So how should we prepare?
A: Not convert more agricultural land into developments, housing, hotels — that sort of thing. We need to not only preserve our existing land but also encourage those people who want to farm to try to farm. We need to become largely self-sufficient in terms of food and basic necessities. The movement away from oil — much, much more needs to be done in that area. We should repair existing infrastructure, but to build new housing and tourist developments I don't think is a good idea now.
Q: You've written a great deal about space exploration and settlement. Are you surprised that humans have not yet built large-scale space settlements?
A: I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed, ... and this is one area where everything I am going to say is going to be at odds with everything I just said: I remain a total space fanatic, including the possibilities for space tourism, and I fully support Hawaii being a full actor in space activities.
Q: Closer to home, what do you think is in store for the University of Hawaii?
A: The administration and some faculty seem to be assuming that we are in for a very bad time economically but will bounce back fairly quickly. Boy, do I hope that's the case, and I'll be very, very pleasantly surprised, and in no way disappointed, if I'm wrong. But I just don't think the economy is going to recover in that way. I think we should be taking a hard look at what kind of university we need and renew our focus on agricultural and industrial activities to help sustain Hawaii into the future.
Posted 30 November 2009
by dator at 4:21 PM
FINLAND DECLARES INTERNET ACCESS A LEGAL RIGHT (and other things)
(Thanks to Arthur Cordell for this reference)
Finland has become the first country in the world to declare broadband Internet access a legal right.
The Finnish government has enacted a law making 1Mb broadband Internet access a legal right. The law will take effect in July 2010.
Starting in July, telecommunication companies in the northern European nation will be required to provide all 5.2 million citizens with Internet connection that runs at speeds of at least 1 megabit per second.
The one-megabit mandate, however, is simply an intermediary step, said Laura Vilkkonen, the legislative counselor for the Ministry of Transport and Communications.
The country is aiming for speeds that are 100 times faster -- 100 megabit per second -- for all by 2015.
"We think it's something you cannot live without in modern society. Like banking services or water or electricity, you need Internet connection," Vilkkonen said
It is a view shared by the United Nations, which is making a big push to deem Internet access a human right.
In June, France's highest court declared such access a human right. But Finland goes a step further by legally mandating speed.
The British government is also looking at universal access. In the recent Digital Britain report, the government set a target of universal internet access of speeds of at least two megabits per second by 2012.
Finland is one of the most wired in the world; about 95 percent of the population have some sort of Internet access, she said. But the law is designed to bring the Web to rural areas, where geographic challenges have limited access until now.
"Universal service is every citizen's subjective right," Vilkkonen said.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/10/15/finland.internet.rights/index.html
It was only a matter of time for this to happen!
In September 8, 1979, I received a “Manifesto” over the Electronic information Exchange System (EIES) 1019, run by Murray Turoff of New Jersey Institute of Technology. I wrote about it in James A. Dator, "EIES and Racter and Me--Computer Conferencing from a Pacific Island," in Richard Barber, ed., Pacific Telecommunication Conference II. Honolulu: Social Science Research Institute, University of Hawaii, 1980
Here is what the Manifesto of 1979 said:
"The history of all hitherto existing computerized conferencing and information systems is the history of elitist access.
"Those with the technical and literary skills, the equipment, and the money to pay for "time" continue to perpetuate their elitist status, while the proletariat gets folded, spindled, stapled, and mutilated. At best the masses can play Pong or program their microwave ovens, while at worst their privacy is invaded with computer-generated junk mail and their credit card accounts are forever wrong.
"All human beings, regardless of class, want and need some human contact, some sense of being connected to the human race. Computerized communications systems offer a special kind of superconnectivity to old and young, 'handicapped,' minorities, and hunt-and-peck typists alike.
"All sentient beings have the inalienable right to:
--a computer terminal
--a supply of paper
--a private account on a communications system
--clear and well-indexed instructions in how to use that system
--a telecommunications network local dial-up number
--an electric generator or photo-voltaic solar cells in case of brown outs, blackouts, or hurricanes
--a secretary of the opposite sex to organize and file all the output
--and three square messages a day.
"However, during times of scarce resources, access may be authorized on an even-odd day basis only, except for priority (yellow) users--those most in need of making a connection. Dolphins have the right to special waterproof voice input-output terminals.
"Since the design, manufacture, and marketing of terminals and most computerized communication and information systems are under the control of large corporations, it is essential to break this stranglehold. Only by developing the people's systems for locally owned and controlled microcomputers (or networks of micros) and the people's telecommunications networks can the inalienable rights above be guaranteed.
"A micro in every home and a programmer (and a hardware fix-it person) on every block. The means of communication must be owned by all. From each according to his literacy, to each according to his needs.
"The terminally disconnected have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to plug into.
"Microcomputers of all countries, unite!"
Aside from some improvements in technology (such as memory, which the old computer terminals did not have at all--hence the need for paper--and vastly improved access speeds) and a reference to gasoline rationing that may come true once again (even-odd rationing)—and of course the sexism of the secretary—the Manifesto is as relevant now as it was then, and Finland mandates it by law.
Jim Dator
Posted 22 October 2009
by dator at 8:36 AM
*Social Media Rule!*
And, faster than a speeding bullet, Google responds to the concerns
expressed by the Market Researchers as I represented them yesterday--and
even faster, Twitter joins in too!
---------------------------
/Web 2.0 Summit: Google Unveils Social Search/
Users of Google's search engine will soon have the option to include
content created by friends in search results lists.
By Thomas Claburn
/InformationWeek/
October 21, 2009 07:53 PM
<http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/google/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=220900052&subSection=News>
In a surprise announcement at the Web 2.0 Summit, Google (NSDQ: GOOG) VP
of search products and user experience Marissa Mayer revealed an
upcoming Google product called Social Search.
"We've been thinking about social networks for a long time," said Mayer,
without any hint that the meteoric rise of social networks might be a
source of concern at Google.
WOWD debuted its search oriented product at Web 2.0 saying that it
provides more "discovery" than "search," and demonstrating how it pulls
the crowd into search results. Web 2.0 Chair John Battelle tries to pin
down Evan Williams, CEO of Twitter, on the company's potential revenue
models. Comcast CEO Brian Roberts provides his view on the net
neutrality debate, saying that he welcomes the dialog.
WOWD debuted its search oriented product at Web 2.0 saying that it
provides more "discovery" than "search," and demonstrating how it pulls
the crowd into search results.
Social Search, said Mayer, recognizes a fundamental need for real-time
information and demonstrates Google's commitment to innovating in search.
Social Search will be launched in a few weeks as a Google Labs
experiment. As its name suggest, it integrates information created by
people in a searcher's Google network -- defined by one's list of Google
Contacts -- into Google search results.
Mayer demonstrated how a search for "New Zealand" produced a list of
search results that included relevant content created by friends
midway-down the search results page. Among the search results were links
to a Gmail message that referenced New Zealand and a FriendFeed entry,
each from a different friend.
In order for Social Search to work, users much have a Google Account, a
Google Profile, and friends listed as Google Contacts.
The existence of Google's Social Search service appears to validate
claims made earlier on Wednesday afternoon at the Web 2.0 Summit by
Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg. "There is a very fundamental shift going
on from the information Web to the social Web," she said.
Google clearly wants to be a part of that shift.
Mayer also confirmed an announcement made earlier in the afternoon that
Google had reached a deal with Twitter to include tweets in its search
index as a way to improve access to real-time information.
---------------------------------
Jim Dator
Posted 21 October 2009
by dator at 9:06 AM
I have just returned from The Market Research Event, held this year in Las Vegas, where I gave a keynote address full of my usual equal measures of hope and doom.
As always, I learn far more from attending events like this than I imagine I share in return.
From the workshop presentations I dropped in on, I discovered that market researchers are as inspired and confused about the consequences of the new Social Media on their work as futurists are.
The Manoa School for many years has used a formula for identifying trends and emerging issues that Graham Molitor published in the mid 1970s.
That was a pre-Social Media era, to say the least.
Molitor correctly said at the time that emerging issues (future problem/opportunities just barely popping into view) can be found only in extremely obscure and often unsavory places. It takes a lot of rooting around to find them. Once they emerge, if they survive at all, they then go through a series of predictable processes of growth from emergence, to take off, to becoming a raging trend, to becoming an all-apparent problem/opportunity, and then either persisting as such, or dying, or cycling down only to emerge at some later point in time.
Using Molitor's scheme, we at the Manoa School prided ourselves on developing good scanners who produced useful emerging issues before many other futurists did.
It turns out that market researchers are short-run futurists of a particular kind: they are trying to discover what new products customers will buy and consumers use, and they are interested in discovering what customers and consumers think about new products.
Surely, then, the new Social Media are a gold mine for both futurists and market researchers.
Indeed, they would seem to be a market researchers dream come true: millions of people very willingly trying out new products and expressing their opinions about them and everything else. All that valuable information just hanging out there for anyone to see. No need to go to the difficult process of identifying and interviewing random samples, or assembling focus groups, or using other traditional survey research methods. Instead, with blogs, et al, getting opinions is like shooting fish in a barrel, right?
On the Internet, and specifically on blogs, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and the like, everyone is eagerly revealing their innermost thoughts (and bodies) for anyone who wants to read, hear or look.
Hoo Ha!
But that is just the problem: everyone is online expressing a million opinions in a million different places. Holy Infoglut!
Well, how about surfing the blogs of blogs or the other many services telling you (for a price, and with proprietary software that may or may not exist) what the blogs are saying?
But are complainers more like to speak out than praisers, or those who are neutral?
It also turns out that an unknown number of bloggers are being paid to say they like (or dislike) a product (or a candidate, or a policy), seriously skewing the results.
And then there are the "everyones" who are NOT online but who still are customers and consumers. Are their opinions similar or different from the ones online?
And so on.
So market researchers are in a quandary, trying to figure out how to use the goldmine to find gold and not gigantic amounts of dross.
We futurists are in the same situation as we look for true emerging issues.
Any suggestions as to a solution?
Especially since yesterday's hottest thing--say, My Space--becomes passé before many people even learn how to use it, and there is no reason to assume YouTube, or Facebook (especially), or even Google (currently proclaimed the Emperor--often without clothes, but still the Emperor--by several market researches) will be The Next Thing next year. The learning curve is so great and the half-life of The Next Thing is so short, that many appear to be giving up and going back to watching TV.
Leaving the truly weird and out-of-it crying away in lonely cyberspace.
Ah! Just the place to find Molitor's old emerging issues!
Jim Dator
Posted 29 September 2009
by dator at 10:04 AM
Recalling that Wendy Schultz used the metaphor, "Surfing the Tsunamis of
Change", to capture the magnitude of challenges racing towards us from
the futures, and the limits and strengths of our ability to respond to
them (by surfing, rather than ignoring, them), Cody Clark was inspired
to write this poem:
:SURFING::
This is not a time to be nonchalant about your lives!
Things are happening that are both horrible
and wonderful beyond our imagining.
Animals are being cloned for your consumption.
Computers are being woven into your socks.
They're inventing new flowers.
And new ways to live and die.
(Are you paying attention?)
Hate is spanning continents.
Borders are dissolving.
War is a media event —
The next genocide will be televised.
(Will you be watching?)
Clever diseases are adapting
to sidestep new cures.
New microbes are being patented;
Old ones are learning new tricks
(What are you learning?)
Pigs will grow new hearts for us
While our old hearts will grow fond of
faces over wireless rivers of bandwidth;
Hearts to be broken by virtual lovers.
(Where is your heart?)
Soon we'll glide on hydrogen chariots
and Stirling scooters and maglev trains
Superconductors will take the reins
And move us faster, ever faster.
(But, do you know where you're going?)
Turbulent data is flooding the culture.
Information is boiling, steaming our vision
While wisdom becomes a commercial commodity
And knowledge is power and power is an oddity
To most of us regular folks.
(Do you know who you can trust?)
Yet billions of people rely on each other.
They trust their elders, their elected offcials.
Billions of people do not use computers;
they do not see them as anything special.
(Do we pity Them? Or do they pity Us?)
You must be alert because time is accelerating
At different speeds in different places.
Is what you hold onto moving you forward?
Or holding you back while "progress" erases
Your every anchor, your every point of reference.
(You must pay attention now. To everything. All the time.)
You will learn to surf or you will drown.
So watch for clues that swirl around
In the currents of our times.
And paddle like hell
when you feel the swell.
Boy, I hope
you can afford
a board.
----
I had no sooner posted this when PBS announced that a tsunami had hit
Pago Pago, American Samoa, and might hit Hawaii by 1 pm today.
Better wax up my board, if I can afford to buy one!
