Invitation to explore the Future of the Conversational Web…

Invitation to explore the Future of the Conversational Web

I believe Spring 2017 MoNage, taking place March 21-23 in San Jose, CA has the making of being a LANDMARK Event.

MoNage is going to explore the FUTURE of the Conversational Web; the CONVERGENCEof Computing, AI, Communications, and the underlying ecosystems. This conference is ideal for Investors, Entreprenuers, Strategists, Thinkers, and ANYONE who is interested in what will be the NEXT BIG THING.

This video describes what I have been working on. Please watch and if you can think of someone, who can benefit from joining this conversation, please share this message.

For more information, please visit the Spring 2017 MoNage website, Our “early bird” pricing ends on February 24th and available space is limited.


Send to Kindle

Breaking News?

Breaking News?  Really?  The Ashland Daily Press is unclear on the subject.  Certainly not breaking news or fake news.  News that’s 5-6 hours old.

Send to Kindle

Niche Marketing?

Niche marketing or internet voyeurism?  I’m not sure of the internet’s fascination with pimples.Discuss.

Send to Kindle

Fauxcahontas on the warpath.

Fauxcahontas on the warpath. And out for all to see during the confirmation hearing of Dr. Ben Carson for the head of Housing and Urban Development.  The transcript below is from

English: Elizabeth Warren speaking at March 29...

English: Elizabeth Warren speaking at March 29, 2010, at the Women in Finance symposium. Warren was part of a five-woman panel discussion. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

the hearing.  What I find amazing is that with a reported budget of $32.6 Billion (2014), how Warren determines that Carson can keep track of each and every penny, or as the conversation went $10.

Carson was gracious and level in his answers, and yet Warren continued with the minutia.  It is apparent that she has no grasp of the job requirements and duties of a Presidential Cabinet appointee.

mr. chairman and congratulations on your
new role as chair of this committee i’m
looking forward to working with you as
well as with six new members of our
committee dr. Carson thank you for being
here thank you
before we get into some of the questions
that are raised in my letter to you
earlier this week I just want to get an
answer to I think that’s simple
yes-or-no question if you are confirmed
to lead HUD you’ll be responsible for
issuing billions of dollars in grants
and loans to help develop housing and
provide a lot of housing related
services now housing development is an
area in which president elect Trump and
his family have significant business
interests can you assure me that not a
single taxpayer dollar that you give out
will financially benefit the
president-elect or his family
well senator I was worried that you
wouldn’t get back thank you for coming
back I’m back I can assure you that the
things that i do are driven by sense of
morals and values and therefore I will
absolutely not play favorites for anyone
dr. Carson at let me stop right there I
i’m actually trying to ask a more
pointed question and it’s not about your
good faith that’s not my concern
my concern is whether or not among the
billions of dollars that you will be
responsible for handing out in grants
and loans can you just assuring us that
not one dollar will go to benefit either
the president-elect or his family
it will not be my intention to do
anything I could to benefit any any
American I understand that’s for all
Americans everything that we do
do I take that to mean that you may
manage programs that will significantly
benefit the president-elect you can
get the main that I will manage things
in a way that benefits the American
people that is going to be the goal to
the best you understand it if there
happens to be an extraordinarily good
program that’s working for millions of
people and it turns out that that that
someone that you’re targeting is going
to gain you know ten dollars from it
am I going to say no the rest of you
Americans can’t have it
I think logic and common sense probably
would be the best way
yeah although we do have a problem here
and I appreciate your good faith in this
and I do dr. Carson the problem is that
you can assure is that HUD money out of
ten dollar varieties but of
multimillion-dollar varieties will not
end up in the president elects pockets
and the reason you can’t assurance of
that is because the president-elect is
hiding his family’s business interests
from you from me from the rest of
America and this just highlights the
absurdity and the danger of the
president elects refusal to put his
assets in a true blind trust he knows he
the president like knows what will
benefit him and his family financially
but the public doesn’t which means he
can divert taxpayer money into his own
pockets without anyone knowing about it
the only way that the American people
can know that the president is working
in their best interests and not in his
own is if he divest and puts his assets
in a true blind trust transferring his
holdings to his children does nothing as
the head of the nonpartisan ethics
committee said just last night since the
president-elect refuses to address this
voluntarily we need to pass the
presidential conflicts of interest act
that i introduced with more than 20 of
my colleagues which would require him to
do so
so with the time i have less i just want
to follow up very quickly on a letter
that I sent to you earlier this week and
we talked about in my artists and I
appreciated that
but and I appreciated it to as you know
more than 7 million children rely on HUD
for housing seven million people many of
them are children veterans people with
um for many of these people had is the
difference between a stable home and
life out on the streets but one major
problem that we talked about his lead
exposure and according to the most
recent HUD study 62,000 public housing
units nearly six percent of our total
public housing stock are in need of lead
abatement you are highly accomplished
dr. we spoke at length about the
implications of lead and lead poisoning
our children can I just ask you to
commit today that you will make sure
that HUD resources are dedicated to
dramatically reducing the number of
public housing units where LED is a
problem i can assure you that I will
very much be working with you on that
310,000 cases right now children each of
which cost us enormous amounts money i
don’t think people even calculate that
and to that when we’re talking about
so yes I will be very vigorous in that
area i I’ve airy much appreciate it
um this is a particular problem for us
in the northeast is a particular problem
in boston where housing stock is old
route and it is absolutely critical that
we get the lead out of these housing
units and that our children have a
chance to grow up without being injured
by our own negligence i look forward to
working with thank you for your
leadership and angry
thank you dr. Carson senator Heller
Send to Kindle

Working in Evernote.

Working in Evernote, like many other applications on the web can result in a love-hate

This is icon for social networking website. Th...

This is icon for social networking website. This is part of Open Icon Library’s webpage icon package. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

relationship with the app.  That’s where I find myself today.

I like making use of the app and its saving abilities for things on the web.  When it comes to deleting saved items it is an entirely another story.  There doesn’t appear to be any ability within Evernote to bulk delete previously saved notes.

Turning to google search to find an answer returns several options for bulk deleting of saved notes, none of which work for me.  This is 2017, so how hard can this be?  Are the developers at Evernote not paying attention?  Has no one else, ever wanted or desired to bulk delete saved notes within their Evernote app?

Your comments and suggestions are welcome.

Send to Kindle

Math is Hard.

I wonder if it was a Common Core Math Lab?

Send to Kindle

The End of 2016 and The Beginning of 2017

The End of 2016 and The Beginning of 2017.  I guess it had to happen sooner or later.

Have a safe New Years celebration.

Send to Kindle

Statement by the President on Signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017

Statement by the President on Signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

President Barack Obama signs legislation in th...

President Barack Obama signs legislation in the Oval Office, Dec. 22, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

2017.  Yes, the following is long and wordy, and yet needs your attention.  The portion that I’ve highlighted in bold is the important part of this missive.  We’ll address the propaganda issues in another post.

Note that the President acknowledges that portions of this bill are unconstitutional and yet he has signed it.  Really?  This signing statement is dated December 23, 2016.

Today, I have signed into law S. 2943, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.”  This Act authorizes fiscal year 2017 appropriations principally for the Department of Defense and for Department of Energy national security programs, provides vital benefits for military personnel and their families, and includes authorities to facilitate ongoing operations around the globe.  It continues many critical authorizations necessary to ensure that we are able to sustain our momentum in countering the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and to reassure our European allies, as well as many new authorizations that, among other things, provide the Departments of Defense and Energy more flexibility in countering cyber-attacks and our adversaries’ use of unmanned aerial vehicles.

I note that section 923 of the Act requires that the President establish a unified combatant command for cyber operations forces, while section 1642 prohibits the Secretary of Defense from terminating the “dual-hat” arrangement under which the Commander of U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) also serves as the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), unless the Secretary and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff jointly certify that ending this arrangement will not pose risks to the military effectiveness of CYBERCOM that are unacceptable to the national security interests of the United States.  Although I appreciate the Congress’s interest in strengthening our Nation’s cyber capabilities and ensuring that the NSA and CYBERCOM are best positioned to confront the array of cyber threats we face, I do not support these provisions as drafted:  the Congress should leave decisions about the establishment of combatant commands to the executive branch and should not place unnecessary and bureaucratic administrative burdens and conditions on ending the dual-hat arrangement at a time when the speed and nature of cyber threats requires agility in making decisions about how best to organize and manage the Nation’s cyber capabilities.  That said, after directing a comprehensive review of this issue earlier this year, and consistent with the views of the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence, I strongly support elevating CYBERCOM to a unified combatant command and ending the dual-hat arrangement for NSA and CYBERCOM ?? a position my Administration has communicated to the incoming Administration.  While the dual-hat arrangement was once appropriate in order to enable a fledgling CYBERCOM to leverage NSA’s advanced capabilities and expertise, CYBERCOM has since matured and the current construct should be replaced through a deliberate, conditions-based approach to separating the organizations.  The two organizations should have separate leaders who are able to devote themselves to each organization’s respective mission and responsibilities, but should continue to leverage the shared capabilities and synergies developed under the dual-hat arrangement.  To these ends, the Department of Defense and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence have taken steps to ensure that separation would occur in a phased manner that enables NSA to continue to provide vital operational support to CYBERCOM during a transition period.

Beyond these provisions, I remain deeply concerned about the Congress’s use of the National Defense Authorization Act to impose extensive organizational changes on the Department of Defense, disregarding the advice of the Department’s senior civilian and uniformed leaders.  The extensive changes in the bill are rushed, the consequences poorly understood, and they come at a particularly inappropriate time as we undertake a transition between administrations.  These changes not only impose additional administrative burdens on the Department of Defense and make it less agile, but they also create additional bureaucracies and operational restrictions that generate inefficiencies at a time when we need to be more efficient.

My Administration has similar concerns with the Administrative Leave Act, which would limit the period of time for which an employee of the Federal Government may be put on administrative leave.  The provision substantially limits Federal agencies’ discretion and is administratively burdensome, raising the risk of harm to the safety of Government employees and the risk of loss or damage to Government properties.  Further, for the Intelligence Community, the Act creates unacceptable counterintelligence and security risks.

I am also disappointed that the Congress again failed to enact meaningful reforms to divest unneeded force structure, reduce wasteful overhead, and modernize military healthcare.  Instead, the Congress redirects funding needed to support the warfighter to fund additional end-strength that our military leaders have not requested at a time when our troops are engaged overseas supporting the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and against al-Qa’ida.  This approach hides the long-term costs of the Congress’s authorizations, imposes significant costs in FY 2017 and substantially more over the next 5 years, and exacerbates the budgetary pressures already facing our military.  Increasing force structure without adequate funding support in the base budget is dangerous; it will degrade, not enhance, readiness and modernization, contrary to our senior civilian and military leaders’ priorities.

Once again, the Congress has also failed to take action toward closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  As I have said before, spending hundreds of millions of dollars, year after year, to keep fewer than sixty men in an isolated detention facility in Cuba is not consistent with our interests as a Nation and undermines our standing in the world.  It weakens our national security by draining resources, damaging our relationships with key allies and partners, and emboldening violent extremists.

In February, my Administration submitted a comprehensive plan to safely and responsibly close the detention facility.  Rather than answer that call and work with my Administration to finally bring this chapter of our history to a close, this bill aims to make the facility a permanent feature of our struggle against terrorism.  During my Administration, we have responsibly transferred over 175 detainees from Guantanamo, and the population once held at the facility has now been reduced from 242 to 59.  In the last 2 years, we have transferred 73 detainees, and our efforts to transfer additional detainees will continue until the last day I am in office.  It is long past time for the Congress to lift the restrictions it has imposed, work to responsibly and safely close the facility, and remove this blot on our national honor.  Unless the Congress changes course, it will be judged harshly by history.

As I have said in the past, the restrictions contained in this bill concerning the detention facility at Guantanamo are unwarranted and counterproductive.  In particular, section 1033 renews the bar against using appropriated funds to construct or modify any facility in the United States, its territories, or possessions to house any Guantanamo detainee in the custody or under the control of the Department of Defense unless authorized by the Congress.  Section 1032 also renews the bar against using appropriated funds to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose.  The bill leaves in place onerous restrictions on the transfer of detainees to foreign countries, and section 1034 imposes additional restrictions on foreign transfers of detainees ?? in some cases purporting to bar such transfers entirely.

As I have said repeatedly, the provisions in this bill concerning detainee transfers would, in certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.  Additionally, section 1034 could in some circumstances interfere with the ability to transfer a detainee who has been granted a writ of habeas corpus.  In the event that the restrictions on the transfer of detainees in sections 1032 and 1034 operate in a manner that violates these constitutional principles, my Administration will implement them in a manner that avoids the constitutional conflict.

My Administration strongly supports the bill’s structural reform of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which streamlines BBG operations and reduces inefficiencies, while retaining the longstanding statutory firewall, protecting against interference with and maintaining the professional independence of the agency’s journalists and broadcasters and thus their credibility as sources of independent news and information.  Section 1288 would elevate the current Chief Executive Officer of the Broadcasting Board of Governors to the head of the agency and reduce the current members of the Board, unless on expired terms, from serving as the collective head of the agency to serving as advisors to the Chief Executive Officer.  While my Administration supports the empowerment of a Chief Executive Officer with the authority to carry out the BBG’s important functions, the manner of transition prescribed by section 1288 raises constitutional concerns related to my appointments and removal authority.  My Administration will devise a plan to treat this provision in a manner that mitigates the constitutional concerns while adhering closely to the Congress’s intent.

Several other provisions in the bill also raise constitutional concerns.

First, section 507 of the bill would authorize certain cabinet officials to “drop from the rolls” military officers without my approval.  The Constitution does not allow Congress to authorize other members of the executive branch to remove presidentially appointed officers, so I will direct my cabinet members to construe the statute as permitting them to remove the commission of a military officer only if the officer accepts their decision or I approve the removal.

Second, section 553 of the bill would establish a commission, composed primarily of members appointed by the Congress, in the executive branch.  Because the commission contains legislative branch appointees, it cannot be located in the executive branch consistent with the separation of powers.  My Administration will therefore treat the commission as an independent entity, separate from the executive branch.

Finally, section 1263(d) purports to require me to determine whether a foreign person has committed a sanctionable human rights violation when I receive a request to do so from certain members of Congress.  Consistent with the constitutional separation of powers, which limit the Congress’s ability to dictate how the executive branch executes the law, I will maintain my discretion to decline to act on such requests when appropriate.


Send to Kindle

The ageless wonder keeps keeping on.

The ageless wonder keeps keeping on.


Send to Kindle

And the list continues to grow…

And the list continues to grow of celebrities who are opting out of performing at President-elect Trumps inauguration.

Send to Kindle
Show Buttons
Hide Buttons