For no other reason than perhaps the had cold medicine I started thinking about the word "futurist" last night. Without pointing any fingers, I think it's nuts and should be much the same as "quack" - which it really is to 96.7% of the population. There are mainly techno-quack futurists but some of the quackery also bleeds into what the law "ought to be" so therefore they insist it is what it "shall be" taken for now. They become rogues within society, unaware of their cartability if we but cared to put them away. But this is not their main unexplored issue with themselves. It is they have no benchmark. If the blogosphere proves anything, no one knows much about anything and absolutely no one has a big picture that can withstand about four relevant questions before the tears come out. This leaves futurists unable to show what they suggest will be is not already. Gotcha Mr. Tomorrow's World!

So I am going to start my own quackery movement called "Presentism" and invite you to be "Presentists" whereby you do not actually have to be right about anything but can involve yourself with robust spectulation about what actually is. In that way we avoid the dreary need to prove anything and can hypothesize about what ought to be based on the solid principles of presentism. We shall present great confidence and rail against the futurists. We shall speak of rallies held elsewhere recently and a glass office building in the mid-west with oddly comforting flags out front.

Suppositions about the historical precursors of presentism to falsely embed it in the known temporal context are welcomed.