2017 - A Google - Apple World?

As another Consumer Electronics Show (CES 2017) ended during the first week in January 2017, two different views of the fast approaching “autonomous car” infrastructure came to light. Based on these two views, I believe we as a global society are at a crossroads with respect to this new and exciting technology. I label this crossroads the Google – Apple inflection point. Hence, the title of this blog is “A Google – Apple World?”.

An article about emerging technology presented at CES 2017 illustrates this inflection point. The article is entitled “Microsoft’s Connected Vehicle Platform is a more far-reaching approach than either Apple’s or Google’s” by Kareem Anderson presented On_MSFT.com.

As an introduction to why we may be at an inflection point, I need to give a little background about the Consumer Electronics Show. This show is the largest consumer electronics show in the world. It has been held in January of each year since 2005. The following information is posted on the CES Tech website:

“CES 2016 was a record-breaking year. A total attendance of 177,393 gathered from across the globe to experience technology innovation spanning 2.47 million net square feet of exhibit space.
That's why CES is the world's gathering place for all who thrive on the business of consumer technology. No other event gives your company this depth of exposure and reach, because there's no other event experience like CES.”

Several people have noted that CES 2017 had attendance of about 150,000 but I could not verify the figures at the time of this blog. Per Wikipedia, the first CES was held in 1967.

The first CES was held in June 1967 in New York City. It was a spinoff from the Chicago Music Show, which until then had served as the main event for exhibiting consumer electronics. The event had 17,500 attendees and over 100 exhibitors; the kickoff speaker was Motorola chairman Bob Galvin.^[2] From 1978 to 1994, CES was held twice each year: once in January in Las Vegas known as Winter Consumer Electronics Show (WCES) and once in June in Chicago, known as Summer Consumer Electronics Show (SCES).”

CES started and is known as a show where “start-ups” and smaller companies can present their new ideas to the public. It presents a less expensive forum where these companies and innovators can network directly with manufacturers, dealers, distributors and the public before going into full production with their products. It gives these “start-ups” an idea of what the “market” may be for their idea prior to the large investment of production, distribution and full scale marketing.

“The International CES (Consumer Electronics Show^®) is the world's gathering place for all who thrive on the business of consumer technologies.
It's where business gets done: on the show floor, in and around our conference program, in impromptu connections and in planned meetings and special events.”

However, many of the largest technology innovators in the world also showcase their ideas, including Samsung, Sony, Google, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft. In addition, the major computer manufacturers such as Dell, HP, Samsung and Apple are also vying for media attention. For example, in the last few years, it has become a show which major automobile manufacturers have showcased new technology and concepts. Exhibitors include Toyota, Ford, BMW, Renault, Nissan, Honda and others. These large exhibitors often eclipse the smaller companies for both media coverage and interest. These “mega” corporations receive very valuable feedback regarding their new ideas and innovations just as the smaller start-up do.

Now that you understand a bit about the show, its premise and its venue, I will get back to my initial question – “A Google – Apple World?”. What does this mean? Are we at an “inflection” point and if so, what is it?

One of the newest technologies on the horizon is the “self-driving automobile.” This concept has been around (in science-fiction) for my lifetime and beyond. One representative example, in my lifetime, was the cartoon series entitled “the Jetsons.” My Dad and I used to watch it weekly when it was introduced on “prime time” television. He loved the show, as did I. The society of the Jetsons had robots and flying, “self-driving” cars.

The same idea was presented in one on my favorite movie trilogies, Back to the Future. The DeLorean time-machine was classic science-fiction in a real world setting.

Thirty to fifty years later, technology is finally catching up with the concepts presented in the Jetsons and Back to the Future. While we may wait a few years for flying cars, we do have technology which is beginning to make “self-driving” or “autonomous cars” a reality. Several traditional automobile manufacturers, such as Ford, Toyota and General Motors, are testing these cars today. Almost all auto manufacturers at least have this technology on the drawing board or in the planning stages.

However, the mega “technology” companies, such as Google, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft, are also in this “self-driving” automobile race as well. These self-driving cars are as dependent on technology equipment, wiring, computer chips and software programming as they are on machine parts, gears and engine blocks. To give an example, note the following.

Cars are being included in the IoT (internet of things), just like refrigerators, dishwashers and industrial system controllers. According to a November 2016 Machine Design magazine article entitled “Connected Cars Spell Opportunity for Manufacturing Distribution” by Victoria Fraza Kickham, this trend is well underway. Imaging cameras, LIDAR, radar and other sensing technology is ramping up in the automotive industry.

“Semiconductor sales for connected cars will see the most dramatic growth this year. For 2016, IC Insights says revenues of IoT semiconductors used in connected-cities applications are expected to rise 15% to about $11.4 billion while the connected vehicle category is projected to climb 66% to $787 million this year.”

However, this revolution goes far beyond merely selling chips, wiring, sensors or creating programs. It even eclipses selling computer operating systems such as has been Microsoft’s model since its inception. Per a Design Engineering Magazine December 2015 article entitled, “Intelligence and the Connected Car” by Peter Varhol:

“204% - amount that revenue from all digital audio content (entertainment, safety, vehicle management, etc.) is expected to grow between 2016 and 2021.” (source: PwC’s Connected Car Study, 2015

Clearly, the major technology companies want their part of this digital computer content market. But, it does not end there. The four major technology companies (Google, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft) are in competition to “own” the cloud based market. A major share in “the cloud” will probably be a “live or die” scenario for these companies over the next ten to twenty years. This market is known as “big data,” and it has everything to do with the collection, storage, management, distribution and manipulation of huge quantities of information from around the globe.

Not uncharacteristically, these four technology companies are taking a different approach to this future. In his January 2017 article entitled “Microsoft’s Connected Vehicle Platform is a more far-reaching approach than either Apple’s or Google’s,” Mr. Anderson notes the basic difference.

“While infotainment units are a measured quantity in a vehicle, and Apple and Google are looking to leverage their strong mobile presence in that specific area, it’s becoming clear that Microsoft, along with Amazon, are looking to take a road less traveled. Rather than putting a drivers focus on the in-dash unit of their car and forcing auto makers to pick and choose which of their inventory supports these mobile operating systems, Amazon and Microsoft are looking to leverage their impressive cloud services across hardware.”

Put simply, Apple and Google are looking to “extend our mobile experience from phones and simple tablets to automobiles. This is noted by Mr. Anderson as follows.

“While not directly tied to CES, Ford also announced several of its “smart cars” in-dash infotainment units will also support Android Auto as well as Apple’s CarPlay platforms. Nevertheless, both Apple and Google are looking to extend a consumers mobile experience, either through aftermarket additions or built-in hardware, offering another touch-screen-centric app focused interaction in the car.”

“In this future, autonomous cars become moving entertainment centers, fully equipped with the latest apps and are an extension of a user’s preferred smartphone experience.”

Microsoft and Amazon are leveraging their cloud based prowess.

“On the other side of the battlefield we are now seeing cloud computing giants such as Amazon and Microsoft take an indirect approach to the connect car.”

Simply stated, I believe Apple and Google have a short term, “cash in on today” philosophy, while Microsoft and Amazon have a “build a slower but more substantial longer term” infrastructure base. In my opinion, we need the longer-term infrastructure base to create a stable new “self-driving” transportation infrastructure.

As someone who writes about water and energy infrastructure issues in my blog, I have seen the same approach over the last 20 years in those critical infrastructure areas as well. Combating this “short term, cash in on today cheap fix” mentality is the reason I wrote my three books involving water, Understanding Water Rights and Conflicts, Second Edition, Understanding Water and Terrorism and Water, Our Most Precious Resource. Simply stated, I set out to enhance public education, so that in a democracy, the majority of people needing water and electrical services could make rational, reasonable decisions.

It is clear, the “self-driving,” autonomous automobile industry will probably become almost as critical an infrastructure as the water supply system and the electrical grid. This is why I believe what we do now may well be an “inflection” point for the industry going forward. Unfortunately, we tend to take a short-term view (“how can I make the most money in the shortest period of time approach”) to those infrastructures which impact us the most, regardless of consequence.

If Google – Apple win out in this battle, then “fast and cheap” may well win out over “longer term, well thought out” solutions. It is obvious that Google – Apple are going for very short term cash rather than long term stability. Clearly, this is the Google – Apple inflection point which we have reached between strategies in the rapidly expanding automotive “self-driving” technology infrastructure.

The automotive industry of the 20^th century obviously has advanced far past what I knew and grew up with. The “Ford assembly line” days are long gone. My son, as a mechanic, is more a computer technician than an old-style mechanic. Self-driving and autonomous cars are going to be extensions of our homes and business environments. But the question is, which direction will we take?

If things progress as I have seen in the water and energy infrastructures, we will follow the Google-Apple path. This is reason I believe we are becoming a Google – Apple world.

Sincerely,
H. Court Young
Author, publisher, speaker and geologist
Promoting awareness through the written word
Research, freelance writing & self-publishing services
Email: tmcco@msn.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/hcourtyoung
Blog: http://hcourtyoung.blogspot.com

Fresh Clean Water – A 2017 Infrastructure Crisis

Water is a requirement for life on Earth. Most water on the Earth is not fresh water, but brackish or saline, and as such, not generally usable by humans.

Humans can only exist for a few days without fresh drinking water. Almost all animals and plants on Earth require fresh water in some form or another.

There are three basic reasons for having clean fresh water. They are:

• 1. Basic needs such as drinking, cooking, washing etc.
• 2. Agriculture and food production including raising livestock
• 3. Other uses such as transportation, power generation, recreation, fire protection etc.

The World Resources Institute (WRI - http: //www.wri.org) estimated the percent of people worldwide with chronic water scarcity (lack of fresh water for basic needs) as follows.

Year – Percent of world population lacking water for basic needs

• 2000 – 3.7
• 2025 – 8.6
• 2050 – 17.8

In addition, the global water supply infrastructure is aging. For example, much of the infrastructure in the United States, and other developed countries, was installed over 50 years ago, and some over 100 years ago. These systems are currently at or exceed their engineering life. This puts even more of the world’s population at risk of water scarcity.

Clearly, in 2017, based on the figures presented above, things are not getting better but worse. In part, this is due to the increase in global population. However, in many cases this is due to poor water management, aging infrastructure and/or lack of infrastructure resources to create or maintain water supply systems.

For more information about our current global water crisis and what you can do to help in your locality, check out my newest book in EPUB format entitled Water, Our Most Precious Resource.

Sincerely,
H. Court Young
Geologist, author & publisher
Promoting awareness through the written word
Blog: http://hcourtyoung.blogspot.com
Amazon: Water Our Most Precious Resource

Have Things Changed - 2016?

 

As the 2016 United States Presidential election fades into history, I wanted to pose a simple question to my readers. Have things changed in 2016?

The answer to that question, clearly, has many levels. While we must wait for answers in relationship to the presidency of Donald Trump, there are things we need to be aware of and watch for. For instance, President-Elect Trump made his campaign about “making America great” again. One of the ways he has proposed doing it is to rebuild Americas infrastructure.

What does this look like and what is included? As I have watched previous administrations throughout my lifetime make the same type of commitment (using different phrases), what happened was significantly different than what was truly needed. What do I mean by that statement, you ask?

We all notice the obvious upgrades and repairs which take place. Road and bridge repairs are easy to spot. These are transportation related facilities, and, as noted in many of my previous blogs, are easy for the politicians to spend money on. The expense is subsidized by the ever increasing fuel and vehicle taxes and more importantly the completed repairs are obvious. We see and “feel” the results. It is a good feeling when you drive on a newly paved street or highway. We know that something is being improved with the money we spend in taxes.

While the transportation infrastructure connects our society, and is necessary, there are two even more critical infrastructures. As I have in written several books, as well as, numerous blogs, these two critical infrastructures are the water supply system and the electrical grid. Without these two interconnected infrastructures, our modern, global society would rapidly devolve into chaos. In the extreme, without fresh water, life would cease to exist.

However, both the water and electrical infrastructures are relatively complex. With respect to the water infrastructure, most of it is below ground, out of sight (and seemingly out of mind – except to a relative few). There is no simple way for the “public” or “average American” to assess what progress is being made with respect to these two infrastructures. They can’t point to a newly installed water pipeline, electrical transformer or electrical transmission line, like they can with a newly paved highway or newly built bridge.

The interconnectivity between these two infrastructures can be demonstrated with a simple example. Water and wastewater systems both require an extensive array of electrical powered pumps, filters, and processing equipment to just process and move water from one place to another. Conversely, power plants require cooling water and steam to turn generators to produce that same electricity. These are two very symbiotic infrastructures, without one the other could not exist on a national or global basis. In addition, modern agriculture requires water to be pumped, both for irrigation, and in processing the food we eat.

One article in Water Technology magazine (July 2016) entitled “The Aging US infrastructure” by Louise Musial gives several sobering statistics about our water infrastructure. For example, the author notes the following about the cost:

“According to the American Water Works Association (AWWA) study, ‘Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge,’ if the country is to maintain even the current levels of water service, restoring existing water systems and expanding them to serve a growing population will cost at least $1 trillion over the next 25 years.”

To put the relative cost in perspective:

“Even though water is an essential part of everyday life, residents pay much less for it than cable television or any other utility. The current water rates do not accurately reflect the actual cost of supplying clean, reliable drinking water or wastewater management and discharge to the U.S. population.”

The current state of our water infrastructure is noted as follows.

“In the most recent report by the American Society of Civil Engineers, the U.S. earned a grade of D for its water and wastewater infrastructure. It is not surprising that many of its most neglected water treatment systems are in need of maintenance and repairs and have not been upgraded in decades.”

This annual grade of “D” by the American Society of Civil Engineers has persisted through several United States presidential administrations (both Republican and Democrat) and numerous Congresses. A good example is the recent water challenges faced by the City of Detroit.

Given this background, what can you do as a water consumer? How can you begin to be part of the solution to the challenges faced by these “out of sight” critical infrastructures?

First, you can become knowledgeable. One relatively easy way to do so is to read. It is for this reason, I am making my newest book available in electronic format as a digital eBook. This 100-page eBook entitled Water, Our Most Precious Resource gives an overview of the water challenges we face. It explains the relationship between the water and electrical infrastructure in simple, understandable terms.

The introduction presents my focus in this book.

“Humans can only exist for a few days without fresh drinking water. Almost all animals and plants on Earth require water in some form or another. Water, a combination of hydrogen and oxygen, is essential for life.

Even though 70% of the Earth’s surface is covered in water, fresh water is still a scarce resource. The water in the oceans is saline, unusable for agriculture and drinking.

The largest use of water on Earth is not for drinking but for growing our food. We use it to grow our crops and our livestock. Much of the agriculture water is diverted from rivers and lakes onto fields through irrigation ditches, canals and pipelines. In semi-arid sections of the world, like southern Arizona and California, we divert large quantities of water through large open canals hundreds of miles to irrigate crops.

Much of the world still lacks water for basic needs such as drinking and sanitation. In many cases this is due to poor water management or lack of infrastructure resources.

This book, Water, Our Most Precious Resource, explains some of the issues we face due to past poor water management and lack of infrastructure. In addition, it explains some ways these challenges can be remedied and what role each of us can play in the solution to an ongoing global water crisis.”

The following link gives you access to this informative digital publication on Amazon.

Water, Our Most Precious Resource

Second, you can get involved. Attend local water board meetings. Talk to the water board members. Many water boards have outreach programs. There are also numerous educational programs at universities and colleges. One very good program is exemplified by the following.

Metropolitan State University of Denver – One World One Water

While “time will tell” about the new Trump administration in its effort to “Make America Great,” time is against us with respect to the water and electrical infrastructure. The water lines, purification plants, pumping systems, electrical transformers, generators, electrical towers and power lines are all aging. Many are past their “engineering life.” For example, a significant number of water lines in the United States with an estimated engineering life of 50 years are more than 100 years old.

We, as a society, as well as, part of a global community, face a huge challenge. Clearly, the political landscape and focus needs to change on many levels. Governments, corporations, businesses and individuals all need to be involved to redirect efforts from “business as usual” to “these things need to be done for our society to be a sustainable entity.”

Its obvious, the politicians alone, given their dismal track record cannot be depended on to remedy these immense challenges (they clearly prefer the “business as usual” model). In my opinion, the answer to my question, “Have things changed,” is a resounding “No,” as of 2016 with respect to these very critical infrastructures. This does not bode well for either our water infrastructure or the electrical grid.

It is past time for you, my dear reader, to take some time and educate yourself, then get involved. Your future, and that of future generations, is at stake.

Sincerely,

H. Court Young
Author, publisher, speaker and geologist
Promoting awareness through the written word
Research, freelance writing & self-publishing services
Facebook: HCourtYoung
Phone: 303-726-8320
Email: tmcco@msn.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/hcourtyoung
Twitter: http://twitter.com/hcourtyoung
Blog: http://hcourtyoung.blogspot.com

Sent by Windows 10

Windows 10 and Emerging Technology

 

As the excitement of our political conventions wind down, I turn my attention to an issue that is far more relevant to our daily lives and certainly more entertaining to me. Microsoft is rolling out its new Windows 10 Redstone Edition on August 2, 2016. It brings new capabilities and possibilities to computing and the internet. Along with the new software, new hardware is making an appearance. We are on the cusp of a variety of exciting new emerging technologies in both hardware and software.

We can get a glimpse of this technology by using the new Windows Hello functionality in Windows 10. This allows us to log in to our computers, phones and tablets with a finger print or facial recognition. Microsoft notes the following about this new technology.

“Windows Hello is a more personal way to sign in to your Windows 10 devices with just a look or a touch. You’ll get enterprise-grade security without having to type in a password.” -- Source: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/17215/windows-10-what-is-hello

I have been using this technology since the July 29, 2015 release of the first Windows 10, and find it works very well. As a member of the “Windows Insider” program, I reviewed the evolving technology as for the last year or more. Microsoft continued development and the result is this August 2, 2016 release to manufacturing (RTM) software, known as Windows 10 – Redstone Edition.

The idea of signing into a computer without using the “time-honored” password is fascinating to me, especially as I get older. Microsoft noted that it wants to have this technology apply across platforms (Android, Apple and Windows) and across websites. If Microsoft has their way, you can use the same technology to sign into all the other websites you normally use a password login for (your bank, Amazon, Google, etc.), as you do your computer. Think of never having to remember a password again. However, this is just the tip of the iceberg with respect to technology.

Go back in time with me. Using bio-metrics such as facial recognition, voice recognition, iris recognition and finger print recognition has been the stuff of science fiction over my lifetime and through out the 20^th century. Conversing with a computer has been a goal for a long time. Examples of this technology have been immortalized on the movie and television screen.

“Since the 1950s, when artificial intelligence (AI) first got serious funding, media and industry hype has fueled the belief that someday there will be an entity such as Hal, the sentient computer in the classic sci-fi movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, or, more recently, the array of artificial in the computers and “Humanich” androids in the current TV show Extant.” – Speech Technology, Speech Technology in the IoT Era, Nancy Jamison, Winter 2015

Speech technology, now known as conversational technology or conversational computing, can also be seen in one of the most viewed movie and television series of all time – Star Trek, which has long been a favorite of mine. I have a hard time forgetting the scene in Star Trek VI – The Voyage Home, when Scotty {the Engineer] tries to use a computer at an industrial facility. The Starship Enterprise and crew have gone back in time to present day Earth. The Star Trek engineer tries to talk to an IBM computer, using the mouse, in a parody of the way he normally does on the ship, clearly, to no avail.

It is hard to conceive of the Internet of Things (IoT) and a connected world without the use of conversational technology. The scope of this technology is noted by Ms. Jamison:

“The Internet of Things (IoT), made up of everything from wearables to connected health and the connected home, has led hundreds to companies to work on and deliver products that automate tasks and use and generate data. Indeed, Frost and Sullivan forecasts that the “connected living” concept, comprised of the connected home, connected work, and even connected cities, will be a $731.79 billion market by 2020. Speech and voice technology will undoubtedly boast a major slice of it. Vendors such as Amazon are backing projects to develop voice control of everything from kitchen appliances to home security systems.”

As the Microsoft Windows Hello technology spreads, along with the introduction of new computer hardware, appropriate cameras, scanners and readers to take advantage of the software capabilities, more people will discover, as I have, that “logging on” with a glance or by touch is so much easier and faster. There have been several times when, as a Windows Insider, using the pre-release builds of Windows 10, that I have had to think for a few minutes to remember what my logon password was. I had gotten so used to using my pin (a four letter password), fingerprint or a glance at the screen, that my password seemed like a thing from the past. When I turn on my Surface Pro 4, the camera lights up and a “smiley face” comes up to log me on. A glance at the screen is all it takes.

As futuristic as this technology is, there is a global downside. Even though you are probably thinking “security,” this is not the real core issue. Security can be problematic, but there is a much deeper issue which goes to the foundation of our global society.

The idea of faster, easier and more human-like interaction with our connected devices presents two basic challenges. One is the extreme proliferation of data, rapidly expanding from terabytes to petabytes to exabytes. This data expansion is the prime driver of “the cloud.” Without “the cloud”, (huge data centers of thousands of computers) to store the data, along with the ability to process immense amounts of data, progress in this connected technology would be difficult at best.

However, beyond data storage and processing, there is a second, far more serious challenge presented as this technology progresses. These connected systems and required “cloud” are stressing the basic infrastructure of our global world, but probably not in the way you might think. Most of the data centers being built today use renewable energy and are very self-contained.

Because of the proliferation of electrical devices in this IoT and connected world, we need a very stable electrical grid, both to charge and to operate all these devices. This is a huge concern. Electric transmission lines, relay stations, transformers and other critical system components were developed for a 20^th century world, where there were a limited number of electrical devices in use. To be sure, a cell phone and many devices in use today are very energy efficient, however, they all require “always on” electricity in several different forms. For example, cell phones use batteries to operate, which have to be charged. But, they also need the “always on” electrical components in cell towers to relay signals.

Another key component of the electrical grid is the water infrastructure. Water is used not only to generate electricity, either via stream turbines or as hydroelectric turbines, but as cooling water for power plants, both conventional and nuclear. The water infrastructure is also under extreme stress due to overuse, climatic variations and growing population. It has also suffered badly from lack of maintenance, repair and upgrading.

Clearly, without a stable and “always on” electrical grid our technology would grind to a halt within a few hours or days. Chaos would reign. The more enmeshed we get into this wonderful, connected technology, the more vulnerable we become.

While I am far from a luddite, I am concerned. To this end, I present over 100 of these infrastructure and other challenges we face, plus some expert predictions in my downloadable EBook entitled World Collapse or New Eden, 2015 Edition.

So my question is, and has been, for the last twelve years or more; why haven’t we spent money, time and resources on strengthening this global infrastructure base upon which our emerging technology relies? After all, it is in our best interest on a global basis to do so. Why is this not the number one issue in our elections? How many of our political leaders, candidates and elected officials have you heard discuss these infrastructure issues in any meaningful way (beyond just platitudes)? As noted in previous blogs, we have no long term repair, replacement or upgrade policy for either the energy or water infrastructure. Even our discussion of the mix of our energy generation, coal, wind, solar, nuclear, is haphazard at best by those in the industry. Long term planning, in these infrastructures, which take decades to plan and build, is now defined by next month’s profit and loss statement.

The only long term policy for both the energy and water infrastructure seems to stem around money and power (no pun intended). “Let’s not spend any money, time or resources on repair, maintenance, installation, or replacement” is the mantra revolving around the basic infrastructure of today’s world. We seemingly don’t need educated people in the form of engineers and scientists, or even a critical thinking public, because they are not the people who are respected in our society. Clearly, it is the sports figures, actors, top CEOs and even the Wall Street financial programmers who are being raised up on a pedestal and rewarded financially.

A good example of this was my own upbringing in the 1960s. With the proclamation of the goal to reach the moon by 1969 by President Kennedy, many of my generation went into science and engineering. It was deemed “cool” to aspire to achieve that goal many of us wanted to be a part of something bigger than ourselves. Today, the development of “apps” and the creation of a firm around those apps, regardless of profitably or long term viability is the model. Just look at Twitter and Facebook (disclaimer - I use both for keeping in touch and marketing). Look at the incredible talent, in all fields, not just programmers, going into the financial markets of Wall Street to help develop “quants” and other market trading software, just to make money.

Sadly, our “leaders,” whether in elected public office, government or private corporations are not helping this crisis. They should be fostering discussions around the energy and other critical infrastructures but aren’t. They don’t appear to be looking for solutions either. They could, at the very least, like President Kennedy, be pushing for an expanded NASA, with goals to reach into the universe. This would at least say to the young generation that they need to think about goals beyond just enriching themselves. They could also be pushing ways to make education more affordable for our youth, as the discredited Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders did. The main goal of our elected and corporate leaders seems to be making the most money possible in the least amount of time and retiring at a very young age with huge benefit packages or stock options.

At the other end of the spectrum, the general public (read voter) apparently is more interested in the “side-show” of the recently ended “presidential conventions” or the Sunday afternoon football game (soccer in much of the rest of the world), than demanding discussions concerning these major issues, and many others, from those they aspire to elect. After all, while our leaders are in positions to make changes, they also realize that the general public can be very easily distracted by many things, and they are masters of distraction. Seemingly, to even hear a discussion involving these critical infrastructure issues, whether, energy, water, highways and bridges or communications, you need to go down to a very local level, with the people who are actually maintaining/installing/repairing the systems. Typically, these people have very little input with reference to direction or policy regarding their respective infrastructure on a national or international basis.

As I log in to my Surface Pro 4 using facial recognition or my fingerprint, I marvel at the possibilities. From Windows 10 to Microsoft’s new HoloLens, with its Holographic computing, the future is full of promise, in almost every human endeavor. The more I use the cloud for data storage and can access my data across my laptop, phone or tablet, the less chained I am to an office or even a specific device. Speech and bio-metrics, along with the cloud, are emerging technology and leading the way to an amazing “new” world, despite the daunting challenges.

As Ms. Jamison notes in her article:

“… it is an exciting time to be in speech technology and in technology in general.”

Sincerely,

H. Court Young
Author, publisher, speaker and geologist
Promoting awareness through the written word
Research, freelance writing & self-publishing services
Facebook: HCourtYoung
Phone: 303-726-8320
Email: tmcco@msn.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/hcourtyoung
Twitter: http://twitter.com/hcourtyoung
Blog: http://hcourtyoung.blogspot.com

Sent by Windows 10

The Wonder of Transparency – Missing in Banking and Politics

 

As we progress (?) from one political party’s convention (Republican) to the next convention (Democratic), I saw a comment about the Republican Convention that got me to thinking about transparency. These conventions were designed to delineate policy for each of the party’s candidates, regardless of the political level. Candidates from the vaunted dog catcher of a local municipality to the presidential and congressional candidates, are defined by their adherence to these policies, called platforms, if they take on the “R” or “D” label.

So what does this have to do with transparency? First, I will present some background.

One area which has become very opaque is the financial sector. There is much deception, fraud and corruption, just like in politics.

The business relationship between commercial and investment banking and insurance, known as the financial industries, is a complex one. Early in another depression (yes we are currently also in a depression), the American leadership tried to clarify the relationship between and legislate these financial industries in 1933. A major piece of legislation, the Banking Act of 1933, became known as the Glass-Steagall Act. It is explained as follows:

“Congress saw the need for substantial reform of the banking system, which eventually came in the Banking Act of 1933, or the Glass-Steagall Act. The bill was designed “to provide for the safer and more effective use of the assets of banks, to regulate interbank control, to prevent the undue diversion of funds into speculative operations, and for other purposes.” The measure was sponsored by Sen. Carter Glass (D-VA) and Rep. Henry Steagall (D-AL). Glass, a former Treasury secretary, was the primary force behind the act. Steagall, then chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, agreed to support the act with Glass after an amendment was added to permit bank deposit insurance.¹ On June 16, 1933, President Roosevelt signed the bill into law.” - Glass Steagall Act - http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1504.html, http://www.federalreservehistory.org/Events/DetailView/25,

It seems that during that previous financial crisis our country’s leadership were also “under extreme pressure” by their “constituency” to “do something.” Based on the nature of this Banking Act, increased public and regulatory transparency was deemed to be needed. It was manifested as a separation between traditional banking and more speculative commercial and investment banking.

I recently watched a documentary on YouTube about the use of technology in investing entitled Wall Street Code – https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GEAGdwHXfLQ. The introduction to this video shows the “sleepy” very passive nature of mortgage banking prior to the leveraging of technology in investing. At that time, mortgages were thought to be the basis of our financial society and security. As such, they were “rock solid,” highly rated and very low risk. After all, people never defaulted on their homes because they were checked financially and could not get a mortgage if they didn’t “qualify.” Mortgage banking was presented as extremely boring, as nothing ever changed since the implementation of the 1933 legislation.

However, in the early years of the 21^st century, these rock solid investments were modified to make them more “sexy” due to changes in this 1933 legislation. Yields increased and the investment community started making “big” bucks with very low risk. To fuel this massive “cash cow”, more and more people had to be able to get mortgages, regardless of financial qualifications. While the financial ratings of the mortgages stayed the same, increased risk was introduced via non-qualified buyers.

Part of this change was brought about by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1999. The following history is noted by Dave Manuel on his website, dated July 23, 2016.

“On November 12th, 1999, Bill Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed SOME of the provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act. … So, as a result of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a commercial bank would be able to buy an insurance company, or a commercial bank would be able to buy an investment bank, etc.

The three co-sponsors of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act were:

Sen. Phil Gramm - R
Rep. Jim Leach - R
Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. – R

In 1999, the Republicans held a majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The final version of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed the House by a vote of 362-57 and the Senate by a vote of 90-8. This made the bill "veto proof", meaning that if Clinton had decided to veto, the bill would have been passed anyways. Having said that, if Clinton truly didn't want the bill to become law, he could have vetoed the bill in a symbolic gesture, but this did not happen.

Many people point to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act as a major reason why the financial sector imploded in 2008.

When it comes to pointing fingers, both parties get the blame. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was co-sponsored by three Republicans, signed into law by a Democratic president and had the overwhelming support of both parties when it was eventually passed.” - http://www.davemanuel.com/fact-check-did-bill-clinton-repeal-the-glass-steagall-act-120/

Both Republicans and Democrats in positons of leadership and power benefitted greatly from these changes in the financial system. Massive transfers of wealth from the bottom 99% to the top 1% took place due to this change in legislation. Anyone in management of a bank such as Goldman Sachs, or the financial system, such as Ted Cruz’s wife, obviously benefited immensely.

Two distinct positions have been taking form since the financial crisis of 2008. The pro-Republican position is that one of the main causes of the financial meltdown of 2008/2009 is reported to be the repeal that separated commercial banking from investment banking. A USA Today article by James Rickards entitled Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis, dated August 27, 2012 notes:

“The big bank boosters and analysts who should know better are repeating the falsehood that repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with the Panic of 2008.

In fact, the financial crisis might not have happened at all but for the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall law that separated commercial and investment banking for seven decades. If there is any hope of avoiding another meltdown, it's critical to understand why Glass-Steagall repeal helped to cause the crisis. Without a return to something like Glass-Steagall, another greater catastrophe is just a matter of time.” - http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/27/repeal-of-glass-steagall-caused-the-financial-crisis

Mr. Rickards states the cause of the financial meltdown in simple terms:

“It was Glass-Steagall that prevented the banks from using insured depositories to underwrite private securities and dump them on their own customers. This ability along with financing provided to all the other players was what kept the bubble-machine going for so long.”

A more liberal and moderate position is as follows. Aaron Klein of the Brookings Institute writes in his July 19, 2016 article entitled Why is Glass-Steagall so politically popular and what does it really mean?

“Glass-Steagall separated the commercial and investment banking and the business of insurance from each other. Firms had to specialize in one of those areas and could not cross business lines. Separating business lines was a response to the factors that caused the Great Depression.

The surprise last-minute addition of a plank in the Republican platform embracing Glass-Steagall Act mirrors a call in the Democratic platform inserted by Bernie Sanders’ supporters to do the same, in spite of the fact that Hillary Clinton has explicitly rejected it.

Including it in the GOP platform is surprising and is a major about-face for Republicans. It contradicts House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), who just weeks ago proposed an alternative financial regulatory system of increasing minimum bank capital in return for less regulation. Repealing Glass-Steagall in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 was a signature victory of the conservative movement’s deregulatory agenda, which was also supported by President Bill Clinton. Why is Glass-Steagall now so politically popular and what does it really mean?

Bringing back Glass-Steagall is good politics and bad public policy, as is often the case. It is good politics because it taps into the belief by the American public that the Depression Era generation, faced with their financial crisis, made smart reforms that worked. Those changes did work and many of them still do, such as federal deposit insurance, the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission to police Wall Street, and a series of investment laws designed to protect investors. At some point, the thinking goes, we strayed from the wisdom of our grandparents, and in our zest to harness the powers of markets we made critical mistakes, unleashing a tide of forces that created our own financial crisis. Almost a decade later after the Great Recession, the American public is still extremely angry at Wall Street and wants change.” - http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2016/07/19-why-is-glass-steagall-so-politically-popular-what-does-it-really-mean-klein

However, along came the election cycle of 2016. With an increasingly “ingrown” political elite, distinctions between the candidates and political parties are required, whether they exist or not. As such, the financial system became one of those distinctions. Needless to say, the repeal of Glass-Steagall is a very politically charged issue in today’s political climate. Both political parties are jockeying for position on this economic issue in the election of 2016. The following quotations make this very apparent.

While I am not taking a position on the reinstitution of the Glass-Steagall Act issue, it is important to note the Republican “plank.” The following was noted about Donald Trump’s speech to the convention on July 22, 2016. It is as follows:

“No mention of efforts to cut financial regulation. Nothing about the Republican Party platform's new aim to break up the big banks. And not a word about Hillary Clinton's long-standing ties to Wall Street kingpins and the tens of millions she's accepted in donations from them.

Trump's failure to mention banks was all the more surprising considering that one of the few tidbits of actual policy news to come out of the Republican gathering in Cleveland was a plank in the party platform to reinstitute the Glass-Steagall Act. Since the Great Depression, that regulation had installed a firewall between commercial and investment banking, but its repeal in 1998 is often cited as helping cause the financial crisis.”

Source: http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/the-one-key-word-that-trump-left-out-of-his-rnc-speech/ar-BBuFKK5?li=BBnb4R7

My perspective on this issue, as we go into the Democratic Convention is similar to that of my previous blog, entitled American Infrastructure – One of the Things Which Defies Logic, http://hcourtyoung.blogspot.com/2016/07/american-infrastructure-one-of-things.html. Regardless of the statements to the contrary made by the long standing politicians such as Hillary, Cruz, McCain, Romney, Christy and others, they have benefitted by keeping the status quo. They clearly are the problem, not the solution.

How and why is this so?

It is fairly simple, maybe even transparent. There have been very few “new” faces in leadership in Washington D.C. for a long time. Those that say they are new, typically come from the “political” or “economic” elite. Many, such as the Bush family, are from “political dynasties” formed from years in power and are accustomed to wealth. They, and their colleagues, Republican and Democrat, have had years to resolve the economic and political problems. However, the same problems remain with very little happening except those same people amassing immense wealth for themselves and their heirs. How can we continue to think about electing people like Hillary, Jeb, Ted or Chris, as well as, many of our candidates who currently reside as fixtures in Congress in Washington, D.C., when we truly need both fresh ideas and a different view of the world?

Candidates like Donald Trump, the current Republican nominee, and the deposed Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders, are truly fresh faces on the political scene. While you may not like their ideas, policy positions or personalities, either of these men would bring a different perspective to the office of President. Mr. Sanders was truly marginalized by the Democratic party, and they tried the same with Mr. Trump. These are not the only people this has happened to. One great example from previous elections was Ron Paul. He had the support of many of our youth in his campaign but was totally marginalized by the Republican party in favor of the candidate of the Bush dynasty.

As you watch the upcoming Democratic convention, take heed of the candidate’s statements and party positions. Ask yourself several questions. Where have you heard these statements before? How many times? For how many years? What has changed? If you are truly honest with yourself, you can’t escape the fact that the vast majority of politicians are saying the same things in 2016 that they were saying in past election cycles. For example, Hilary Clinton’s positions are very similar to that of her husband President Bill Clinton. You might counter that this is only “party politics” which she must adhere. But still, what really do you think will change with her in office?

You have a unique opportunity to change this political structure. Donald Trump, truly, is a new face in American politics. Is he the ideal solution? Probably not. I definitely don’t think he will accomplish anywhere as much as many people would like to see. However, the real opportunity is twofold and probably longer term.

First, he will bring new ideas and a new business perspective to the Washington beltway, and to the political and economic elite, which has been in power for these many years. While the changes may be slight, it doesn’t take much of a directional change in thinking to alter the course of leadership over a generation. Hopefully, he will bring a measure of transparency to our current political and economic (banking) systems.

Secondly, and maybe more importantly, his children, who are in business with him, seem to be very bright and well educated. With a Trump presidency, may come a completely new, more business oriented (as opposed to crony capitalistic) dynasty to the American political scene. American politics, just like the politics of Russia, China and all the other first world countries of the world, seem to require the development of dynasties in order to continue in leadership positions for more than a few years [note President Jimmy Carter]. I suggest it is time to introduce a new political dynasty to the American political scene. Who knows, it might be much more transparent than those we currently have.

Sincerely,

H. Court Young
Author, publisher, speaker and geologist
Promoting awareness through the written word
Research, freelance writing & self-publishing services
Facebook: HCourtYoung
Phone: 303-726-8320
Email: tmcco@msn.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/hcourtyoung
Twitter: http://twitter.com/hcourtyoung
Blog: http://hcourtyoung.blogspot.com

Sent by Windows 10

American Infrastructure – One of the Things Which Defies Logic

 

As America just celebrated its 240^th birthday on July 4, 2016, I noted that I have been seeing an increasing number of articles about the state of the United States water and electrical infrastructure. As I reviewed these articles, both current and historic, a pattern which defies logic (at least in my opinion) is clearly apparent. Before I explain this statement, I need to present some background.

When I wrote and published my two books involving the water infrastructure (Understanding Water Rights and Conflicts, Second Edition, 2004) and (Understanding Water and Terrorism, 2010), I was very concerned with the state of America’s water and electrical infrastructure. These books were written with the intention of presenting a simple, easy to understand explanation of these two infrastructures and the relationship between them. Both books are available in EPub and Kindle format at the links above.

Following is a select list of a few of the many articles which I have scanned and organized since the years I published these two books. Note this list is not at all comprehensive but it does reflect the tone of the engineering, electrical and water professionals who understand the problem. It also reflects the variety of publications which touch on these very critical infrastructures.

Article Title	Publication	Publication Date
Denver Firm’s Mine Poisons River	Rocky Mountain News	August 23, 1995
The 138 Billion Dollar Clean Water Solution	NUCA Magazine	April 1997
EPA Forecasts Clean Water Treatment Needs	Environmental Marketplace News	October 1997
Nation’s Water Costs Rushing Higher	USA Today	September 28, 2002
Congress Trims State Revolving Funds	WaterWorld	Feb 2012
New Report Highlights Staggering Costs Ahead for Water Infrastructure	WaterWorld Magazine, Waterworld.com	April 2012
How a Smart Water system can save money	Water/Wastewater Magazine	April 2012
Troubled Waters	Christian Science Monitor Weekly	December 3, 2012
The Pending Water Shortage	Chemical Engineering Magazine	June 2013
The Power of Water	Net Zero Magazine, www.nzhmagazne.com	September 2013
Water Wise	Emergency Management Magazine	Sept/Oct 2014
Americans’ Deeply Concerned about Water Infrastructure	WaterWorld Magazine, Waterworld.com	March 2016
Billions Pledged to Improve US Water Infrastructure	WaterWorld Magazine, Waterworld.com	May 2016
Senate Panel Eyes Water Infrastructure Needs	WaterWorld Magazine, Waterworld.com	June 2016
Poor US Infrastructure Could Cost $1.4 Trillion in 10 Years	Material Handling and Logistics (NHL) Magazine, MHLNews.com	June 2016
National Infrastructure shortfall continues to grow	Logistics Management Magazine, Logisticsmgmt.com	June 2016

The June, 2016 Logistics Management magazine article entitled National Infrastructure shortfall continues to grow sums up the challenge very well. It states:

“An ongoing and ever-mounting deficit for U.S. infrastructure continues to be the norm., according to the most recent edition of the “Failure of Act” report by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Lack of sufficient investment into infrastructure will result in U. S. businesses being less efficient, with business productivity and GDP falling, coupled with drops in employment and personal income. From a financial perspective, ASCE said that from 2016 to 2025, each U. S. household stands to lose $3,500 in disposable income annually because of infrastructure deficiencies, with that loss pegged to rise to $5,100 annually from 2026 to 2040 if not addressed. And if it goes unattended by 2025, the U. S. economy is expected to lose nearly $4 trillion in GDP with a loss of 2.5 million jobs. As for the current state of U. S. infrastructure, ASCE was clear that the U. S. infrastructure is not making the grade, giving it an average of D+.”

Given that this is the case, and that the ASCE gave the infrastructure the same “D” grade back in 2002, and before, things have not changed much. As I note in my book Understanding Water and Terrorism:

“Humans can live only minutes without air, several days without water and weeks without food. Yet, for most of us, the thought of not having “a drink of water” when we are thirsty is foreign. Very few of us would deliberately forgo a drink of water for even a day. The average amount of water used per person (depending on activity) is .2 to 15 liters a day (3.7 liters=1 gallon) with the average drink being .2 liters.

Because water is so important to our survival, our water supply systems were identified as one of eight critical infrastructure systems in Presidential Decision Directive 63 (PDD 63). This Directive issued on May 22, 1998, was intended to achieve and maintain the capability to protect our nation’s critical infrastructure from intentional acts of terror.”

However, even with numerous books and an increasing number of articles about these two critical infrastructures, the electrical grid and the water supply system, Americans don’t appear to comprehend the reality of the problem. The following is from my blog entitled “Heightened Awareness” presented in October 2006.

“Only heightened public awareness of issues like energy, water and terrorism will really make a difference to the survival of this country. While very few of us need to be experts, a good working knowledge about these extremely important topics allows us to exchange meaningful ideas and question the experts and leadership. For some reason our politicians are unwilling to lead us. So the general public needs to take the lead. Need we continue to be puerile about these issues?

Sadly, it seems to me that our country’s leadership actually reflects us very well. We all seem to want instant answers and quick fixes. It seems that both major political parties, Republicans and Democrats, are more motivated by self-interest than whether America survives as a country. The latest public outcry is often designed to deflect our attention away from key survival issues. The economic bottom line seems to be the most important issue in our lives and our society.

Worse, we do not seem to realize the need to know more about these critical survival issues. We seem to be satisfied with the information contained in 60 second sound bites, unwilling to make an effort to become informed to have meaningful discussions, find viable solutions and insuring that we can maintain our way of life.”

Clearly this problem of a rapidly declining infrastructure has transcended four, if not more, presidential administrations. Starting with the Clinton Administration, and continuing through the current administration, the ASCE infrastructure grade has remained at a level of “D.” This clearly is not a “Republican” or “Democratic” issue, since it spanned both types of administrations. The minor changes / improvements made over the last 30 years do not even begin to address the problem with either of these infrastructures. They don’t even keep up with the degradation due to the passage of time.

You might say the improvement / replacement of these infrastructures is purely in the hands of the utilities which own and operate them. If they were completely a private enterprise, that might be true. However, these utilities are public-private entities. They are governed by federal regulation and take “public money” for operation and maintenance. This quasi-municipal status puts them directly into the public arena, and subject to the whims of the political elite and ruling class.

So how do these two infrastructures defy logic? Let me explain.

Given that we need both the water and electrical infrastructure to survive (both personally and as a society), and that the decline of these infrastructures has been consistent and constant over the last four administrations, why do we keep electing the same class of people to both Congress and the Presidency? Yes, they may be different because they have an “R” or “D” behind their names, but they state the same old platitudes, positions and espouse the same policies. The people we have put into office (president and congress) over the last 30 years have clearly been totally ineffective with respect to leadership involving our water infrastructure and electrical grid.

These two infrastructures are critical to the survival and sustainability of our society, yet presidential administrations and congresses come and go, and there is no change. Waiting for them to make the necessary changes via their leadership clearly is not working. Things are actually getting worse, as the engineering life of the components are ebbing away. The majority of the water infrastructure is definitely beyond its engineering life of 50 years. The electrical grid is continuously being overtaxed due to the exponential advance of technology and the use of the cloud. How can we continue to re-elect the same people to “leadership” positions given the fact that they are unwilling to make the changes that are so critically necessary to sustain our society? It seems logical to me that we, as the electorate, would at some point in time, take notice that our survival is actually at risk, and demand change by putting people in leadership positions who have a chance of making the necessary changes in focus, or at the very least, actually talk about making changes.

Take the current election cycle for the U. S. President. Why are we, as a society, even thinking of electing someone who is a member of the “political class”, such as Hillary Clinton. She has been a “political insider” and member of the “1%” ruling elite since her husband was president. How can we truly expect any change beyond some minor fixes around the “edge” of the problem, with people like her in office? They seem to want to keep the “status quo” because they are being enriched by the current system and see no reason to change.

This is probably the best reason to vote for someone like Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders. Clearly they are not “political insiders,” nor have they been in political leadership. It stands to reason that, while we may not like their stated positions, there is a possibility that they may bring a new psychology to the top “ruling elite” and political class. Their election to office has a chance to slightly shift the course of this country. For example, both of these men espouse positions far different than that of the “political insiders.” This is clearly the case, otherwise there would not be the extreme push from the Republican and Democratic leadership, and their financial supporters, to have both candidates marginalized and discredited, in favor of more “traditional candidates.”

We have, for the last 30 years, been “shooting ourselves in the foot” with respect to our most important critical infrastructure components the water infrastructure and electrical grid. By electing and re-electing these same people to political office and leadership, we have lost time, expertise and opportunity to make the changes necessary for converting 19^th century infrastructures into 21^st century infrastructures. It defies logic to believe that anything will change with respect to the water or electrical infrastructure based on past performance, if people like Hillary, Jeb or Ted, as well as the many other “political insiders”, are kept in “leadership” roles in this country.

Sincerely,

H. Court Young
Author, publisher, speaker and geologist
Promoting awareness through the written word
Research, freelance writing & self-publishing services
Facebook: HCourtYoung
Phone: 303-726-8320
Email: tmcco@msn.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/hcourtyoung
Twitter: http://twitter.com/hcourtyoung
Blog: http://hcourtyoung.blogspot.com

Perfect 2016 Presidential Team?

 

In a year of political firsts, the United States presidential election of 2016 has been unique. This has been, in large part, the result of the Republican candidate Donald Trump. Mr. Trump has intrigued American voters and heightened interest in the American presidential campaign of 2016. This interest in the campaign has been the highest that I remember in many years. In fact, it has actually, at times, been amusing. That, it itself, is almost a first.

However, Mr. Trump has been considered a potential candidate for several years. His political visibility since the 1988 presidential election has been summarized as follows:

“Since the 1988 presidential election, Trump has been considered a potential candidate for President in nearly every election.^[23][24][25] In October 1999, Trump declared himself a potential candidate for the Reform Party's presidential nomination,^[26] but withdrew on February 14, 2000.^[27] In 2004, Trump said that he identified as a Democrat in many cases and expressed support for Hillary Clinton's ability to negotiate with other nations.^[28] Trump rejoined the Republican Party in 2009.” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016

This current and most successful Trump candidacy started in 2015.

“Trump formally announced his candidacy for the upcoming race for president in the 2016 election on June 16, 2015. His announcement was held at a campaign rally at Trump Tower in New York City.” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016

Part of Mr. Trump’s success has come from his previous stardom on the reality television series “The Apprentice.” His catchphrase “You’re Fired” is known and quoted around the world. Many hope that he will be able to use that catch phrase (“you’re fired”) (at least metaphorically) to the entire United States Congress at his first state of the union address.

“Mr. Trump is the Emmy-nominated star and co-producer of the reality television series, “The Apprentice” which quickly became the number one show on television, making ratings history and receiving rave reviews and worldwide attention. “The Celebrity Apprentice” has met with great success as well, being one of the highest rated shows on television. The Apprentice’s record fourteenth season premiered in January, 2015. “You’re fired!” is listed as the third greatest television catchphrase of all time. In 2007, Mr. Trump received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and he is among the highest paid public speakers in the world. The Apprentice has raised over $15 million for charity.” - https://www.donaldjtrump.com/

Mr. Trump’s campaign seems to have been modeled after his reality television series. He has made what seem to totally outlandish statements, which would be unthinkable to other “traditional” candidates (Republican or Democrat). There are many blogs and articles discussing why this campaign has been so successful. But the crux of the issue is that he seems to be stating what many Americans are thinking but refuse to say. This tactic certainly works on reality TV, and, in fact, seems to be the essence of reality TV. I believe that this is the year of the “reality TV presidential candidate.”

This unique campaign is in reality a “populist campaign,” as well. The term “populist” is defined by Oxford Dictionaries as:

1. a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people. (noun)

i. a person who holds, or who is concerned with, the views of ordinary people.

ii. (Populist) a member of the Populist Party, a US political party formed in 1891 that advocated the interests of labor and farmers, free coinage of silver, a graduated income tax, and government control of monopolies

2. of or relating to a populist or populists. (adjective)

Another aspect of Trump’s campaign which seems to be catching on with American voters is the idea of having a truly “outsider” in office. This is happening in both the Republican and Democratic parties. On the Democratic side, candidate Bernie Sanders has been very successful running for the presidency against a very well-known Hilary Clinton, former first lady and Secretary of State. This “outsider” concept seems to have been rolled into the “populist” concept with the line blurring between the two.

Candidates such as Jeb Bush, Rick Santorum and Ted Cruz all appeared to pale when compared to the “outsiders” Trump and Sanders. Their message was “flat and uninspiring.” It had the flavor of the “same old time worn political clichés and platitudes.” Even Clinton, with her wealth, political connections and notoriety, is struggling when compared to Sanders, especially among the younger voters.

It is easy to see that the American voters are truly “fed-up” and “disillusioned” with the existing “political elite.” These people, just like their masters, the top 1% (or 20% as shown below) have come close to killing the “golden goose” (the bottom 99%) from which their wealth has come. It is no coincidence that the top 1% (globally) have amassed over 50% of the world’s wealth and power in just a few short years.

“In 2014, the 1 percent held 48 percent of global wealth. But that doesn’t mean the other 52 percent was for the rest of us; most of it was controlled by the 20 wealthiest percent, leaving just 5.5 percent of global wealth for 80 percent of the world.” - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/wealthiest-getting-wealthier-lobbying-lot/

The following is from an excellent video relating to wealth inequality in America (From: http://inequality.org/wealth-inequality-america/).

Both the Trump and Sanders campaigns have made it very clear by their popularity that the 99% want a change. Both men are “outsiders” and “populist” candidates. On the surface, it seems that they have very different messages. However, is what they are saying really what they believe, or what they need to say in order to be the “reality TV / Populist candidates.”? Without the outsider and populist label, neither candidate would be able to compete with the political elite entrenched in their respective political parties. They would not get noticed by the elite controlled main stream media (MSM).

Clearly, Mr. Trump and Mr. Sanders have much more in common than is apparent by a casual glance. They both want to take office to change the political system. They are both clearly populist candidates, which do not necessarily espouse the views of their underlying parties. They both want to upend the existing control of the political system by the political and global elite.

It is also apparent that both Mr. Trump and Mr. Sanders, as candidates, want to fundamentally change the economic inequality in America. They seem to want to reverse the Actual Distribution of Wealth in America (top line of graph) back toward what Americans Think the Distribution is (center line of the graph).

To accomplish both of those commendable goals, I propose that candidates Trump and Sanders combine forces, regardless of apparent political differences, and form one political team. To do this, I propose that Donald Trump ask Bernie Sanders to be his Vice Presidential running mate in the 2016 election. Besides being the Perfect 2016 Presidential Team, this would keep the 2016 election amusing for all of us, while we voters watch the political and economic elite, along with their main-stream media, scramble. Such a Presidential Team would be very appropriate and fitting in this year of “reality TV elections.”

Sincerely,

H. Court Young
Author, publisher, speaker and geologist
Promoting awareness through the written word
Research, freelance writing & self-publishing services
Facebook: HCourtYoung
Phone: 303-726-8320
Email: tmcco@msn.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/hcourtyoung
Twitter: http://twitter.com/hcourtyoung
Blog: http://hcourtyoung.blogspot.com