Category Archives: Politics

Government versus Apple

Posted on by
4

Mariner had brunch with Guru this morning. Talking with Guru in the morning is a mistake but his views are intriguing. Consequently, the mariner spent the rest of the day contemplating Guru’s views on the issue of governmental jurisdiction versus corporate independence.

“You know,” Guru started, “The conflict between Cliven and Ammon Bundy in Nevada and Oregon versus the Federal Government is the same conflict as  Apple versus the FBI.” (see: January 4, 2016)

The example of the FBI versus Apple occurred because Apple refused to respond to a warrant. NBC News described the situation as follows:

In a 40-page filing, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles argued that it needed Apple to help it find the password and access “relevant, critical … data” on the locked cellphone of Syed Farook, who with his wife Tashfeen Malik murdered 14 people in San Bernardino, California on December 2.

“Despite … a warrant authorizing the search,” said prosecutors, “the government has been unable to complete the search because it cannot access the iPhone’s encrypted content. Apple has the exclusive technical means which would assist the government in completing its search, but has declined to provide that assistance voluntarily.”

Conflicting views on the situation revolve around two perspectives:

  • Any government has the authority to impose on a corporation’s policy and operation if the corporation operates within the government’s jurisdiction and the issue can be discerned as a threat to the wellbeing of the citizenry.

There is precedent for government imposition on corporations in many areas: EPA regulations, tariffs, equal opportunity legislation, land management, OSHA requirements, building codes, and many more. On the other hand, Apple claims that cryptic operating system defenses protect the privacy of customers [and customer data Apple doesn’t want to share]. Further, Apple claims that release of a solution to the cryptic software would be leaked to the general public regardless of best intentions to protect it; the consequence to Apple would be that their operating system and customer databases would be open to the public – especially to competitors. This perspective, at its core, is sensitive both to ‘big brother’ offenses by government and invasion of corporate secrets. Guru took the issue to a broader level:

  • Businesses and corporations are special entities that comprise the private sector; private sector entities are not accountable to the government unless they perform a criminal act. Further, private sector entities are accountable to the public to abide by the rights, freedom, security and privacy of that public.

The broader issue, then, is whether corporations should be accountable to a nation’s authority as set forth in that nation’s constitution, law, regulation, and, indirectly, the wellbeing of that nation’s citizens. In the post of January 4, 2016, mariner addressed the broader issue from the standpoint of State versus Federal management of land within the State and whether any government could seize a private sector business if that business is in violation of environmental regulations.

An update to the Cliven Bundy grazing violation is that Bundy has been indicted for violation of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, conspiracy to impede or injure a federal officer, weapon use and possession, assault on a federal officer, threatening a federal law enforcement officer, obstruction, extortion to interfere with commerce, and interstate travel in aid of extortion. Found guilty on even a few of these charges, Bundy will end his life in prison. Cliven is no Apple. But the principle is the same. Apparently, the US can arrest Apple managers or otherwise halt Apple operations if the corporation’s resistance can be determined to be a felonious act. Does Apple have gun toting henchmen?

Stay tuned….

Ancient Mariner

Blame it on the Elections

Posted on by
Reply

By now, most readers know the mariner is influenced by three alter egos: Chicken Little, a character quick to feel that the world is in crisis and no one will help; Prophet Amos, a character with distinct disapproval of the ways of human beings, chastising irresponsibility on every front; Guru, a way-out thinker who becomes lost in ethereal pondering and cannot fathom that Homo sapiens still exists. Reality and the Cosmos are so much larger than the self serving indulgence of human beings that the whole Earthly mess is just an insignificant phenomenon – an indifferent event on a Solar System planet drifting somewhere in the Milky Way Galaxy.

There are other influences, primarily interpersonal alertness, an appreciation of tasteless humor, and an accumulation of experiences across a lifetime.

Concentrate all these egos and experience into a very short timeframe surrounded by incompetence and disregard for very important social activity, and the mariner becomes depressed. What Chicken Little, Amos and Guru find significant is irrelevant to the masses, to friends and neighbors. No doubt, depression is common among many during election time.

With eight Presidential candidates remaining, mariner fears the worst. None qualify in his mind to deal with the plight of American humanity – indeed all of humanity. His acquaintances, who by and large are bright, insightful people, do not feel the need to respond to crisis, irresponsibility, or endangered culture; it is enough to vote their preferred person (likely limited to their own political party) while disregarding the fact that democracy has all but disappeared and, given our candidate choices, will continue to disappear.

There’s always the millennials who still trust in unbridled dreams of the future. But Amos does not buy this; they are just young Homo sapiens – same as their ancestors. Further, by 2100, the African continent alone will grow 6 billion more humans adding to gross overcrowding and further disintegration of the Earth’s biosphere.

All this aside, which is the best candidate of a poor lot? Mariner has great difficulty deciding – knowing that the great issues of his alter egos will go untended no matter the choice. We must turn to small victories of great importance: Can the voters replace a 1985 Congress with one that can function in 2016? Amos has his doubts.

Ancient Mariner

 

The Morning Line February 13 2016

Posted on by
Reply 
The Morning Line February 13 2016
Here’s the morning line out of Vegas:
Hillary Clinton
 
1/100
 
99%
 
Donald Trump
 
8/1
 
12%
 
Bernie Sanders
 
8/1
 
12%
 
Marco Rubio
 
9/1
 
10%
 
Jeb Bush
 
17/1
 
5½%
 
Ted Cruz
 
18/1
 
5%
 
Michael Bloomberg
 
28/1
 
3½%
 
John Kasich
 
50/1
 
2%
 
Joe Biden
 
66/1
 
1½%
 
Ben Carson
 
750/1
 
Negligible
 
Carly Fiorina
 
750/1
 
Negligible
 
Rand Paul
 
-
 
Suspended campaign
 
Martin OMalley
 
-
 
Suspended campaign
 
Rick Santorum
 
-
 
Suspended campaign
 
Mike Huckabee
 
-
 
Suspended campaign
 
Chris Christie
 
-
 
Suspended campaign

Betting $100 on Hillary will win the reader $1. Marco is back where he was two weeks ago: 4th place. As mentioned previously, Ted continues to be unpopular with the betting crowd, dropping from 4th to 5th. Bernie held his odds but moved to a tie for 2nd with Donald. John Kasich leaped from 200/1 to 50/1 but still ranks below Michael Bloomberg.

Ben and Carley should cash out at this point and save some money.

The big day to reflect long-term odds will be after March 1, the day when eight states hold their primaries. Most of the states are in the southern part of the US.

Swing states–also called purple states or battleground states–hold 85 electoral votes, more than enough to tip the balance in either party’s favor:

Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia and Florida. 

Ancient Mariner


					

		
		
	


				
					
	

		

						
A Government of the People….

			
						

				Posted on   by  			

			
						

				2			

					


				

			
The mariner is concerned that some readers passed on the post about oligarchy. Philosophically and pragmatically, oligarchy is a nemesis to democracy. The extreme separation of financial class is a dangerous indicator that Americans are losing the right to govern themselves. One need only read the causes of the French Revolution[1] to have an eerie sense of the same thing all over again.


It is not an accident that the republican party is conflicted between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz; it is not an accident that Bernie Sanders has awakened such large numbers of democrats. As the American population moves left,[2] American governments are run by ninety percent incumbent officials – more or less elected for life and representative of a culture long gone from today’s social awareness. Already, the concept of electing representatives of ourselves has disappeared. The major reason is that too many elected officials are tied to bribery by those who can afford to bribe, namely the wealthy class and corporations. That the Supreme Court could envision that money is free speech is a significant indicator that oligarchy is alive and well.


Imagine a government where our representatives could not receive financial support except from the Federal Election Commission. That one change would require those who campaign for office to be more attentive toward their jurisdictions. Turnover may happen often enough that we may not need term limits.


In any case, the next President will be a different kind of leader. The next job for citizens is to elect fresh representatives in Congress – wholesale!


Ancient Mariner


 


[1] See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_French_Revolution


[2] See: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/why-america-is-moving-left/419112/


 

					

		
		
	


				
					
	

		

						
What is Oligarchy?

			
						

				Posted on   by  			

			
						

				2			

					


				

			
Oligarchy is a philosophical word like democracy, authoritarian, and monarchy. Philosophical words are hard to illustrate in every day, what-does-it-do terms. However, thanks to the New York Times, an article appeared in the November 29, 2015 edition that captured oligarchy as a political operation that can be compared to political behavior readers are more familiar with from news coverage, elections, and economic headlines.


It is a must read for all readers. The article illustrates how very wealthy individuals band together, using immense amounts of cash and influence to interrupt what otherwise would be normal democratic elections. In the State of Illinois, backed by a group of billionaires primarily from banking and investment firms, Bruce Rauner was elected Governor.


“Unprecedented political spending helped
         elect a fresh-faced financier. But his ideological
         vision has unsettled many in the state.”


“….The richest man in Illinois does not often give speeches. But on a warm spring day two years ago, Kenneth C. Griffin, the billionaire founder of one of the world’s largest hedge funds, rose before a black-tie dinner of the Economic Club of Chicago to deliver an urgent plea to the city’s elite….


Their response came quickly. In the months since, Mr. Griffin and a small group of rich supporters — not just from Chicago, but also from New York City and Los Angeles, southern Florida and Texas — have poured tens of millions of dollars into the state, a concentration of political money without precedent in Illinois history.


….Their wealth has forcefully shifted the state’s balance of power. Last year, the families helped elect as governor Bruce Rauner, a Griffin friend and former private equity executive from the Chicago suburbs, who estimates his own fortune at more than $500 million. Now they are rallying behind Mr. Rauner’s agenda: to cut spending and overhaul the state’s pension system, impose term limits and weaken public employee unions…..”


This revealing article continues with charts, background interviews of the top 1%, and side articles expanding the subject of political influence by the extremely wealthy. As a movement, the super-wealthy are taking increasing interest in American politics. The reader – and any common citizen – will be alarmed at the brutality of their public policies on the American people.


The behavior of Oligarchy is clearly defined. Yes, a must read article. See:


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/30/us/politics/illinois-campaign-money-bruce-rauner.html?ribbon-ad-idx=3&rref=politics&module=Ribbon&version=origin&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Politics&pgtype=article&_r=1


Ancient Mariner

					

		
		
	


				
					
	

		

						
Democratic Debate in New Hampshire

			
						

				Posted on   by  			

			
						

				3			

					


				

			
The mariner is pleased with the debate between Bernie and Hillary. For the first time in any 2016 presidential debate, republican or democrat, the voter was given a clear view of the personality and talents each candidate will bring to the office of President in 2016.


The heart of each candidate, that is, their desire to deliver to the electorate what is most needed by that electorate, is identical. Both are champions of human need, economic reform, and what’s best for the forgotten majority.


For the first time, the agenda of each candidate became clear. Bernie intends to fix the systemic issues that have led to oligarchy. Banks, Corporations, tax reform, bribery and collusion in the election process, and a plan to attack gerrymandering, are at the top of Bernie’s list. By fixing the political abuses, proper legislation and discretionary funding will right themselves and deliver programs to the people. However, Bernie will be prone to compromise when it comes to program specifics.


Hillary intends to develop programs first. She will attack current legislation that defeats the spirit of discretionary funding. Hillary will prioritize human rights, expand education funding, and reduce medical costs – but not through single payer. By fixing specific programs, the Ship of State trims its sails more in line with public interest. However, Hillary will be prone to compromise when it comes to fixing the oligarchy.


If the voter is interested in the programs of government, then Hillary sounds more appealing. If the voter is interested in the policies of governance, then Bernie sounds more appealing. The mariner is reminded of one of his father’s pop psychology tools: Bernie is a why-how person while Hillary is a how-what person1. That being the case, there are far more how-what folks in the population than why-how. For no other reason than the difference between their personalities, Hillary may fare better once the primaries leave liberal states and head into the prairie.


On such subliminal attributes, political success rises and falls.


REFERENCE SECTION


1For more detail on Pop’s Psychology, see post from December 21, 2015.


The Congress has ninety days to vote for or against a fast track of the TPP trade agreement. Mariner is firmly opposed to fast track and prefers that the TPP be examined by Congress – that’s as close as citizen review is possible. Note that the majority of presidential candidates, including both democrats, are opposed to the trade agreement. For a good, clear, and easy read about the TPP, see:


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/business/unpacking-the-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal.html?_r=0


President Obama is in favor of the TPP because, in his opinion, the TPP makes the United States a central player in future Asian economics, dampening the future influence of China. All well and good – but at what price to the common citizen? Corporations will have unfettered control of profits, taxes, human rights, and the future wellbeing of nine nations.


Ancient Mariner


 

					

		
		
	


				
					
	

		

						
The Morning Line – February 3 2016

			
						

				Posted on   by  			

			
						

				2			

					


				

			
Here’s the morning line out of Vegas:






Hillary Clinton
10/11
91%




Marco Rubio
3/1
33%




Donald Trump
7/1
14%




Bernie Sanders
8/1
12%




Ted Cruz
16/1
6%




Jeb Bush
50/1
2%




Michael Bloomberg
50/1
2%




Joe Biden
80/1
1.25%




Chris Christie
100/1
1%




John Kasich
200/1
½%




Ben Carson
700/1
1/10 of Even less than less than 1%




Carly Fiorina
800/1
About the size of a human skin cell




Rand Paul
999/1
infinitesimal




Martin OMalley
250/1
Suspended campaign




Rick Santorum
999/1
Suspended campaign




Mike Huckabee
2000/1
Suspended campaign






Hillary held the same odds as always; interestingly, one bookie has taken bets for Hillary NOT to win the 2016 election at even odds. The biggest positive shift was in favor of Marco who jumped from 10/1 to 3/1, moving from fourth place to second. The biggest negative shift was Donald who dropped from 5/6 to 7/1 moving to third place. Ted continues to be unpopular with the betting crowd, staying in fifth place despite his win in Iowa; odds dropped from 12/1 to 16/1. Bernie held his odds but dropped one spot to fourth.


As to candidates with longer odds, most betting houses have stopped posting a morning line; the listed odds were taken from just two bookies.


 


Ancient Mariner

					

		
		
	


				
					
	

		

						
At the Caucus

			
						

				Posted on   by  			

			
						

				Reply			

					


				

			
About 100 folks attended the Democratic Caucus in mariner’s home town. Two attendees stood in Martin O’Malley’s corner – mariner and his wife. It was only a few moments before we were asked to move to the ‘undecided’ table because Martin did not have enough votes to meet the minimum 15% required to be a sustainable candidate.


But we weren’t undecided. No matter, we had to abandon our candidate and choose another one. The Iowa Democratic Caucus, unlike the town republicans, and for that matter, the rest of the caucuses and primaries across the nation, has the right to deny one’s vote as valid. Clearly, this winnowing procedure is designed to glean “probable” winners from others who, at the first caucus, have yet to generate sufficient interest from the voters.


The mariner respects the interaction and debate fostered by the Iowa caucus process. Further, the caucus forces big-time candidates to meet local voters face to face, eat barbecued chicken, let the voters touch them and ask questions no politician will answer directly. In too many jurisdictions around the United States, the primary process is sterile, mechanical and allows no moment for the voter to see or listen to a real-life candidate.


The mariner has concern that the very first ‘democratic’ primary in the national election process tosses out legitimate candidates any of which may become a dark horse later in the season. He especially is concerned that the democratic party has the right to coerce a voter to cancel their preferred vote and select another candidate – shades of Boss Tweed! True, one could be obstinate and refuse to change their vote but one foregoes representation in the caucus process.


Despite the romantic grandeur cast over Iowa’s unique primary process, the process is outdated. For months ahead, sophomoric news media derails any legitimate attempt to compare candidates on a level playing field. Consider the dominance of Donald on news broadcasts, gleaning more than 100 minutes of free air time compared to virtually none for any of a half-dozen legitimate politicians. Further, so much money is available to candidates that they can continue to campaign despite their irrelevance. Consider Jeb – then consider O’Malley who had to suspend his campaign with only $175,000 left in campaign funds. Yet, Jeb has spent and still has coffers that will carry him to the Convention with half the voter percentage that O’Malley has.


Seasoned attendees to the Iowa Caucus have stories to tell about the dissolution of friendships because open debate among voters is allowed and, if nothing else, one can see who chose which candidate. Even at this caucus, the mariner must patch the hard feelings of a good friend because he did not stand for the appropriate candidate.


All things considered, mariner is most troubled that one person, one vote does not prevail. What makes the Iowa democratic party any different than race discrimination in Alabama and Mississippi? They, too, prevent one from having one’s voice heard at the ballot box; those states just do it differently.


Ancient Mariner

					

		
		
	


				
					
	

		

						
When Time Slows

			
						

				Posted on   by  			

			
						

				Reply			

					


				

			
Tomorrow, the State of Iowa leads us into the primary season for the election of the next President in November. Not mentioned as much – if at all – is the undercard of Senators, Congressmen, State legislators, Governors, Attorneys General, Mayors and Judges. Overall, the General Election of 2016 is a climactic event in American history.


The early phase of the campaign, which comes to a close with the beginning of primary season, shows immense dissatisfaction with ‘The Establishment.’ Even the Billionaire Club of folks like the Koch Brothers and all the PAC money hidden from accountability has little influence. One must acknowledge the contribution to voter dissatisfaction by the republican Congress that collapsed the functionality of Congress for all of Obama’s tenure; forty failed votes to remove the Affordable Care Act suggests the Congressmen had lost touch both with job description and with accountability to the Nation’s true needs.


Not all dissatisfaction lay with the republicans. The democratic Congressmen showed little unity at times when a unified party vote could have had results. The democratic base, also ignored for the last decade, is not satisfied with the direction of the US. Underlying the democratic dissatisfaction is a philosophy of government that rewards wealth – including corporate wealth without obligation to society – and further suppresses working classes and family support.


Influencing the 2016 vote from the sidelines are huge contemporary issues like global warming, world-wide economic recession, world-wide immigration issues, and political realignment of nations driven by economics and military dominance. Finally, ignored for too long, a planet suffering human, ecologic and geologic stress – ignored despite decades of warning from scientists.


The mariner opines that the victor in the Presidential election will be a candidate with a smaller foot in old school politics and a dominant foot in new government philosophies that focus on a forgotten working class. While this is likely, it is not guaranteed; the danger is electing an old school politician who is determined to ‘stabilize the world we live in now’ – a world that no longer exists.


 REFERENCE SECTION


Mariner occasionally peruses old posts to help decide subject matter for new posts, consider new subject matter, changes in circumstances, and thoughts that may deserve further commentary. Occasionally, mariner finds a typo or misspoken fact. In the post from December 31, 2015, it was noted that 217 Electoral College votes were necessary to win the election for President. While ‘217’ sounds a lot like ‘270’, the correct number is 270.


Ancient Mariner


 

					

		
		
	


				
					
	

		

						
What a Change in Era Feels Like

			
						

				Posted on   by  			

			
						

				Reply			

					


				

			
Stop for a moment and, in your mind’s eye, view a 360° turn along the horizon. Focus on political and cultural happenings at the horizon of your view. Between where you are and the horizon is a lot of disruption as the events of our day fight over what the horizon will look like when we reach it. Interestingly, when you focus only on the horizon, there is not much to see. Things will be different when we reach the horizon.


When one thinks about it, we are living in the midst of a transition from one era to another – the kind we read about in history books like the age of exploration, the age of government by law, and the age of Enlightenment. 


So many definitions of life are morphing. Less than fifty years ago, being a homosexual was not to be spoken to – a socially denied trait. Today, in most states, homosexual marriage and family structure are accepted. Economically, post WWII employment practices included union representation, company pensions, cost of living raises, and the ability for an employee to enjoy a genuine vacation without fear of losing their job in the meantime. There were poor practices like unequal pay for women and lack of profit sharing. All these employment practices are turbulent issues today. Are these issues changing beneath our feet? Don’t measure such things daily or even monthly. Take a year-end survey of what has changed. One will be surprised how much change and turbulence in cultural value has occurred.


As in an unkempt garden where some plants take advantage, some practices grew out of hand. Foremost is the liberation of corporations whereby, as markets became international, corporations escaped the moral accountabilities of any given constitution or protective requirements in behalf of citizens and the Planet itself. Further, the benefits and stability of jobs were undercut, not permitting the populace a share of the growth at the turn of the century. The US democracy morphed into an oligarchy that deflated the voting power necessary for a democracy to exist.


Current observations by writers and historians also contribute to a sense of change. Investors fear a collapse of the world economy – is this because cultural transition clouds what future economies will look like? The cybernetic industry pauses to identify the next big market – is this because consumer interests may change as the description of jobs changes, as the retail market changes, because the entrepreneurial resources are on hold waiting for a similar cultural shift?


Some showstoppers have emerged that also will facilitate change. The confrontation between global warming and the fossil fuel industry is just now beginning to deal with an issue that can’t be delayed by the normal drag of investment transition. Food availability, particularly seafood, has peaked. The weather plays a role in crop production – will more energetic weather patterns spurred by global warming continue? Does this portend a significant change in the way we must produce adequate food not only in the US but worldwide?


To make the issues a single dilemma, we are in a state of chaos. Yes, mariner uses that word often but our times reflect chaos – mathematically, socially, governmentally, ecologically, economically, and so on. Our government, along with all the other nations, is slow to change – perhaps too slow as the world spins into a new age. Governments, by their nature, protect power and influence. That is normally a good thing; government, if it does what it is supposed to do, acts as a ballast to stabilize society and all the elements that contribute to society.


But now, all of a sudden, power and influence balk at uncontrolled change. Nevertheless, the citizenry knows intuitively that something doesn’t work right. That something is that government and all that influences it must stop managing stability and begin steering change – easier to say than do. 


This is why the 2016 election is a signal election. Obviously, both US political parties are in disarray as old platforms of policy collapse beneath them; incumbent politicians are unusually passé not understanding that their career definitions are increasingly invalid.


In spite of destructive gerrymandering, in spite of Citizens United, in spite of bastions of archaic prejudice – the American voter must persevere and change the government to a manager of change.


Ancient Mariner