Do All Roads Lead to Athens, Rather Than Rome?

So it seems Greece is rapidly going down the toilet, and a number of other European nations aren't far behind.  After decades of extravagant expenditures on social services, the tipping point has been reached.  Greek lawmakers rushed through legislation to prevent total insolvency, cutting the minimum wage by 20% and dissolving roughly one out of every five civil service jobs.  That still may not enough to save the capsizing country, and rumors were circulating that at least one of German Chancellor Merkel's advisors were calling for Greece to get the boot from the EU.  If that happens, would it be the beginning of a run of falling dominos, with Portugal and other economically deficit nations next to be expelled?  Could it spell the end of the EU experiment?  How Greece manages to recover - or not - may lay out the roadmap for things to come.

Sadly, the Greek people seem unwilling to accept reality, having looted and rioted across the nation, and burned over 40 businesses.  But while residents of other nations - including my own - stare at the news feeds and shake their heads, I have to ask, when social security runs out of funds in the US in about six years, will things be any different here (aside from perhaps the median age of the rioters, and the fact that most of ours will need their glucosamine and Geritol to rush the police)?

After all, Americans epitomize the term entitlement.  While most have never actually read the Constitution and Bill of Rights, they insist on their "rights" to drive, have a job brought to them, live in a house without paying the mortgage, and burn police cars when they're unhappy with the outcome of a major sporting event.  Basically, Americans seem to think they have the right to get away with whatever they can, and scream about the injustices when they're caught.

While I lean to the left on some views and to the right on others, I'm pretty firmly with the right's philosophy on being responsible for your actions (notice I cite their philosophy, not their practices).  Sometimes things are someone else's fault, and sometimes people do need a hand or a bailout, but not always, and certainly not permanently.  Unfortunately, neither side tends to practice what they preach, and Republican lawmakers are no different in how they're pulling their weight in government.  This whole nation - its people, its federal, state and local governments, its entire attitude - seems to espouse both the "it's someone else's fault" and "let someone else fix it - preferably a few years down the road" viewpoints.  Sadly, that's not going to cut it any more.  Unless we're ready to follow Greece's path, drastic measures need to be taken, and soon.  And yeah, it's gonna hurt.

Residents of Jefferson County, Alabama - home of the major city of Birmingham - already know how it feels.  The county is in bankruptcy, and the people are feeling the impact.  All satellite county courthouses have been closed, leaving huge lines snaking out of the sole remaining courthouse in downtown Birmingham.  The remaining jail is horribly overcrowded with some imates sleeping on the floor, while a newly refurbished nearby prison sits empty, the county unable to afford running it.  The police department can't afford to pay overtime for its officers (I wonder if any enterprising criminals have hacked the police's rotation schedule to see when the fewest cops are on duty now?).  Roads are not being repaired and roadkill is not even being picked up (which seems trivial, until I read someone hit a cow a couple of weeks ago).  A few other cities and counties in the US have also declared bankruptcy and others are on the brink.

How long before ramifications of these localities are felt in the federal government?  How long, if our federal lawmakers don't take these examples to heart, before the federal government follows?

So Let's Step Away From Politics For Just A Moment...

...to discuss some aspects of US business practices and global competition.  At first this is going to seem like a product-placement ad, but bear with me.

What drives this sudden urge to change topic, you ask?  Well, Thursday I went to IKEA.  Yes, IKEA, the epitome of big box stores (although curiously, the one big box store that comes to mind that doesn't compete with mom-and-pops as much as other big boxes, since how many mom-and-pops generally carry Swedish furniture?).  I admit, their larger furniture pieces don't do much for me - not really my preferred style - but they have plenty of other stuff to catch my eye:  lighting, kitchenware, etc.  And let's not get started on the meatballs.  However, what gets me the most excited about IKEA is (sadly) not what they sell, but how they design what they sell, and how they design their stores.

Let's start with an example from their furniture:  bookcases.  You go to most any US-based furniture store and you can definitely find quality bookcases.  So what catches my eye about IKEA's?  Well, most US homes have base moulding around the edge of a room.  You know, that little strip of decorative wood at the base of the wall where it meets the floor.  If you buy a US-made bookcase (or dresser, or anything meant to go against a wall), the back is perfectly flat, so when you slide it up against the wall, there's always a quarter- to a half-inch of space behind it for stuff to fall into.  Not IKEA's bookcases!  After purchasing our first bookcase there, I was thrilled to see IKEA cuts a little notch out of the base of the bookcase, about 4 inches high and a half-inch deep.  Just enough to fit your moulding so the bookcase can fit flush against the wall.  So simple, and yet so sheer genius.  It's the little things... and we'll not even get into how well designed and illustrated their assembly instructions are and the overall quality, yet low prices of their products that keep customers coming back.

And now we'll move on to the stores themselves.  There have been a number of articles written about the psychology of the IKEA stores, such as here.  A marketing strategy so well comprised it's called the IKEA Effect:  well-laid-out, winding paths take you through the entire store, as though you're on an amusement park ride, ensuring you hit every department in an organized, orderly flow.  Of course there are shortcuts around the store, but they're not labelled, and they're placed behind you, so they're even harder to spot.  Of course, there's so much cool stuff there you may not want to.  But once again, like the bookcase cutout, even with the stores it's the little things.

For example, when exiting IKEA, unless you have giant pallets of merchandise and need the freight elevator, departing customers don't use escalators; instead there are shallow moving ramps, and you can wheel your shopping cart/trolley on to the ramp to take your goods down to your vehicle (most IKEAs have underground parking).  But wait, a wheeled cart on a moving ramp?  You might need your full body weight to hold it in place - but not at IKEA.  Instead, IKEA's designers (who I surmise to be on par with Disney's Imagineers) put grooved wheels on the shopping carts, and matching grooves on the moving ramps.  It means nothing to you when you're pushing your cart around the store, put as soon as you push on to one of those ramps, the wheels on your cart mesh into the grooves on the ramp and lock your cart in place for the trip down - you don't even need to hold it with a finger!  Once again, so simple, but so genius.

So where am I going with all this (aside for hoping from IKEA royalties for this post)?  At a time when US businesses and stores are struggling to get customers and keep repeat customers, why haven't we adopted not only IKEA's specific innovations, but the IKEA mindset, to make things easier, simpler, more common sense?  I don't think citing profit margins is a viable excuse, as IKEA is hugely profitable.  Are US companies not willing to take the leap of faith to execute such a plan?  Is it American arrogance or laziness?  I'm not sure, but I do know IKEA is a winning company that more US companies should be emulating, but they're not.

I wonder if we have any more of those meatballs left in the fridge...?

Politics in Colorado - To which a state of confusion is expressed

So currently I'm living (stationed) in Colorado, a state I've come to love and is very high on my retirement-possibilities list.  As the Republican primary wound down this week after all the hype, at first I confess I was quite surprised by the outcome, but after chewing on it a few days, maybe I'm not as surprised as I thought.

One of the things I like about Colorado and which makes it stand out from other states is it's truly a go-your-own-way, still-has-a-touch-of-the-wild-west state.  Yes, the far-right Focus on the Family is headquarted right here in Colorado Springs, but it's countered by nearby artsy-hipster Manitou Springs, and what's known as the "People's Republic of Boulder" northwest of Denver; the state is roughly one third each Republican, Democrat, and unaffiliated (source:  http://www.city-data.com/states/Colorado-Political-parties.html).   I've never really seen it broken down further, but based on my personal friends and acquaintances who are members of both parties and tend to be "conservative Democrats" and "liberal Republicans" (although I also have friends and relatives who are much farther out from the center) I made the mistake of assuming that, while there are certainly die-hards at both ends of the spectrum, a majority of affiliated party members here were more centrist.  Honestly, I wouldn't have been surprised if Colorado had become the only state taken by Ron Paul, who's got quite a bit of a "wild west" persona himself.  My error, as demonstrated by Rick Santorum's victory last week.

What I'm still trying to figure out is just why Santorum won.  It was just 40% to Romney's 35%, but over the past few weeks Santorum's been leaning more and more toward a more extremist right view, stating it's better to have one parent with the other in prison than have two loving gay parents (I was waiting for a "better to be an orphan than have gay parents" but it didn't happen).  He topped himself this week by first saying women aren't fit for combat, then backpedaling and saying it's the men who can't capably serve alongside them because we're unable to overcome a protective instinct (and today's quote from Mr Santorum:  "but women can fly small planes").  Even some conservative blogs were backing away from him as if he were channeling Sarah Palin and deliberately trying to lose the fence-sitters to the other candidates.

Which brings me to the dilemma, the unknown:  are Colorado's Republicans more right-leaning than I'm aware of, or were they voting more against Romney than for Santorum?

A lot of folks, blogs and media have been discussing Romney being Mormon, and what it may mean if he's elected - reflective of the JFK-Catholicism arguments of the 60s I believe (and, in my opinion, just as relevant).  Are evangelical Republicans really that afraid/aghast/wary of a Mormon candidate, that they'd vote for someone more extreme than the average, than their own political view?  I do not know.

At this point, I'll apologize to my readers:  normally, I like to wrap a post up with a nice little conclusion, maybe a well-supported opinion or even a hypothesis, but I can't on this one.  I'm still confused, and that worries me.  What worries me more is that a lot of Colorado Republicans seem to be confused about how Santorum won too...

I wonder if anyone's going through the same thing in Minnesota...

It’s been a slow news month…

So I haven't had much to say since we flipped over to 2012, but it's because I don't think there's been very much substantive material out there.  Read as:  no one's significantly annoyed or disgusted me lately.  Oh, don't get me wrong, the politicians and political candidates are still out there doing their stuff:  mudslinging, sound-biting, back-stabbing and generally trying to keep themselves in the spotlight, but nothing that really matters.  It's like watching our cats wrestle on the living room floor:  lots of screeching and hissing, and a few face-smacks; just enough to keep me mildly amused, but not enough to intervene.

Domestically, I'm disappointed Huntsman didn't go farther - according to the various news organization surveys I've played with his views were closest to my own (if ~53% can be considered "close"), and now we're seeing how Gingrich/Romney's going to turn out.  Prediction:  Romney.  Gingrich is much more out of touch with society, and I think it's starting to show.  Ron Paul continues to begin sentences with logic and common sense before springboarding off the deep end into a pool with no water.  As far as Santorum goes, he's gone more Ron Paul than Ron Paul himself.  Santorum, whether he's doing it on purpose or is being misadvised, either doesn't seem to realize he's courting a rather small segment of the very-far-right (even if I was against gay marriage, stating having a father in jail is better than having two fathers makes no logical sense; is he going to say next it's better to be an orphan than have two moms?) or he's standing on some very tight principles.  If it's the latter, I can respect that without agreeing with it, but I don't think he realizes how alone he is.  Still don't know who'll pull ahead between Obama and (my prediction of) Romney; still too much time for EVERYONE to screw things up... more.  Still hoping Stephen Colbert will seriously throw his hat in. :-)

Internationally, the news has been more disconcerting, but it seems everyone is still just moving their pawns around without bringing more significant pieces into play.  Things are probably worst in Syria, where many have died; there's talk of monitors and sanctions, but Assad is still hanging on, many countries are criticizing, and nothing's really happening.  Egyptian protesters are active again, and Israel and Iran are going at it as they do every few months.  I think there's potential in the possibility of Israel finally carrying out their ongoing threats to attack Iran in 2012, but I'm not sure if they'll really have the guts to do it, especially with the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.  The Muslim Brotherhood is honoring the Egyptian treaty with Israel, but I believe Israel is worried an attack on Iran might push Egypt to fall off the wagon.  I'm also curious to see what happens in Egypt over the next few months.  The West had apoplexy when the Brotherhood took the majority in elections there, figuring a radical Islamic Republic was soon to follow, but things have stayed rather stable, and the Brotherhood has even publicly supported a Christian Coptic running for public office over a more radical Muslim contender.  There's hope for fairness there.  Whether or not it happens though, this is democracy in action:  the people will get what they voted for.  I've been rather optimistic on the Brotherhood since first studying them in school a few years ago:  they have their radical sects (just as our political parties do), but on the whole they're principled but balanced, and seem to go out of their way to stay within the boundaries of the law.  If they can hold on to that, as I said, there's hope.

The bigger question for the U.S., of course, is whether and/or how much the U.S. would get involved in an Israeli attack on Iran.  If Iran closed the Strait or let loose with a swarm of anti-ship missiles on our forces in the Persian Gulf, they could do significant damage to which I'm sure we'd fully retaliate, flattening much of Iran's military.  Hopefully we wouldn't go full Clausewitz on them, as there is a large moderate faction desiring greater democratic and Western values in the Iranian population, and if we could amputate the arms, there's a chance of a full revolution which could take off the head on its own.  If we started getting into civilian casualties, they would likely consolidate back into the government for self-preservation purposes, and any chance for effecting anything more than wholesale destruction would be lost.

On the other hand, if Iran can manage restraint under an Israeli strike and focus solely on counterattacking the Jewish state, they stand to win a huge moral victory.  The U.S. would have no solid basis to join in the fray, under the fear of international backlash such as after the invasion of Iraq in 2003.  In this case, the U.S. would be most wise to limit their involvement to diplomatic, logistic and intelligence support for the Israelis, and keep us the hell out of it.  Frankly, our ships and bases in the Persian Gulf are sitting ducks for Iranian missiles and suicide speedboats, and I feel we'd lose international and domestic public support in days if not hours after the first airstrike on Bushehr or Qom.

So that's it for the moment:  lots of posturing, lots of hot air, but in the large scale, everyone's still just circling the ring and waiting to see who, if anyone, is going to throw the first real punch.  Frankly, I'd be fine if everyone just picked up their marbles and went home.

The Virginia GOP Has Gone Over the Edge

So, per the story at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/01/virginia-lawmaker-criticizes-gop-for-requiring-primary-loyalty-oath/,

"voters who arrive at polling sites in March [for the VA Republican primary] will be required to sign the following statement:   'I, the undersigned, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican Party for president.'  The idea is to keep out impostor Republicans, given that Virginia has an open primary, meaning voters of all political stripes, not just Republicans, can participate in the party's presidential primary.

The problem with the GOP's logic is, it IS an open primary... if the GOP doesn't like this, they should seek to change the law to make the Republican primary open only to registered Republicans, the way Florida does it.  As an Independent registered in the state of Florida, I can't say I like Florida's system, as it effectively bars me from participating in the primary system, but the point is:  it's the law!  If I don't like it, I can work to change it, but I don't try to subvert the Founding Fathers' intentions of open, free and fair elections where citizens may vote their consciences by trying to require them so sign some sham pledge that frankly, sounds illegal.  Having to sign a pledge to participate in a public vote open to all sounds suspiciously like coercion.

Furthermore, they're even demonstrating they don't even trust their own loyal party members.  As pointed out by Virginia Republican lawmaker Rob Marshall, they're "forcing their members to commit to a candidate they're not yet familiar with."  If you're a Perry supporter, but Bachman wins the Virginia primary and then 6 months later psychologically goes off the deep end and claims aliens are controlling her brain, by signing this pledge you're still ethically obligated to support her.

Being forced to support a candidate you don't agree with (even if you support that party) is wrong, and a perversion of the American election system.  I mean, I know plenty of Republicans who are Romney or Perry supporters but who think Ron Paul is nuts. If you were (or are) a Virginia Republican and Paul wins the primary, but Romney or Perry decides to run as an Independent, are you really going to willingly give up your vote to Paul???

I personally believe lawsuits are horrifically overused in this nation and am a huge supporter of tort reform, but in this case, in what I see as an attack on a basic tenet of democracy and our historically-based American system, I hope someone sues the crap out of them.

Heading for Our Own Demise... hopefully not, but I'm not too confident about it

Air-Sea Battle.  It’s everywhere you see defense news these days.  I happen to believe it’s merely a new way for the greater military-industrial complex to continue their own corporate strategy of developing a technology – or in the case of the F-35, just partly developing it – and then convincing the government it needs to have it just because it’s cutting edge, regardless of whether or not we actually need it (don’t worry; we’ll develop a strategy to accommodate it).  However, the little paranoid guy in me also believes, intentionally or not, it’s leading us toward a national defeat against what is now our greatest adversary.

We will never go head-to-head in a battle with China, or at least not for a very long time.  Direct confrontation is not China’s way, as any reader of Sun-Tzu knows.  Instead, they will seek to defeat us by subtlety and by proxy.  If it was possible to have a bug in the Peoples Liberation Army’s strategy shop, I think we’d find Chinese strategists likely approve of the new Air-Sea Battle (ASB) concept.  Knowing that in reality neither country could ever effectively project enough power across the Pacific to successfully defeat the other (sans use of nuclear weapons), while publicly decrying our ASB efforts, they’re likely smug in the knowledge they’re doing to us exactly what we did to the Soviets:  bankrupting them through defense acquisitions.  China’s working on a 5^th generation fighter?  We need squadrons of them now, whether or not the technology is proven, and whether or not China’s will actually be operational.  China purchased an aircraft carrier (which is unlikely to be a fully functional credible threat for many years)?  We need to beef up our Pacific forces now, even though one carrier isn’t an actual threat when compared to China’s anti-ship missile development (but it’s good enough to justify spending money!).

However, this time the U.S. is in even worse shape than the old USSR was in the 70s and 80s:  had the Soviets been able to recognize what was happening, with the reins of power so tightly held in just a few fists, their efforts could have been realigned.  In the case of the U.S., even if people much smarter than I decide to agree with me, politics, lobbyists and corporations will ensure that the hydra’s heads continue to disagree on which direction to go, with the body frequently ending up going in a completely irrelevant direction just so none of the heads get the upper hand.

China will continue to drain our resources further and seek to defeat us by proxy in various areas of the globe.  Rather than confront us directly, the militaries of smaller nations where China has made economic and diplomatic inroads will be employed to confront neighboring nations where the U.S. has built up influence.  As is our way, we won’t stand for this, and will likely send troops in (again) to quash the invaders, losing our own citizens and further squandering our treasure while China sits back and continues to conduct their orchestrated ballet.

With all the factors involved and the unpredictably of global events that seem to derail the best-laid plans of any nation, China may not win, but I fear we may lose.

It's too early to start seriously considering any Presidential candidates, but this guy caught my eye...

I get really sick of all the early campaigning out there, over a year before the election.  I generally make a point to deliberately not follow any of it until just a few months before I vote, and even then I have to admit my primary source of election coverage is The Daily Show.  However, I must admit that former Utah governor John Huntsman has stepped out  of the line of clones twice now and gotten my attention.  I fully admit I haven't looked him up on other issues, but he's worth looking into further, methinks.

The first time he blipped on my radar was this well-written article by Huntsman himself at http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/22/opinion/huntsman-foreign-policy/index.html?eref=rss_politics&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_allpolitics+%28RSS%3A+Politics%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher.   Every other candidate from both parties has been addressing how our defense establishment can "do more with less," but aside from Ron Paul's occasional good suggestion (immediately followed by that usual Ron Paul thing of starting with a good idea and then spinning around and diving off the deep end of reality), I've heard of no other candidate addressing whether we should keep doing that "more" part (it was also a sign of hope that here's a Republican candidate writing an OpEd piece for a left-leaning news source instead of trying to "yes-man" the audience at Fox News).

Huntsman is the first calling for an all-out reassessment of our strategy, and limitations on where and when we should get involved.  Huntsman hits the other candidates and current Administration with a face shot by stating "First, they let resources drive strategy, rather than using strategy to drive force structure and capabilities. Second, they fail to fundamentally alter our defense posture -- so any short-term savings will be quickly erased."  The first item I've been screaming about publicly and privately for years now, and with both points Huntsman take a huge - but integrity-laden - risk in threatening the defense industry.  Even as an Independent he's almost got my vote on that alone (if a registered Independent could vote in the Florida [my home of record] primaries).

He does seem to imply backing of the China-direct-threat Air-Sea Battle philosophy that I vehemently disagree with, as if either we or China are ever going to lift our forces en masse across the Pacific to go head to head with each other, and I also disagree with his criticism of the President sending an advisory and training force to Africa; foreign military assistance and building partnerships is one thing the U.S. does very well that costs little in treasure or lives - but I'm willing to set those on the back burner (for now) in light of largely agreeing with many of his other suggestions.

The second time I noticed him was making a fool of himself on Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update.  I respect people who are willing to do that, because no one should always take themselves seriously, and that rule goes double for politicians.  I thought his sucking up to Seth Myer was brilliant.  Even if he didn't write it himself, I was still impressed with his willingness to play along.  As long as he doesn't go overboard making self-deprecating comedy appearances, implying or revealing that it's all a PR gimmick, it gives me hope that he's actually human, and perhaps even a nice guy instead of some arrogant uptight entitled-feeling prick thinking he's doing everyone else a favor by being there.  The first time I ever actually, consciously wait for someone to carry my bags for me or plate my food, I hope I realize that I no longer belong wherever I am, and I also hope I duck before either my wife or one of my friends smacks me hard in the back of the head a' la Mark Harmon on NCIS.

I think I'm going to be doing a little more research on Mr Huntsman, and at some point I'll post on whether my instincts held up or mea culpa if I was wrong.  Sadly, I don't think he'll make the final cut due to his questioning the status quo and that he isn't just another political clone telling everyone what they want to hear, but I really wish he would have a strong chance; the status quo damn well needs questioning.  I'll close with one of the final statement in his OpEd that I also very much agree with:  "being the best is not simply a function of spending the most."  More to come from me on Mr Huntsman, and I honestly hope there's more to come from him.