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.

What’s the Structure of the New American Dream?

Related to the previous post on millionaire households, I'll refer to an article that was pointed out to me in response.  From NPR:  Why the Haves Have So Much (source:  http://www.npr.org/2011/10/29/141816778/why-the-haves-have-so-much?sc=fb&cc=fp).  This article opens up a huge can of worms for America by discussing how we've become a "winner take all" society.  Decades ago, starting a business and growing it to success and market dominance took decades, and even then there was rooms for others.  The example cited in the NPR article is tax preparation:  in the last century, there were millions (no number cited, so perhaps I exaggerate) of local accountants doing peoples' taxes for them.  Then larger corporations like H&R Block and Jackson Hewitt began leaving the major urban centers and branch out, opening up shops in smaller locales.  Still though, there was room for mom and pop back-room businesses.  However, enter the internet age, and Turbotax.  People who once went to their local accounts could now effectively and efficiently do their taxes at home.  One company put potentially thousands of smaller ones out of business, and put a huge crimp in the income of the rest.

I like the example I came up with even better:  Netflix!  Back in the 80's, we'd go down to our local mini-mart, gas station or supermarket to rent a VHS tape for the night (and woe to those who didn't get it back first thing the next morning and face an additional day's charges!).  There were also independent video stores to be found every few blocks.  In the 90s and early 00s, Blockbuster and Hollywood Video popped up and expanded, but there was still enough market for the mini-marts to keep movies on their shelves and the independents afloat.  However, Netflix came along and Hollywood Video is gone, Blockbuster is floundering (no discussion here of Netflix's recent troubles, thanks), and unless it's an adult-themed shop, independent video outlets no longer exist at all.

So here's the dilemma:  is the American way - starting at the bottom and working your way up to riches and success - no longer admired?  Is it no longer valued?  When starting from scratch - in your basement with an idea for a web-based business - and working your way to success can now mean putting thousands out of work in our internet-based society, does that make you an American success story, or worthy of vilification?   How do we need to adapt to this new construct?  Is it an argument for Socialism, or are we doomed to split into a permanent structure of haves and have-nots, except for the occasional person who has the good-idea fairy visit them and manages to claw their way out of the masses?

It's a fascinating puzzle, and I'm not sure what it will look like when it's finished.  Heck, I'm not even sure we have all the pieces in the box, and that scares me.  But we still have to try.  It would make a heck of a thesis for an economics or sociology grad student.

The 99% Seems to Actually be the 93-95%, and Falling...

So before we get into the meat of this and I have people reading the first few lines and dismissing me outright, I need to point out that I do support the idea behind OccupyWallSt (as long as Wall St doesn't turn into Vancouver), and support free speech and freedom of assembly.  I believe our nation is in a fiscally precarious position, that the national debt is actually our #1 national security issue right now, and that promoting the creation of jobs is a key issue in turning that around.  However, in our world, especially through the media, it seems the way to "win" or at least get the most attention is by making everything seem to be the most extreme, worst-case scenario possible, and I don't play that game.

Today's blather is based on an article I saw this morning:  "US States with the Most Millionaires- 2011" (source:  http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/113718/states-most-millionaires-cnbc).  Phoenix Marketing International released a study showing "the overall number of millionaire households in the U.S. has increased nationwide for the second time in two years. In 2011, there were 5.94 million millionaire households, compared with 5.56 million households a year earlier, an increase of approximately 6.8 percent. Nearly every U.S. state saw an increase in its total number of millionaires, adding thousands of households to millionaire status."  The article also mapped out how, for the top ten states with the most millionaires, 6-7% of the total number of households in those states were millionaires.  Think about it - there are a lot of wealthy households out there, and probably a lot more that are below the millionaire line but doing really well too.

There's a lot data there, and a lot of implication too (which I wish I could get more data for, to confirm or refute).  If the number of millionaire households across the US grew by half a million in just one year, there's an implication that households with a value less than that grew as well.  If this could be confirmed, the overall inference one could draw is that the US economy is not as in bad a shape as it's being portrayed, at least for the individual American.

Are there huge problems?  Of course, especially for the 10% or so that are unemployed, and I stand by my assertion of our debt being our largest security issue.  However, if you have a job, overall it seems like a significant portion of the nation, while tightening belts a little, is doing okay.  And I'm not even going to go off (too far) on a tangental rant on how people are showing how coddled they are by demanding the government bring jobs to them, rather than going to where the jobs are.

I do feel that the corporate pay structure is way out of whack, but it's up to the people that own the companies - the investors - to fix that, as unlikely I think that is to happen.  Not the government.  Because if the government tries to start regulating CEO pay, then we've failed as a nation and have started going down the route of China and the Soviet Union, and in the end even more will be suffering than now.

For most military, DADT repeal is less "WTF?", more YAWN

So both the left and right newsies are all a-Twitter (it would be a better pun if I actually had a Twitter account, I suppose) about Tues, 20 Sep as the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  There are a few Congressfolk putting in last-ditch efforts to stop or delay it, while in other places (including here in Colorado) there are coming-out parties planned, with attendance by local and state reps and possibly even higher-level folks showing up.  It's a BIG DEAL.

And that's true - it is a big deal in some ways, but it seems both sides have way overblown ideas of what's going to happen in the military come Wednesday.  The right seems to think  troops will be prancing around in pink g-strings and wearing rainbow flags instead of the U.S. one.  The left seems to think.... well, actually, they seem to think the same thing - that gay troops will embrace their new-found freedom and should exercise their right to flaunt and yell "yoo-hoo sweetie, here I am!" to their Colonels and Generals.  The only difference between the two sides seems to be that the right thinks gay rape attacks will be epidemic in the barracks showers, and the left thinks the rest of the military - clearly made up entirely of radical right-wing homophobes - is going to try to lynch all the gay members.

I don't think much of anything is going to change, frankly.  Yes, there will be some people distinctly unhappy with it, as I saw in the DADT training, and a small few may separate, but most of us, gay and straight, really only care about if the person you're working with is competent, and if you can trust them to have your back (no pun intended there; I simply couldn't come up with a better phrase that didn't have gay innuendo).  I've served... well, heck, everyone who's in or has ever been in the military has served with homosexuals, eaten lunch with them, and yes, showered at the gym with them already.  And frankly, while some folks undoubtedly have managed to camouflage their closet doors well, I know quite a number of gays in the military.  I've never asked and they've never told specifically, so we could both avoid that little legal trap, but I've known, and they've known I've known, and guess what? - they know I don't give a shit.

If you're good at your job, do it, and I can trust you, and you feel the same way, it doesn't matter.  And while, as I mentioned above, there will undoubtedly be some straight military who are obviously opposed to the coming-out and will push the regs to the limit making that clear, I'm sure there will be a few gay folks coming out who do the same thing, and to them as well I say "get over yourself."  You're gay.  Great.  I DO think it's a great societal step that you don't have to hide it any more, but if you're going to flaunt it, I mentally put you in the same camp as those so vocally opposing you:  you're more caught up in yourself than doing the mission, so refocus or get out.

Black, white, male, female, gay, straight, short, tall, left-handed, right-handed... when it comes down to it, everyone's pretty much the same; people are just too caught up in themselves and in trying to impose their own morals, values and beliefs on everyone else to notice that your [insert adjective describing someone different from you] neighbor watches the same tv shows, follows the same sports teams, and shops at the same places you do.  I don't care what color you are, what plumbing you have down below or what gender you're attracted to.  Just do your job, I'll do mine, we'll have each others' back and hopefully get through this huge mess (and the term applies to both being deployed downrange or working in the bureaucratic SNAFU that is an HQ) alive. 

Tiring of Retirement Rants

There's been much discussion throughout the military over the past few weeks on the proposed reworking of retirement benefits to help balance the budget.  Unfortunately, like everything else in the nation that's been notionally targeted for budget cuts, we all seem to have Not In My Backyard (NIMBy) syndrome.  Yes yes, of course cuts are needed, but don't take them from me!  Bullshit.  I, for one, am willing to accept cuts as long as I'm not the ONLY one getting cut.  I think everyone needs to give up something, especially since if everyone was willing to give up a little, I think (without benefit of being an economist, but I'd love to hear from one on the below ideas) we could heartily attack the budget crisis with harming anyone.  And yes, I believe it is a crisis.  I believe the national debt is a key national security issue, but it's not being addressed as one.

So on the all the talk about cutting or reducing or reworking military retirements:  quite frankly I'm not worried.  Sure, there's talk of reducing retirements to 40% or even less for those currently on active duty, but I don't think it will fly.  It's not politically viable; any member of Congress who votes to affect the retirement of someone who's already been serving for 12, 15 or 18 years knows they'll immediately lose most of their military support in the next election.  If a sitting member of Congress with a military base in their district voted this course of action, anyone stepping in to the next round of elections would just have to say they'd work to restore the retirements and they'd suck up all the military votes in that district.  So changes to retirement for folks newly joining the military?  Sure, definitely possible, even likely.  Changes to those serving a lesser amount time... say, less than 10 years in service?  Possible, since they have a good deal of time to plan and play catch-up.  But changing the retirement benefits of someone who's within a few years of retirement?  Don't think it's gonna happen.

However, I acknowledge that financially, we're in quite a pickle, and one that continues to float toward the bottom of the pickle barrel (is there a bottom?  Insolvency perhaps?).  What to do?  I favor the peanut butter spread mentioned in the first chapter.  There are now, I think, less than one million active duty military members, and most of those won't be doing the full 20 years to retirement.  This leaves a relatively (relatively in the tens of thousands arena, as a rough estimate [it's Saturday morning; no, I haven't researched anything yet!]) of people whose retirement benefits Congress is considering pillaging 5, 10 or 20 percent from.  Yet, there are, per the American Military Retirees Association website (okay, I did SOME research), around two million military retirees in the U.S.  My proposal is cut ALL personal military retirement benefit accounts - past, present and future - by two percent.  There are some people who would have trouble dealing with a two percent cut in their benefits, but I feel that number would be extremely small.  For most, it would be nearly unnoticeable.  And, in the small, unscientific and very informal discussions I've brought up around the office with the active duty and retired members there, they were all willing to make that sacrifice toward a solvent nation.

But wait, there's more!  If the President and Congress say that everyone must do their part, why limit it to the military?  The National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association represents "some five million federal workers, retirees, spouses and their survivors."  The Washington Post's Federal Eye column (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/09/how_many_federal_workers_are_t.html) lists 2.65 million federal workers out there, leaving over two million federal retirees to contribute their two percent.  And before anyone starts bitching, yes, I absolutely believe that Congress needs to give up their two percent, along with some of the more ridiculous retirement perks too.  Numbers-wise, Congress is a drop in the bucket, but (1) those drops add up and (2) I'm a big believer in leadership by example.  I also think that my spreading the two-percent across as large a population as possible, it would prevent a slippery-slope possibility that could come from targeting, say, just the military.

I would LOVE for an economist, statistician, accountant or some econ graduate student to do an analysis of my proposal to see if it's actually valid.  Yes, I fully expect the military and federal retiree associations (and Congress) will have a hissy fit over this content (NIMBy again), but somehow I think many of their members would see differently.  After all, these people gave their careers sacrificing for their country, and they're being asked to do it again, but on a much, much smaller level for 99% of them.  I'm willing to part with a fraction of my retirement to contribute my part; are you?

Bitching about Campaigning

In my best Seinfeld-style voice, "all this campaigning and spending of money on campaigning and being too busy campaigning to do your actual job.... what's up with that?"

Okay, as distasteful as I find Presidential campaigning, I can understand it... to a point.  And if it's your first time running for a position, yeah, I get that too... you have to be able to tell people your views and you don't have a track record to stand on.  But if you're the incumbent for most other local elected offices, from Mayor to State Rep to Congressional Rep or Senator, if you're doing your job right, you shouldn't have to campaign at all.

With the prevalence of technology today, if you have even a halfway-decent public affairs (PA) person, your constituents should be fully aware of exactly what you've been doing and why.  Your PA rep should have you doing Tweets a couple of times a week, updating a Facebook page and your official site, and at least once or twice a month getting a story on something you're working on in the news.  If you really are doing your job and not just dicking around, the public should know exactly what you've been up for the past term, and therefore whether or not you're a slacker and if they should bother to vote for you.  Not to mention with everyone having a certain level of Google-Fu and total access to your entire history, what can you really tell them that they can't get on their own, unless you're just trying to blow smoke up their asses?

For that matter, why would a sitting President even bother campaigning for re-election?  The President's in the news EVERY DAY.  The entire world knows exactly what the President's been up to, their successes and failures.  So why do a bus tour touting your wares?  They're already out there for the world to see.

So, to the entire current crop of incumbent elected politicians:  a decent skilled PA rep is a lot less costly to the public than all these b.s. campaign trips.  Stop talking about what you could do for us in your next term and get your asses to work NOW.  And if you do, and you're good at it (or even if you're not that good at it but show a decent amount of integrity, honesty and vision in the position), you'll probably get my vote.

And today's post is... ranting all over the place, I guess

So with the raising of the debt ceiling, Congress is all out in the streets proclaiming how the President has ruined the US's credit rating and destroyed the economy.  Sad when our own government need to take Gov't 101. I'm not a fan of many of President Obama's policies either, but the President doesn't have the authority to spend money (with some very small exceptions). Per the Constitution, the authority to tax & spend lies with Congress, & every member of Congress, no matter what party, no matter now or in the past, has worked diligently to get us into this massive cluster f*ck.

And honestly, the responsibility for this mess lies with TWO sources: the governmet and the American people. This is our own fault... we demanded the government produce all these goods and services, whether it was military spending, pork barrel projects (notice how when it's in your neighborhood it's a good thing? Everywhere else it's pork?) or social programs, and the government - including members of both parties - spends and gives us exactly what we asked for.

To be honest,  my main beef with Congress lies not in what they've done, but in their failure to take responsibility. I've screwed up in life - lots. But since I've been a mature adult (I'll argue with friends about the "mature" label later ;-) ), when I screw up I admit it, take responsibility, apologize, make efforts to fix it, & move on. Gov't lack of responsibility is what drives MY total lack of respect for them. If they'd take responsibility, I'd be willing to move past it.

Plus, I think the people in power are so full of themselves and so enamored of hearing their own voices, I swear they're blinded to the wishes and reactions of the American people.  This nice little article in The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/independents-hate-both-parties-as-never-before/243162/) echoes what's being seen more and more around the country:  that both major parties are hemorrhaging members - mostly younger people who aren't willing to sit around and let someone else speak for them - who are re-registering as independents.  I like the way one reader commented about the major parties in an online comment:  "It's like trying to decide between two bowls of crap that you're forced to eat and basing your decision on whether you'd prefer having corn or peanuts in it."

The Next Book on my To-Read List

So I saw today’s column by George Will of the WP about a new book that I definitely want to read:  “The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What’s Wrong With America” by Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch.  Will’s summary alone is a (much-better-worded) statement of something I’ve thought about since taking a course about analysis and different types of bias a couple of years ago:  existence bias.  Existence bias, as described by Will (about the book of course) is the American peoples’ and systems’ assumption that if something exists, it will continue to exist.  In the military I’ve already referred to this as the “no we can’t change it; we do it that way because it’s the way we’ve always done it” bias, and no matter how you tag it, like most biases, it’s caused and reinforced by mental laziness.

The review also points out how the younger generation today has essentially grown up in a libertarian-type culture, where choice exists for everything:  don’t like what’s on tv?  thousands of channels, plus streaming movies.  Music? Pandora, XM, Sirius.  3,500 books at any time on your Kindle, and access to every newspaper in the world.  But government?  The great ossified behemoth that never changes.  In fact, when it fails, it grows larger and even more powerful.  And apparently the book argues that this situation won’t be able to stand for much longer.  I wonder if Gillespie and Welch have considered getting their data together with Malcolm Gladwell (of The Tipping Point fame) to see if they can figure out the how and when?

Even though I haven’t read the book yet, I can already see having some issues with it, the biggest being the definition of Libertarianism.  Libertarians span a very wide gauntlet ranging from pseudo-conservatives, across the span of small government covering only infrastructure and basic services, to full-out anarchists.  Almost anyone who’s not far rght or left could be considered one.  Nonetheless, I’m willing to give the book the benefit of the doubt until I’ve gotten through it, and we’ll see what falls out.  I’m looking forward to it.

Will’s review here:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/declaration-of-independents/2011/07/29/gIQAJrUAiI_story.html

Monopoly Claims the State Wants to Replace Them with… a Monopoly?

So basing off this story here:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/16/union-opposes-pennsylvanias-plan-to-privatize-liquor-stores-citing-5000-job/?test=latestnews…

Pennsylvania is one of the few states left where you can only buy wine and liquor at a state-owned and operated store.  Notice I’m not saying “state-licensed;” the state government actually directly runs all wine and liquor sales in the state, and has for decades.  I know; I grew up there.  Now a state representative wants to privatize sales, auctioning off liquor licenses and enabling free-market economics.  The union that covers the ~3,500 employees that work in the state stores is crying foul, claiming that the plan will actually lose money for the state and cost 5,000 jobs (the suspicion starts here, since there are only 3,500 liquor store employees).  There are 620 state liquor stores and the plan calls for auctioning off 1250 liquor sales licenses (and likely, more to follow in later years, as in most states allow and have many more than that).

What really caught my attention though, was that even though the state rep’s plan for auction licensing calls specifically for 750 “large retailer” licenses (read:  Sam’s Club, Costco, etc) and 500 “small retailer (mom-and-pop-type) licenses, the union still claims that jobs will be lost, since somehow ALL the licenses will still go to Sam’s and Costco, who will use existing employees instead of hiring the now-unemployed state store employees, in effect turning all liquor sales in PA over to a small economically-controlling faction.

This is another case of the union making a huge fuss to try to sustain itself.  There was a time when most industries in this country DID need unions.  Some industries STILL DO need unions, but for the most part, IMHO, many of them are parasitic dinosaurs, living of the dues of their members without giving back a value greater than those dues in return.  The United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 is no exception.  Short-term, yes, those 500 small-retailer licenses will be bought, open stores, and each may hire as little as two or three workers, so some of those liquor store employees will be out of a job and stay out of a job.  However, having lived in many states with open liquor stores, demand will grow, and more licenses will be issued, and more small outlets will open, and more folks will be employed, and more business taxes flow into the economy.

The area I grew up in, in Central PA, is probably less than or around 100,000 people.  There are currently five PA Liquor Control Board stores and one “kiosk” to service that population.  Quite frankly, if privatized I can easily see a demand for more than a dozen small liquor outlets in that area, which will likely bring as many, if not more, jobs than they state stores currently employ.  I suspect, with only 620 stores across the state, including such huge cities as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, that if privatized, the growth of liquor retailers per capita – and accompanying jobs – will be similar.

Here in Colorado, there’s probably a liquor store every half mile or so, and while we only use it a couple of times a month, the convenience of having one just down the street when friends are coming over or we’re heading out to a bbq and we need a bottle of wine is great!  Plus, those retailers are our neighbors and friends.  The closest one to us is a small mom-and-pop store that raises funds to support our local dog park.  State-owned stores in PA don’t – and probably by law can’t – create those kinds of ties.

So the union needs to, frankly, shut the hell up and realize that it’s a relic from another century, and Pennsylvania needs to pass this law to help bring it into the current century.

Arrogance, selfishness and “patriotism” make us our own worst enemy

An excellent article at the Wall Street Journal on Sweden’s economy and how it’s bouncing back:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/five-economic-lessons-from-sweden-the-rock-star-of-the-recovery/2011/06/21/AGyuJ3iH_story.html

Economic issues truly make me the most disappointed in our government, as lawmakers truly show their selfishness with an inability to put the good of the nation ahead of their own polls in their own districts.  I do realize of course, that they represent their constituents, but I don’t believe that the intent of representative government was to represent your district AT THE EXPENSE OF your fellow citizens.  Congress needs to realize that a huge deficit and unstable budget are the biggest threats to our nation, and be willing to enact some short-term pain in favor of long-term stability.

Whenever another nation does it right (no matter what the topic), we have all these idiots on the news screaming “we’re America!  We LEAD, we don’t follow what other countries do!”  Well guess what, suck it up cupcake, because while we still do a lot of great things, we’re not the best at everything anymore, and it’s time we realized that being a stubborn, arrogant, “patriotic” ass isn’t going to get you anywhere except in the opinion polls of a public that’s in denial.  We should be looking not only to Sweden for it’s fiscal practices (and yes, I know that we can’t, or perhaps even shouldn’t adopt all, or even many of them, but have an open mind people!), but other countries that are doing well in other areas, and find out what we can take from them.

A chance to come clean from hypocrisy

Darrin Bell’s Candorville comic is very good at pointing out hypocrisy within both government and the populace at large.  This is this past Sunday’s comic.  Quite frankly, I’m not upset that politicians may chance their stance on issues over the years; I know I have, so I can’t begrudge them doing the same thing.  However, I think they’d gain a lot more credibility if they came out and admitted it.  Why don’t our representatives realize that this habit/tradition of never admitting you’ve ever been wrong (unless you’re REALLY busted, aka Weinergate, in which case you put on “the face” - http://imgur.com/gallery/vE6mW) makes them look ignorant and untrustworthy?  I respect anyone who says “I don’t know, but I’ll get back to you” or even “over the years I’ve changed my viewpoint” a lot more than someone who attempts to deflect a question or push it away with vague answers.

Pre-Blog: Comment on the US celebrations over the death of bin Laden

This was posted on my personal social media site in the days following the announcement of the death of Usama bin Laden (UBL).  I was amazed that I got more comments than on almost anything else I’ve ever posted, and more amazed that most people liked and agreed with what I said.

——–

Over the past week and a half I’ve watched the arguments in various news sources and social media about Usama bin Laden – not as much about bin Laden’s death or whether he actually deserved to die (even the Dali Lama weighed in on that, to my surprise), but whether we, as Americans, had devolved to the level of animals or “the enemy” for visibly and boisterously celebrating it in the streets.

I’m not the sort to actually take part in such celebrations, but don’t begrudge those who do, because I don’t think it demeans us or makes us “just like them.”  I agree that celebrating death and an act of killing isn’t normally a good thing.  If people were out there yelling “kill all Muslims” then I’d be really upset, but I think that people aren’t celebrate the acting of killing itself.  They’re certainly not celebrating the end of terrorism, for bin Laden’s killing was, realistically, purely symbolic – of both the fight against terrorism and the resolve of the United States.  I think people are actually just celebrating the act up waking up from a long bad dream.

Remember Fall 2001?  For days after September 11^th the nation was effectively locked down.  For weeks – in some cases months – people wouldn’t leave their homes or neighborhoods out of fear.  For years afterward people wouldn’t go to cities or national monuments on major holidays or attend major sporting events out of fear, or even go out to dinner on Sep 11 (and I know, because it’s my wedding anniversary and for several years we never had trouble getting a reservation anywhere).

As children, we all had our little rituals for hiding from or exorcising the monsters in the closet or under the bed each night, whether it was a song, having a parent check, leaving the door cracked open a few inches, leaving the closet light on.  But what if you’d had a way of banishing the monsters altogether?  I think that’s what has happened here in the national psyche, to a degree.

People aren’t celebrating the action of killing in itself. But they’re happy because we’ve finally killed the Boogeyman that really did torment us:  who limited our lives by day, kept us awake at night, and invaded our dreams while we slept; the Boogeyman who took the lives thousands of family, friends, acquaintances or fellow citizens from us.  The threat is still real, but its most visible symbol is gone, and the closet is empty.

Or to put it more flippantly, we were the munchkins, and ding dong, the wicked witch is dead.

Welcome to what will hopefully be clear, direct, insightful and definitely debatable commentary :-)

Hello, and thank you for taking the time to look at this.  Largely drawn from my Profile description, a bit about me and why this blog is here.  The first thing I should point out is that this blog is a mirror from freerangereason.wordpress.com

I’m a career military member, and for many years a registered Independent.  I’m not a particularly type-A personality, and believe that people can disagree on a topic while still being respectful of each other’s opinion – everything doesn’t have to be a “you’re either with me or against me” philosophy.  I DON’T believe that everything is black or white, I DO believe that most rules have exceptions, and that most situations have to be judged on their own merit rather than following a blanket “party line.”  I DO believe that while elected officials do represent their districts and constituents, they also have an obligation to act for the greater good of the nation as a whole, and that leadership should be by example, not a “do as I say, not as I do” philosophy.  I also believe that the national debt is our biggest issue as a nation right now; without solving that, it’s unlikely we can successfully accomplish much else, because everything we do – military operations, humanitarian assistance, social security, and space exploration – is all tied to the debt.

I started this blog because I’ve reached a point where I feel many aspects of local, regional, national and global life are just plain disgusting me and I needed someplace to vent, and I’ve had enough positive feedback about the letters, notes and commentary on various subjects that I’ve posted to friends through email and/or social media that I thought this might be worth it – at least to me.

Many of the earliest posts to this blog will be, for all intents and purposes, out of date.  This is because I’ll be posting some of the earlier notes and commentaries I’ve made on past events, both to archive them for myself, and, if interested, to give you sense of what I think and how I write.