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.