Putin and the Ukraine

In many ways, Putin is acting in the strategic interests of Russia's national security. Russia is exceptionally vulnerable to land attack and must develop buffer states to delay any attacks from Europe.

I fully expect all of Eastern Ukraine to secede from Kiev and to form some sort of federation with a puppet government loyal to Russia. Putin is smart, however, and is not rebuilding the old Soviet Union which had to carry financial responsibility for member states. The new "republic" of East Ukraine will be a separate state, responsible for paying its own bills. Since it contains the major industrial complexes in Ukraine, has a huge trade relationship with Russia and will be protected by Russia, East Ukraine will probably be able to take care of itself quite well.

Not much can be done to reverse the inevitable. However, we must focus on limiting the Russian encroachment to East Ukraine. Some of our options are:

1. Station American troops in Kiev to "protect" the American embassy and other American interests in the Ukraine (read: Western Ukraine).
2. Station American troops in Poland to conduct an exercise with the Polish military.
3. Place U.S. sanction against Russian/East Ukraine individuals and banking interests and work hard to negotiate or coerce other European countries and the EU to do the same,
4. Long term: develop the infrastructure and sell American natural gas to Europe, especially Germany to help offset Russia's monopoly in Europe. Pressure other natural gas producers to do the same.

To President Obama: It is paramount to remember that the Russian military is not comparable to the U.S. military and could not win a head-to-head confrontation. Putin is bluffing when he acts as the "world" power Russia is not!

A CEO Can't Win Either Way

A CEO is entrusted with the growth and prosperity of the company he or she leads. One critical element of company growth and prosperity is taking very good care of employees. Among other things, compensation, training, promotion potential, health care and retirement programs are key to reward and motivate employees. In an environment of uncontrolled, spiraling costs and government mandates, health care has become a central issue in terms of properly protecting employees while controlling costs. To complicate matters, health care issues can be incredibly emotional, placing its business aspects far out of focus.

Health care premiums are exorbitantly high and volitile because costs in the health industry are essentially out of control. Typically, a company shares health care costs with its employees because of these high premiums. A 50-50 cost sharing is not uncommon. Additionally, to keep health care premiums down for employees, the company will agree to pay substantial health care claims before liability to the insurance company comes into play. For example, a company will typically pay 50% of employees' health care premiums and the first $1 million or so in claims each year. Needless to say, a company's stake in its employees' health care is substantial and often unpredictable.

Unfortunately, a few excessively high claims will consume the company's co-pay share and cause the insurance company to pay large claims. The result is to substantially raise premiums or the company's co-pay. Whatever happens, the company's health care costs will soar. The options are simple for the company: share the additional health care costs with all employees by raising their premiums or absorb the additional costs and offset them by other austerity measures.

Please note that I have deliberately avoided placing a face on the "excessively high claims" I mentioned above. The decisions a CEO must make are strictly business in nature, doing what is best for all employees and for the company. The ice gets thin, however, when a CEO chooses to pay unanticipated costs for one benefit (health care) by curtailing another (retirement plan). In this case, all employees are still liable to pay the full price. In retrospect, the CEO needs to find a way to pay the costs of providing expected and fair benefits to all employees and absorbing unanticipated costs as they occur. In health care issues, it's pretty certain, claim and premium costs will rise yearly. The trick is to stay ahead of the trend and meet it head-on. That's what CEOs are paid to do.

Our National Anthem

I'm including the following quote because it expresses so well my feelings of many years about how our national anthem has been butchered by "musicians" trying to outdo each other in style and publicity. I am concerned that we have lost the pride and humility to embrace the few American traditions we have with enthusiasm and respect. Singing our national anthem in a stylistic and ego-centric manner is insulting to true Americans and patriots. Or have we forgotten about that?

Superbowl Sunday Date: Feb.2 2014 08:22:07 -0500 From a Marine Corps Colonel in Afghanistan: 

"So with all the kindness I can muster, I give this one piece of advice to the next pop star who is asked to sing the national anthem at a sporting event: save the vocal gymnastics and the physical gyrations for your concerts. Just sing this song the way you were taught to sing it in kindergarten - straight up, no styling. "Sing it with the constant awareness that there are soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines watching you from bases and outposts all over the world. Don't make them cringe with your self-centered ego gratification. Sing it as if you are standing before a row of 86-year-old WWII vets wearing their Purple Hearts, Silver Stars and flag pins on their cardigans and you want them to be proud of you for honoring them and the country they love - not because you want them to think you are a superstar musician. They could see that from your costume, makeup and your entourage. Sing 'The Star Spangled Banner' with the courtesy and humility that tells the audience that it is about America, not you. And please remember, not everything has to be sung as a Negro spiritual. We're getting a little weary of that. Francis Scott Key does not need any help." Semper Fi !

Abortion

This issue is so charged with emotion that objectivity seems impossible. Polarity is so strong that a middle-of-the-road position can't be found. Arguments incorporate religious, social, political, feminist, legal, and medical beliefs. Ignorance plays a key role in preventing understanding and prohibiting compromise. No one is interested in trying to understand the opposite position, let alone accept even portions of it. For the moment, let's forget exceptional cases such as rape, fetal viability, medical issues, etc., which deserve separate contemplative treatment on their own merits.

Women argue, largely successfully, that they have a right to determine what happens in and to their bodies. This includes terminating an unwanted pregnancy, using a variety of abortive measures. Largely forgotten, is the other half of the relationship that created the pregnancy. Since the pregnancy exists in the female body, she claims sole right to retain it or dispose of it according to her own whim. Also at issue is whether the fetus is a legal person, entitled to life,  or a vegetative growth that can be excised at will. Essentially, is the fetus a person or an inanimate, growing tumor? The huge question is "When does life begin?"

Since it takes both a male and female to create a pregnancy, perhaps it should take the permission of both to terminate it. After all, paternity usually determines the person responsible for financial support of the maternal side.

I recently heard a discussion of abortion where proponents associated pro-life positions with  prejudice against women. Pro-abortionists used a technique of making the opposition feel ashamed of who they were. The concept of destroying a fetus, which could be defined as a "person," was relegated to a subordinate level and the "rights" of women elevated to the highest level. I couldn't help but wonder if, in 50 years or so, a mother would be permitted to "terminate" a three year old child who becomes a drag on career and social freedom. The concept playing out was sacrificing the weak in favor of the convenience of the strong.

If abortions are deemed socially acceptable and legal, why should the government (read: taxpayers) pay the bill? Abortion, like impregnation, is an individual choice that shouldn't require society to rectify. I can certainly support the concept that the father should both agree and be held financially liable for one-half of the cost of an abortion. I find it strange that we tend to support aborting a "non-person" but are abhorred at the thought of using the result for stem cell research.

I happen to believe that, at the very moment of conception, a person endowed with an eternal soul is created; that "life" begins at the moment of conception. Given that belief, I cannot accept abortion as any form of medical or social solution. (Case in point: Beethoven.) I object vehemently, however, to taxpayers paying for abortion for any reason. I submit as well that a pregnant woman does not have the right to unilaterally opt for abortion. These are my private beliefs and ones that I cannot expect others to share. I can't help but wonder what contributions to mankind so many aborted fetuses might have made.

The Shutdown - Why Be Surprised?

Our illustrious politicians in Washington have been telegraphing the showdown, which has resulted in the Shutdown, for several weeks now. Like Syria, this is another major surrender of American prestige around the world. The world is laughing uncontrollably and is swiftly losing any respect for American leadership and what it stands for. The upcoming fiasco about raising the U.S. national debt will just about finish American worldwide influence. Do words like "childish" and "kindergarten" fit? How about "senile" and "unpatriotic" to describe politicians who will do anything to achieve their political goals, especially hurting the American people and the United States of America?

The bottom line is that Obamacare is a law that we must obey; no matter what devious methods the Democrats used to get it passed, it is the law of our nation. Republicans are far amiss in trying to defund Obamacare as a way of delaying or completely stopping the implementation of this stupid and unenforceable program. Perhaps a better strategy would be to allow the law to go into effect and then let  the American voters decide if they like it or not. Their outrage will almost surely result in a Republican dominated House and Senate, giving Republicans the necessary legislative votes to repeal Obamacare. However, don't let Obamacare be the Republicans' Iraq: they will have to be prepared to offer and implement an alternate plan.

The hypocrisy of the issues surrounding the shutdown are incredible. Congress has exempted themselves from Obamacare and ensured their pay continues, even during a shutdown. Why should we be paying our congressional representatives for their fruitless gridlock? Perhaps a "dedicated" Republican should introduce a bill in the House to stop congressional pay during unfunded periods and require our representatives and senators to comply with the law of the land and embrace Obamacare. Perhaps someone should develop a congressional  "pay for performance" compensation scheme. Perhaps the American voter should avoid casting a vote for any incumbent in the next election. Somehow, Americans need to find a way to overcome a political process that is on autopilot and serves the individual politicians hugely disproportionately to the American people. We're not being represented any longer, we are being used to fuel the egos and personal fortunes of those we elect. Now, who's stupid?

I am saddened to see the wonderful Republican alternative being destroyed by a few "at any cost" radicals. The Republican party is as adrift and leaderless as our country and is devouring itself from within. The line dividing liberals and conservatives has been blurred, if not erased. Ethics, patriotism, honesty, courage and accountability seem to have abandoned the political scene in favor of personal power and financial gain. Moral indignation and emotionalism seem to drive the political process (even elections), rather than a pragmatic goal of doing what's good for our country and its citizens. Somehow, our politicians have become proud of their ability to avoid compromise, unflinchingly standing their ground no matter the cost. Gridlock has become a badge of honor, worn by nearly all of our representatives and senators. The American people, although often used as a convenient excuse, have fallen to last place on the political priority list.

Out of laziness and indifference, we Americans are empowering our politicians to destroy the American dream and lifestyle as we know it today. There will come a sad day when even our unique and insightful Constitution won't be able to save us from political predators.

Psychology and Economic Recovery - The Sky is Not Falling!

It's important to recognize that market psychology has a huge impact on how fast, when, and if, an economic slump will recover, especially in a consumption-based economy like ours in America. American investors need faith that companies will grow and prosper before investing in the stock market (the major source of expansion and growth capital for American companies). Americans won't spend their money (real or borrowed) unless they feel confident their employment future is well secured. Although partially true, new jobs don't just come from the rich and large, untaxed companies, they come from middle-class Americans spending their money (the "demand" part of the equation, remember?). American citizens must believe that their elected politicians are capable, honest and dedicated to helping America and not just themselves. In short, economic activity is based heavily on consumers' perception of the "future." Economic recovery in our system is based on employed consumers willing to spend their money.

I am a registered Republican, but I am deeply saddened by the rhetoric oozing out of the Republican camp. "The sky is falling" is the wrong message to send to Americans whose economic transactions are critical to our very economic recovery. With low consumer confidence and dampened reasonable optimism, our recovery can only move forward painfully slowly. The Democrats aren't much better as they paint a picture of economic bliss. Nobody seems to be truthfully informing the American people that their role in our economic recovery is what really counts. Everyone needs to focus on what's good for the whole and not what's good for the individual.

Taxation is an important tool to stimulate economic activity. The focus of tax reductions, however, should be on the group who can achieve the most effective impact on economic recovery: middle-class America. Handouts, generally implemented by Democrats to gain votes, don't produce responsible spending habits. Although income redistribution is an important element of our economic recovery, no one should have a free ride. Our legislators should stop emulating Robin Hood and responsibly execute their constitutional duties. A working public pays taxes and creates jobs through consumption. Too bad all of the bailout funds we spend on big industry didn't go toward infrastructure, new plants and more jobs; what a terrible waste of time and effort!

The political gridlock we've had for the past several years has created a sense of frustration and despair in many Americans and in most of the Americans who can affect our economic recovery the most. Petty political bickering continues while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Is that what America is all about? We clearly have a political structure that cares more about ego and self-enrichment that about American and its people. Unless political idealism, ethics and morality reemerge, the path back to economic prosperity will indeed be long and rocky.

After all of this doom and gloom, America will recover and retake its place in world leadership. It may take generations for the American people to wake up and realize that they are the key to success and their own prosperity. When our society finally accepts accountability and responsibility, the "sky's the limit." What will it take to get us there?

Syria: Let's Don't Do It!

When Obama spoke to the German people before he was first elected, he promised to place all of the world's nuclear weapons under his control. That illogical and emotional statement may have been part of the basis for his Nobel Peace Prize selection. I was sad at the huge number of people who lauded his comment as brilliant and inspired. We now know that Obama can't even control the chemical weapons stored in Syria, the weapons "liberated" with the fall of Gaddafi and Hezbollah's conventional arsenal. I'm not sure anyone could.

As best I can tell, the compelling reason to launch a military strike in Syria is to save Obama's face and help secure his positive presidential legacy. So far, he has failed to assemble any meaningful support for the strike from any serious friend or ally. England, our best "friend" won't support it, NATO won't sign on, certainly Russia, Iran and China vote "nay." Even the UN has pulled out of Syria before completing their "investigation" into the use of chemical weapons (by someone). The signals are clear: no one wants a military strike against Syria to be in their resumé.

Let's list the bad versus good of a military strike in Syria. First the bad,

World condemnation for taking unilateral, deadly military action without conclusive proof of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime; high risk of the U.S. becoming embroiled (long term?) in yet another Middle East mess; high potential for creating political instability in the entire region; indirectly supporting a jihadist effort to assume control of Syria (and beyond); high risk of causing potentially destabilizing or at least deadly, jihadist attacks against our friends; collateral loss of life and all the negativity that goes with it; no clear military gains from a limited strike; negatives follow a strike that is too weak as well as one that is too powerful; no real long-term advantage to U.S. foreign policy and interests; other unintended results (think Iraq);

and then the good: Demonstrate that the U.S. does not bluff (may cause Russia and Iran to tread lightly (for a while), knowing the U.S. may back its threats with action); help Obama establish that he is a leader with power; may help destabilize the al Assad regime (but is that what we really want to happen?). The Middle East is becoming fertile ground for jihadists grabbing power from dictators, and the resultant instability.

What about not launching a military strike against Syria's chemical weapons/delivery structure? We'd (Obama) be exposed as setting "red lines" that are really just bluffs. Russia and Iran might be able to consolidate more influence in the Middle East, at least for a while; we could be viewed as a weak nation that doesn't support our friends or democracy (so what else is new?).

It's the unknown that bothers me. We just can't predict the many results of a unilateral military strike against Syria. I believe the bad outweighs the good, but who really knows? So let's don't do it! The U.S. is already viewed as a leaderless world power aimlessly wondering around in full reaction mode. I rather face more of the status quo than post-strike negatives and uncertainties.