THE COYOTE PRINCIPLE
IN ILLINOIS
The Governor of Illinois is jogging with his dog along a nature trail. A coyote jumps out and attacks the Governor's dog, then bites the Governor.
The Governor starts to intervene, but reflects upon the movie, "Bambi," and then realizes he should stop because the coyote is only doing what is natural.
He calls animal control. Animal Control captures the coyote and bills the state $200, testing it for diseases and $500 for relocating it.
He calls a veterinarian. The vet collects the dead dog and bills the State $200, testing it for diseases.
The Governor goes to hospital and spends $3,500 getting checked for diseases from the coyote and on getting his bite wound bandaged.
The running trail gets shut down for 6 months while Fish & Game conducts a $100,000 survey to make sure the area is now free of dangerous animals.
The Governor spends $50,000 in state funds implementing a "coyote awareness program" for residents of the area.
The State Legislature spends $2 million to study how to better treat rabies and how to permanently eradicate the disease throughout the world.
The Governor's security agent is fired for not stopping the attack. The state spends $150,000 to hire and train a new agent with additional special training re: the nature of coyotes.
PETA protests the coyote's relocation and files a $5million suit against the state.
IN TEXAS
The Governor of Texas is jogging with his dog along a nature trail. A coyote jumps out and attacks his dog.
The Governor shoots the coyote with his state-issued pistol and keeps jogging. The Governor has spent $.50 on a .45 ACP hollow point cartridge. The buzzards eat the dead coyote.
And that, my friends, is why Illinois is broke and Texas is not.
================
TO SEE THE AWFUL LEADER OF THE USA SPEAKING TO WEST POINT GRADUATES, WATCH THIS FOR 45 MINUTES: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIr2KieO3I
Top 10 blunders: Obama’s embarrassing West Point speech
June 2, 2014 By John Mariotti
Barack Obama has made “speechifying” his trademark activity, which helped him win the presidency, a position for which he was neither ready nor capable. Obama’s embarrassing West Point speech this past week simply confirmed what has become increasingly apparent. Barack Obama is lost in the challenges of the presidency. He neither wants to lead nor knows how to lead—or manage—effectively.
Obama’s constant resorting to coalitions, international groups, allies, and even Congressional actions reveals how badly he wants some group to make the decisions and take the blame away from him. He doesn’t want to lead; he doesn’t know how to lead; and that should not be surprising, because nothing in his background taught or prepared him to lead. However, this is tragic and frightening – a conclusion that is best illustrated by Obama’s own words.
The New York Times editorial board, often supportive of the White House, wrote that his address “did not match the hype, was largely uninspiring, lacked strategic sweep and is unlikely to quiet his detractors, on the right or the left.” Obama “provided little new insight into how he plans to lead in the next two years .”
President Barack Obama delivered the commencement address to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point’s Class of 2014, in West Point, NY, May 28. Here are bullet points of excerpts from his remarks, followed by the actual, barely hidden intentions behind them, or what they should have said.
- VA: “And I would like to ask all of us here today to stand and pay tribute – not only to the veterans among us, but to the more than 2.5 million Americans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and their families. —This would have been a good place to apologize for the massive VA hospital screw-ups that caused so many veterans to suffer and die unnecessarily.
- Iraq & Benghazi:“When I first spoke at West Point in 2009, we still had more than 100,000 troops in Iraq. …Four and a half years later, the landscape has changed. We have removed our troops from Iraq.” — Iraq is now falling back into chaos and civil war due to the way Obama mandated the American troopwithdrawal AND “We are winding down our war in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda’s leadership in the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan has been decimated, and Osama bin Laden is no more.” —The al Qaeda sympathizers who killed four Americans in Benghazi are still out there, free as can be, in spite of phony outrage and promises to bring them to justice.
- What recovery?: “Through it all, we have refocused our investments in a key source of American strength: a growing economy that can provide opportunity here at home. “—The economy is barely recovering in spite of, rather than because of Obama’s efforts and policies.
- US Weakness: “In fact, by most measures, America has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world. Those who argue otherwise – who suggest that America is in decline, or has seen its global leadership slip away – are either misreading history or engaged in partisan politics.”— When you have to tell others you are strong–you aren’t! AND “The question we face – the question you will face – is not whether America will lead, but how we will lead, not just to secure our peace and prosperity, but also to extend peace and prosperity around the globe.”— When you don’t lead well, it sets a terrible example for the cadets. AND “Today, according to self-described realists, conflicts in Syria or Ukraine or the Central African Republic are not ours to solve.” —You have made very sure we haven’t tried. AND here’s how to obscure the issues: “Each side can point to history to support its claims. But I believe neither view fully speaks to the demands of this moment.”—Fabricate excuses by creating and then dismissing hypotheticals, a common device the president uses to justify inaction or failure.
- Red lines: “As the Syrian civil war spills across borders, the capacity of battle-hardened groups to come after us increases. Regional aggression that goes unchecked – in southern Ukraine, the South China Sea, or anywhere else in the world – will ultimately impact our allies, and could draw in our military.”— And if they cross another one of your red lines, what are the consequences? More talk? “And I would betray my duty to you, and to the country we love, if I sent you into harm’s way simply because I saw a problem somewhere in the world that needed fixing, or because I was worried about critics who think military intervention is the only way for America to avoid looking weak.”—Yet, your waffling and impotent decisions have made America look weaker than ever. “Here’s my bottom line: America must always lead on the world stage. If we don’t, no one else will.”—By drawing red lines that are crossed without consequences?
- Blame shifting & excuses: “First, let me repeat a principle I put forward at the outset of my presidency: the United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core interests demand it – when our people are threatened; when our livelihood is at stake; or when the security of our allies is in danger. In these circumstances, we still need to ask tough questions about whether our action is proportional, effective and just. International opinion matters.” —The first of many “excuses” that follow in the speech, to find someone else whose involvement was an excuse to delay action, or to bear the blame for failure, while avoid any blame on himself. “We must do so because collective action in these circumstances is more likely to succeed, more likely to be sustained, and less likely to lead to costly mistakes.”—When everyone is responsible, no one is responsible. This allows Obama to avoid having to lead, take responsibility, and/or decisive action without some “collective” group doing it. Earlier this year, I asked my national security team to develop a plan for a network of partnerships from South Asia to the Sahel. Today, as part of this effort, I am calling on Congress to support a new Counter-Terrorism Partnerships Fund of up to $5 billion, which will allow us to train, build capacity, and facilitate partner countries on the front lines.—More blame sharing but with a healthy multi-billion $ bribe to get them to take the blame? When in doubt, throw money at problems.
- Clueless–somebody help?: “A critical focus of this effort will be the ongoing crisis in Syria. As frustrating as it is, there are no easy answers – no military solution that can eliminate the terrible suffering anytime soon.”—Translation: “I have no idea what to do,” which is why Obama ducked the problem before, and let Putin determine the path forward. “With the additional resources I’m announcing today, we will step up our efforts to support Syria’s neighbors – Jordan and Lebanon; Turkey and Iraq –as they host refugees, and confront terrorists working across Syrian borders.” —Maybe they’ll take the problem off my hands. “I will work with Congress to ramp up support for those in the Syrian opposition who offer the best alternative to terrorists and a brutal dictator.” —Maybe they’ll take part of the blame, too. “That means taking strikes only when we face a continuing, imminent threat, and only where there is near certainty of no civilian casualties.”—And I don’t have to be responsible for anything that might go wrong.
- Non-transparency: This issue of transparency is directly relevant to a third aspect of American leadership: our efforts to strengthen and enforce international order.—Yet continue to hold back information and hide more and more—under the excuse of national security. What is so bad that it requires hiding? “But, when we cannot explain our efforts clearly and publicly, we face terrorist propaganda and international suspicion; we erode legitimacy with our partners and our people; and we reduce accountability in our own government.”—No matter; nobody trusts you or believes you anymore!
- Multilateralism = more blame shifting: Of course, skeptics often downplay the effectiveness of multilateral action. For them, working through international institutions, or respecting international law, is a sign of weakness.—Repeat: When everybody’s responsible, nobody’s responsible—especially you, Mr. President. “For example, NATO is the strongest alliance the world has ever known. But we are now working with NATO allies to meet new missions…, …where our NATO allies must pull their weight to counter-terrorism, respond to failed states, and train a network of partners.”—Nonsense; without US power, NATO in recent decades was dormant, passive and weak.
- American exceptionalism—the failure to “walk the talk”:“I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being,” says Obama.—Puleeze? Really? Act like it sometime! AND Finally the ultimate cop-out—he will “push” for action? “But what makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law; it’s our willingness to affirm them through our actions. That’s why I will continue to push to close GITMO – because American values and legal traditions don’t permit the indefinite detention of people beyond our borders.”—Whom will he “push?” Isn’t he the Commander-in-Chief and don’t the people who run GITMO work for him?
“We know that no foreign policy speech can cover the entire world,” the Wall Street Journalconcluded. “But listening to Mr. Obama trying to assemble a coherent foreign policy agenda from the record of the past five years was like watching Tom Hanks trying to survive in ‘Cast Away’: Whatever’s left from the wreckage will have to do.”
The speech goes on and on, with stepping over issues to mention of foreign policy-like statements, which lead exactly nowhere. Examples used by the president are weak or inconclusive and the recurring theme is “to make no decisions, and hope someone else does, so someone else can take the blame if it doesn’t work out.”
Even the “Climate Change” snippet totally ignores that the major sources of emissions are China and India, and that the US has significantly reduced its emissions. There is also a recurring Obama theme of “throwing money at problems” or “buying allies” to share the blame.
What must have been going through the minds of the cadets who endured Barack Obama’s embarrassing West Point speech? Perhaps it was, “God help us if this is our Commander in Chief’s best; wake me up when it’s over.”
What’s a retail store, Gramps?
June 5, 2014 By John Mariotti 0 Comments
The time is only a decade or so in the future. Little 4-1/2 year-old Susie just finished her Christmas—whoops—“Year End Annual Holiday” (YEAH) wish-list using her latest 3D tablet. The list was instantly posted electronically to Gramps’ and Gran’s tablets. They reply with a question. “Would you like to go to a retail store to shop for your YEAH gifts?” The answer nearly floors them because it comes as a stream of sobering questions: “What’s a ‘retail store,’ Gramps? And how do you ‘shop’ in one? What does ‘shop’ mean? How will I find what I want? Is there a way to ‘search’ for what I want? And then do we buy it and carry it home with us, or will it be delivered?”
If you think this is a far-fetched scenario, think again. Imagine the inefficiency of the entire retailing process. First someone must ‘guess’ at what consumers might want to buy. They are inevitably wrong, to varying degrees. Then the merchandise they ‘guess’ is needed must be ordered and transported either from the producer, or from a distribution center, to numerous stores spread all over population centers.
Then people must drive their electric or hybrid vehicles from store to store, wasting energy and creating traffic jams, consuming huge amounts of time, just to see IF the desired items are there, and in the desired shape, size, color, spec or whatever. Often they are not, so it is on to yet another “store” (even the name implies accumulation and storage of goods) where the hunt continues…often fruitlessly.
The latest headlines continue the theme: “Weak results at retailers drag stocks lower.” What follows is a litany of retail store chains with disappointing or dismal reports. Staples, Dicks, Urban Outfitters and others are the ones this time. The signs are clear that traditional “bricks and mortar” (BAM) retailing is in decline. America has been “over-stored” for decades, so a natural selection process continues to winnow the number of retail outlets, forcing losers to close and winners to adapt to an entirely new landscape of “shopping and buying.”
Regional discounters were wiped out by Walmart and Target’s growth, which devastated dozens (too many to list here) of less efficient discounters who no longer exist. The hulks of their stores still litter the urban landscape, unused or being torn down and/or repurposed. Big box stores fell next. Circuit City, Linens ‘N Things, Borders, and more, are simply gone. Consolidation further narrowed the field as new retailing concepts emerged, spread, then consolidated all within a few decades. Wholesale/warehouse clubs are a prime example of this…as are video rental stores, and recently, office products superstores.
The explosion of e-commerce, online shopping behemoths likeamazon.com and next day delivery is eating away at conventional BAM retailers faster and faster. Sears Holdings (Kmart) has been slowly sinking into oblivion, kept alive only by cash from real estate holdings. JC Penney is reeling after a failed makeover attempt. Office product superstores, spawned only 3 decades ago, continue to consolidate and shrink. Office Depot & Office Max are merging and closing 400 stores, andStaples is closing 225 stores, and shrinking the footprint of the remainder. Radio Shack, once ubiquitous, is disappearing before our very eyes.
Considering that the life cycle of both wholesale/warehouse club and office product superstore evolution was only 3 decades (early 1980s to date), and that the rate of change in how goods are sold is accelerating, then Susie’s question is only a decade or two away from being realistic. Even behemothWalmart at nearly $500 billion in annual sales has had several quarters in row with flat or down sales and is wondering (and reconsidering) what its “stores” should evolve to look like in a decade or two. Target is reeling from its credit card disaster that cost the CEO his job. Even the lowly “dollar stores” are feeling the pinch, as Family Dollar announced plans to close 370 stores. It is an enormous question for all retailers. Their very future existence depends on how well they answer it.
So, what’s a retail store, Gramps?
Little Susie’s question may be a harbinger of a future where a retail store is more of a “presence” than a “store.” Retail stores of the future may be more like physical “samplers” where “shoppers” want to see, feel, touch and investigate potential purchases–but not necessarily buy them. Ask Best Buy how this feels. Not so good, is the answer–unless there is a newer, better revenue and profit model developed for BAM locations.
If this future of retailing were completely clear, everyone would be charging toward it, but it’s not. What’s clear is that just as hybrid autos are bridging the gap between gasoline/diesel vehicles and fully electric ones, and streaming audio and video are eating into sales of CDs and DVDs, there is a big transition coming. How soon no one knows, nor exactly what it will be.
Thus, Susie’s question might still be very appropriate: “What’s a retail store, Gramps?”
Comments