Egypt's Elections May Change Tourism There - And Not for the Better

Given the NEWS TODAY about the religiously fundamental Muslim Brotherhood winning Egypt's national elections over the weekend, I'm glad Diane and I were able to go to and tour Egypt when we did.

My review of our trip is HERE, and you can see pictures I took while there on my Photostream HERE.


At the Giza Pyramids in 2010

With the election results, Egypt might not be as open, friendly or accommodating to western tourists going forward. I recall reading a while ago that one thing the Muslim Brotherhood was considering if it won power was that it would legislate that all tourism would have to be solely for educational purposes and - of course - the country would not allow tourists to wear things like bathing suits, shorts or any form of dress considered immodest by their religious standards. That is basically the same as them saying, "western tourists not welcome." Tourism is such a huge element of their economy, that such policies would be - to me - economic suicide. And that won't be good for anyone in Egypt or in the Middle East. For example, you think Israel is excited about the prospect of an economically depressed Egypt run by fundamentalist Islamic party? Ah...no.

But hey, if the majority of Egyptians want a conservative religious political party running their nation and voted them into power democratically in hopes that their approach will help lift masses out of poverty and division, all we can do from afar is sit back and see how it goes. I'm  not confident, but we'll see.

In the meantime...we went to Egypt in calmer times, saw it, had a great time and am glad we can count that among our lifetime achievements.


NOTE: Above photo taken by me, Marc Osborn. It is not authorized for any use without prior written permission from me.

Something Not to be Thankful For

I hope you had a great Thanksgiving yesterday.

There are many things to be thankful for. Republican and conservative stewardship of the U.S. economy over the majority of the last 30 years, however, is not one of them.

A must read that provides the calculated distruction conservative economic theory has had on the U.S. economy is here: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109

It's a bit of a long article, but well worth you time in my opinion. Besides, you have some extra time on your hands this holiday weekend anyway, right?

If Land Were Divided Like Wealth

Here is an interesting visual analogy for the inequities of wealth in the United States today....

Background on this is in a post HERE, but the facts are that wealth inequity is a reality and a problem any way you try and represent it. 

And it did not spring up overnight. Rather it is a predictable and inevitable outcome of the prevailing political-economic practice of our country over the past 30 years of lowering taxes on the wealthy and corporations, deregulation in key sectors of the economy, "free trade" agreements, incentives for outsourcing and off-shoring jobs and a lack of investment in education. These moves over a sustained period of time have lined the pockets of the already wealthy and corporations while simultaneously eliminating jobs and opportunity for most Americans. 

Sure, these things were most aggressively championed by the Republicans (Reagan, Bush, W and Republican controlled Congresses), but the Democrats are not blameless either. Clinton and Congressional Ds did roll over on these issues many times. If the Rs made it happen, the Ds let it happen.

In any case, it's real. My feeling is that if your someone in the middle or lower class and you're defending tax cuts for the rich and corporations, free trade agreements and feel that "the 1%" should get all they can...well, I humbly suggest your head is in the sand and you are advocating things that are directly hurting you. 

Food for thought.

Two Points to Consider When Watching Obama's Jobs Speech

As you watch President Obama's "jobs speech" Thursday, or perhaps if you torture yourself by tuning in as pundits tell you what you just heard, here are a few things to keep in mind, at least in my opinion...

Companies need to step up and get back in the game
While government action can and is sometimes necessary to stimulate the economy, the bottom line is that companies create jobs, not government. No, I haven't gone all "supply side" on you, but it is true that companies are the ones who make decisions on the vast majority of hiring - where, how much, for what and when. There's no getting around that. Obama can talk a good game about tax credits or incentives, but if companies don't want to hire...and rather want to sit on their cash...they won't do it.

This is all related to my assertion that, guess what? The jobs ain't coming back. Companies - especially big ones who tend to employ (or used to) a lot of people - have weathered the economic storm and are now getting by without having to hire back costly items such as employees. So they won't.

Nope. Old jobs are not coming back. Forget about it and move on. The hope would be that "something new" comes along to spur growth, offer clear investment and hiring opportunities for companies and help alleviate the unemployment rate...and thus many of our other economic ills.  This is actually the American spirit that has gotten us by in other times. Be it the automobile, the airplane, medical breakthroughs, the space race, computer chips, the Internet...something big has always come along to really boost our economy and usher in new good times. But this isn't happening now. The bubble burst and the ones left holding the money bags are not ready to invest in innovation and new sectors of the economy.

If government can help via stimulus, great. I am for it. But again, it is companies who hire. So, if you are ticked off that companies are not hiring...get mad at them.

We are in a "conservative economy" and have been for quite some time
Without a doubt, you will hear the Rs rebut Obama's recommendations as ineffective, too reliant on "big government," and wrong for the country. And no doubt, those same conservatives will say that what we really need is a big old helping of tax cuts, deregulation and "getting government off our backs" to free up the economy and get it moving again.

But here's the thing...we are already in that type of economy. Huge tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations were enacted 10 years ago and are still in effect. Aggressive deregulation of energy, financial, transportation, housing and other markets has been going on for 20+ years...and got a big boost over the last 10.

And Obama? He has repealed almost exactly none of that.

You think his "big government healthcare plan" is the problem. Nope. Virtually none of it goes into effect until 2014.

Think Obama is the guy responsible for the debt. Wrong again. Our historic and spectacular federal debt was hand delivered to America by Republicans in the short six years between 2001 and 2007 when they ran the White House and both houses of Congress - all on their watch, all in service of the same economic theories they're still talking about today and all while happily raising the debt ceiling without a peep of controversy.

So you see, we ARE IN a carefully and steadily constructed conservative economy. How you liking that?

Put another way, if tax cuts and deregulation are so good for the economy, where are the jobs?

Anyway, a couple things to ponder as you watch or hear about jobs over the next couple/few days.

Say 100 Americans Order a 100-Slice Pizza And The First Guy Takes 80 Slices

Wealth disparity in the United States is a huge a growing problem.

For example...

It turns out that the wealthiest 400 people in our nation have as much money as the next 155 million people combined.

And,  80% of the wealth created in the United States between 1980 and 2005 has gone to the top 1% of income earners in the country. (See the seventh paragraph in the linked story.)

Whoh.

The other night, Bill Maher explained wealth disparity this way...

"Say 100 Americans get together and order a 100 slice pizza. The pizza arrives and the first guy takes 80 slices." 


And then Maher furthers the analogy with how the rich are unwilling to budge by saying...


"And if someone suggests 'why don't you just take 79 slices,' that's SOCIALISM!" 

Maher has some other interesting points on wealth distribution and the "plight" of the super rich HERE.

At any rate, wealth disparity is so bad that we're now approaching the same levels as just before the Great Depression. The article HERE sums it up pretty well when the author says...

"Folks, there is no way we can have economic prosperity in this country when the top 1% has all of the money. The middle class is basically being destroyed right in front of our very eyes. Consumption economies die when consumers have now money to consume." 

There simply should be billions more dollars circulating in our economy. That money could be and should be used to invent, start companies, hire workers, support health and education programs, be used for people to...I don't know...sustain the economy by buying things, and on and on. But it's not. No. It's locked up in private equity by the super rich and/or simply spent by the super rich on inane luxuries that benefit virtually nobody. Meanwhile, the rest of us are scrappin' for what we can get and feeling good if we can get by.

So, it's more than resentment or "it's just not fair" sentiment that is at the root of pointing out wealth inequity. No. Such inequity is a direct and lethal economic threat to the vast majority of Americans. It has real implications for everyday people.

Something has to give at some point. I mean, if the 30 year trend continues...what happens when, say, the top 1% of Americans own, say, 95% of the wealth. What about the top 5% owning 99% of the wealth. Where does that leave the rest of us? What kind of life is that? What future will children have? What will we be willing to do to reverse things? Or will the economy simply just collapse into depression?

Know Your History - Why the Tienanmen Crackdown is Relevant Today

June 4, 2009 marks the 20th anniversary of the Chinese government crack-down on the massive pro-democracy protests that were happening in Tienanmen Square in Beijing.

These events are important to remember and relevant today in my estimation for two reasons:

1. The violent crack down shows what the Chinese communist government is willing to do if challenged.


2. The protests led directly to an opening up of the Chinese economy and the resulting boom that has, lets be honest, a HUGE impact on the U.S. and world economy.

Diane and I were in China last year and visited Tienanmen Square. You can see some of the pictures I took while there by clicking here.

In terms of what happened and why it's relevant today, the story goes like this...

In the spring of 1989, students and others filled the huge plaza in central Beijing to protest the controlling government that was presiding over a faltering, iffy economy on top of heavy restrictions on personal freedom, speech and other human rights.

Protesters initially gathered in mid-April to mourn the death of pro-democracy and anti-corruption official Hu Yaobang. Focus of the protest began to crystallize around desire for national democratic reform and greater economic freedoms. The crowd got bigger, louder and more determined...however, it remained a non-violent protest.

All of this happened in a year - 1989 - in which other communist governments had failed (East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Romania for example). With this in mind, and not wanting to lose their grasp on power, the communist government of China decided the protest could last no longer and "cleared" Tienanmen Square with army soldiers and tanks. People died. Lots of them. They were shot, run over and beaten. Many more were jailed or never heard from again. This was a naked power play by the Chinese government to crush dissent. So, we now know what they're willing to do if things come to a critical head again. We also know their army is willing to participate.

However, soon after the end of the protest, the government did something else too. It decided that instead of giving in on controls over speech, rights and democracy...it would greatly loosen economic controls and open up China to free-enterprise and market economies. This enabled the big and enduring economic boom in China that is still happening today.

As a result, today - and believe me it's evident over there - the Chinese are very focused on amassing wealth and material possessions. They are not as concerned over freedom of speech or democracy. Their perspective might be, "I don't mind government control of the media or that I can only vote for one party if I can drive my brand new car from my new high rise condo to my tech job."

Of course other big outcomes of the economic decisions made in the wake of the Tienanmen Square episode have been US companies moving jobs from North America to China for the cheap labor and Chinese ownership of US debt. To me, these are clearly not good developments given our country's inability to balance these moves out with new job creation and fiscal responsibility here.

Happy First Birthday To The Western Front Blog!

Ladies and gentlemen, The Western Front blog has just turned one year old.

Yep, one year of trying to entertain, share and have a good time online. I started the blog last April for a few reasons. Among them, I've spent the better part of 40 years soaking up information and experiences...helping form a lot of opinions and, hopefully, some useful knowledge to pass on. With that in mind, I just figured it's time to start putting something back out there instead of mostly just absorbing it.

Another reason was that in my job I am increasingly using online social media to communicate, and I figured that diving into blogging would help me better understand that world.

In any case, based on my experience so far, I'm going to keep going.

To celebrate this first anniversary, I've put together a "best of" set of articles from the 117 posts to The Western Front blog over the last 12 months. I've grouped these into the categories of Music, Politics, Travel/Food, Photography, Opinion/Observations and Movies. I hope you enjoy reading or re-visiting some of these posts...

MUSIC

• Bad Economy = Better Music?
• Glasvegas Concert Review
• 2008 Concert Reviews
• Five Albums You Should Get
• Three Songs You Should Check Out
• Creating A "Genesis-Neutral World"

POLITICS

• How I Know Obama's Plan Will Work
• Tea-Baggers: Hypocrites, Rubes or Both?
• Who Is To Blame For the Current Crisis?
• What You Can't See in Shanghai Is What You Can See at Wal-Mart and on Wall Street
• McCain Dusts Off "Socialist" Charge
• May the Best Perception Win
• Goodbye to the Worst U.S. President Ever

TRAVEL/FOOD

• The China Reports
• Party Time in Spain - April Fair
• Hot, Fresh NYC Restaurant Reviews

PHOTOGRAPHY

• A Link to My Flickr Photostream Sets
• The Seattle Times Runs One of My Photographs
• The Spookiest Picture We've Ever Seen
• Wine Pictures
• New Mexico Pictures
• Vietnam and Cambodia Pictures
• Educational Publisher to Use One of My Pictures

OPINION/OBSERVATIONS

• Of Football, Fans, the Flag and a Guy Named Tits
• It's Not A Sport If...
• Time for Pirate Radio Again?
• Is Pollution An Olympic Sport?
• There's An A-Hole In Every Crowd (Sometimes Two)
• 20 Things I Am Thankful For
• My Un-American Fourth of July
• The Passing of a Great Man
• Marc's 2008 Year In Review

MOVIES

• Get Milk
• Pre-Oscars Movie Reviews

Economy of the Walking Dead

My friend Sean e-mailed me today and said, "You ever just take a pause at work and look at people sometimes? They look like walking zombies. I don't know if it's the economy or the weather, but it's kinda weird."

From where I sit I can confirm that it's true. And yes, it's weird. If you can afford a few seconds, check out the parade of co-workers and observe their look and demeanor. Remind you of a scene from Night of the Walking Dead?

For those of you not living in the Northwest, I can report that this winter has been LONG with a lot of gray skies, cold temperatures, rain and snow. So, the weather may indeed have an impact on people's collective mojo.

But, I think the weather in Seattle and this area of the country has been like this for pretty much ever and the zombie-factor is actually more attributable to other things more related to the economy and the state of corporate America today.

Indulge me. Try this on for size and see if it seems familiar...

• Most people are working under a lot of stress because they're being asked to do the work of several people. Who among us has seen their job get easier with a manageable workload and reasonable, achievable expectations? Not anyone I know. It's gone the other direction...by a lot. In recent years, this happened as companies sought to "maximize profits" in the short term. Now, it's still happening, but because companies need to "minimize losses" in the near term. In either case, over an extended period of time now (years) companies have cut people, budgets and resources and made work very, very difficult for most of us. Clearly this is stressful, demoralizing and un-motivating. No wonder people walk around looking shell-shocked.

• Also, we all know layoffs can happen at any time. Hell, millions have lost their jobs over the last several months and any one of us could be next. The ever-present possibility of the axe falling creates stress and for many a sense of hopelessness. Not good.

• Workers - at least ones I know - aren't getting ahead in their organizations either, and their salaries have stagnated. In some cases, wages have been frozen and merit increases eliminated. Again, not motivating to say the least and a key contributor to the "why bother" mentality that many end up wearing on their faces as they trudge the corridors of their office buildings.

• Finally, you throw in stresses at home, a spouse or significant other with the same work-related situation (or worse, laid off), kids and all that they bring to the stress level, and yes the weather along with whatever else is going on in life and you get...zombies! Just like Sean said.

I realize that not everybody fits these scenarios in their jobs, but I have to say that upon reflection and observation they do seem to be true and enduring characteristics of working at a company over the last few years - and now seeming to get worse.

The Psycological Cost of Layoffs

Companies around the U.S. are laying people off in record numbers - more than 3.6 million since the recession began, and 560,00 in January 2009 alone.

The U.S. unemployment rate is at 7.6%.

The number of people seeking unemployment is 5 million.

But those are all numbers. They neatly quantify things in an all-too-easy way that lets those of us not laid off (yet) shake our heads, complain a little and move on - perhaps hoping we're not next, but generally disassociating "us" from "them." Numbers help us do that.

However, I think the "cost" of a layoff - let alone a massive wave of them - to a person, a family, a community and a nation of people is much, much more than numbers.

On a psychological level for the individual, we're taking about legitimate trauma. Why me? Why now? What did I do? I must not be very good at what I do. How will I be able to pay my bills? What if I cannot? Will I have to sell my house? Car? What about my kids education?

A layoff causes an real and emotional crisis in a person's life. Some get over it relatively quickly, many do not. Either way...we're talking trauma here! And why? So a company that targeted 20% profit but only made 12% profit can "send a signal" to the market or Wall Street? So executives can make their bonuses anyway? Or, because as we're seeing more of now, traditionally industry giants have to cut back massively after decades of short term thinking and miss-management?

Replicate that trauma across the county in each state as companies large and small "shed cost" or "make adjustments" to meet their numbers - or in some cases actually go under.

What are the implications of so many many lives upended? I'm no psychologist, but it seems like if you've got millions of people walking around in personal crisis, unemployed and not too many opportunities to re-establish a good income...you're gonna have some problems that don't necessarily show up in government economic reports.

And what about those people having to do the layoffs? Sure, they still have a job, but telling people their position has been eliminated knowing the economic conditions we're in and what that could mean for people...well, that can be traumatizing too unless you're a cold, corporate tool. There are probably all too many of those out there. For every one CEO who takes his $60 million bonus and divides it up between all his employees as did Leonard Abess, thousands more companies will simply toss their people aside.

In short, I think layoffs of this magnitude will have an negative psychological impact on everybody involved, and ultimately therefore an impact on our culture and well being as a country. It will be harder for us to be optimistic, harder on our personal relationships, harder for us to relate to each other, harder for us period. The potential is there for a very pessimistic and negative society. 

These are not things easily measured by numbers. However, if they occur with enough people over an extended period of time, we may see things that we can measure like more divorce rates, poorer health for our population, crime rates, lower high school and college graduation rates and others. All of this will exacerbate our all-too-well-know economic problems.

So, what is the psychological impact of layoffs of the magnitude we're seeing today? I would say it goes way beyond the typical numbers we see into areas that are not so easily packaged and dismissed.

Goodbye to the Worst U.S. President Ever

So here we are...the last full day of George W. Bush as president of the U.S. of A. 

Who knows what the next few years hold. Hope resides primarily in the vision and abilities of one Barack Obama. 

But, before the revision, the spin and the B.S. starts in full about Bush - because for sure it will come - I wanted on the last day of the Bush presidency to touch on a few things to consider in judging the job "W" did in running this country. Any ONE of the following would be grounds for considering Bush the worst president in U.S. history in my book, and there are PLENTY more examples one could add. But, below are five to ponder. I've listed these catastrophic examples of Bush's poor leadership in particular because I think they have had a direct effect on people in this nation, and certainly others:

1) U.S. attacked. The worst single attack on the American homeland by foreign powers in our nation's history occurred on Bush's watch. Think about this. The worst attack ever. Sure, Republicans say Bush "protected" America for seven years straight, but they always fail to remember that the 9-11 attacks  and all the deaths they caused happened on his watch despite clear warnings the president and his team received in advance. Literally historically poor leadership. By the way, the revisionism is already started. The other day in downtown Seattle, I saw a big billboard that said, "President Bush. Thank you for keeping us safe." 

2) Economic disaster. As an inevitable result of the "trickle down," rig the system for the rich, tax cuts for the wealthy, and the spectacular de-regulation of financial, energy and industrial sectors...not to mention an anti-union, outsource-friendly and "free trade" policy...this president and his party aided and abetted THE single worst economic crisis in this country's history other than The Great Depression  - so far as we know yet. High unemployment rates, skyrocketing costs for education, massive home foreclosures, increasing homelessness, more people without healthcare, record deficits (aren't Republicans supposed to be fiscally conservative?), a historically weak dollar and no hope for improvement. Thanks a-hole.

3) Needless war. Yes, most Americans would agree - and I do too - that we needed to go into Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden and the people who orchestrated the 9-11 attacks. But, that had zero to do with Iraq. Bush and Cheney "worked' the American public, the intelligence agencies and the U.N. to get a war started against Saddam predicated on a combination of "daddy issues" for Bush, trumped up evidence and "money making opportunities" for Cheney and the crowd he runs with. The result? Thousands of U.S. dead and wounded, not to mention a much higher toll for Iraqi's. Lets also not forget the war has squandered our Federal budget on Iraq rather than using it to either going after Al Qaida or spending it on domestic priorities. Our reputation around the world has taken a huge hit. There has been  massive grift by U.S. defense contractors. And perhaps the topper...we still haven't killed Bin Laden and shut down his organization, but Bush's decisions have alienated an entire region of the world against us. Want more terrorists? Bush helped create a whole generation of them. 

4) Monumental cronyism. This administration appointed buddies and cronies to high positions and the American public paid the price. This is best exhibited in the whole Hurricane Katrina fiasco in which Bush buddy and horse breeding association guy "Brownie" was in charge of...well, fucking up big time the response to the storm and it's aftermath. This ended up costing some people their lives, and others their livelihoods. And, I suspect there are unknowable millions that have gone to waste, fraud and abuse through Bush's appointments as well. 

5) Environmental incompetence. What a missed opportunity! At the very moment our country could use a transition to a "green" economy and all the historic economic and health benefits this could have brought to the U.S., Bush and company looked backward and short term instead of forward and long term. And what is the result? A tragic, and perhaps nationally fatal, missed opportunity to transition our economy, preserve the global environment and keep our edge on the rest of the world. 

Yes, there are lots of other things beyond these five examples that one could cite as evidence of the total and complete failure of the Bush presidency. Indeed. But I think these handful really tell the story. 

To summarize, at a critical moment in our history when we needed exactly the right leader at the right time, we got (and really, also chose and accepted) the exactly wrong guy and the wrong time in Bush. And for this, our nation is paying a heavy, heavy price that it will take decades to reverse. And for that, George W. Bush will go down as the worst president we've ever had.

I believe history will judge Bush harshly too. We can only hope wiser, more competent and leaders with the interests of all Americans prevail over the next 10-15 years.

Tomorrow, it's, "Welcome President Obama!"

But for at least one more day, it's "F-you George Bush!"

Bad economy = better music?

Over the past 50 years economic times have sometimes lead to a rejuvenation and re-invention of rock and/or pop music and I'm wondering if the spectacular turd economy of the late 2000s will result in an influx if more intense, meaningful and new sonic innovation?

In the 1970s, oil shocks, inflation and unemployment (along with a bloated, silly and going nowhere music scene) helped spawn punk, new wave and rap in the U.S and the U.K.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s a similar set of economic and music industry circumstances helped birth grunge rock. While it may not seem as big a deal now in the rear view mirror, Mr. Cobain and his colleagues did us all a favor back then. Remember Poison? Mr. Big? Whitesnake? No? Well, that's because Nirvana, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, Mudhoney and others made you forget.

Since then, the music industry has been on cruise control offering up a massive helping of "bitches and hos" rap, meaningless sugary pop "punk," diva acts, big hat country, stadium rock and nostalgia trips. Along the way, someone convinced the public that a DJ mashing together other people's songs and rapping over them was original. It's not and it's not entertaining.

Sure, there have been some great bands and performers come out of the past 10-15 years. But, for every Black Rebel Motorcycle Club, Glasvegas or Arcade Fire there are 100s of bands like Coldplay, The Dave Matthews Band (yes people, the honest truth is that DMB is boring fratboy crap), the Fray and others serving up vapid nothingness. And that's just in the rock area. 

Not even the real-time disaster parade of the George W. Bush years pushed music ahead. After all, after five minutes of "really caring," the people of this nation's primary response to the 9-11 attacks, hurricane Katrina and conservative attack on the economy was in the end a big, "eh...lets go to the mall then to Outback." This is not a culture ready to have an open ear or mind to new music. Nope, give them more of the same or more of what sounds like what they used to like years ago. 

I can only think of one exception of protest rock being really popular among the masses over the last eight years - Green Day's American Idiot. Yeah, most people were responding the nice tones and and pop soundscape. None the less, listen to the words on that album. 

Anyway, back to my main point... 

Will the all-to-real economic hard times and rising unemployment re-generate the music scene? Will kids without much of a future spend more of their afternoons in the garage working up a set of songs with some buddies on guitar, bass and drums to express themselves rather than eating cheetos and playing video games? Will their friends across town channel their bleak futures to take rap to new places and say something real? Will laid off factory workers pick up acoustic guitars and pen new and inventive country tunes expressing their situation? Will techheads whose jobs have been outsourced to India finally use their free time and expertise to create new and revolutionary electronic beats and sounds?

In short, will the societal dissatisfactions that come with massive layoffs, spectacularly expensive education, poor healthcare, the housing crisis, a weak dollar and other results of the past 20 years now culminating in the U.S. motivate music in new and interesting directions?

I'm going to say yes. I think the conditions are unfortunately right in the economy and the music scene that this will happen over the next couple years. But, for all our sakes I'd like to have the economic hardships addressed and improved sooner rather than later.

OK, those are my thoughts. Anyone care to comment?

GOP "Blame Obama" game starts already

Last week I dropped in a quick note about how I thought Republicans would start blaming Obama for the serious economic damage caused by their eight years (more really...remember, they controlled Congress from 1995-2006) of leading the country starting right after Obama's inauguration in January.

Turns out I was naive. Why? Because the Republicans are already at it.

Yep. One week after his election, conservative commentators and pundits are starting the "blame Obama for our economic problems" strategy.

See article here.

Sadly, but predictably, I think this is a preview of what we'll see from the R's over the next four year. Ugly.

Something to remember as Obama takes office

A quick check in to say...

Lets all remember that as he takes office and navigates year one of his administration, Barack Obama inherited the massive financial markets and economic disaster we're in. He did not create it. No, the conservative agenda of deregulation, trickle down economics, an unnecessary and expensive war, and pandering to big business ushered in under Republican control of Congress and coupled with incompetent leadership from Bush and his cronies created this mess.

Why is this important to remember? Because you can bet anything you want that come Jan. 21, 2009 Republicans will wash their hands of all that they have created and instantly blame Obama and the Democrats for the economic and foreign crisis our country is in. None of this will be true of course, but they'll do it. And the media will cover it. (Congressional elections are now less than 24 months away you know.) Therefore, it's important to remember the sequence of events.

Now, if we're sitting here in January 2010 and nothing has changed or things have gotten worse, then I think we start looking at whether or not Obama's and Congressional fixes are starting to work or not. If they aren't, I'll be disapointed in them...but not until then.

Facts Mean Nothing

Unemployment hit 6.1 percent this week. 

It was just announced that the Federal budget deficit doubled over the past year.

Our country has lost 605,000 jobs since January.

These are predictable outcomes of eight years of Republican Presidency and 12 years of Republican control of Congress over the past 14 years.

These things have real impact on everyday, regular, middle class Americans.

But hey, never mind all that! The media and Republicans say, "Look over here. Did we mention that Sara Palin is the VP candidate for McCain...and isn't she interesting."

And about half of America laps it up and is ready to vote for more of the same.

Can you tell I'm not happy with the way this thing is going?

 

Gas Prices and the Election

OK, here's one for you...

It's my guess that gas prices will magically come down over the next two months as we lead up to the election. And, I think the tighter the race between Obama and McCain is, the more they'll come down. 

Why? I think the oil companies and the energy sector of our economy has enjoyed such historical success with Republicans in the White House that they will be willing to take a hit for a couple months to help ease one very painful economic issue that most Americans ascribe to "the economy"...and therefore, in theory, lessen their likelihood to turn out to vote or to vote for Obama.

We just bought a tankful yesterday, Sept. 6 at our local Shell station here in Seattle at $3.87 a gallon.  Lets see what it is on Nov. 1. 

My guess? Somewhere around $3.45 per gallon. Still higher than we were paying a year ago, but reduced enough that we fell like "things are getting better."

We'll see.

No Country for Old Men (Or Old Ideas)

The Republican convention has just wrapped up. John McCain delivered his speech pretty well and the conservative party have had their say.


While there are many, many issues that could be debated about what has been said by the GOP this week (many instances of utter and shameless hypocrisy come to mind), the thing that the convention and especially John McCain's speech drove home to me quite clearly is...


The last thing our country needs right now in a leader is a rich old man espousing old, disproven ideas that have directly led the huge problems our nation now faces.


Whether it's the economy, the Iraq war, relations with China and Russia, healthcare, jobs, energy policy, environmental policy...all of these things are spectacularly worse than they were eight years ago specifically because of the leadership, action (or inaction in many cases) and the so called "judgement" of Bush, the Republicans and definitely John McCain.


All I could think about each time that McCain made a point in his speech about what he was going to do to solve our problems was that he is the head of the party that created these very ills and he was offering nothing new - same old Republican punch lines. And lets face it, the Republicans have really been running things for much longer than the last eight years. They controlled Congress from 1995-2006 and the Presidency for 20 of the last 28 years.

We need new ideas, new people and change. Twenty six year DC insider John McCain literally goes around the country promising more of the same.


I can't vote for that and won't.

Further, because the Republicans have so totally failed with their policies I genuinely think those deciding to vote for McCain are in fact putting some very narrow interest - anti-abortion, lower corporate taxes, oil interests, some vaugue notion of family values - ahead of the overall good of the nation. The opposite of the "Country First" mantra of the Republicans. How else can you explain signing up for the exact some thing that got us into this mess. Or, McCain voters are making their judgements on some very, very subjective criteria like...he was a POW or he seems like a nice guy. Using that type of criteria got us George W. Bush.


Lets not repeat that again.