Is greater relief at the gas pumps finally in sight? If Gulf Oil CEO Joe Petrowski is correct it could go down to $1.00 a gallon or lower by next year. I for one am hoping he’s right. I just filled my tank up here in rural Maine yesterday paying $1.99 a gallon. A further dip in gas prices would surely help the economy and give a boost to those suffering and struggling in the recession.

Petrowski said while speaking at a South Shore Chamber of Commerce that “after speculators drove oil prices up, there is a chance that the market will overshoot on the way back down, resulting in much lower prices at the pump.”

Speaking of the recession… I think it’s just wonderful that our leaders have admitted that we’re in a recession and even back dated it a few months. Some of us figured that one out long ago. Paul Krugman is worrying “about next year” and asks:

…[w]ill it, in fact, even be possible to pull the economy out of its nosedive before unemployment goes into double digits?  

I’m no economist, but if gas prices continue to dip, the average folk who are really hurting in this mess have a little more leeway with their money, as they will be putting less dollars into the tank. Perhaps we’ll see the cost of shipping go back down to more reasonable rates and other prices affected by the outrageous price of gas will finally start coming down as well. The rampant corporatism has been killing the American Dream. Time will tell what happens next… Stay tuned…

Discuss It: No Comments »
Filed under: Big Oil, Bush Admin, Consumers, Corporatism, Credit Crisis, Economic News, Economy, Energy, Gas Prices, In The News, Opinions, Pamela Leavey, Paul Krugman, Political News, Politics, Recession | Get Permalink or trackback |

Living next to the Canadian border I should be paying more attention to the “political crisis“ going on there right now, but Dem Daily Contibutor Michael J.W. Stickings has a full explanation on his blog, The Reaction and in The Guardian’s Comment is Free section.  I highly recommend reading both.

Discuss It: No Comments »
Filed under: Democratic Daily, In The Blogosphere, In The News, Michael Stickings, Opinions, Pamela Leavey, Political News, World News | Get Permalink or trackback |

I learned a long time ago, writing captions for photos in magazines and newspapers, that context is everything. Even pictures can mean vastly different things, depending on context: for example, I can show you a picture of a vacant lot, overgrown with weeds and maybe some typical urban trash. And I can provide you with two captions:

• Urban permaculture project seeks answers to invasive species problem … or
• Land use regulations create headaches for developers and eyesores for the communty.

Get it? Both pictures are the same picture. But in each case, the caption’s INTERPRETATION creates the picture’s meaning — that ‘picture worth a thousand words’ might as well be two different pictures, depending on the ten words or so that I caption it with.

But, and this is the big BUT: It’s just a picture of a vacant lot. The context, the meaning that I’ve given you in the caption has determined WHAT YOU SEE.

This is called interpretation, and can be easily manipulated to suit the bias of the caption-writer. Read more…

Discuss It: 1 Comment »
Filed under: In The News | Get Permalink or trackback |

Some creepy statistics:

From Lusitania sinking
To Armistice Day =

1284 days.

= World War I

«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»

From Pearl Harbor
To Japanese Surrender =

1365 days.

= World War II

«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»

From Fort Sumter
To Appomattox courthouse =

1458 days.

= U.S. Civil War

«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»

From Lexington and Concord
To British surrender at Yorktown =

2375 days.

= American Revolution

«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»

World War I + World War II =

2649 days.

«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»

From September 11, 2001 (bin Laden on the loose) =

2640 days,

= today

In nine days’ time, the time we’ve spent trying to “get” Osama bin Laden will be equal to the total time of America’s involvement in World Wars I and II COMBINED.

from Barking Moonbats dot Org.

Courage.

Discuss It: 1 Comment »
Filed under: In The News | Get Permalink or trackback |

Well, to the surprise of almost nobody who doesn’t believe in Santa Claus, Saxby Chambliss, the scumsucker who morphed Osama bin Laden into Incumbent Senator and Vietnam veteran Max Cleland’s face in 2002 while taking the seat for the first time, has prevailed about 60-40% in the runoff election today, according to CNN.

Chambliss (l.) and a stray Palin child, seemingly Read more…

Discuss It: 1 Comment »
Filed under: In The News | Get Permalink or trackback |

The latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll has found that Barack Obama is earning “high marks” with the American public for his “handling of the transition and his choices for the Cabinet.”

Even with the bleak outlook over the economy and the news that we are officially in a recession, the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows that “[M]ore than three of four Americans, including a majority of Republicans, approve of the job Obama has done so far — broad-based support he’ll need as he faces tough decisions ahead.”

By 69%-25%, those surveyed approve of his pick of New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, his former Democratic primary rival, as secretary of State.

By an even wider margin, 80%-14%, they favor his decision to ask President Bush’s Pentagon chief, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, to stay on the job.

Americans are “projecting their hopes” for the new president, says Charles Franklin, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who studies polling, though they will expect concrete results to follow.

“He’ll have a season of good will,” Franklin says, but over time “it’s going to become increasingly Obama’s economy rather than Bush’s economy.”

Time will tell how Barack Obama will pan out with the public once he is sworn in, but for now “3-1 say they trust Obama more than Bush to handle the economy.” By a wide ”58%-33%,” the public shows “they support Obama’s plan for a huge spending package to spur economic growth.”  

On a final note, the poll shows that there is “little concern Obama is relying too much on veterans of President Clinton’s administration,” in fact, ”nearly 4-1,” of the poll respondents ”predict the officials will make the incoming team more effective, not less so.” I agree. I think Barack Obama has shown his stuff by choosing seasoned team members who know their stuff.

Discuss It: No Comments »
Filed under: Barack Obama, Bush Admin, Cabinet, Democrats, Economy, George W. Bush, In The News, Pamela Leavey, Political News, Politics, Polls, Recession, Republicans, Sen. Hillary Clinton | Get Permalink or trackback |

It all started when I left Los Angeles and drove cross country to move to Eastport, Maine a few weeks ago… Throughout the entire cross country trek I was completely out of the loop and not paying any attention to the news (being in a car for 15 - 18 hours a day will do that to you). When I arrived here in Eastport there was so much to do to get settled in my new home and get back to work filling holiday orders for my business… and then there was meeting new people and re-acquainting with my family who lives across the street.

Needless to say it has been incredibly difficult to bring myself back into the mindset to blog again after all of these weeks out of the loop. But… I think I may be ready to try to jump back in and give it a whirl, if I can tear myself away from the beauty of coastal Maine and all the work I still need to catch up on. I’m not sure if anyone has missed me at this point, but we’ll soon find out.

Many thanks to Stuart, Hart, Michael, Walter and the crew here for keeping The Dem Daily moving along and keeping readers in touch with the news. Keep chiming here guys… You’re all integral to The Dem Daily.

Discuss It: 1 Comment »
Filed under: Democratic Daily, Hart Williams, In The Blogosphere, Los Angeles, Maine, Michael Stickings, Pamela Leavey, Stuart O'Neill, Walter Brasch | Get Permalink or trackback |

My local newspaper editor, as he does regularly, once again attacked unions as the problem in America. This is the same editor who once said “all the laziest goof-offs and goldbricks in the newsroom” where he began his career were union officials—and that the unionized New York Times editorial writers are nothing more than “limousine liberals.”

For this most recent attack, two days after Thanksgiving, he combined the economy with what he believes are greedy unions.

“[L]abor unions and their leaders are . . . distorting the truth about the American workplace,” wrote the editor. First he set up Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, who said that “Tens of millions of Americans are working harder than ever just to stay afloat. The latest Census Bureau report shows that wages are dropping and more people lack health insurance . . . a greater percentage of the economy is going to profits than to wages.”

Then, he cut apart Stern’s statement by gleefully citing data from the pro-business pro-management U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber said that wages, adjusted for inflation, for workers rose 30 percent from 1967 to 2007. Now, 30 percent seems good—unless you do the math. That’s about three-quarters of one percent per year, far less than any executive compensation. The editor then added in about 30 percent for benefits. Of course, these benefits also include federally-mandated deductions, like social security, Medicare, and unemployment taxes.

As an afterthought, the editor claimed the “poverty rate dropped from 22.4 percent in 1959 to 12.5 percent in 2007,” mysteriously trying to connect a reduced poverty level with reduced union influence. What he didn’t point out was that 1959 was a recession year, and that between 2000 and 2007, according to the Census Bureau, the poverty rate actually increased from 11.3 percent to 12.5 percent. About 37.3 million Americans are living below the federal poverty level; about 40 percent of all Americans fell beneath the poverty line at least once in the past decade.

Sounding the alarm, the editor tied together Democrats and unions. “[T]he plight of the American worker will grow more dire in the new year, as Democrats push to pass their legislation. . . . The danger is that their union-friendly legislation will hurt rather than help the American economy.” To wrap everything up, the editor of a newspaper with the median circulation of all dailies in America concluded by asking his readers to “consider the current state of the once mighty American auto industry, and ask yourself: What role did the powerful United Auto Workers play in its downfall?”

It’s the workers—and those pesky liberal Democrats—who the editor blames for America’s economic crises. Unfortunately, this editor isn’t alone in his contempt for the workers.

Dozens of columnists and TV pundits spread the myth that the average auto worker at General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler earns $70 an hour—about $146,000 a year. That figure, supplied by executives

Read more…

Discuss It: No Comments »
Filed under: In The News | Get Permalink or trackback |

I’ve been pounding an unpopular table in several places trying to show people that a $25 Billion investment/loan is critical for the US and makes common sense. I’ve taken a couple of days off from working on the subject. Today, I’ve finally found the opening statements of all three automakers to Congress.

I’m providing them below as they offer more understanding of the automakers request of the Congress. They better frame the extent of the influence they collectively have in the American economy, the steps already in progress to reshape their product lines and their operating costs. Each of these automaker CEO’s brings, at one point or another a different fact or figure that flesh out a better understanding of the reality of the automaking industry in the US.  I ask you to watch all three. They are only about 5 minutes each and, collectively, give each of us a better understand of the situation.

[CNBC hasn't set up their video for full embedding. Idiots. Please use these links.]

General Motors, Ford and Chrysler

Discuss It: No Comments »
Filed under: Autos, Congress, Credit Crisis, Economy, In The News, Stuart O'Neill, US Manufacturing | Get Permalink or trackback |

My regular readers will recall the Phrygian cap*, which the “Sons of Liberty” adopted about 1766 as the emblem of our Revolution. Many of the militia who served in the Revolutionary War wore the “Liberty cap” with “Liberty” or “Liberty or Death” or “Congress” embroidered on the headband.

[* "Who Stole Our American Hat?" 9 Sept 08]

You don’t see that much in the movies, of course. Nor, does the “Liberty cap” mean much anymore — although at one time, it was not only the emblem of the American Revolution, but was incorporated into the coats of arms of several states (New York and New Jersey, for instance) and chunks of the federal government. The Liberty cap is at the center of the Army seal on the Army flag. It is on the seal of the Senate, and on a very nice stained glass window with that seal IN the Senate. Read more…

Discuss It: 4 Comments »
Filed under: In The News | Get Permalink or trackback |

For me, and I’m certain for every reader, this is a day to say thanks for the good things in our lives. I wish everyone a very Happy Thanksgiving day with friends and family.

Everyday, if nothing else, we have the gift of sunrise.

Discuss It: No Comments »
Filed under: In The News | Get Permalink or trackback |

Part 2, in which battling spokespersons collude like you wouldn’t believe. (Part i was yesterday’s “Moving America Bass-ackwards“)

They are the political equivalent of unscrupulous telemarketers or internet phishers: This week, they’re a prince from Nigeria; the next, they’re telling you that you’ve won the Liechtensteiner lottery, or they’re from your bank checking your account, they’re checking on the “warranty” for your car (that went off warranty years ago), they’re telling you that you’ve won a free vacation, they’re “saving” children from starving in Africa, raising money for another good cause … anything to get your vote, or — perhaps more importantly — your money. Let’s follow a couple of these shape-shifters. We begin with MSNBC on Monday, as a new PAC (that you’ve never heard of) is promoting Thanksgiving “thank you” ads, using a vaguely familiar face:

Read more…

Discuss It: No Comments »
Filed under: In The News | Get Permalink or trackback |