D.C. Gridlock and Domestic Impact

   Here we go again.  Two parties hold the future of millions in their hands, and their answer is to sit in the sandbox and toss out the tools that both could use to build a decent sand castle.  Republicans are positioning themselves as the party of "No," as they have for the last three years.  It is a defense mechanism to create a polarization of ideology that plays to the Lamestream media outlets.  The object is to seem like the Republican Party is the messiah that will deliver our teetering nation from the brink of horrible decisions made by a Democrat-led Congress for less than two years, and a Democrat president that is believed to be a far-left villain leading the nation to a socialist wasteland.

  It is rarely mentioned that it was the Republican-led government that planted many of the seeds that have led to this Garden of Woe.

  The Republican Party wishes to reverse the many poor decisions made in the first three years of the Obama Presidency, at least on the most superficial of levels.  The true desire is to completely sink any and all Democrat candidates for the upcoming elections, especially the position of the President.  That should be obvious to any discerning individual, regardless of their political affiliations.  While this war of words and recalcitrant actions are taking place in the seat of our federal government, the rest of the nation is riven by a lack of decisive movement needed to address a calamity that is not only engulfing our nation, but also influencing decisions made in international markets, almost immediately reflected in those greens and reds that everyone awakens to displaying a complete failure of both parties to put aside politics and address a situation that affects people in New York City, Saginaw Michigan, and Paint Creek Texas (hail, Rick Perry).

  With another fourteen months left until the Big Election, does anyone truly believe that such a strategy can deliver either party a victory worth achieving?  Assuming that Obama continues to pander to this divide and develop his "tough talk" trend taking place now, that will only serve to further polarize a nation already arguing over which idiot candidate will steal votes from the leading two candidates of the Republican Party, while also energizing a protectionism in Democrat-centered voters that is completely unnecessary and rather harmful to solving this issue.  Assuming that the Republican Party continues the dual-pronged attack of sitting on their hands and running the nation further into the ground (only to potentially inherit an even worse situation), and pitting their most-electable candidate against others that may grab the zeitgeist of a small percentage, the result is detrimental to the Nation as a whole.

  Be you Republican or Democrat, someone that makes more than $200,000 a year or someone working two jobs to cover food and gas, it should be apparent that allowing another year of this crap to go on will only result in a greater catastrophe than has beset this nation in its entire history.

  While the leaders of the United States may excoriate European leadership for their inability to solve their own issues, perhaps such people should take this opportunity to re-assert the waning international leadership that the United States once held.  The United States has the opportunity to put divisive politics behind, come together for the good of all of its citizens, and in doing so provide an example for the nations of Europe to do the same.

  Or our vaunted political minds can haggle, position for another election, provide soundbites for the networks, and bar their doors for the coming storm of people left without any choices but survival by any means necessary.  Republican, Democrat, or Human?

The New America -- Debtor's Prison

  I apologize to the three or none of you that still take a look at this page.  I have grown languid by other distractions, such as breathing and sleeping.  Of course, that is no reason to deprive such a grand audience of my thoughts, so I will provide a brief opinion to tide you over and provide myself with more impetus to re-visit the vigor for this endeavor that I once held.

  I had an interesting conversation today with an elder man who happened upon a side comment I made about Reagan and the deification that he received, and continues to receive, by a certain political party that is involved in a current "Big Issue" that will come to terms within a fortnight.  He averred that there were two horrible terms present in his memory:  Carter and Bush II.  He was forthright in stating that Bush 1 may have had some potential, but was sabotaged by the Reagan Administration that left him without a possibility of being "fiscally responsible" with what was left to that President.  Bush II was too friggin stupid to deal with the events presented to him, and was taken by the advice of idiots formerly employed by his father -- kindly provided to Bush 1 by Reagan.

  I write this only because there are those existing with longer memories than I that do not depend upon a history book, a web page dedicated to a certain political strain, or any particular reason to offer an opinion but for the fact of actual BEING and living through such times.  As we move through the current Presidency and concern ourselves with the issues at hand, it is good to know that there are other and sundry voices that do not stem from any particular news network, webpage, or blog.  There are voices and opinions uttered from people that have existed under different Administrations, have been through oil crises, terrorist bombings, multiple wars sold to the public, and still offer a dissident opinion.

  So as the debate over the National Debt rages, I would like to remind the reader that decisions are made by politicians, are suffered moreso by us commoners, and are bought and traded on suspicion by the International Market.  At this writing, the discussion is about the deal to be made between Democrats and Republicans.  Those are two parties vying for your vote, all trusting that the voter will understand the issue and side with one or the other.

  They are not the ones that will rescue YOU, the voter, from a similar decision that you may make in your own life.  If you owe, are you able to call your loaner and ask for an extension without some excessive charge to be paid later?  How is this concept of debt any different from the individual citizen to the Federal or State government to which we individuals pay "rent" to secure the basics of infrastructure and security?

  Our Federal Government -- as well as many State Governments -- must learn to live as they expect us to live.  The current issue tends to be portrayed as black and white: either raise the debt ceiling, or cut government expenses.  It is not "either/or."  It is necessary to raise the debt ceiling for the same reason that it is necessary to raise the minimum wage from time to time.  Inflation, stupid.  As the value of the dollar expands, things also cost more, and therefore the agreed-upon ceiling that went into effect many years ago no longer holds the same applicable value.  At the same time, there is an urgent need to cut certain expenses and entitlements to rein in the government spending. 

  Therefore, the answer is simple: a dirty word in the political sphere known as "compromise."  The debt ceiling must be raised to address the past years of inflation, and certain funding needs to be cut as rampant deals cut on the side for other legislative approval have bloated various budgets.  Our representatives in office should be held to account for their finances as much as many others have been in their personal lives over the past half-decade. Perhaps we could start with less funding to the military, focus our energy more upon saving our own citizens' quality of life rather than destroying the lives of nations half a world away, and in turn demonstrate that OUR government can work together to ensure that the greatness of the American ideal continues.

  J.B., thanks for getting me riled up a bit a few weeks back.  I know I have been lax in this, but it has provided me a good release that I do not often receive at my place of employment.

Mere Whimsy

  I feel like I need to fill some space, so I will let the fingers roam some.

I wonder if anyone else has considered the associations between the adhered names of the players in major religions and their similar roles in such hierarchies.  Of the three major existing and organized religions at the present, each has a "godhead," along with an accompanying Messiah of sorts.  Judaism is recognized as the first in the line of succession when it comes to the Big Three of organized religion.  The Old Testament relates that the name of "God" is Yahweh, and he spoke his mind to Moses.  Of course, there are many different degrees of succession and importance in each of the Big Three, but this seems to be the context of the covenant, so let us go forth considering Yahweh as the God figure and Moses as the Prophet. 

  As the evolution of organized religion continues, one will find that "God" takes on the common name of "God," or a proper recognition of "Jehovah."  My assumption is that He is the same God, but now is in the Witness Protection Program.  As it will be detailed, "God" seems to change names like Noah changed diapers for all of his children on the ark.  So Jehovah has a son -- or perhaps does not -- but the new prophet (is he so, or is he an anthropomorphic deity?) is named Jesus.  Still, we have a grand spirit, and a walking mouthpiece for his wishes.  Now we run into some issues, since the first God was a rather angry dude that spoke as a burning bush, teased a father into infanticide to prove his adherence, and subjected a devout man named Job to many horrible instances so that God could prove his greatness and the understanding of his subjects to his potential benevolence.  The second installment of God sent a single progeny to spread the word of tolerance and acceptance.  Perhaps that is why there is a divide in the Holy Bible between the New and Old Testaments.  Whatever the case, there seems to be an evolution of God in the way that he deals with his Creation.

  And then we arrive at the tertiary installment of Organized Religion: Islam.  The name itself translates to "Peace," but like the former installments, it was developed by anything but Peace.  The new name for God is Allah, and his messenger on Earth is a lowly man named Muhammad.  Muhammad is not a "son of god," as Jesus Christ is sometimes interpreted (dependent upon what sect of the Christian Church is followed), but is a regular dude that is trying to make a living in the Arabian Peninsula, plying his trade and working out the secrets of life, much as we all do.  At some point, he receives a message from Allah and spreads the word, inciting opposition from the ruling powers surrounding Mecca -- those heathens that still worship a deity for plants, rain, body odor, and back hair.  He seeks refuge in a cave in the desert, wherein he receives the message from Allah of how to educate these people while writing autodidatically.  He returns to the city center, smashes the idol of so many polytheists, and spreads the word of One God throughout the proletariet.  He then wages war with a newfound army upon the vested business interests controlling this regional polytheism located in Mecca and is thwarted.  He flees to Medina in the northern part of Saudi Arabia.

  Long story short -- Muhammad changes minds, polytheism is considered anathema to true understanding and enlightenment, and the Prophet ascends to Heaven in Jerusalem (the Holy City for the previous two organized religions).  Apparently, he did not leave a will, so there was some conflict as to who would be the successor in prophet-land.  Ergo the great divide in Islam between the Sunni and the Shi'ia camps, and who was to further the message of Allah.  That was about 1300 years ago, and they still cannot come to some understanding, though each sect will agree that there is Allah, and there is Muhammad.  Just like Christians believe that there is Jehovah and Jesus.  Just as Jews believe that there is Yahweh and there is Moses. 

 
  It seems to me like some kind of a play presented on a historical world stage.  There are the same roles, and the same actors, but they all have different names.  Perhaps if adherents of Organized Religion would see this, then perhaps they would find a common understanding and acceptance.  But even within each individual religion, there are splinters and sects and various interpretations.  There are canonizations of these portions of the Gospels, and these portions of the writings of Allah.  And yet, they cannot see that they all believe the same tale, but told by a different author, and using different names for the characters.  And so neighboring nations are locked in warfare over Judaism and Islam, or over Islam and Islam when it comes to who was the successor to Muhammad. 
 
  In the end, perhaps we are best to return to the Greeks.  Worship various parts of life, nature, human spirit, and recognize each aspect of that as a different character, rather than try to centralize the pantheon of human existence into one being that sent forth another to instruct our idiot senses. 

  I urge you to Vote for Zeus in 2012.

Buying Time With Something to Offer

  I know that this is not in connection with the previous theme of this site, but I felt the need to connect to the ether, and this struck my fancy.  I promised more about Reagan, and I will deliver, but I highly doubt that my limited audience is concerned.  Perhaps "someone" will play this on the piano when the time arrives.  I would like KC to sing, as I will be singing along from somewhere else.  It would be rather ironic, considering my nebulous concept of the Afterlife.

   Dearly Beloved 

  By Bad Religion

  Here's the story of an honest man losing religion
Climbing the pulpit steps before an eager
congregation
The while praying came a wicked inspiration
Brothers, sisters this is what he said
Dearly beloved, dearly beloved, dearly beloved,
(Make no mistake despite our traits I've seldom
seen evidence of genes)
I can't relate to you, I can't relate to you
He was the kind of guy who would always go right
out of his way
But more before that crazy notion leapt right into
his head
And stubbornly crept into every mad perception
I can't deny a funny feeling when he said
Dearly beloved, dearly beloved, dearly beloved,
I can't relate to you, I can't relate to you
Dearest in memoriam - set phasers to stun
And grab yourself a neighbors skeleton to
lean upon
Did you know him in life - one filled with regret
So soon we all forget - we ever met
Do you know my name - sing a light refrain
For a man estranged - I won't deny that I'm
inclined to isolate
Dearly beloved, dearly beloved, dearly beloved,
(Make no mistake despite our traits I've seldom
seen evidence of genes)
I can't relate to you, I can't relate to you
I can't relate to you, I can't relate to you, I can't
relate to you

To listen to the acoustic version, follow the link and select the "play arrow" third track from the bottom

Idle Worship: Reagan and the New Right

  For whatever reason, Ronald Reagan has been resurrected from his interred state of sleep and become a symbol of proper leadership in the last three years.  I understand that much of this is an attempt by the Conservative Republicans to place a spotlight on the faults of a Democrat president, and as a banner and trumpet call for a Republican revival in the next Presidential election cycle.  Strategy and propaganda are one thing, but this deification of Ronald Reagan is becoming a bit macabre, as well as completely misleading.

  So it has become an opportunity for me to get back to a passion of mine -- that being the examination of U.S History, and especially a moment for a cognitive scalpel to interrupt this postmortem lovefest with a few facts about this idolized president.

  I understand that we all want to return to better days and memories are powerful things. Memories tend to be more powerful as the years pass because our understanding of the world and its current times provides for criticism moreso than adulation.  History also tends to mitigate the criticisms of a person at that time, and therefore I understand the newfound desire to place Reagan in the pantheon of great men and leaders.  But a close examination, and a return to a dispassionate understanding of that particular time, should remand his deification and portray him as merely human -- a man acting as President, without divine connections, without omniscience, and without the "herculean strength" to bring down an entire nation through sheer will and some buzzwords or catchphrases scribed by White House speechmakers.

  So please allow me to break down this model of worship and provide some facts that will disrupt the concept of Ronald Wilson Reagan as the greatest thing since sliced bread -- and the last great leader of a great nation that was divined from God to promote its idea of greatness upon the rest of the world.

  Perhaps we can begin with the election of Reagan to office.  The issues leading up to this are well-recalled in the minds of those who voted at that time.  They are also listed in current history books.  Nineteen-seventy-nine was a culmination of three decades of strife and international stare-downs, beginning with Truman and the Korean War, the dismissal of MacArthur, the onset of Vietnam (engaged under Eisenhower), the shock of a Catholic President gunned down in Dealey Plaza -- Watergate, Fumbling Ford, and Carter's Adminstration held at gunpoint by OPEC and Iran.  There was the counter-culture hippie movement, the movement of "Mother's Little Helper" for the household wives, and use of LSD, marijuana, and opiates for revolutionaries and drop-outs.  When in doubt, there was a cowboy elected to office ... the State Governor of California.

  Ronald Reagan was a screen actor, and a B-movie best actor.  He was a liberal Democrat at that time, and was the head of the Actors' Union.  He was a man that you could view on the Big Screen and consider him a solid figure, an upstanding man representing the best qualities of an American citizen.  And then he became Governor of California.

  He railed against the counter-culture movement.  He threatened violence against opposition, especially on California University campuses. He tried for the Presidency twice, failing to gain nomination to the Republican Party post.  He received his third opportunity with the election of 1980.
And then he won election.  Over Jimmy Carter.  Carter was an embattled President under the yoke of an energy crisis, a hostage situation in Iran, and the mantle of one unable to garner public trust after the torrid 1960s and the decadent 1970s.  And Reagan was resoundingly the victor, receiving 80% of the popular vote as an apparent reaction to the failure of Jimmy Carter.  Right time, right place.  The first four years of the Reagan Adminstration did not seemingly characterize him as the cowboy to the rescue of the American people.  Unemployment continued a similar trend as it had under the Carter Administration.  Energy prices remained high.  The U.S.S.R. continued to dominate eastern Europe.  Something greater than Reagan happened, and the Election of 1984 posed less difficulty.  Buoyed by a recovering economy, and enhanced by a weak Democratic candidate in Walter Mondale, Reagan won a second term overwhelmingly.  The trees grew taller, people whistled as they walked, birds sang once more.  It was reported that a rainbow spread from Staten Island to the Golden Gate Bridge.  And the Second Term was as lionized as the First.  But then there was a great deal of investigation and consideration that followed in the coming years that shed some light on the happenings during those eight years of bliss.

  More to come …

The Next Economy for the United States of Americannot

There has been a great deal of conjecture about what will constitute an end to "The Recession," and one of those points of progress is the re-building of jobs in the United States.  As of this morning, March 4th 2011, a new Jobs Report stated that the precipitous drop of employment was held, and the unemployment rate dropped point-one-percent -- certainly a reason to rejoice.  Finally, we are on the correct path and gaining momentum!  Marie Antoinette "tweeted" BREAD FOR ALL, CAKE FOR NONE.  No one told her in the 19th C. that it was improper to use CAPS.

  Propaganda is a powerful thing, but so is understanding.  In the height of a booming economy, perhaps one could look at four-percent unemployment as great.  Five percent would be considered usual.  Even eight percent has been tolled as an acceptable feat.  The idea behind such is that there are certain people "between jobs," that are taken at a survey level and will later be considered as employed.

  This idea is not the new normal consideration of things.  At one point in the development of of the United States, the unemployment of people during downtimes might be considered a loose body of potential hirings when things come around.  With the development of technology -- from Taylorism and the Assembly Line -- to modern computers and diagnostic abilities to use people in an effective role consolidating and compartmentalizing, the creation of Man has become the reason that Man needs less of its people.

   The plethora of jobs that existed earlier in this century will cease to exist.  The current recession has forged employers to ask more of their staff, while cutting their staff.  Therefore, the mantra has become "do more with less."  It is an appropriate axiom for capitalism, but it also leaves a nation of expanding populace without positions of earning.  The Recession has brought about a new consideration of the business model in every area, and capitalism as a model demands that less labor and more output equals a better bottom line.  This idea, born from the fire of recession, will not lessen.  Technology will only become greater, and the people that develop and implement that technology will be the ones that will lessen the amount of opportunity for employment in this nation -- and many others.

  I was listening to an economist talking today who stated that despite the 9% unemployment rate at the present, we would still need to add 100,000 jobs in this nation each day to return to normal employment percentage, all the while curtailing the influx of immigrants to this nation.  Intuitively, I construed that such will not happen.  Maybe someone understands more than me.  Perhaps all of our technology will become a sham, and humans will have to do what computers and robots cannot.  I bet that it will not happen.

 Prepare for a new frontier, and grab your ankles while you are doing it.  As I do not trust the idea of Direct-Deposit, I was in a bank to refuel my account.  Two weeks ago, I did the same.  Two weeks ago, there were two tellers to take account action.  Now there was one.  The supervisor told me that she could help me, and came across her desk to a teller window.  There are seven teller windows, so I suppose at one time, there were that many tellers.  I think I recall such a scene from the '80s.  We have known each other for some time, and she asked me how things were at work.  I replied as I tend to do, then asked her how things were here, overtly asking where the usual second teller was.  She replied that he had left.  I remarked that I had just read an article in U.S.A. Today that mentioned a bank stating that with the Recession, they decided to cut back on some people, and cross-train the rest so that a teller could open new accounts, help you with the concept of a loan, wax the balls of your dog, and figure out String Theory.  The employees were so happy to be free to take on new responsibilities!  I dont have a dog, but if I had one, that would be a GREAT bank promotional device.

  I suppose that the message, the idea, the fact is that jobs will not be returning.  I doubt that we will even have much expansion.  First, we need contraction of the 9%+ unemployment listing.  Then, we need an actual account of how many people are actively seeking employment or have just given up.  But as technology grows and replaces people, and as businesses have created an environment of "doing more with less," and as people have held so tightly to positions that they themselves learn to "do more with less," there may be a lapping tide upon a shore, but it will remain just that.

  And by the way, Karl Marx proposed this demise nearly two centuries ago.  His belief that free enterprise would lead to innovation, which would lead to the removal of necessary human interaction within a working structure should not be considered a precept of Communism.  It was a critique of the capitalist formula, one consideration that built upon another to display the exact destination at which we seem to be arriving at the present.  The system itself is grand --  the way that people will, and do, use it is detestable.

  Some jobs have been sent overseas, some workings have been contracted and placed upon existing individuals, and some positions have simply eroded due to the advancement of technology.

  Employment is not going to expand to the degree that is necessary to support the population.  But there will be more downtime, so we can procreate more.  That should help things.

A New Aphorism?

Politicians, Priests, and Prophets:

All well-spoken

None should be trusted.

Iraq War Re-visited

The current issue of Time Magazine has a small piece relating that the CIA source used to fabricate -- er, sorry -- used to rationalize the reason for the United States to go to war against Iraq and Sadaam Hussein recently related to the United Kingdom publication Guardian that he lied about the information he provided to the U.S. government via its ally, Germany.  "Rafid Ahmed al-Janabi ... confirmed in an interview with the U.K.'s Guardian that he lied about the existence of a secret biological-weapons program in Iraq to instigate regime change."

  This kind gentleman, who was a former chemical engineer in Iraq, admitted to the falsehoods provided to intelligence agencies detailing mobile bio-weapons labs and covert factories to facilitate extra-governmental military interaction in his home nation for the purpose of removing Sadaam Hussein from power.  "Those falsehoods buttressed the U.S.'s case for invading Iraq the next month."

  And here I thought there was only one source of lies that constructed the reason behind the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent eight-plus year occupation.  I am amazed (chuckle) to find that the magnificently intelligent leader of the United States at that time could be duped into inciting a war based upon one man's fervent testimony that weapons of mass destruction existed on hidden caravans maneuvering throughout the desert.  Shouldn't the camels pulling those labs have glowed, or something?

Considerations of the Future of Egypt

  I have already detailed the various factors engaged in the potential new government of Egypt.  I have also noted that it is an essential portion of the Middle East to the U.S. government, and likely to the West as a whole.  The Pew Research Center survey of the people within that nation provides some understanding of what direction Egypt might go.  As with most polling, there is an opportunity for the pollers to conform their findings to their desires.  This particular poll seems to confirm the fact that no one has a chance in hell to assume what will happen in Egypt.

   I will write directly from the article in Time Magazine:

"When the Pew Research Center surveyed the Arab world last April, it found that Egyptians have views that would strike the modern Western eye as extreme.  "Pew found that 82% of Egyptians support stoning as a punishment for adultery, 84% favor the death penalty for Muslims who leave the religion, and in the struggle between 'modernizers' and 'fundamentalists,' 59% identify with fundamentalists.

"That's enough to make one worry about the rise of an Iranian-style regime.  Except that his is not all the Pew surveys show.  A 2007 poll found that 90% of Egyptians support freedom of religion, 88% an impartial judiciary and 80% free speech; 75% are opposed to censorship, and, according to the 2010 report, a large majority believes that democracy is preferable to any other kind of government."

   How does one make sense of these findings?  The primary data indicates that Egypt is as lost in the past as are the Great Pyramids and the Sphinx itself.  One must questions the survey itself, in either case, and suppose that it held a different demographic or survey area in each instance.  Or, perhaps, one might believe that as the concept of revolt grew, the freedom of expression was unleashed, and the survey reflects that.  It sounds asinine when one looks at the years of the data taken, right?  Any survey has its faults, so let us not take too much comfort in the idea that those Egyptians from 2007 were more ready for a revolt than in 2011.  There were three year plus timeframe between polls, and dependent upon the survey area, there is a chance that the results suggest that surveyors were responding as they desired within a totalitarian atmosphere.

  Whatever the case, one must assume that Egypt is a highly-divided society, and that vacuum is created by a society that is an amalgamation of many different cultures that have come, that have sometimes conquered, or otherwise have visited and traded with this ancient area of land.  Over 5,000 years, so many different ideas exchanged within the populace, and so many different forms of government have created the true idea of a "cosmopolitan city" of the Ancient World that is is the zeitgeist of such people to to continue to draw upon different ideas from across the nations and governments of the world.

  Let us hope that the spirit of those people, the culture that has spanned the original Pharoahs, the Roman Legions, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, the British Empire, and the two World Wars will nourish and lead them.  If history teaches anyone, it will teach the Egyptian people.  Maybe then, the West can garner some of that edification.  That would be the greatest of East-West exchanges.

The Virgin Post

I have spent much of the time the last few weeks discussing various aspects of the Arab revolutions taking place in the Middle East.  I have not had a grand platform like this before.  I lament that it took this long to find this venue, but I will now use it to share a few thoughts.

  What began as a "bread riot" in Algeria spread quickly to Tunisia, where the downtrodden eventually managed to organize through social media, leading to the ouster of a man in power for decades.  The idea quickly spread to Egypt, and it took only one man who was slapped by a police officer (a female, at that!  An Arab female allowed to be a police official!) to self-immolate as a means of protest when his frustration was not provided an audience to be discussed.  Taking a cue from the success in Tunisia, Egyptians immediately began to organize through Facebook and Twitter and take to Tahrir Square (aka Liberation Square) to voice their pent up frustration with the thirty-year Mubarak regime.

   It was not as easy as it was in Tunisia, and there was certainly a good amount of "will he stay or will he go" intrigue.  A day after announcing that he would see his nation through to the next election cycle "as a father would do for his children," Mubarak announced that he would step down.  After all of the pause, one must question whether this was not a fait accompli and he purposely delayed the timing so as to secure his financial interests and organize a sub-Mubarak regime for the future, or if he truly believed that the protests would grow tiresome and end.

  At any length, it has become official that Mubarak is stepping down.  Hurrah for the tendrils of true democracy taking shape in perhaps the most important Arab nation.  But wait.  Isn't it the Military that is taking the reins and holding the interim government together until free and fair elections take place?  Wasn't it the military, under General Hosni Mubarak, that did the same with the Egyptian government thirty years prior, which led to his ascension and stranglehold on the nation?  Does a scratched record skip just like this?  Of course.

  Optimism should be sequestered in this instance for quite some time.  I do not recall an instance in history in which a military took control of a nation in such turmoil, then later relinquished that control to a civilian government constructed under a new constitution.  There have been many voices equating the actions in Egypt with the American Revolution, and it causes me to laugh.

  Hope for the best, but be ready to grab your ankles and take the pain.  I do not see this as the equivalent of the Iranian Revolution, but there will certainly be a great backlash from this put upon the Western interests, and no Chevy Volt is really going to help when the Suez Canal is used as a complete economic tool against the current existence of the Western nations.