Andrew,

You miss something there. The US imports in the order of 5.7 billion barrels of oil and equivalent finished/semi-finished products a year. At $100 a barrel, that's more than $500 billions...

You can do a lot of stuff if you invest $500 billions each year rather than shoveling it away to other countries.

I know, I know, those other countries buy some stuff from the US in return so that would be lost as exports but 1) that money and the stuff they buy is in their pocket, no ours, 2) they get to decide how to spend it, not us and 3) they actually spend most of it elsewhere. That's why trade deficits suck. You loose control on your destiny and put it in the hand of fine folks ... like the Saudis.

I'm ready to bet that rising fuel costs for airlines are going to have an excellent upside.

Right now, for passengers, it's all about cost, cost, cost and, no matter how much they bitch and moan about lousy service, they are still rewarding the cheapest scrooges on the block and dragging the whole sector towards ever worst cattle penning conditions.

Well, rising fuel costs may change that.

See, fuel costs are pretty much the same on a given route for airlines with similar fleets. If it becomes a larger part of the bill, it means that the other costs are becoming a relatively smaller share in the total bill and less of a factor for passengers in their choice of which airline they decide to fly with.

If you are paying through the nose no matter which airline you fly - cattle moving carrier or real airline- throwing a few more dollars to at least make the rip-off a bit pleasant is suddenly not such a bad idea. On the other side, if you are paying through the nose for something, you are also less likely to suffer kindly through dismal service.

My guess is that most (stupid) airlines will follow American Airlines example and devolve into ever more petty penny scrounging. But the few smart ones will do exactly the opposite.

If fuel cost make flying a luxury, flying should better be a luxurious experience.

No, really. Atheists are annoying.

They keep saying that religion, and more generally faith, is a load of crap devoid of any factual basis, all made up for the intellectual comfort of the believer.

I mean, OK, that's true but still...

You keep reminding them of how ancient and hallowed religion is and they answer that most of the history described by religion is fact-free BS to start with, written by neolithic ignoramuses to boot, and that the Big Invisible Best Friend In The Sky is a load of crap.

And you keep reminding them of how sophisticated theology is and they should respect that and they answer that writing pages and pages of highly contorted ruminations about the Big Invisible Best Friend In The Sky is a load of crap because the Big Invisible Best Friend In The Sky itself is a load of crap no matter how artfully you write about it.

And you keep reminding them of the great role religion played in history and they answer that there isn't much to be proud of in the actual history of religion and that the Big Invisible Best Friend In The Sky is a load of crap.

And you keep reminding them of all the good things religion do to people and they answer that religion may make some people fell all fuzzy and warm but a good spilf works as well and the Big Invisible Best Friend In The Sky is still a load of crap.

I mean, OK, the Big Invisible Best Friend In The Sky is a load of crap. OK, religious morality is absurd BS straight out of the neolithic era. OK, the Bible or the Koran don't hold a candle to Spinoza or Voltaire. But can't they understand it matters to people? Can't they understand they should stop stating the obvious out loud? Can't they understand that truth or facts are annoying, that people don't want to hear about them?

Can't they understand they are being rude?

Can't they get it?

Just consider what Pat Robertson was able to milk out of his 1988 primary run.

I see a very lucrative future for Huck as the right wing religio-political intercessor in a field where the current stars are fading (Robertson, Dobson) or dying outright (Falwell).

The box-office top getters are devoid of big-name stars but they are also targeted at an audience ranging from preteens to young adults, who are the only one still going to the theater.

There's simply no incentive for older, time-deprived demographics to go to the theater. There are many other things to do. So movies targeted to those audiences are flopping at the box-office, no surprise.

People just wait for the DVD. And that natural tendency is much, much worsened by the relatively new habit studios have to release the movies on DVD and TV barely a few weeks after opening on screen so the DVD can also ride the coattails of the still-fresh promo tour.

So, why bother going to the theater? There's not even the penalty of missing the novelty and having to wait for a year or two. You miss it on screen? No problem, you'll get it at home a month later.

Looks like Suntech is just picking the leftovers of the Great Desindustrialization under the form of fairly cheap and qualified labor, while the indigenous financial class is busy wasting capital in the real estate casino (or now, more exactly, trying to sort out the mess).