The only interest the US has is in maintaining its hegemony which, in recent years, appears to be tending towards imperium. If a country acts in support of our foreign policy goals, regardless of governmental type, they are considered a good country. If not, they get to learn the truth expressed by Tom Lerher 40 years ago (sung to the Halls of Montezuma):

When someone makes a move

of which we disapprove

who is it that always intervenes?

The UN and OAS

They have their place, I guess

But first, send the Marines!

After decades of observation, I'm convinced that the world would be a better place without American interference in the growth and development of the various societies in the world. Unfortunately, the ruling elite in Washington doesn't appear to have learned that the United States has a terrible track record in "nation building" (as if we were the epitome of nations and need to share our wisdom with the world) and they also have not realized that the US cannot dominate the world as it did in the 40s/50s/60s and even 70s when the world was still trying to recover from WWII. Thus I find the smug proclamations that Russia is already paying a price for their intervention in Georgia amusing. Washington isn't trying to beat up on some small and relatively helpless country like Cuba, Somalia, Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan, or Iraq. They're playing with the big boys who have military and economic clout and who can and will tell us to go to hell. We should stick to screwing up little countries like Pakistan by trying to force them to support our foreign policy goals instead of what they need to do to develop their own societies.

Your observations about American international behavior are accurate except they leave out one thing - we always beat up on little countries. Russia doesn't qualify in that category and they have the military and economic clout to bite back if Washington gets too stupid. Unfortunately, the current regime doesn't seem to have a brain.

I have mentioned before that much of the run up in the price of crude could be explained by the fall in the value of the American dollar as well as a risk factor associated with American aggression. Recently, the dollar reversed itself and started to rise. Co-incidentally, the price of crude started to drop. Even more recently, the dollar reversed itself again and fell a bit. The price of crude went up $2. No surprise here (for me at least).

Supply/Demand doesn't seem to be a player here. The recent drop in driving with it's consequent drop in gasoline usage is spit in the overall ocean. Plus the fact that you seem unaware that vast quantities of oil are used in non-automotive applications (plastics production for example). So I suspect the Saudi's of being correct that currently supply and demand are in rough balance. I've also always doubted that oil speculation had much impact on the price of crude. On the other hand, maybe you could explain the recent change in fortunes for the American dollar. It's not as if the fundamentals changed any - we still have a horridly negative balance of trade; we still have a profligate regime in Washington blowing money on their stupid war faster than a professional fireworks shooter on the 4th of July. Riddle me the answer to that one.

In the long run? Well, as Lord Keynes so succinctly put it, in the long run we are all dead.

Forgive me but why bother to hold debates (regardless of format) when the most that the candidates have time for are sound bites? The problems and issues are not simple or bipolar. How can you have a discussion that addresses all the facets and nuances of Iraq, Afghanistan, energy, the housing/banking/credit crisis, America's crumbling infrastructure and vanishing industrial base, or a host of other issues in 9 frickin' minutes?

That's a Douglas DC-9 (DC - Douglas Commercial) which was designed and went into production before Douglas was acquired by the McDonnell Aircraft Company back in 1967. The MD-80 series of aircraft (MD - McDonnell Douglas) are, indeed, variants of the original DC-9. The very last variant of the DC-9, the MD-95 never went into production as the MD-95, really, because it was coming on line as McDonnell Douglas and Boeing were merging. Boeing renamed it as the Boeing 717 and it and the MD-11 were the only two McDonnell Douglas commercial aircraft that Boeing retained after the merger. They have since halted production of both of them.

On a side note, Douglas was never happy (even 30 years on) being a part of McDonnell Aircraft. While there are many amusing tales of how they expressed their distaste, one I find particularly sad. Within a week of the merger, the big neon McDonnell Douglas sign over their hanger at Long Beach was torn down and replaced with a Boeing sign (the sign at the original St. Louis facility wasn't replaced for months). But in the end, Douglas got the worst of the deal. Old man Mac had been dedicated to keeping Douglas as a commercial design house and for the next 30 years through ups and downs, did so. But within a couple of years of the merger, Douglas was no more; its proud legacy reduced to a few thousand older aircraft flying the skyways and its facilities reduced to merely a manufacturing appendage of Seattle.

A History of Venice to you. What is happening here is largely what happened in Venice albeit some 700 years ago. That is the time frame whence the Venetians effectively lost their vote and their republic became an oligarchy. It will happen here. I predict by no later than mid-century.