USA Today reminds us, Friday, Page 1B, that a barrel of oil was $19 in 2002. With the Oil Fuhrer "making mistakes" oil is over $80 a barrel today. Who believes this is a mistake? I mean, besides the Bush-loving, crime-enabling whore media?

Link It explains why poor Cindy Sheehan is now sitting in prison; why Bush critics like CIA retiree Valerie Plame have been ostracized by the corporate media and are wasting away in anonymity; why no critic of Bush can get a hearing, why no book complaining about him can ever get published, and why our multiplexes are filled with one pro-Bush propaganda movie after another, glorifying the Iraq war and rallying the nation behind its leader. Meanwhile, back on planet Earth...

His Name’s Pronounced “Shoo” Not “Hashoo!” The Main Scream Media has been curiously quiet concerning the amusing exploits of democrat darling Norman Yung Yuen Hsu (pronounced “Shoo” not “Hashoo” so no Kleenex necessary). This guy is what is called a bundler. What he does is charm liberals into donating money (“for the children” undoubtedly). Since huge contributions are now illegal, Hsu gathers lots of smaller donations into a bundle then presents the money to people like Obama and Clinton. In 1991, a California court accused Hsu of fathering a ponzi scheme (an edifice of empty promises of huge returns in a short period of time through pyramiding). He pleaded no contest to grand theft of investors’ money, then, rather than appearing for his sentencing hearing, ran as fast as his little feet could go, all the way to Hong Kong (why wasn’t his passport revoked? Duh?). There he lived off additional eloquent B.S. and more business schemes until, in 1998, he was declared bankrupt by the Hong Kong courts. Real Good Norm! Makes us all proud. But Norman wasn’t done. Oh, no. He snuck back into the U.S. (He still had his passport?) where he had lots of friends he could bleed and continued to live in luxury through money he was able to siphon off as he kept up the begging and threatening for large donations to democrat candidates and causes. But then the WSJ, even though weak from laughter, managed to blow the whistle, loudly announcing that the charming Norman Y. Y. Hsu had a fifteen year old warrant outstanding. As soon as found out Norm turned himself in and was released on $2 million bail. Then he ran again! Quickly snapped up by the F.B.I. in Colorado, Hsu is now cooling his heels in some jail. What do you wanna bet he still has his passport? So what’s the point of all this? Why do I bother with a story that’s being ignored by the drive-by media? Is it that ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN are turning a cold shoulder because it involves democrats, not republicans? You can bet that if this was about republicans we’d be hearing about it continuously! But I had something else in mind: The Hsu saga shows the lengths all politicians have to go to to raise the vast amounts of money needed for decent campaigns. One of the greatest campaign expenditures is the cost of T.V. appearances. Television stations are required to broadcast weather as part of their federal charter, so why not free time for candidates running for office? Perhaps then Norman would have to find something else to do besides bundling, then bungling, and making Hillary look bad. Grimgold

Wow! I am shocked! Fox was the only network not to air the Democrats response to President Bush's speech (ha, ha, ha, this guy can't speak). Typical Fox propaganda bullshit. This is just more proof that Fox, now a major network, is nothing but a mouthpiece and protector for the GOP. Talk about a little bit of fascism. http://mediamatters.org/items/200709140002?src=item200709140002

A little old man shuffled slowly into the "Orange Dipper", an ice cream parlor, and pulled himself slowly, painfully, up onto a stool. After catching his breath he ordered a banana split. The waitress asked kindly, "Crushed nuts?" "No," he replied, "arthritis!"

Although the religious right has long been the most reliable block of votes for the Republican party, I think that it is time for the Democrats to take another look at this group of potential supporters. Here's why: 1. Republican gay sex scandals are now a common occurance. One of the tenets most sacred to the religious right is that of homosexuality being wrong. Since the very people that these voters have elected (believing that the politicians agreed on this sacred docrine) are the ones who are now attempting gay sex with underage pages and random men in public restrooms, they may begin to realize that these men will say ANYTHING to get elected and begin to doubt the wisdom of supporting a party of these liars. 2. Even the religious right is scared of Dick Cheney. While I am not particularly religious, I have many friends and relatives who are. Among those people, even the ones who will still come to "Der Murder Monkey's" defense admit that they believe that Cheney is up to no good. Even Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee seems to share these misgivings, as he said on The Colbert Report that he would not want to go hunting with Dick Cheney. 3. One of the top contenders for the Republican presidential nomination is pro-choice. This is another issue that brings a knee-jerk reaction from the Pat Robertson crowd. A politician may have the cure to cancer, but he is still not going to get many votes from the religious right if he is pro-choice. This would be a good time for the Democrats to point to the fact that on some of the major issues, like abortion rights, the Republicans are moving leftward. This could cause still more of the religious right to reassess their adherence to a party that couldn't care less about them financially (since studies have shown that most of the better-educated and more affluent Americans are among the less religious). There are various ways that the Democrats could capitalize on these advantages, but I'll have to agree with Bart that they probably won't do it. This is the chance to take away the Republican's most vocal support base, but I seriously doubt that it will happen.

So Bart's Computer broke down, and it seems to be a windows error. It sounds all too plausible. Who hasn't seen a bluescreen ? Nobody, apparently. Everybody knows the Blue Screen of Death. Microsoft is charging a lot of money for products that are not working properly. About 10 years ago Bill Gates said how wonderful the world would be if Microsoft was building cars. The automobile industry answered with a funny but true list you can read here. So why is everybody using Microsoft products ? Because they are good ? No. Because they are the best available products (this is different from the previous point) ? No. I think it is as with your favorite football team. You probably watched some matches with your father, and since then you are a devoted supporter. At least that was the case with me. When you buy a computer, you have Windows installed, and you know some friends who have Wndows. So it's kind of familiar, and you stick to it and the programs that come along, like Internet Explorer, Outlook (Express), Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Windows Media Player etc. But there are alternatives, which are (in my opinion) better and safer:

• Instead of using the Internet Explorer, who has a long history of security holes, you can use Firefox, which is more secure and very expandable by various add-ons.
• Instead of using Outlook (Express), you can use Thunderbird.
• Instead of the Office-programs (Word, Excel, Powerpoint), you can use Openoffice.
• And now comes the biggest of all: instead of using Windows (or beside), you can use Linux. This is an operating system which has the advantages of viruses-free-ness and stability. It is so reliable, that it's a front runner in the server market.

All the mentioned alternatives are free, which means you can download them legally and use and copy them. They are not only free as in free beer, but as in freedom, but that is another story. But the point is, you can and are allowed to download them and give them a try. Since an operating system is something very special, you can download a CD image, burn it, and test the OS without changing anything on your hard drive. If you choose to install it, you can later easily install more programs. Check out Kubuntu and/or Ubuntu for the downloads (I prefer Kubuntu, but that's only me). The September has also been declared the month of the screencasts by the community, so there are some videos to introduce you to the world of Linux. Visit the screencast site to watch them. You don't have to use them, but I think it comforting to know that there are alternatives.

The most obvious sign is the trade deficit. The latest figures are, of course, for 2006, and according to the U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, the trade deficit is about ¾ trillion dollars. Let me explain this: in the year 2006, the USA has spent 758,522,000,000 dollars more than it earned. This means, not only the citizens live on credit, but the country, too. Many house owners have learned in the last moths how risky credits can be. This also means that every day, more than $2bn in credit have to be given to th US. But who is paying for it ? Partly countries like Japan and China, who have more than 1 trillion dollars in their reserve. But there are other reasons why the US is running out of money: Since taking office in 2000, the Bush Administration has the super-rich tax cuts worth $555bn, and the Pentagon is a great spender. The budget for this year is over $500bn, and the occupation of Iraq alone has cost about $500bn. And the dollar is losing value against other important currencies like the Euro, which will make imports even more expensive. The US exported goods for $1,445bn, but imported goods for $2,204bn - the greatest part of the balance. The US trade deficit stayed at a “tolerable” height of about $100bn - until 1997. From 1998, it began to grow, as you can see in this graph from wikipedia

This article is from a German newspaper. I only translated it. It was written by Harald Neuber. When president George W Bush appeared before the cameras to dutifully inform the nation about the situation of his occupying regime in Iraq, you hadn't have to listen closely to hear his admittance of failure. The partly withdrawal, which was mentioned in pre-published parts of his speech, is so minuscule that it hardly counts. Only 5700 troops shall return from the front line until Christmas - a rather symbolic decision in the family-oriented USA. 5700 troops - that are barely 3.5% of the 168,000 occupation force. In the year 2003, at the beginning of the invasion, Bush had sounded differently. According to the 2003-plans of the president, Iraq should “become a dramatic and inspiring example of Freedom” for other states in the region. In the fourth year of war, disillusionment has come to Washington. Iraq is a country that's “fighting for its survival”, Bush admitted in yesterday's speech, which was aired from the Oval Office. Such an estimation couldn't be without consequences. The majority of the occupying forces will probably stay much longer than their turn of duty in the gulf state. Indeed, the number of troops could be reduced to 130,000 until July, but this would depend on the development of the occupational regime, said Bush: “The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home.” Success is scarce in hard-fought Iraq. In the script for the speech, the development of the Sunni-dominated province Anbar in West-Iraq had been described as success. But between the scripting and the speech, Sheik Abdul-Sattar Abu Rischa, one of the closest allies of the US in that province, was killed in an assault of political rivals. Bush commented the death of the Sunni Tribe-leader with the comment: “In Anbar, the enemy remains active and deadly.” He didn't dwell on the situation in the rest of the country. Bush blamed only the neighboring states, Iran and Syria, which were “undermining the efforts to strengthen the government in Baghdad”, for the constantly rising violence. If the US-occupation would be ended, “Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region.” The spiritual head of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Chamenei, who reacted demonstratively calm, said that “some day, Bush will stand before an international court to take responsibility for the cruelties in Iraq.” In the public opinion of the Muslim states, the US are “condemned and hated”. In the USA, the Democrats criticized Bush's speech. About 15 months before the presidential electins, the Democrats couldn't fail to notice that - assuming a change of government - they will iherit the Iraq tragedy. Barack Obama called it an “error to stay the course”. His rival Hillary Clinton announced to “change the course”. Neither of them considered a full withdrawal. -------- In the end, I didn't look up all quotes, so they were translated from English to German and back again to English. I hope it's OK.

Link The euro hit an all-time high against the dollar Wednesday. I'm so old, I remember when America had a good economy. Under Bush, we're a debtor nation nobody wants to invest in.

Link While Rep. Barney Frank's bill to overturn an Internet gambling ban seems to have stalled in Congress, (I thought we ran congress!?!) he told the Las Vegas Review Journal this week that pressure from foreign countries could help breathe new life into the legislation. Initially he said it would be up to gamblers to push the effort to get the bill passed, but he also said international pressures could also move the bill along faster. "If the European Union gets into the WTO (World Trade Organization) thing, that's a lot more pressure," he said. The WTO has ruled on more than one occasion that the online gambling ban in the United States violates international trade agreements the nation agreed to when it joined the organization. The US replied, "We don't have to abide by treaties." The U.S. has two choices to comply with the current agreements. It can either legalize the industry or it can outlaw all forms of online gambling. Currently it allows online horse race betting and online state lotteries. Bart says: So gambling is OK, as long as it's not poker?

 Link So, John Dean, stop wondering what happened to your fellow  Republicans. They embarked, knowingly in many cases, unknowingly in  some cases, with utter indifference in still other cases, upon the  destruction of the common good. They began doing this in the Cold War  and kept up with it when it turned out to benefit them economically.  Some of them did this because they were fearful and aggressive by  nature, and hurting those outside their own families and clubs felt  good, or reassuring. Some did it for money. Some did it for  "patriotism." Some did it for religion and some did it out of pure  cussedness, but they did it, and they did it over time.

Hey Bart! We went out to dinner last night in Las Vegas to the best Pizzaria in all of Las Vegas, Aurelio's on South Eastern Avenue about 20 minutes from the strip in Henderson. If you go, tell Big Al (the owner) Jeffko sent you. It was Mom and Dad's 53rd wedding anniversary and Dad's birthday on 911 and they get free gambling all over the place on this day, so we go out on the 12th. Dad is a volunteer for HER and a lifelong Dem. Mom is more of an Edwards woman, because he looks a little like JFK. I wore my WPE T-shirt to the restaurant. The restaurants staff and their guests were delighted, compliments on the shirts all around. The most satisfying though was the stunned silence about the shirt with my neocon sister, her neocon husband, and my neocon nephew. It was a beautiful sight my friend, just beautiful. Jeffko

Many of us knew that members of the GOP did not give a shit about how many of our brave men and women in the armed services die in Iraq. Now we have a direct quote from one of the GOP’s leaders in Congress that proves it. Congressman John Boehner was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer of CNN. Here is the exchange that proves that the GOP could care less about the deaths of  our soldiers and their careless attitude about it.  BLITZER: How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure? The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require? BOEHNER: I think General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We’re making success. We need to firm up those successes. We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we’re making today will be a small price if we’re able to stop al Qaeda here, if we’re able to stabilize the Middle East, it’s not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids. A small price? Try telling that to the families of those that have died in Bush’s bloody and illegal war.

 Link Every time the Eagles rushed Brady in the Super Bowl, the Patriots nullified the defensive attack with screen passes. Lots of them. On almost every play defensive coordinator Jim Johnson called for a blitz, the Patriots used the short pass to confuse the Eagles. After the Patriots beat the Eagles 24-21 in 2005, Brown thought the Patriots beat them with nothing but sharp offensive playcalling. Now, he's not so sure.

From Ron in Lima