Oil Prices...Are People Like Frogs?

Up and down, up and down; so goes the price of oil and gasoline.  We see it go up, but not so much down, but it does, and there is a reason.  You can blame it on any number of things, oil speculators driving the price of oil up, “Arabs” setting prices too high, the U.S. not tapping the Strategic Oil Reserves, or the fact that we are not drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).  There are other reasons as well, and I think some of them are that oil companies have a plan they do not want us to know about.  It is based on acclimation.

If you look at the chart of gasoline prices and oil prices over the last six years, there is a pattern, see:

http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=USAAverage&city2=&city3=&crude=y&tme=72&units=us

They do follow the same pattern, but I would argue that it is really the process of acclimation that drives the price of oil and gasoline.  By that I mean, oil creeps up for years, and then the graph begins to increase at a greater rate until it reaches a point where it drops precipitously.  Why does it start to go up faster?...Greed !  Why does it drop?  It drops because people have reached their limit and begin to complain…vigorously.  We complain to their Congresspersons and when the screaming and gnashing of teeth becomes too loud and by too many people, then Congress threatens action, or they may actually act.  The threats are that Congressional hearings where oil executives are subpoenaed to testify in public hearings may be held or are actually held.

Part of the problem is that these same oil executives and their respective oil companies have basically purchased Congress with campaign donations and the like.  Our Supreme Court has ruled that these contributions are “Free Speech” and therefore cannot be controlled, so Congress can be bought, legally.  The only thing that prevents the oil companies from driving the prices to the sky is the fact that, in the end, no matter how good the ad campaign may be at election time, a political opponent can point to a record, and the people can unseat a Congressperson, when he can clearly be blamed for allowing rising oil prices.  So, a complaining and dissatisfied electorate can have an input, but the oil companies are not stupid and they have a technique to limit public dissatisfaction and, therefore, complaint.  They acclimate the public to high(er) gas prices.

Look at the prices of fuel and you will see the price rising, rising, rising and then a precipitous drop.  The drop designates the point at which people begin to complain bitterly and call on their elected officials to do something.  The price goes up a little, the waters are tested, no one complains or they grumble a little and the price goes down a little.  Then the price goes up a little more, higher than the previous price, again, testing the waters, and then goes down a little.  However, these small up and down changes show a larger trend, ever upward.  We get to the point that the price of fuel is just egregiously high and then it plummets, because the threat to investigate why it has gone up offers the possibility that we, the people, will figure out just how bad we are getting screwed.  So, “Big Oil” drops the price to hose us all down, makes Congress look like a bunch of heroes, pockets HUGE profits in the meantime, and starts plotting the next pattern of price increases.  Oh, and all the while is collecting subsidies and cashing in on tax breaks as well (see my blog of April 28, 2011).

What the oil industry is doing is to get us used to the water, so to speak.  They slowly immerse us in higher and higher prices so we get used to it gradually.  Unfortunately for Big Oil, there comes a point at which we just won’t take it anymore, and we complain to people that can do something about it and when we scream often enough and loud enough and in enough numbers that it starts to look like it is in their best interest, Congress finally does something.  We are like the apocryphal frog in a pot of slowly warming water, that does not jump out because he becomes acclimatized to the increasingly hot water.

I guess the answer is to start bitching and pissing and moaning a lot louder, a lot more often, but mainly, a lot sooner, and make sure that our interests become the interests of Congress more quickly.  Now that we can see the pattern, maybe we can get our timing better than before gas gets to $5.00/gallon the next time it starts to go up.

Democracy in Afghanistan...I just don't think it will work...yet

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." (as cited in Padover, 1939, p. 89)

". . . whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right." (as cited in Padover, 1939, p. 88)

Jefferson, Education and the Franchise
by Professor Thomas Jewett

The above quotes were the cornerstones of Jefferson's interest in education and the franchise, the Right to Vote. He placed education as the foundation of democracy and a prerequisite to vote.  Ignorance and sound self-government could not exist together: the one destroyed the other. A despotic government could restrain its citizens and deprive the people of their liberties only while they were ignorant.

Thomas Jefferson espoused the principle that a democracy demanded and educated and informed electorate.  I will save the application of this principle to the United States for another time.  However, allow me to apply it to a different country of some import to the United States…Afghanistan. 

Let us first look at the educational statistics for the country of Afghanistan.  The literacy rate for the adult population (everyone over the age of 15) is about 28%.  The literacy rate of women in Afghanistan is only about 18%.  Now we have a bigger percentage of people in the country that are between the ages of 15  and 24 that can read, a whopping 34%.  These figures come from several different sources, including UNICEF, UNESCO and the U.S. State Department, and are with a percentage point or two of one another. 

Very pertinent to these statistics is the fact that the State Department thinks the literacy rate is actually lower than what is published; pointing out that the country has been at war in one form or another for three  decades.  Does that figure boggle your mind?  It should !  World War II would have lasted from 1941 to 1971.  The Vietnam War would have ended in about 1995 if you apply the years to our own involvement in a war.  If you consider that the Afghanis were on the losing end for a significant period, it is that much worse.

If we use the highest education figure for literacy, which is probably optimistic, we can conclude that about 66% of the population of Afghanistan cannot read and write.  Let us ignore the fact that only half as many women can read as men (18%).  There are conclusions that can be drawn from this, but I shall leave them for a bit later.  The point is, how do you maintain a democracy in a country in which 2/3 of the population cannot read nor write?  I would argue that you cannot.  I would also argue that, if the world were to concentrate all the resources available, it could not educate the population of Afghanistan for at least another decade, assuming you could concentrate that much effort on the problem, which you can’t.

As a result of the lack of education, Afghanistan is a feudal society.  Think England in the Middle Ages, between say the 9^th Century and the first part of the 14^th Century, finally being abolished by law in 1660.  The feudal tier system was based on who owned the land, because the land was used to grow food.  He who owned the land, controlled the food and controlled the people.  In Afghanistan you have warlords that are powerful, much like the feudal lords of Old England.  This power stems from something slightly different than control over the land, but it is power nonetheless and it is used to control an ignorant electorate.  If you are an individual that is dependent on the powerful warlord that controls the area in which you live, you do what you are told by him; who to vote for in particular.  It is the absolutely perfect environment for what we would call corruption.  Votes are bought at best and extorted at worst.  What does an ignorant individual rely on for information about who is running for office anyway?  It is not like he is reading the newspaper, and since only about 2% of the population has some form of Internet access, it is doubtful they are reading it online, as well.

The fact that the female population is illiterate at greater rates than the male population tends to fit into this ancient traditionalist society.  Why ever would a woman need to read?  She is completely dependent on her man and reading is for men alone, in the mind of many men.  It is certainly a way to isolate the female population from anything resembling equality.  Ignorance is an insulation that prevents any form of equal rights movement from taking hold in the country.  So much for women’s suffrage.

So, what is the alternative to a democracy of the ignorant?  Although heresy to some, it is really a benevolent dictator, and when I say benevolent, I mean the kind of dictator that educates his people, and therefore himself, out of a job.  A benevolent dictator does whatever he can to educate his population so they can make decisions for themselves and eventually, the assumption will be that they remove him from office, when he is no longer needed.  Of course, power corrupting as it does (see Lord Acton), the guy in power probably does not leave office unless he is physically removed, like being shot in the head or something.  We have seen that recently in what is becoming known as “The Arabian Spring.”    Much like the U.S., they want to “…dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…”  Remember The Declaration of Independence, King George and The American Revolution?

I once heard that trying to convert African Natives to Christianity is like trying to nail a lift to the heel of a barefooted person.  Trying to convert the population of Afghanistan to a democratic society is much the same, and yet, we are in Afghanistan trying to convert them.  So far, it ain’t working too well, no matter how many troops we send with bombs and guns, and hammers to tack those democratic lifts on the heels of the population.  Force of arms is not going to convert the Afghanis to a free society, because, at the risk of sounding paternalistic, they just aren’t ready for democracy.  They have to outgrow their Middle-Aged thinking.  Let us hope it does not a take a plague that reduces the population by a third to allow them to do it, but also let us not sacrifice another American life on a fool’s errand.

Osama bin Laden Dead....What Now?...Film at 11?

Osama bin Laden is dead.  We have, figuratively speaking, cut off the head of the snake.  We are all now and dancing around in increasingly expanding circles, singing “The Wicked Witch Is Dead, ala The Wizard of Oz, as Dorothy begins her journey to the Emerald City.  Much like Dorothy, we are going to have some adventures, trials and tribulations along the way.  I am curious who will play the Scare Crow, Cowardly Lion and Tin Man, nominations anyone?

Our initial exuberance will be judged by some in the Muslim world as gloating and an insult to Islam.  Radical Muslims will be incensed and the emotional response to our own emotional reaction will probably result in violence directed towards Americans.  The truth be told, al-Qaeda, as a fundamentalist Sunni sect, has done a heck of a job destroying far more Shiite men, women and children than Americans, but this may change as a result of our success at finally finding and killing OBL.  Heightened vigilance is the rule for the coming months. 

Of course, we have only cut off one of the snake heads, for as Medusa the Gorgon, there are many snakes and many heads.  If we are really lucky, and I doubt we will be this lucky, the other heads will consume themselves in the power vacuum left by OBL's death.  However, if the analysis is correct, OBL has become significantly less than an active leader and may have become a figurehead.

OBL may have become just a figurehead in the analysis of many, but the killing of even a figurehead has consequences. Imagine the outrage that would have been visited on the IRA had they ever assassinated the Queen of England.  She is a figurehead leader of Great Britain, but a much beloved Monarch.  In a warped sort of way, I am sure that there are practitioners of radical Islam that might view OBL in the same way and it is these radical few of whom we must be wary.

The competing factions, among other issues, are those that believe we should not only celebrate, but should post the pictures of OBL's dead body on the web and that the video should be viral on YouTube vs. those that, whether it be for religious tolerance or because we just don't want to inflame the greater Muslim world, would not have us publish the photos and video.  I suspect that we will be seeing OBL on film at 11 relatively soon.  While we profess to believe in the golden rule, we would have video OBL’s body dragged through the streets of New York while pig entrails are thrown at it.  A grisly, but I’ll bet accurate, description of what my Conservative brothers would do.  However, that does not make it right.  We as a people are better than that.

A dear friend of mine has, over the years, convinced me that we do things because they are right, not because someone else would do it to us or because someone else has done something to us.  We tell our children that it is wrong to do certain things.  They are no less wrong when we grow up, but we become increasingly able to rationalize behavior we would punish if our children did it.  It is one of the things that the Right views as weakness; the fact that Liberals will tend to do what is right, as opposed to what makes us feel better or stronger than our enemy.  They believe in doing things just because we can and might does make right.    

If we reduce ourselves to the level of our enemies, what difference does it make who wins?  We cannot afford to give up the moral high ground or it just does not make sense to fight. Does the fact that it is a free country doing the torturing and abusing and human rights violating make it less immoral, unethical or wrong?  There are those that respond with a definitive, “Yes, it does.” I am sad to say.

On the other hand, the conspiracy theorists...you know, the people still looking for the gunman on the grassy knoll, 47 years after the death of JFK...are already claiming that OBL is not dead.  I am not sure how that is going to shake out, but it will probably be propounded by those that also think that no aircraft flew into the Pentagon and those that will still be asking to see the President's birth certificate, long after those theories have been debunked.  There are just too many intelligent people that apparently have nothing better to do.  Are you listening Orly Taitz?

The reason that some of my favorite neo-conservative, Right-wing, fascists cannot believe that OBL is really dead is that they might have to give credit where credit is due, to President Obama and, as we all know, that is not possible.  They have the two tiered logic system that causes reality to be denied, and logic to be abandoned.  It also is the logical loop that will lock up your computer when occurring in millions of lines of programming code.  Rule One:  Barack Obama is always wrong.  Rule Two:   When Barack Obama is right, refer to Rule One. 

Some of those that are just a smidgeon this side of nuts, like Fox News for example, do manage to escape the logical loop by utilizing just the right amount of spin (Are you listening Bill O'Reilly of the Right-wing spin zone?).  They want to believe that President Obama only worked on the results of President George W. Bush and that it is GWB that we must be crediting with the demise of OBL, to the exclusion of anything our current President did.  Oh, and they also want to use it as a justification for that heinous act of torture, water-boarding.  They now claim that the only reason we got the information to locate OBL is because we tortured people.  In the immortal words of Mr. Rogers, "Can you say the ends justify the means? Sure, I knew you could.  It's a special sort of feeling."

Once again, we find ourselves divided among moral lines.  What do we do?  I suggest we hold on the moral high ground we have steadfastly tried not to give up, with a few lapses I am sorry to say, since the birth of our nation.