Economic Darwinism

I see that ExxonMobil reported huge profits recently. Does anyone else think it's odd that an energy company is making record profits while consumers are suffering at the pump? Remember, these are profits we're talking about here, not just revenue.

In the long run, though, this could be a good thing. By gouging consumers in a monopolistic fashion, the handful of energy companies that run the world will force people to conserve and maybe even cause alternative sources of energy to become cost effective. So, it could be a nice double play for the benefit of the world, and poetic justice, caused by the greed and shortsightedness of companies like ExxonMobil.

A smarter company wouldn't raise its prices so high that it turns off its own customers and harms its own market. But, hey, ExxonMobil, Shell, and the others may be gluttons, but no one ever said they were smart.

I, Prisoner

I was thinking about the Bush Administration's reluctant admission that the Gitmo "detainees" (a sanitized word for "prisoner") may be entitled to the basic human rights accorded by the Geneva Convention. This change of stance comes a few days after the Supreme Court made that decision for the Administration anyway. It's like being fired and saying, on your way out, "Oh yeah, well I quit!"

There seems to be a general misunderstanding about who is preotected by Constitutional rights, whether international prisoners being held in Cuba or a convict in Alabama. Yes, the individual prisoner is protected, but in the long run, he is not the main beneficiary.

It is our society that benefits. Now, before you roll your eyes and think I'm just another liberal softie, please think about a world without rights for individuals. It shouldn't be too hard: just imagine Nazi Germany, aparthied South Africa, or our own country just a few short years ago in the Jim Crow era. When individuals are made prisoners, denied basic rights of representation, a fair trial, and decent treatment, we are all cheapened, coarsened, and made a poorer country. Also, of course, no one of us can feel secure if we know the next mistreated prisoner could be us.

So next time you hear a prisoner complain about a lack of due process or cruel and unusual punishment, forget about the prisoner and think about yourself. As in so many political contexts, this is an instance in which educated self-interest should lead to a just result.

What War on Terror?

Reacting to the recent Supreme Court decision saying Bush Aministration cannot try Gitmo detainees in military tribunals (that is, the handful even being tried, as opposed to the hundreds being held with no charges), AG Alberto Gonzales says the Court has hampered the War on Terror.

Two things come to mind. First, there is no such thing as a War on Terror. Terror is a method, and countries do not fight wars against methods. It would be like the American Revolutionaries declaring a War on Muskets. This points up the problem with fanatical Muslims. They are a stateless, amorphous enemy, and, as such, we can't fight a conventional war against them. But by declaring we are "at war," this administration tries to justify chunking the constitution out the window. Finally, the Supreme Court has said, "Enough is enough." Or at least a majority have. You can always county on Scalia and a couple of others to do whatever President Bush wants.

Second, if winning the so-called War on Terror means throwing away our civil liberties, we'd better find a new method ourselves. What's the point of winning a war when you destroy your own country in the process? Talk about a pyrrhic victory.

So, please, next time you hear the ridiculous phrase "War on Terror," analyze why it's being used.