I had an exchange with someone on a different blog concerning fuel prices. The initial post was headlined "Want Cheaper Oil? End the War" The second commenter blamed the high price on "the greedy oil companies". I commented that I thought it was a demand issue, that the oil companies are no more greedy than any other companies.

What they have, in addition to a healthy dose of self-interest (greed, if you must), is an extremely favorable position in the market; they control supply, and there are really no rules on how much they produce. They can under-produce if they want, they can overproduce if they want and they don't ever have to sell. They can charge whatever they decide to. And not only will people still buy it, most of them will continue to buy just as much as always, (but complain a lot more).

Here's today's story from BBC, I'll add a couple comments at the end:


Oil soars to new record over $135
The price of oil hit a record high above $135 a barrel on Thursday - more than twice what it cost a year ago.

The latest surge was driven by data showing that US supplies of crude had fallen - but the price later fell back sharply as traders took profits.

In the US, the benchmark light, sweet crude contract hit $135.09, taking its gain for the year to more than 40%. In May 2007 it was priced at about $65.

Higher oil prices push up the price of fuel, energy bills and food.

The average price of a litre of unleaded petrol in the UK is now about 114 pence, and diesel has risen to an average of about 126.4 pence per litre.

And the motoring organisation, the AA, said that another $5 leap in the oil price could add a further 2.5p to the price at the pump.

"The threat of even higher prices in the pipeline will perch like a vulture above UK forecourts waiting to pick an even bigger hole in the pocket of drivers and consumers," AA president Edmund King said.

'Challenging'

The impact of rocketing oil prices continues to feed through into the wider economy.

The British Chamber of Commerce warned that companies were being pushed to the "absolute edge", and called on Chancellor Alistair Darling to abandon plans to increase petrol duty by 2p in October

Meanwhile American Airlines has become the first US carrier to charge for checked-in luggage as it tries to increase revenue being eroded by its fuel bills. It will also cut "thousands" of jobs.

Air France-KLM said on Thursday that the cost of oil would make the coming year "challenging".

And earlier this month, British Gas owner Centrica signalled that bills could rise again, as its profits are squeezed by higher gas and power prices.

Investment needed

In a more global economy, there's going to be tougher competition for oil supplies
Stephanie Flanders
BBC Economics Editor


UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown is working with international partners to persuade the Opec oil producers' cartel to increase supply.

His spokeswoman said that Mr Brown recognised the increases were having an effect on UK consumers and he would be raising this at the forthcoming EU and G8 summits.

But one analyst said Mr Brown's efforts were likely to prove in vain and political pressure should, instead, be exerted on leading producers to invest more in long-term capacity.

"All this excess profit that has been generated by the oil industry really needs to be invested in refineries, pipelines and oil wells," Francisco Blanch, head of global commodities research at Merrill Lynch, told the BBC.

HAVE YOUR SAY This has hit me hard financially as I have to use my car for work Kevin, Gloucester

"This is what the market is asking for at the moment and we just need to ensure... we have the political goodwill also supporting this investment."

Opec has so far blamed price rises on speculators and says there is no shortage of oil.

All but three of Opec's members are already at their maximum daily limits for oil output and pressure has grown on Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE, which do have spare capacity.

Further rises?

Some analysts have raised the possibility of prices rising as high as $200 a barrel during the next 18 months.

In addition to falling US stockpiles, the continuing weakness of the US dollar has been another factor cited as supporting prices.

The US Energy Information Administration blamed the fall in its stocks figure on a fall in imports and a pick-up in demand from refineries.

Oil prices have set new records in 10 of the last 14 trading sessions.




"You really cannot forecast how much further the market will rally now," said Tatsuo Kageyama from Kanetsu Asset Management in Tokyo.

"All I can say is the market will continue to rise."

Light, sweet crude oil is the type most commonly used for processing into petrol and as a result, it is in high demand.

It has large amounts of the content used to make petrol, top-grade diesel and kerosene. It also has low levels of sulphur.

Its price pulled back sharply as dealers took profits from the surge, settling down $2.36 at $130.81 a barrel

London's Brent crude fell $2.30 to $130.40, having set an intra-day high on Thursday, peaking at $135.14 a barrel.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/7414093.stm

Published: 2008/05/22 21:46:11 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

I have vowed to start posting again so stop back tomorrow too.

Sunday we had a 10:00 game (baseball, of course) against our arch-rivals (in the sense that we have not beaten them since my first season in this league, 1998) the Raptors. Two weeks ago we played the Nationals and led early but lost 10-5. I got three hits.

That same Sunday the Raptors beat the Bulldogs (last season's regular season champs; the Raptors, as usual, won the post season tournament) 21-0. In six innings, as it turns out. In an e-mail I had previously learned that the Raptors had had many practices, they were practiced out, or something. We had one practice, four weeks ago and that's about it. I hadn't been to the batting cage in those two weeks between games (we always schedule around Mother's Day).

I feared the worst.

We played three scoreless innings. I played them in centerfield and struck out looking at a late breaking curve ball in the first.

Top of the fourth, Ian, who's been pitching for us, gets on, then I get hit with a pitch (fastball, sideribs) and am on first when Elvis (our shortstop) hits one high and deep: homerun. I somewhat injure myself (left ankle) rounding third (running out someone else's homerun, how bad does that suck?) and wind up in the dugout for the rest of the game, except for batting and baserunning.

But, we're up 3-0 and over the next three innings we build our lead to 6-1. In the eighth the Raptors score big. Jim Engle, batting seventh or eighth, cuz they're so fucking loaded, hits a three run homer after a run was already in and they cut it to 6-5.

They'll have the top of their order leading off the bottom of the ninth, we need to get more runs (at least one). I don't remember the details but Jeff (played the whole game at second, usually a pitcher) started us with a hit and got to third as part of a bases loaded two out situation.

Passed ball! Very close backstop. Jeff's the oldest (and probably slowest) guy on our team. He takes off. The catcher jumped on the ball, only about ten feet or so from the plate, double clutched on the pick-up and threw it home (Pitcher covering). Pitcher applies tag but bobbles ball as he does so. Safe! We lead 7-5.

Dave (manager) decides to send Ian out for the ninth and his chance at a complete game win. He falls just short as their catcher gets a two out hit to left that (barely) scores the tying run from second. we get the third out. we go down 1-2-3 in the tenth. They score the winning run in the bottom of the tenth with Elvis now pitching and Ian (with a very spent arm) at short. I can't go into the details, it's still too painful. We lose, 8-7.

Fuck!

With success like this, who needs failure?

Iraqi MPs call Maliki 'depraved'
Iraqi deputies have denounced the government, using a quotation from the Koran to describe Prime Minister Nouri Maliki as "depraved".

The criticism came from the bloc of MPs who support the Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr - which once backed Mr Maliki.

Iraqi troops and US-led foreign forces have been engaged in bloody battles with Mehdi Army fighters loyal to Moqtada Sadr over recent weeks.

Nine people died on Thursday in a Baghdad bomb blast aimed at US troops.

The death toll also rose in the sprawling Baghdad district of Sadr City.

In the latest violence, US forces said they had killed at least 16 militants, while health officials said eight people had been killed overnight.

Over past weeks, more than 400 have been killed and 2,500 injured in Sadr City.

Pictures of dead

Three Sadrist deputies called a news conference in the Green Zone government and diplomatic compound in Baghdad on Thursday, at which they denounced Mr Maliki and his government.

They held up pictures of dead Iraqi civilians they said were killed by government forces, backed by US troops, in Sadr City.

The government's attempts to disarm the Shia militants were causing misery for millions of innocent people, they said, according to the BBC's Clive Myrie in Baghdad.

This Sadrist bloc helped Mr Maliki become prime minister in 2006 - but on Thursday they used a quotation from the Koran to suggest he was "depraved".

The MPs say Sadr City is under siege by government forces, and being starved of fuel - something Mr Maliki denies.

Meanwhile, both the US and Iraqi military spokespersons have accused Mehdi Army fighters of using civilians as human shields - though Mehdi Army sources counter that they are fighting in the interests of the Iraqi population, which they say is suffering at the hands of a US-led occupation.

Bloodshed continues

US figures suggest that 49 US soldiers died in Iraq in April, the highest monthly toll since September last year.

Iraqi figures say at least 968 civilians were also killed last month, along with 38 members of the Iraqi army and 70 police.

At least nine civilians were killed and 23 wounded in a bomb attack in central Baghdad on Thursday.

Three American soldiers were reportedly injured in the blast, which happened when a parked car packed with explosives was detonated as an American patrol passed, a police source told the BBC.

US soldiers said they killed at least 16 militants in clashes in Sadr City from Wednesday afternoon into Thursday. In the bloodiest single incident, it said it killed six militants preparing to fire off a rocket.

Meanwhile, local medical officials said they had received at least eight dead, including women and children.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7377005.stm

Published: 2008/05/01 12:42:54 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

Here is my writing assignment for my Political Science course (Intro to Political Theory):

Prior assumptions about the value and constitution of the “community” or “body politic” sometimes serve as the foundation on which theories about political purpose and power are built. This paper will examine the origin and the purpose of the community or body politic as presented in Plato’s Republic and contrast it with that presented in Hobbes’s Leviathan. It will argue that of the two, the system proposed by Plato would be the more stable over time.

Hobbes, in Leviathan, proposes that humans come together to form society as a protection against each other, as man in “the state of nature” is absolutely free of any constraint, free even to kill to achieve his ends. “Men renounce their rights only for hope of greater gain”, says Hobbes. They cede their absolute right to be free of any constraint to achieve security against another’s absolute right to anything and everything, including one’s own body or life.
The purpose of government, then, according to Hobbes, is to provide protection from one’s fellow. The most effective means of accomplishing this purpose, he argues is to vest the sovereign authority in one individual. While any sovereign individual or assembly will “be careful in his politic person to procure the common interest”, he believes that all men will seek to “procure the private good of himself, his family and friends.” A single sovereign, he believes, will be the most reliable in promoting the common interest as “the riches, power and honour of a monarch arise only from the riches, strength and reputation of his subjects”, thereby uniting the private interest with the public.

The purpose of government, as presented by Plato, is to provide justice. In the Republic, Plato discusses with some other political thinkers how justice can be defined. If they can define justice then they can know how the body politic can best be governed. Thrasymachus proposes that justice is “obedience to the interest of the stronger”. While this would produce a stable society, at least on the surface, Plato’s character of Socrates demonstrates through analogy that tyranny, the rule of the weak by the strong, inevitably results in the fragmentation of “the soul”, itself an allegory for the body politic, and ultimately an unstable society.

This idea of tyranny, the rule of the strong, is very close to Hobbes’s idea of vesting the power of the state in one man, a monarch, and allowing him to rule with impunity, yet is not quite the same. Thrasymachus’s idea sets up no sovereign, no absolute ruler, other than the strongest one, who could be ruled by a group or faction, which could, in turn, be overruled by a stronger faction. Hobbes’s sovereign rules by right of covenant; Thrasymachus’s tyrant rules merely by strength, which can be overcome.

In Book II of the Republic, a new theory is proposed, that of justice as a compromise devised for the protection of the citizenry, with the “State” in the role of enforcer. To effectively argue this they must first define the State. Plato, through his character Socrates, presents an example of a society in which the citizens accept roles for which they are best suited so as to achieve a common good. The idea of the common good is fundamental to accepting the State as the guarantor of justice. In this society the “elites” are identified early and their education is engineered toward the end of making them the future rulers of the city, or Republic, which Plato, through Socrates, is now describing. This goes toward the making of the “healthy city” which Plato explains in detail in books II, III, and IV.

Hobbes, as has been noted, would vest all the power in a monarch. He makes no call for the careful education of the monarch, nor does he express any concern that he be an “elite”. Whosoever can lay claim to the sovereignty above all others shall be the monarch. From thence shall the sovereign power pass in a line of hereditary succession, thereby establishing a line of natural succession, so to avoid any conflicts, upon the death of the monarch, as to who shall next rule.
Hobbes is satisfied that he has established a very stable form of government: the monarch rules with absolute power and the people obey, or risk any punishment that the absolute ruler may choose to impose. In theory this is a perfectly stable situation. In practice there is a problem. Hobbes believes that “a commonwealth is instituted when a multitude of men do all agree … to give the right to represent them all to a man, or assembly.” (He then makes his case for a single sovereign, as cited above). This is successful only as long as the body politic believes that it was party to this agreement. At some point this may cease to be the case. Instability can result when the people decide that they deserve a “better” form of government, one which better addresses their concerns, one in which a single despot does not rule with impunity. While Hobbes argues that “It is true that they that have sovereign power may commit iniquity, but not injustice or injury”, this can be seen as “just” only within the context of the polity having accepted the covenant ceding all sovereign power to the monarch. Once they no longer recognize this covenant, iniquity will be seen as injustice, and redress may be sought, possibly manifested in the violent overthrow of the government.

It has been argued that Hobbes’s commonwealth has the potential for instability; Plato’s republic must be similarly examined. He proposes government of the people, by the elite, for the good of the people. He calls on the people to participate in creating and maintaining the “healthy city” by working for the common good, by accepting their proper roles, by accepting the “elites” as the proper rulers of the city. At this point one could argue that Plato’s city greatly resembles Hobbes’s commonwealth, people accept rule and perform as expected. There are, however three crucial differences. The first has already been mentioned: the good of the people is the purpose of the government. Hobbes makes no such claim in Leviathan, only that his proposed government is necessary to insure the security of the people. The second, in an effort to ensure the first, is that the ruling class will not be allowed to own property. This will help to ensure that government doesn’t come to be for the good of the governors. Third is that, while there is a class system in place, it is possible for someone to be born into one of the lower classes and rise to the top class by virtue of merit. The system is thus more likely to be perceived as fair in later generations, people who would potentially be disposed to make the claim that they were not party to the original agreement and are therefore not bound by it. This would give the government a measure of legitimacy, and ultimately stability, which is not to be found in Hobbes’s commonwealth.

Hobbes’s commonwealth is, in theory, the most stable of governments, essentially a dictatorship with a hereditary succession. As long as the people accept the role of subjects to an absolute ruler there is complete stability. But humans, by nature, always aspire to more, to live better, to be happier. To quote Aristotle, “man is, by nature, a political animal” and as such, will at some point begin to think along political lines and question whether or not another system of government might be more desirable. When that happens, monarchy comes to be seen as akin to tyranny and the polity will become dissatisfied and seek to change the form of government by any means necessary and available. Plato’s idea of the healthy city, a city striving, through the practice of philosophy, to be the perfect city, precludes the need for violent overthrow as the idea of it is that change is welcome, sought even. This would lead to much greater long term stability than the commonwealth of Hobbes.

It's hard to say what, right now, is the "real reason" for our Iraq fiasco ("our"?); here's one theory:

..."One thing is sure. Iraqi civilians have been dying. Every day. For five years.

Why?

Mainly, because the motivations behind the invasion and occupation of Iraq came down to power, payback and greed, which makes this entire calamity just another ghastly page within the oldest book in humanity's bloody history.

Vice President Dick Cheney is, by far and away, the most powerful man in the present administration. He is still bitter from watching the slow annihilation of Richard Nixon, his first boss in Washington, at the hands of a Democrat-dominated US Congress fueled by broad and vocal support from an outraged public. Nixon was Cheney's archetype, the Unitary Executive version 1.0, who tried to raze the separation of powers doctrine to the ground by brazenly declaring the Presidency to be beyond any legal limitations, beyond any meddling intruders sniffing for secrets in the name of oversight, and thus vested with the same absolute authority once claimed by the Stuart kings of old."

Read the whole thing if you want, here:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/13569

Depressing, yet, illuminating.