411 Politics Fact or Fiction: Week 26

Posted by Jason Easley on 11.20.2006

This week reader Gary and Matthew D.S. tackle the issues of gas price gouging, whether President Bush is serious about making changes in Iraq, laws that ban the flying of foreign flags, and global warming.

1). The Democratic Congress may pass a law which would prohibit price gouging by the fuel companies. The chairwoman of the Federal Trade Commission has warned Congress that the law is not needed, and if it is passed it may lead to retailers letting fuel run out instead of risking prosecution for raising prices, but the U.S. is dependant on foreign oil, and unable to control the market, this law will be impossible to enforce and unlikely to have an impact on prices.

Gary Lumpp: Fiction. While I think it may be difficult, it's hard to say it'll be impossible without seeing the law first. Will it deal primarily with individual gas stations gouging local consumers, individual oil companies gouging their stations, or the entire oil industry fixing the prices and gouging everyone as a virtual monopoly? The interesting thing about this is that there actually seems to be bi-partisan support for the price gouging legislation - even new Minority Whip Trent Lott has raised questions about the oil companies' practices. I think more than anything the American people just want Congress to do SOMETHING even if it's just symbolic. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize there's something fishy going on when prices rise all year, fall just before the elections, and are back on the rise again.

The term gouging is what will make this difficult to enforce, since it will be hard to determine what the fair market value of oil is at any given time. However if all of the oil companies raise their prices together and enjoy record profits while claiming they can't build any new refineries, the American people are going to ask their government to step up to the plate and do something to help them out. But we need to keep in mind too that this is the same government that lets the oil lobbyists write their own legislation, and then choose not to swear in the oil company executives so they can lie as much as they want when being grilled by Congress.

Matthew D.S.: Fact. The days of government overseeing things as important as the price of energy are over; we tried something similar in Canada in the early 1980s under the auspices of the National Energy Program and it proved to be disgustingly unpopular. If people are tired of high energy prices at the pump, it's damn well time they stop driving SUV's, Hummers and the like, and start seriously looking at other energy sources such as solar, fuel cells, and wind energy.

I think this law looks good, but will be impossible to enforce. We start off 0 for 1 this week.

2).While speaking in Vietnam President Bush was asked if the Vietnam experience offered any lessons for Iraq. The President said, "We tend to want there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going to take awhile, it's just going to take a long period of time for an ideology of freedom to overcome an ideology of hate. Yet, the world that we live in today is one where they want things to happen immediately. We'll succeed unless we quit." The President is spreading a bit of revisionist history by inferring that the U.S. would have won in Vietnam if they would not have quit on the war. More importantly, his statements suggest that he plans to stay the course in Iraq.

Gary Lumpp: Fact. Maybe the American people expected instant success because in early February 2003 their Secretary of Defense said that the war in Iraq could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months. We were sold this war on the premise that it would be quick and easy to zoom in, take out Saddam, and the Iraqi people would greet us as liberators with chocolates and rose petals. Now Mr. Bush is telling us that he won't even be President when it's all said and done, not to mention calling for even more troops only a year after Rumsfeld predicted a drawdown of forces in late 2006. It's extremely easy for Mr. Bush to insist that if only we had stayed just a little bit longer, we would have won in Viet Nam. Much like I'm sure if he had run those two oil companies of his for just a few months longer in the 80s he would have turned things around (and once again, it's Papa Bush and his friends to the rescue since Junior can't handle the job).

And this isn't just revisionist history in regards to Vietnam, but the whole motivation for the war in Iraq. With Vietnam it was to stop the spread of Communism, but what ideology of hate were we trying to overcome when we attacked Iraq? Saddam was contained and had no worldly ambitions to spread anything. But once again Mr. Bush wants to confuse the public into thinking that Iraq was about fighting the spread of terrorism as if it was the equivalent of Communism or the Nazi movement in Germany even though they had no ties to Osama. Meanwhile, the country where that ideology of hate was spreading from Afghanistan - is now seeing the resurgence of al Qaeda. But I'm sure history will tell us that wasn't Mr. Bush's fault either.

(Side note: one point I haven't heard discussed amongst the talking heads: what if we never invaded and Saddam and his sons had been overthrown by their own people? Wouldn't they be in pretty much the same place they are now, in a civil war? How would we as a nation have dealt with that if we weren't the ones who had removed him? I doubt we'd have our troops stuck in the middle of it, unsure which guys shooting at them they're supposed to be fighting against.).

Matthew D.S: Fact. I don't see his statement as inferring anything about Vietnam really, although I'm sure it's in the back of his mind. The more important matter from this is definitely his desire to "stay the course" in the war torn nation, until victory is secured. It is unfortunate that his desire to fill the Iraqi people with an ideology of freedom may take generations to take root - there is no basis of it in the collective consciousness of the Iraqi people, so I believe. They have been raised to loath the United States and it will take an awful lot on the part of America - in reconstructing Iraq, and indeed, even propaganda - to shift the mindset of the people.

Good points one and all. 1 for 2

3). A Nevada town recently passed a law that makes it illegal to fly a foreign nation's flag by itself. This law is absolutely unconstitutional attempt to infringe upon the free speech of those who are not from the United States. Even if the town does not enforce the law, it still establishes a bad precedent.

Gary Lumpp: Fact. First let me get this out of the way: I love our country, I love the troops, I love American-born puppies, having said that, our obsession with flags is getting out of control. Yes, I understand it's a symbol of our country and our freedom and everything we stand for, I get that. But ultimately we need to decide what's more important: the right to speak freely or someone's desire not to see your Canadian flag flying solo in the breeze. And that's the kicker here, this isn't about national identity, it's about racism plain and simple. Nobody cared when Italians or Brits moved into a neighborhood and flew their flags by themselves.

While I'd love to see our flag flying high on every flagpole, and I hate the idea of seeing it being burned at a protest, the most important law needs to be the one that grants us our freedom of speech. (Side note: My suggestion to some company out there: as soon as they pass the flag burning amendment, start mass-producing flags with 49 stars and 12 stripes that aren't fire proof.)

Matthew D.S.: 100% FACT. When I read this story while doing this week's Monitor, I was absolutely nauseated by the arrogance and smugness of these people to even contemplate such a hideous xenophobic law. Illegal immigrants are an issue, but to raise objection to the flying of a foreign flag (they are obviously targeting the Mexican one - I doubt they have much issue with the Norwegian flag) is a blatant racist attack. Mexicans are to these people what Jews were to many Europeans, and I am not just speaking of National Socialists. They are mistrusted, and looked at with suspicion. This is as prejudiced as Bush saying a while back that the national anthem should only be sung in English. America, it's time to stop living in your whitey only world.

I guess it is now socially acceptable to discriminate against Hispanics. 2 for 3

4). The countries involved in the Kyoto treaty talks have set the year 2008 as the year for further review and negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol. Any treaty to cut greenhouse emissions will not be successful without the participation of big emitters of CO2 like China, India, and the United States.

Gary Lumpp: Fiction. While those three countries are the heavy hitters, if the other industrialized nations chip in it can only help things. The hope is that as the rest of the world goes green these countries will follow, but unfortunately if some of them are willing to invade other countries for oil it's not likely to happen any time soon. With that said whatever happened to innovation in this country? It's like we have leadership that thinks horses are by far and away the best way to get around, and it'll be way too expensive for us to develop these metal machines and we should be happy with what we have.

Personally I thought we were the country of inventors who can find better and more efficient ways to do things and now that needs to include cleaner, more environmentally-friendly methods as well. Will it take sacrifice? Absolutely, but much like the war in Iraq, there's a huge amount of apathy in this country that doesn't want to REALLY sacrifice anything because somebody else will deal with the problem eventually. The problem with combating global warming is that once people start to realize how big the problem really is it'll be too late. But hey, our kids will be bankrupt from paying off this war and the deficit so they'll be too poor to notice.

Matthew D.S.: Fiction. The world can still make a tremendous impact even without these states, but because of their worry about economics today (and losing votes), they are mortgaging the planet's future. If God forbid climate change becomes an irreversible reality, these months and years will be looked back at with great misgiving and regret.

Maybe global pressure can make a difference, but it will take a U.S. President who is more interested in the environment to change U.S. policy, but should America join the fight, I think the pressure would be too great on others not to follow. These two have a good day at the office as they finish 3 for 4.

Next week…

I'll be taking a few days off over Thanksgiving, so Brandon Crow will be filling in for me next week. Remember if you want to participate in Fact or Fiction, all you have to do is send me an email. I'll see you in two weeks.