You write:

I work in a school and many of the young people frequently ask me how such "a great and free democracy like America" could allow itself to be "ruled by a tyrant like George Bush." I have no simple answer...nothing that I can reasonably say to explain this.

It's simple, really. They've been through it. They understand the danger since they've lived it. My family in Spain still bear the scars from Franco and the Civil War. They too remember and understand the dangers.

We, on the other hand, have been so dumb, fat and happy for so long we have collective amnesia. We think a man (Bush, Obama, McCain, whatever) is going to keep us safe from The Terrorists, provided he has extraordinary powers, when the real danger invariably comes from such a powerful omnipotent government.

As the older generations in Spain and Romania (and other places that have recently survived tyranny) die away these people too will forget, dooming them to a repetition. Franco died in '75, meaning that Spaniards younger than about 45 to 50 don't have a first-hand memory of his repression. Many of these people will be entering (or already have entered) positions of responsibility in government, the media, etc. I worry about what will happen when they too decide that it is worth surrendering precious freedoms in return for the illusion of "security."

Part of the rise of the price of oil must be attributed to fundamentals. All of the things mentioned by Leonard are coming true: peaking oil production, increasing demand by China and others, etc.

But how can one ignore the role played by speculation, fueled by the constant anti-Iran saber rattling by the Bush crowd? Just imagine what would happen if the US does attack Iran. What would that do to oil prices? Iran has huge reserves. Iran sits on the Persian Gulf, and could well choke oil traffic on that water way.

If I'm betting, I buy futures now at a relatively cheap $140 a barrel. After all, it's not just Bush rattling the saber. All remaining presidential candidates have also made ill-advised statements on Iraq, esp. Mr. McCain. The US has attacked Iraq, and is getting pretty irrational about Iran. If the US does attack Iran, I make a killing selling my cheaply acquired oil futures.

What Event Horizon wrote:

"we" should be doing is simply resuming oil drilling and exploration wherever we can, so that America can continue to grow. That includes off the coast of Florida, you know, right next to that non OSHA approved Chinese oil rig.

What Andrew wrote:

I was more startled when the price of oil dropped below $10 a barrel in 1986 than I am by its rise all the way up to $140. Oh sure, I understood the price mechanics of how it happened: how the oil shocks of 1970s encouraged the rapid development of new oil fields that weren't controlled by OPEC, with a consequent undercutting of the cartel's pricing power. But it always seemed bound to be a short-term solution. Oil wells eventually run dry.

The position taken by Event Horizon is fundamentally flawed. We can drill all we want. All it will do is delay the inevitable. We need to get ahead of the curve here. Further, any plan that relies on increased use of coal is nothing but a suicide plan. It is becoming clear that global warming is a clear and present danger, a far greater threat to humanity than any shortage of energy. The disconnect between what the popular press is saying about global warming and what the scientific literature is saying is striking. Scientists are not speaking in hypotheticals. They believe it is real (see http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/24/tech/main4204994.shtml for a story on one such scientist).

Yo Kirk, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Did I say "my beloved" Iran was driving up the prices?

Think just a little before spewing forth.