Facing Mendacity

Every day I get at least two emails from an outfit calling itself "The Ayn Rand Institute." One of the most recent was a missive informing me that "America is not 'addicted to oil'." The writer hinged his claim on the belief that oil, rather than being an "addiction," is actually a necessity. But he was not serious in that claim. He was simply making a tendentious statement, setting up what has come to be called "a strawman theory" so that, in shooting it down, a different and more meaningful point can be made. It's clear, for instance, that oil is not a necessity. Alternative fuels exist. Oil has been made to seem a necessity by government policies that favor its continued use in lieu of alternatives. But as I say, that wasn't the author's objective. He quickly got to his real point. "The problem we face today is not oil, but oil-rich enemy dictatorships like Iran and Saudi Arabia." The upshot of this marvelous revelation was that we must "punish our enemies until they renounce their aggression."

Mr. Epstein, the putative author of this recommendation, does not say what he has in mind as a form of punishment. Perhaps he means that we should bomb their asses into yellow-sand-colored powder, or have the UN apply "economic sanctions," or even -- heaven help us -- stop buying their oil. I cannot imagine, even in my most confrontational frame of mind, that he would have us deal forcefully with the British, Dutch, and American oil companies who profit more from the actions of the dictators than the dictators themselves do. I cannot imagine that he would have us even admit that the source of our "addiction" lies in the fact that the benefactors of this illicit "drug trade" find the status quo acceptable. I cannot believe that Mr. Epstein, in his private wisdom, would have us dismantle the cozy cartel that has so gracefully enriched the already rich.

If I were of the totally depraved conspiratorial sort, I might entertain the notion that maybe, just maybe, the oil maggots are becoming even greedier, and that they have urged Mr. Epstein to plant a string of worry beads in the minds of their OPEC partners. "Why," Exxon-Mobile-Shell-BP may be thinking, "why should we share our hard-earned wealth with a bunch of rag-headed shieks whose only virtue is that they happened to be born on top of an oil dome?" Partners in crime are just that way; they are, by definition, criminals, so why should we be surprised that they seek opportunities to extend their criminality? (That there is "honor among thieves" is a false rumor spread by thieves.) The American people have never appreciated the beneficent effects on oil profits created by "trouble in the middle east." The difference between 5% of $3.09 9/10 and 5% of $1.82 9/10 is measured, not in billions, but in tens of billions.

Oh my . . . these conspiracy theories are great fun. Why not go whole hawg? Why not recast Mr. Epstein as a Johnny-come-lately to the squabble between OPEC and its "legal" partners? Would we be surprised to learn that, from the beginning, the partners have been at each other's throats over divvying of the shares? Seen from just that vantage, the details of the current "trouble in the middle east" make more than a little sense. I refuse to believe that the dictators of Iran and Saudi Arabia are ignorant of the threats to their "rightful share" posed by the militarily powerful oil companies. And I have only a minimal reluctance to believe that the so-called insurgents in Iraq, the Hamas in Gaza, and the Hezbollah in Lebanon are financed by those very same dictators, not because those worthies care a rat's ass for the Palestinians, but because the terrorists are the cutting edge of OPEC's defense against their greedy partners. So long as America's forces are busy fighting brush fires, they cannot give their full attention to the "necessities" of the oil companies.

Besides, from the viewpoint of the "sisters" (the oil companies) the current state of affairs in the middle east is nearly perfect. Without doing significant harm to the flow of oil, the price of the flow has been raised to record levels. "By gosh, look at those dictators squirm, as they see the threat to their gravy train taking on visible proportions in the American mind! If this doesn't lead to a re-privatization of OPEC, it has at least had glorious short term effects!"

"Hmmm. But what do we do now for a new president who is willing to do our bidding? Maybe we should go for a democrat -- you know, one of those tax-and-spend liberals. If somehow we can arrange, say, a 50 cent per gallon tax on oil imported from OPEC nations -- like Venezuela -- and have the revenue funneled to us as tax incentives to encourage reasearch into alternative fuels . . . wow! wouldn't that be something!! Then, our locally mined oil would jump 50 cents a gallon, and we would no longer need those rag-heads! But first, we've got to privatize Mexican oil. Aren't we lucky that they're not in OPEC."

Sounds far-fetched, doesn't it? But, hey, if I, who have nothing to gain, could think of it, why not those who have the world to win?

Another email just arrived from the Ayn Rand Institute. Yeah, well, I see. Ah, yes, I see. The Hamas-Hezbollah axis would never have been able to gain power if the US had long ago permitted Israel to kill every Palestinian on the face of the earth. Hmmm. This guy -- one Elan Journo -- is more talkative than Mr. Epstein. But I do wish they would use larger print in their emails.

"Kill them all." "Kill them all."

Mr. Kurtz . . . he not dead.