eateggs

Every time I go to the gas station these days, I’m possessed by an unshakeable feeling of being cheaply used.

As the gas prices fall precipitously (which, curiously, doesn’t quite make the news, with detailed analysis, quite like the prices going up did), I once again feel the sickening presentiment of shameless profiteering I had when the U.S. first invaded Iraq.

“When Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast in late August,” according to PBS, “it shut down many of the region’s key oil production facilities for over a week.” The net effect was to reduce “U.S. oil supplies by about 1.4 million barrels a day, or 8 percent of total U.S. production.” That’s what we’ve been told over and over again by the media. (Just like “there are WMDs in Iraq!”) Somehow we seem to forget about the for over a week part. Suggesting that, what? it took up to two weeks for most refineries to return to full production? It’s been fourteen months!

During the summer of 2006, gas prices set record highs. In the two months leading up to an election whose prospects look quite dim for the Republican Party, the national average gas price has dropped $0.84/gallon– from $3.07 at the end of August to $2.23 in mid-November (Source: MSNBC 16-Oct-06). Doing the math, that’s a 27% price drop–in a widely traded commodity–in two and a half months. 27%!

But, wait– commodity prices are determined by the market. They can’t be arbitrarily set, right?

Wrong. See: The California Energy Crisis of 2000 and 2001– a crisis largely the result of Enron’s exploitive corporate policies. Enron took advantage of California’s deregulated energy laws to fabricate (or exacerbate) an “energy shortage,” that they used, in turn, to inflate energy prices. While Californians were experiencing widespread brown-outs and black-outs, the California energy grid was producing at well under capacity. By scheduling excessive amounts of routine maintenance at mission-critical times and the use of other blatantly fraudulent excuses to reduce the production of dozens of power plants, Enron artificially created an energy shortage it used, over the course of two years, to nearly double electricity costs for Californians.

So when the prices of a widely consumed commodity drop by 27% over a two-month span, I get suspicious. I mean, surely this price drop couldn’t have come any sooner. Surely, the gas prices weren’t artificial inflated this summer– when lower-class Americans suffered and stock-holders celebrated. Right? These seem unthinkable. But is it a coincidence that oil companies were recording record profits this summer while gas prices were at a record high? Shouldn’t their profits have been slumping, as more consumers found ways to reduce their gas consumption as prices rose? Even with a relatively inelastic good like gasoline, an increase in price will cause a decrease in quantity demanded.

To be honest, I really did believe the now-apparent lies about increased efficiency, streamlined corporate structure and better refining processes being the sole causes for the oil companies’ soaring profits this summer. Just like I believed that increasing demand and decreasing supply caused the rising prices. Were gasoline prices still increasing, I’d probably still buy that line. But they’re not. They’ve plummeted. Doubtless, efficiency aided profit margins. But if prices can drop by 27% and the oil companies are still making profits, then something rotten happened this summer.

Prices at the pump increased because supply was limited. That’s a fact. But it’s like, all of the sudden, someone turned off the “high price” machine. Or like oil companies stopped deliberately under-producing oil– out of preservative self-interest, or at the Republican party’s cue.

Speaking of artificially adjusting prices, an article on the BBC’s website drew an uncomfortable parallel between the dropping gas prices and Bush’s new appointed treasury secretary, “Hank” Paulson. Paulson has been the CEO of Goldman Sachs–a powerful and influential commodity bank–since it went public in 1999. Commodity banks, incidentally, are one of the few institutions capable of influencing commodity prices. Paulson resigned from Goldman Sachs at the end of June, but, while serving as the US treasury secretary, he remains an active Sachs board member until the year’s end. His departure, conveniently, netted him an $18.7m bonus, based on the bank’s performance this year.

Bush’s cabinet? Commodities? Soaring stock prices? Huge bonuses for executives? Sounds like the usual suspects are back again to celebrate another American tragedy.

Is this all just coincidence?

The oil companies know that they’re in big trouble if America sees a big swing to the political left– not unlikely given the general American malaise about the War in Iraq and, until recently, rising gas prices. It goes without saying that the oil companies have a large vested interest in the success of the Republican Party at the polls this November. And if gas prices are $3/gallon in November, you can bet the incumbent controlling party won’t be controlling for long.

So is this another case of shameless profiteering by corporate America? Have the oil companies used the American tragedy of Hurricane Katrina as a cover for the artificial inflation of gas prices? Is this profiteering, or just modern economics? Are oil companies necessarily any more scrupulous than energy companies like Enron? Or is it all just coincidence: the record profits, the record prices, the sudden drop and the coming election?

It’s too much for me to say. But it all leaves a bad taste in my mouth– a sick feeling in my gut. Who profited the most by the 2,917 deaths on 9/11? Probably Halliburton– the oil company that got first bids on Iraq’s “liberated” oil fields. Now it looks like the oil companies win again– this time by the deaths 1,836 and displacement of hundred of thousands in America’s southern states.

Background information on Kennewick Man is available here.

—

When two men, watching boat races on a lazy July afternoon along the Columbia River, happened upon a set of exposed bones, it’s unlikely that they could have apprehended how important of an archaeological discovery they’d made, or the furor it would cause over the next ten years –both in the archaeological and Native American communities. This furor, surrounding the discovery of the Kennewick Man, informs a myriad of social and anthropological issues. Notably, it reminds both the press and the modern archaeologist to be sensitive to the precise use of language, which wields a supple and potent power. Moreover, for a larger audience, it refreshes to the mind the Native American resistance to Western archaeologists and anthropologists becoming what Vine Deloria Jr. caustically termed the “custodians of the Indian Past.”

Archaeologist James Chatters assisted local authorities with the excavation of the bones–finding a nearly complete skeleton–and it was Chatters who first described the now-Kennewick Man in terms of “Caucasoid traits,” noting a long, narrow face, narrow cheekbones and a protruding upper jaw. Expecting that the bones were several hundred years old, one can imagine Chatters’ surprise when Carbon 14 results came back dating Kennewick Man at approximately 8,400 years old.

The press, in turn, was equally impressed, and Kennewick Man made his debut on the proverbial front page. Looking at two news sources in particular, the Washington Post published an article claiming that because of its “Caucasoid look … the Kennewick skull might alter conventional views of how, when and by whom the Americas were peopled.” Similarly, the New York Times, several months later, published an article discussing the skeleton as having “Caucasian features, judging by skull measurements.”

Unfortunately, America’s media was rather hasty in its public announcement of the discovery–announcing “Caucasian origins” and revisionist histories well before the archaeologists themselves had formed their own opinions. Doubtless, Kennewick Man made good copy–especially given America’s keen interest in archaeological news–but these hasty and unsubstantiated announcements call into question the sensitivities of both publications. Stuart Fiedel, discussing Kennewick Man, notes that “the press is drawn to the David versus Goliath theme of tenacious upstarts successfully challenging scientific orthodoxy” – a theme the press’s version of Kennewick Man certainly fulfilled. Unfortunately, to extend to the metaphor, these publications pre-empted the death of the giant, even before the first stone flew.

Even when news agencies guard carefully against overstatement, the reading public tends to accept the reporter’s implied assumption about an unconfirmed event. (e.g., North Korea’s recent announcement of a nuclear bomb detonation, despite the careful inclusion of modifiers like “may,” “claim,” or “supposed,” amounts to an actual and successful nuclear detonation in the minds of most.) Thus, when the New York Times described “Caucasian features,” a nonscientific public understood the article to imply the possibility of European origins.

Kennewick Man’s fame was bolstered by the well-publicized legal battle that quickly erupted over the custody of the bones–the anthropologists, who wished to study Kennewick Man, on one side, and the Native Americans, who wished to properly bury his bones, on the other. On July 28th, 2006–six weeks after its discovery–a group of five Native American tribes claimed ownership of the bones under the 1990 Native Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). In response, a group of eight anthropologists quickly filed suit to prevent tribal burial of Kennewick Man and his potentially invaluable anthropological evidence. Kennewick Man remained in the custody of the Burke Museum at the University of Washington during the eight years of judicial proceedings. In February 2004, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Native Tribes’ claim to the bones, on grounds that they were unable to show sufficient evidence of kinship to satisfy the NAGPRA.

Certainly, each side had a vested interest in gaining ownership of the bones. For archaeologists, Kennewick Man, as one of the most-complete skeletons of an early Holocene era human, represented the possibility of new archaeological insight and discovery. Specifically, the skeleton still may yet prove to be a key link (or counterproof) for the currently much-debated multiple-migration theory of Pleistocene American peoples.

The Native American interest in the skeleton is more complex. Ostensibly, the Native interest in Kennewick Man (and the idea behind the NAGPRA in general) was simply to prevent the desecration of an ancestor’s bones–which anthropological scrutiny would be in the first degree. The fact that not just one tribe, but four (the Umatilla, Colville, Yakama, and Nez Perce) carried the case all the way to the Supreme Court, however, suggests that more than a sense of sacred was at play. Rather, the Native American legal appeal seems more likely propelled by American Indian Movement ideas–ideas of self-determination, the control of Native American identity, imagery, and, most importantly, the control of Native American history. These ideas gained primacy, especially during the 1970s, through authors and activists like Vine Deloria Jr. Thus, to quote D.H. Thomas at length, “the lingering issues between Indians and archaeologists are political, a struggle for control of American Indian history. Although Deloria and [N. Scott] Momaday disagree about the relative merits of scientific knowledge and the role of Red Creationism, they agree on the most basic issue of all. The American academic community–led by grave-digging archaeologists–has robbed the Native American people of their history and their dignity. ”

Invoking a larger audience, the public’s response to Kennewick Man highlights both the power of language and its need for use with deliberate caution. Thomas quotes Chatters (who originally introduced the “Caucasoid-like features” description) as later complaining that “newspaper accounts had ‘confused the description of the remains as ‘caucasoid-like’ with an assertion that the skull was European.'” The blame for this ‘confusion,’ Thomas asserts, falls not with the reporters or newspapers, but rather squarely on the shoulders of Chatters and his fellow archaeologists. “As scientists repeatedly used everyday racial terminology to describe the Kennewick bones,” Thomas says, “they inadvertently stirred up some of anthropology’s most hateful and threatening ghost–the legacy of scientific racism.” The suggestion that Native Americans are the distant descendants of Europeans does more than deny the legitimacy of Native creation myths–it asserts a sort of paternal ownership over the Pleistocene and early Holocene peoples of North America.

The very use of the term “Caucasoid” is inappropriate, to the extent that to speak of the “race” of an ancient people is “bad science.” Nearly a full century ago, anthropologist Franz Boas proved experimentally that “race, language and culture are independent variables.” Underlying this was Boas’ discovery that a people group’s cephalic index (head form) is more affected by geography than by heredity–thus repudiating anthropology’s previous long-standing use of the cephalic index to trace the origins and movements of peoples. By July, 1996, the “American school of racial determinism” had been dead for more than half a century. C. Loring Brace asserts that in modern anthropology, “terms such as ‘Negroid,’ ‘Caucasoid,’ and ‘Mongoloid'” have become “biologically … worse than useless” –leveling a potentially deserved accusation at Chatters’ inapt word choice. Thomas continues in the same vein: “In the aftermath of Kennewick, any scientist using the term “Caucasian” … to describe a 9,400-year-old skull is both practicing bad science and painfully naive about the power of racial language in modern America.”

In February of 2006, a team of scientists and anthropologists were, for the first time since its discovery, given full access to the skeletal remains. Conclusions are outpaced by questions. How did this man arrive in present day Washington State? Did he cross the Beringia Straight? Is he, in fact, an ancestor of any of the tribes that have laid claim to him? And who will get to interpret the significance of Kennewick Man in terms of Native American history? To what extent has that role been assigned by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court? In each case, while we wait for time to answer, we do so with a reminder of the perception-carving power of language and the assurance that, should David should slay his Goliath or otherwise, Kennewick Man will continue to ripple outwards in our intricately-woven fabric of society.

—

PDF version with citations:
https://eateggs.com/files/2006.10.18-Kennewick-Faux-Pas.pdf

(14-Oct-06 – Draft 0)

Batman Begins could very easily take the form of a modern reinterpretation (or retelling) of the Biblical story of the flood.

Those more familiar with the Batman comics than I might point out that Old Testament stories are not unfamiliar to the series, such as in the “Tower of Babel” storyline.

The Batman Begins narrative centers around Ra’s Al Ghul: an immortal, centuries-old mystic, alchemist and intellectual. Ra’s Al Ghul leads an esoteric organization called the League of Shadows, dedicated to the preservation of justice, by whatever means necessary.

The first ten minutes of the film finds Bruce Wayne under the tutelage of Al Ghul, who teaches Wayne martial arts, swordsmanship, and mystic self-control. He also instructs Wayne in the means and necessity of preserving justice, and informs Wayne of a plan to destroy the unjust and morally dissolute Gotham City.

The story pivots, however, during Wayne’s induction ceremony. Wayne is instructed to kill a captured despot– whose exploits against the local populace were numerous and egregious–and thereby to demonstrate his unwavering dedication to justice. Wayne, disgusted, revolts, leaving Al Ghul for dead and his mountain hideaway in flames as he flees back to civilization.

Wayne, despite is revulsion of Al Ghul’s means, is equally troubled by Gotham City’s injustice and violence. He chooses, then to fight against the injustice directly, rather than destroying everyone– the just and unjust, alike. Wayne continues his training and, through the use of advanced technology, gives himself super-human powers.

Meanwhile, Al Ghul has continued his plans for the utter and genocidal destruction of Gotham City. He has released a deadly virus(called Ebola Gulf A) into the city’s water supply. For the virus to be effective, however, it must be inhaled. This fits in Al Ghul’s plan, who has commandeered a weapon capable of instantly vaporizing the city’s entire water supply.

In the film’s climatic battle for the fate of Gotham City, Wayne, in the form of Batman, narrowly stops Al Ghul’s detonation of his water-evaporating laser, thereby saving the city’s inhabitant from being suffused in the virus-laden steam.

With Batman Begin’s narrative in mind, then, let’s consider the Biblical story of the flood.

Genesis 6:11-17 reads:

(11)The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. (12)And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

(13)And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. …

(17)And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.

In Chaper 7, “the windows of heaven were opened (12)” and “fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered (20).” After 150 days of flood, “every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark (23).”

The similarities here are striking. Just for the sake of an intellectual exercise, substitute “Al Ghul” for “God” and “Bruce Wayne” for “Noah” in the above narrative and see how it reads.

In each narrative, we a supernatural power has passed judgement on human settlement as being irremediably unjust and corrupt. Being so, each power has decreed the complete and utter destruction of human life, with the exception of a faithful few. The means of this destruction, in each case, is water.

In the Biblical story, God informs Noah that he will destroy the earth. Unlike Wayne, however, Noah is submissive and builds his ark, in accordance with God’s wishes, and thereby saves himself and his family. One might argue that, in the Biblical narrative, Noah ultimately had no choice: Noah’s choice was either acquiescence or destruction. Refusal, for Noah, would have meant death.

By contrast, however, when Bruce Wayne discovers Al Ghul’s intention to destroy the earth, he balks.

Like Noah, Wayne, in and of himself, is no match for the centuries-old, immortal Al Ghul. Unlike Noah, however, Wayne has access to modern technology. Wayne uses technology to mold himself into something more than human– endowed with superhuman strength, the ability to fly, etc. So equipped, when Al Ghul attempts to open the “windows of heaven,” Wayne meets him and fights him one-on-one– eventually defeating him, and thereby saving humanity from Al Ghul’s destruction (although not from itself).

With this in mind, it’s possible to interpret Batman Begins as being an indictment of the Christian (or Jewish) God of the Old Testament. Whereas Al Ghul assumes the role of a villian, the Christian God is likewise villianized for his wish to serve “justice” by the utter destruction of humanity.

In this modern reinterpretation, however, God’s destruction of humanity is checked by the advance of human science and knowledge– Bruce Wayne becomes equal to “God” in knowledge and power through modern technology.

We live in a modern society– a modern society that has, to a lesser or greater extent, acknowledged the death–or defeat– of God, by the advance of modern science and thought. As a modern society, we still rustle with the questions of justice as much as any early Jewish society, but the story of Batman Begins represents the transfer of the responsibility for justice from a supernatural power to a modern, scientific human power. It’s arguable that we’re no closer to justice than ancient Jewish society, but no longer do we look to a deity for justice– that responsibility has been shifted fully and levelly to our shoulders.

Curiously, the wording of headlines concerning North Korea’s alleged nuclear detonation are exactly that– the possibility or claim of a nuclear blast.

The Western media has been very remained insistent that North Korea may have detonated a nuclear bomb– despite the adamant insistence by the Russian Military that it was, in fact, a nuclear blast.

The media’s repeated use of the “may” caveat, however, seems to be lost on most Americans (Fox News, I’m sure, is well-pleased). Most seem to have unambiguously accepted the fact that North Korea has, in fact, detonated a nuclear bomb. Although I don’t think it unlikely that North Korea has actually successfully tested a nuclear bomb, I think the question of “did they?” is worth further consideration.

I’m unsure as to how to interpret this particular bit of ambiguity. There is certainly a viable possibility that North Korea may have actually only detonated say, several thousand tons of traditional nitrogen-based explosives. Although an unlikely course for North Korea, the Halifax disaster during the First World War more than proves the potential for conventional explosives to create a blast of nuclear proportions– the 1917 disaster involving the explosion of some 2,300 tons of traditional explosives leveled the town of Halifax for a full 2km around the blast radius, and shattered windows 100km from the blast site.

But if there’s ambiguity, there’s probably a good reason. There are two, obvious, reasons: 1) it wasn’t actually a nuclear blast (or, rather, we’re just unsure) or 2) there are ulterior motives in keeping it a “claimed” detonation.

If the latter, then North Korea has called Bush’s bluff, but the Bush administration wants to soften the loss of face (shying from N. Korea’s “so what?”) coming from a lack of the immediate and heavy-handed response promised by the Bush administration. Or 2) To ward off embarrassment if, in fact, N Korea has not detonated an atomic bomb. Especially with regards to the war in Iraq, all involved parties (governments, media sources) need to be caution of making allegations of having “weapons of mass destruction”

—

But maybe it wasn’t a nuclear blast at all.

One article published on the BCC’s website suggests that America’s invasion of Iraq has caused anxiety for small nations in Bush’s “axis of evil.” N Korea, then, (from Kim Song-il’s perspective, at the very least) needs an effective deterrent against the possibility of (wanton) American invasion.

IF one accepts the proposition that N Korea’s nuclear ambitions are for deterrents, rather than for export or proliferation, THEN it’s plausible to suppose that the blast was not, necessarily, a nuclear blast.

If North Korea’s aim is simply deterrence, such an aim could be achieved by either a genuine or faked nuclear detonation. Obviously, a deterrent functions by having the (perceived) ability to retaliate against and aggressor. So long as Western nations (America, specifically) believes that an invasion could result in a nuclear launch, then the deterrent functions– regardless of North Korea’s actual ability to launch a nuclear attack.

Certainly, North Korea’s stage was well set for a “fake” nuclear detonation. North Korea’s nuclear ambitions have been clearly announced since the advent of the 6 party talks. The global sense that North Korea’s nuclear program is under full development has been heightened especially during the last year. A week prior to the detonation, North Korea made a public announcement of their intention to test a nuclear bomb– ensuring the close, watchful eye of Western nations. Two days ago, there was an underground blast that registered significantly on seismic charts, an announcement from Pyongyang of a nuclear test, and the Russian Military, at the very least, instantly made the connection.

Playing the devil’s advocate, it’s possible to conceive that North Korea hoped all Western nations would accept the blast as a nuclear detonation with the same alacrity as the Russian military. A quick survey of Western headlines, however, reveals that they haven’t succeeded.

Obviously, this ambiguity will eventually be resolved– but in the mean time, the world waits, watches, and holds its breath.

This week’s contest:

What is this an image of?

The contest runs … until I post next?