merican democracy has come to be about entitlements and only about entitlements.  Everyone is entitled to just about everything.  In particular, American democracy has come to be entirely shorn of gratitude.  I hold a very simple thesis, namely that democracy shown of gratitude will flounder.  This is because few things nourish a sense of community—fellow feeling, if you wlll—like gratitude.  Now, it might be thought that being rightly entitled to something excludes having gratitude for that the thing one receives.  Not so, however, as the case of parental love magnificently shows.

If there are any indisputable truths in a world of uncertainty and relativism, it is that parents ought to love their children and that children are entitled to being the undisputed object of the love of their parents.  Yet, if anything else is also true, it is that every child who has been the undisputed object of the love of her or his parents should have a deep and abiding sense of gratitude towards them.  When parental love it at its best, there may not be any form of gratitude that can rightly surpass it.  Once more, though, I point out that children are surely entitled to the love of their parents. 

Democracy shorn of gratitude becomes a plethora of citizens who have little or no concern for one another accept for what they can get from others.  In this respect, the language of rights has done enormous damage to a sense of fellow-feeling.  For the language of rights have become synonymous with what people are owed, where the sense of being owed is privileged in a way that allows for no regard whatsoever for the goodwill with which people have served up what is owed. 

Democracy without gratitude exemplifies what I call the manna-from-heaven mentality.  No one gives up something so that others may have something.  Rather, it all just falls from heaven. 

A marvelous example of this is the claim on the part of some non-citizens that they have a right to become citizens of the United States, as if there is something called the government with endless resources.  Never mind that we are having trouble doing right by those who are already citizens. 

Sometimes the elderly present themselves as if they have a right to anything and everything that they might need in terms of medical assistance.  Of course, any society should make an effort to help its elderly.  That truth, however, does not change the fact that helping the elderly means that some resources cannot go elsewhere. Even for the elderly, there are no funds that descend from the heavens.

This way of looking at things point to why a democracy at its best must also be one in which gratitude abounds.  For it is necessarily the case that decent law-abiding citizens sustain the well-being of other members of society.  Even those who merely “put up” with the laws are sustaining the well-being of others.  And sometimes in life, a person deserves a lot of credit for doing just that: “putting up” with the behavior or law in question.

The goodwill of citizens makes for a salubrious moral climate in which to live.  And things have gone terribly wrong when we have become so fixated with our own self-interests that we cannot see the goodwill of others. 

Interestingly, teaching provides a marvelous example in this regard. Nothing is more obvious than that if a student earned an “A” for a course, then the instructor should give the student an “A” for the course.  Yet, there is all the difference in the world between an instructor took delight in the student’s learning and who was marvelously supportive and encouraging of the student, on the one hand, and an instructor who to no avail did everything permissible to see to it that the student would fail.  Gratitude is owed in the first case although the student earned the grade. 

A society shorn of gratitude is a less decent society.  More importantly, it is a society that is less able to surmount the difficulties that confront it.  This is because from the outset people do not see one another as allies but as hostile competitors instead. 

When we experience gratitude towards another we are motivated to act on that person’s behalf even we do not in any way have to do so.  There is a fundamental level with which we identify with that person.

The United States has become the land of rights-assertion.  We are owed one thing after another—almost as it were ours in the first place; and those who do not rush to give us what we take ourselves to be owed are bastards.  That is, in our characterization of that to which we have a right, we have deemed the other a hostile component. 

It is a simple truth that people who have masterfully cultivated hostility towards one another are in no position at all to confront in a united way the problems that could be resolved if only people would work together in unison.  And while some problems can be solved through fierce competition, some of the deepest problems have their solution only in the unity that comes with fellow-feeling.  Defeating the Nazis, for instance, was not tied to fierce competition, but to nations working in unison with one another. 

In one straightforward sense, gratitude is so much weaker than love.  Yet, like the warm sunlight that comes through a window, experiences of gratitude remain ever so memorable and always far more expansive.  It is not possible for everyone to have feelings of love for one another.  But universal gratitude, or something very close to that, is very much a possibility. 

The America of John F. Kennefy spoke to that possibility.  By contrast, the American of the present has lost the will to speak to that possibility.  Doing so would resonate with so very few.  It is no wonder that America is floundering.   

hina is an economic power.  China also provides an extraordinary lesson to ethnic groups in the United States who are forever talking about being oppressed as victims of this or that form of racism.  China’s lesson is a very simple one: “Do you really wish that others who are not of “your kind” to take you seriously?  Well, it suffices to become an economic power with which “the other kind” must contend, and your wish will be fulfilled by “those others” in spite of themselves.  For you see, the rest of the world has to take China seriously whether the rest of the world wants to or not.  Both China and the rest of the world know precisely that.

I have no interest in arguing whether racism of this or that kind still exists in the United States.  As far as I can see all sorts of people dislike one another.  Blacks and Asians are not exactly blood brothers in spirit.  Cooperation between the two groups is virtually non-existent.  Blacks are jealous of Asians and Asians despise Blacks.  And while there is presumably some bond between Latinos and Blacks, that bond is more fragile than both sides seem willing to acknowledge. 

If one takes Whites out of the picture entirely, there remains more than enough hostility between the remaining groups to keep everyone on edge.

But say what we want, the economic success of China in the world and of Asians in the United States is a most valuable lesson; and it is high time that Blacks and Latinos acknowledge and follow that lesson.

If Asians can be an economic force in America, then surely Blacks and Latinos can be.  The sheer numbers make that a possibility. 

As the case of Asian success shows, when a people become an economic force, then racism will bow to the reality of economic.  Whether I like you or not: If I have to contend with your economic muscle, I am going to find a way to be, at the very least, polite to you.  I am not going to call you a “nigger” if (i) it is manifestly clear to me that I need your patronage to survive and (i) you will go elsewhere if I am not polite to you. 

The failure to appreciate this reality is why Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson failed as black leaders.  They were much more interested in cultivating White guilt than black economic muscle.  It does not take much insight to see that White guilt can in the end be rather patronizing: “There they go again.  Let’s admit to racism so that we can get them to shut up and go away!”  As we all know from childhood, it is easy enough to say “I am sorry” and not mean it. 

But the lesson that China has made abundantly clear is that if you need me, then I won’t have to worry about you saying “I am sorry”, precisely because I can be confident that you will bend over backwards to appease me. 

The religious ideal of forgiveness is no doubt a very wonderful one.  But most of us do not come even to close to realizing that ideal in saying “I am sorry”.  Rather, it is simply out of expedience that we make that utterance.  But if it is out of expediency that an apology is offered, it is much, much, much, much better that the my apology to you flows from the fact that I cannot do without you than from the fact that I merely want you shut up and go away.  That is the lesson that China has taught the world.

This lesson is so patently obvious that it is a mystery to me that Blacks and Latinos to do not readily see it and conduct themselves accordingly.  Grasping this insight does not require a degree in economics.  Indeed, as far as I can tell most of the Asians who own stores (cleaners, grocery stores, or restaurants) in the United States do not have a degree in economics, nor do most of the citizens of China have a degree in economics. 

Yet, Jesse Jackson’s most philosophical argument was that Blacks should be referred to as “African-Americans” as a way of making explicit the African roots of black people—as if anyone has ever looked at an unmistakable Black person and wondered: Does that person’s ancestors hail from Africa or India or China? 

All sorts of political correct folks have made a point of using the term “African Americans”.  Yet, nothing at all has changed in terms of having actual respect for the group in question.  As I noted above in these remarks, an act of appeasement is not thereby an act of respect.  Can anyone really believe that making explicit that Black Americans have African roots is the most important issue that should have concerned Blacks? 

The lesson to be learnt from China is absolutely telling.  There is little doubt that a serious violation of human rights has occurred and continues to occur in China.  Yet, the Olympic Games will there will be held there, anyhow.  Not only that, all sorts of world leaders have managed to justify being present for the opening ceremonies.  Does anyone wonder what the real explanation for this deference on the part of world leaders? I should hope not.  What is surely obvious is that given China’s economic might nations do not want to get on China’s wrong side.  Now, that is power—economic power, to be exact.

Whether American Blacks hail from Africa or Hades or the Pearly Gates, what will ensure their proper standing in the United States is none other than their economic standing.  For some Blacks, this means buying only those things that have an African origin.  That is just plain silly.  Whether Black Americans eat French croissants or East African maandazi, if Blacks have economic clout they will command the respect of others. 

And surely that is the lesson that China has made abundantly clear.  No one thinks for a moment that China’s economic might is tied to the fact that Chinese people consume only Chinese dishes such as Adzuki beans and Bok Choy. 

Quite simply, one has to be dysfunctional not to grasp this lesson from China and to keep going on and on and on about racism.  Most significantly, the issue is not whether racism is an issue.  Rather, the point is that the most effective way to make racism a non-issue to exhibit economic muscle.  There are many gods.  Indisputably, however, economic might is one of them.  To that god, people have always found a way to show genuine deference—and not just displays of appeasement.  To the god of economic might, there is always an altar in every port.  What matters most is winning favor with the god of economic might—and not what the physical appearances of that mighty being happen to be. 

ere is a rather poignant truth: Technology has done next to nothing to enhance telling the truth.  That is, it would seem that people are lying more now than ever before.  Flip-flopping, as they say, has become a part of our social reality.  By every indication, people simply say what is convenient.  This is rather striking when one considers that just about anything uttered can be recorded and often is recorded—especially in the case of individuals who are public figures. 

In view of this technological reality, one would have thought that there would have been an "insurgence" in truth telling.  Not so, however: lying is very much à la mode.  The question, though, is this:  Why has lying increased to such a phenomenal extent in a world where it has become a part of reality, at least for public figures, that what is said is recorded?

My explanation is that technology has very much occasioned a kind of disunity of the self.  And we have becoming increasingly adept at wrestling with a set of multiple selves.  Let me explain.

I have a Second Life account.  And while my Second Life activities are boring to the point of shadowing utter non-existence, the point of the matter is that there are a great many people who seem to have genuine alter egos on c—they live a fictitious life that they would not want a soul to know about.  But one hardly needs a Second Life account to pursue an alter ego.  Two cell phones will suffice.  One cell phone will be for me and my wife; and the other will be for the sexual escapades that I will have from time to time.  Like the other women, I need not bring the other cell phone home. 

Technology has made being devious an art form.  Let us see, with an email account that my wife knows nothing about and some anonymous surfing programs, I can engage  in heretofore unimaginable activities on line.  Add a tracphone to the mix, and one can easily enough take one’s on-line acquaintances to the “next level”. 

On my view, these things have contributed to the disunity of the self precisely because they have contributed mightily to people engaging dissimulating behavior in order to keep some activities hidden from others. 

Merely doing something in private is not at all the same as keeping activities hidden from others, though in both cases the activity is kept from the view of others.  There are lots of things that I do in private, where it is not the case that I am hiding the fact that I engage in these activities.  I go to the bathroom in private, though I hardly hide the fact that I go to the bathroom in private. 

Again, people who are romantically involved tend to have sex in private; and they might very well drop a hint that this is what they have done or will be doing at the next available moment: “We will be busy if you know what I mean”.  They do not hide the fact that sex is a part of their lives.  Rather, they are merely private about having sex.

Technology has masterfully exploited the seeming similarity between hiding an activity in which we are engaging and doing that activity in private, as both involve keeping the activity from the view of others.  It is hiding the activity, though, that involves duplicity. 

Technology has made it increasingly easier for us to keep unseemly behavior from the view of others; and thus technology has made it easier for us to be duplicitous.  It was technology that masterfully facilitated the duplicitous behavior on the part of ex-governor Eliot Spitzer. 

Now to the above, we need only add that technology has made it possible for us to doctor images and sound bites with such finesse that we can make things seem other than what they originally were.  I myself as a mere amateur can modify and mix music with sufficient skill that the changes I have made are utterly imperceptible.  I am sure that what I can do with music pales mightily in comparison to what others can do.  What this means, of course, is that it is some instances it is possible to make it appear that a person said just the opposite of what she or he in fact said. 

And with images, one can make a person look pleased when she or he was expressing dismay or the other way around; and so forth. 

So look at what we have.  On the one hand, technology has mightily facilitated the ability to engage in dissimulating behavior.  On the other, technology now makes it possible to alter images and sound bites to such an extent that what counts as fact and reality is readily called into question.  When we put these two things together what we get is that technology has masterfully undermined the commitment to truth in society. 

Or to put the point another way: The will to be truthful is being slowly but surely undermined.   Modern technology and self-disassociation go hand-in-hand together.  This means that the unity of the self that was marvelously valorized by Plato and Kant is being torn asunder by the combination of modernity and technology.  Increasingly, what we are is turning to be no more than what we appear to be at the moment.  A form of multiple-personality disorder is fast becoming the norm.  And perhaps the most poignant proof of this is just the fact that increasingly people seem to think that they are accountable only for what they say at the moment rather than also for what they said in the past.  It is as one is a fool for expecting consistency out of a person. 

This gives an entirely new meaning to Ralph Waldo Emerson’s claim that “A foolish consistency is hobgoblin of little minds”. 

What he meant, surely, is that only a fool would attach more importance to being consistent than to bending with reality.  He did not mean that reality amounts to no more than what a person declares it to mean.  That idea would have made no sense when Emerson penned those famous words.  Technology has allowed precisely this idea to have a heretofore unimaginable resonance in our lives.  What shall we do about it?  What can we do about it. 

We will be too much in the throes of the affliction of a kind of multiple personaliity to rescue ourselves?  I fear that we will be.

he precipitous decline of America can attributed to many things.  One of them, as it happens, is equality.  Of course, there is no formal tension between equality and excellence.  However, the way in which these two vectors play themselves out in America is utterly devastating.  This is for two reasons.  One is that the mere charge of racism has come to be none other than an extremely powerful political and social tool that has nothing whatsoever to do with the reality of an actual act of racism.  And the related factor is that once this charge is made against an individual, then he or she is effectively defenseless even if the charge has no basis in reality.

Consequently, people have become so concerned with making sure that the charge of racism cannot be made against them that they will tolerate mediocrity rather than insist upon excellence.  This is because in the present politically correct social climate it is way too easy for the mere insistence upon excellence to be construed as having racist motives: The “You-would-not-have-criticized me-if-I-had-been-white” claim.  If one is the boss who is white how does one prove that such a claim is just so much nonsense?  The answer, quite frankly, is that with rare exception one cannot.  One such exception is that one has been publicly insistent upon the requirement in question and one has publicly criticized whites who have failed to meet that requirement. 

Let it be the case, however, that a black or a Latino is doing something that is obviously wrong, but about which there has not been any public announcements, and a white criticizes that person.  Well, in that case all hell is apt to break out, because the white will invariably be seen as having acted from racist motives; and there is simply no way to diffuse things.  Herein lies the reason why excellence has taken a back seat to equality in America.  After all, anything other than praise of a black or a Latino by a white is apt to result in that white being called a racist by the person.  All that is needed is for the black or Latino to say “It just feels to me like that white person was being racist”. 

In this regard, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have been key players in undermining excellence in America.  Anyone with an ounce of commonsense surely realizes that these two are more interested in maintaining their power base than promoting excellence among blacks.  And both of them use the charge of racism as none other than a way to do that.  The case of the three white guys at Duke University who were accused of raping a black woman stands as a most poignant case in point.  Sharpton and Jackson were no more interested in the facts of the case than I have been in becoming a cockroach. 

We now know for a fact that the charge of rape was entirely without merit.  We also know for a fact that neither Sharpton nor Jackson have shown an ounce of remorse for the train wreck occasioned by them of the lives of the three young white men.  There is no indication whatsoever that either Sharpton or Jackson said to black communities: “We can’t let this sort of thing happen again”. 

In this regard, I should also mention that white liberals are also a fundamental part of the problem.  For them, supporting the charge of racism, no matter how implausible it may be, is a kind of psychological redemption ticket—their way of proving to themselves that they are not racist.  Likewise, white liberals have never asked for any accountability with respect to the charge of racism; nor were they apologetic for riding the train that wrecked the lives of the three white Duke University students.  But, of course, white liberals always mean well no matter how much damage they manage to do; and we should not lose sight of that.

For all of his faults, this much is clear: When Martin Luther King made charges of racism, there was no doubt whatsoever that there actually was racism in place.  His charges of racism had credibility.  What is no longer the case nowadays is that charges of racism have credibility. 

We had precisely this utter absence of credibility with the Keith Sampson matter in 2007, where a white man was accused of making blacks uncomfortable because he was reading a book about how the Fighting Irish defeated the KKK.  Duh?  A black woman made that charge; and it was upheld by the Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis (IUPUI) affirmative action officer, who is also a black.  And once more, white liberal faculty members were essentially silent.  Is this not incredulous or what?

The Keith Sampson matter at IUPUI shows that the charge of racism can be made and entertained even when a white person is engaging behavior that is unequivocally the very opposite of racist behavior.  All it takes is for a black or a Latino to assert that she or he feels uncomfortable. 

Against this social -backdrop, a white person would have to be a fool to insist upon excellence when it comes to a black or a Latino.  Insisting upon excellence would make about as much sense as putting one’s hand in a fire and hoping that one’s hand will not be burned. 

Excellence is impossible if constructive criticism is ruled out of court.  And constructive criticism has floundered in the United States.  On the one hand, white people are rightly afraid of the charge of racism.  On the other hand, way too many black and Latino individuals seem to think that any criticism of them by another black or Latino shows a lack of solidarity with them on the part of the black or Latino.  Indeed, some would go so far as to accuse the person of being self-hating or harboring a desire to be white. 

The issue is not whether racism in various forms of subtlety still exists.  We can assume that it does.  The problem, rather, is that nowadays there is next to no room for constructive criticism to be made by a white of a black or a Latino without the charge of racism being raised.  And one untoward consequence of this is that across the board the demand for excellence has been progressively receding into the background.  After all, if excellence cannot be demanded of one group, then why bother demanding it of another group? 

Equality of shorn of excellence is utterly vapid and lacking in substance.  What it produces is not even a shadow of the better world for which folks like King hoped and struggled.  There is a very straightforward sense in which the black community is worse-off than it once was.  The argument of this essay can readily explain that fact.  No people can flourish in the absence of constructive self-criticism.  The rejection of the demand for excellence by whites as a form of racism has resulted in the absence of constructive self-criticism on the part of blacks.  This should come as no surprise. 

Excellence has no skin color.  It can only be wrong for whites demand excellence of blacks if it is also wrong for blacks to engage in constructive self-criticism, and so for blacks to demand excellence of themselves. 

And, of course, constructive self-criticism has become a precious commodity in general.  That is to be expected in a society that has made posturing about race far more important than occasioning the excellence of which human beings are capable. 

Notice the following irony.  During slavery, whites claimed that blacks lacked the wherewithal to achieve the intellectual heights of which whites are capable.  No one dares make such a claim nowadays.  Instead, no one demands of blacks that they achieve the intellectual heights of which all human beings regardless of race are capable.  Slavery, then, was the absence of freedom and, to freedom’s absence, the absence of excellence.  The present is none other than the most poignant contrast of an abundance of freedom on the part of blacks coupled with a most flagrant absence of excellence. 

A society whose citizens cannot demand excellence of one another regardless of race, color, or creed or whatever is a society that is fundamentally worse off for all regardless of race, color, or creed or whatever.  Make no mistake about it: That society is America.

uppose that Barack Obama does not win  the 2008 presidential election.  Will there be a civil war?  Unfortunately, this is not just a hypothetical question.  And the reason why it is not is that there are sufficiently many who think that anyone who votes against Obama is racist.  And that line of thinking presents a real problem.  Indeed, this line of reasoning effectively puts John McCain in a no-win situation; for he cannot win squarely and fairly precisely because it has already been decided ahead of time that anyone who votes for him rather than Obama is racist; hence, McCain’s winning, and thus Obama’s losing, can only be attributed to racism. 

Unfortunately, this mindset is none other than a recipe for violence if indeed Obama should lose the 2008 presidential election.  This I shall demonstrate in the penultimate paragraph of this essay.

This mindset is also terribly flawed.  Consider, for instance, the presidential race between Al Gore and George Bush in 2000.  Many thought that the better man, namely Gore, lost.  Yet, since both men are white, it follows that the best person can lose the presidential election, and the explanation for that loss has nothing at all to do with racism.  Indeed, in every election it turns out that according to some citizens the best candidate, namely the one whom they deemed to be the better candidate, lost the election.   

Thus, at a matter of logic it hardly follows that if Obama loses to McCain, then the explanation for that loss is racism.  This, of course, is a purely logical point; and purely logical points do not tell us about actual probabilities.  As a purely logical point, it is possible that, if go back to the distant past, I am in some way related to both Obama and McCain.  However, the actual probability of this being the case rapidly approaches zero.

So one could concede the logical point and then contend that given the sort of country that America happens to be, it is very, very likely that if Obama loses to McCain, then the explanation for that loss is racism.

Now, one of the striking things is that it is supposed that if a black has an ounce of commonsense and self-respect, then the black supports Obama.  A recent comment by Larry Elder to a criticism of him is indicative of this line of thought.  And if one goes to the Huffington Post, one finds an article by Andy Ostray entitled "Why Obama Must Become President".  Ostray makes it clear that America’s history of past racism needs to be gotten over and voting for Obama is the way to do that.  Here is the first sentence of the last paragraph of his essay:

But if Obama loses to McCain in November, that will be an even greater statement of where America is with regard to race.

So, there you have it—and from a white guy, too—that if Obama loses to McCain, this can only mean that America’s race problem is still very much of a problem. 

Here is the problem with Ostray’s thinking: Since we know that between two white candidates, the better candidate need not win—and the explanation in that case cannot possibly be racism, then why does it follow that we have racism if the better candidate does not win and that candidate is black.  In other words, if people can vote irrationally in choosing the worse of two white candidates, why is it that these very same people are motivated by racism if they chose a white candidate who is worse than a black candidate?  Why racism rather than the usual forms of irrationality of which they are accused of exhibiting.

I understand that Ostray thinks that Obama is an obviously better candidate than McCain.  However, many thought the very same thing about Gore vis à vis Bush.  Indeed, the parallel is particularly apt, since many would say that in terms of desirability for the presidency Obama is to Gore what McCain is to Bush.  Moreover, it would be claimed by most that Obama is a much smarter man than McCain.  Many, however, would say the same of Gore with respect to Bush.

Even if we allow that in the end it was the U.S. Supreme Court that handed Bush the victory, what is true nonetheless is that insofar as Gore in fact won, he most certainly did not win by a substantial margin, let alone a landslide. 

Many of the things that made Gore unappealing to sufficiently many people also apply to Obama.  Thus, if one supposes that liberal reporters and academicians are not truly representative of America but the so-called silent majority is, then what follows rather straightforwardly is that with respect to certain core values Obama is no more appealing to that silent majority than Gore was—and for precisely the same reasons. 

In other words, I can without engaging in any form of intellectual gymnastics explain Oboma’s not winning without at all raising the spectre of racism. 

The issue for me is not whether racism continues to exist in the United States.  I assume that it does.  The issue, rather, pertains to its explanatory power.  And the best evidence seems to be that people are more indifferent to race than many black and white liberals allow.  Thus, I have not had the sense that white conservatives have been uneasy with either Condoleezza Rice or Colin Power.  There strongest critiques have been black and white liberals.  And none of these individuals have supposed that either Rice or Powell is dumb.  There is no reason at all to think that if Obama embodied the values of Powell that white conservatives would be opposed to him.

Not everything is about race even when it involves a black candidate.  The problem, however, is that far too many people are unwilling to see this in the case at hand.  To hear some tell it, Obama has no liabilities at all; and this is simply not the case.  Obama’s church affiliation for some two decades is a liability.  Such would surely be the case if a white candidate had belonged to a “whites only” club for two decades. 

The Trinity United Church of Christ was a veritable cesspool of venom against whites and the United States.  How is it not a liability to have been intimately affiliated with that sort of church for more than two decades?  One does not have to be a racist or an Uncle Tom to think that.  I stand amazed at whites who seem to deplore such behavior who nonetheless are willing to overlook it in Obama’s case. 

We are then approaching what might easily be one of the most explosive moments in American history since the Civil War.  The possibility of the Second Civil War does not strike me as out of the question.  For the unequivocal charge of racism should Obama lose is none other than a license to be publicly outraged; and the license to be publicly outraged is none other than a license to be violent.  So it was when Martin Luther King was assassinated; and the rhetoric of the present regarding Obama seems to be awfully akin to that moment.  If we should have such outrage, then what will surely unfold is the Second Civil War.  And the difference between the first and the second is that there will not be unity after the aftermath. 

Most disconcertingly, Barack Obama knows this.  Nay, he is counting on it. Insofar as no one can critize Obama without being called racist, then it is indeed true that America is not ready for a black president.  This lack of readiness, however, has much more to do with the mindset of liberals than it does with with the supposed intractable racism of conservatives. 

here is simply no mystery that gas prices have soared.  However, our indignation to mounting gas prices is most inappropriate.  Here is why.  We have been willing to pay $1.50 for 16 ounces of water (which equals $12 for a gallon of water) and as much as $4 for a cup of Starbucks coffee (which equals $32 for coffee, assuming for the sake of argument 16 ounces a cup of coffee).  Now, think about it.  In view of these prices for water and coffee, why shouldn’t the purveyors of oil raise their prices?  After all, a gallon of gas at $5 per gallon is still cheaper than water purchased $1.50 for 16 ounces; and it is still cheaper than coffee purchased at $4 a cup. 

Indeed, from the standpoint of simple rational reflection, the purveyors of oil would be fools not to raise their prices.  For we the consumer have shown ourselves to be utterly silly and thoughtless in our willingness to pay extraordinary prices 16 ounces of water of all things. 

I know: the argument is supposed to have to do with health and all those inappropriate substances claimed to be found in tap water.  This line of argument would have a chance at being convincing if there was a shred of evidence that people who have essentially consumed none other tap water all their lives were more sickly or prone to premature death as a result of doing so.  To date, however, there has not been a shred of evidence that would support any such conclusion.  What is more, food in most restaurants is surely not prepared using bottled water.  This fact points to just how brilliantly deceptive the marketing campaign for bottled water was. 

How absurd can the following scenario be? We frequent restaurants which prepare their food using tap water all the while paying some exorbitant price for bottled water to drink with the meal.  How much more of a duh moment could there be?  The scenario is so incongruous that it is inconceivable to me how people have managed so to behave without experiencing some sort of brain contortion. 

The same line of reasoning holds for coffee at Starbucks.  The proof that I am intellectually bereft—if indeed I am—is that I have never ever been able to comprehend why so many have been willing to spend so much for a cup of coffee—and on nearly a daily basis no less.  And please don’t tell me that it is the environment.  That simply cannot be right. 

For instance, I have noticed that people are flocking to the Starbucks coffee shops in Paris.  And I am unable to see how the environment of a Starbucks shop is superior to the French cafés.  Indeed, precisely what French cafés are known for is the fact that a person can spend hours at well-placed table consuming the drink that she or he purchased.  There is nothing that Starbucks offers in Paris that tops that. 

But even in the United States, where cafés of the French variety are common primarily in cities like New York, it remains incomprehensible to me that people have been willing to pay so much for what in effect is so very little.  Besides, many regular customers of Starbucks purchase their coffee and take it with them.  So, to begin with, these customers are not there to enjoy the lugubrious environment offered by a Starbucks shop. 

So if you are selling oil and you see this sort of nonsense with respect to water and coffee, then sheer commonsense tells you that that oil prices need to go up.  And that is what the purveyors of oil are doing.  The explanation for this is so-called speculation.  I don’t think for a moment that is the explanation.  After all, if speculation were the explanation, then oil prices should have shot up years ago. 

What I think, rather, is that the claim of speculation was found to be a convenient way to make sense to make sense of the sudden rise in oil prices to folks lacking in commonsense; and the mere fact that we have believed that explanation shows that the purveyors of oil got it just right.   

The deeper point here, of course, is that commonsense has essentially gone out the window these days—as we see with so many things that people do.  One of these is adults fighting with one another on what is known as Black Friday (the Friday after Thanksgiving) in order to procure a toy for a child.  Another is the senseless spending that people do when clearly they do not have the means to purchase the things that, in the first place, they do not need.  Or, what about folks camping out for days just to be the first to be a new gadget?    

Some of the ways in which we who claim to be rational creatures have allowed ourselves to be manipulated are so transparent that they all but call into question our claim to being rational creatures.

It is in a society shorn of commonsense that oil prices have skyrockets in a way that makes no sense.  And that, alas, is just the point.  The soaring oil prices make no less sense than our paying $1.50 for 16 ounces of bottled water or $4 for a cup of Starbucks coffee.  Alas, when we have proven ourselves to be so utterly gullible, then there is a very straightforward sense in which what we get is none other than what we deserve. 

The prognosis can be put more poignantly, a people who can be so easily manipulated by rather transparent falsehoods cannot have much respect for themselves.  We have become too blind to see that soaring oil prices have a lot to do with the moral reality that we have far too little respect for ourselves as is revealed by the massively stupid things that we routinely do.