Pain at the Pump

Economists believe the recovery slowed as gas prices jumped in the first quarter of the year, writes Timothy Horman for Bloomberg.com.

I'm no economist, but I could have told you that. I've seen it before. The most extreme example, I suppose, was about three years ago, which was the last time gas prices were this high.

Barack Obama, as focused as he is these days on his re–election campaign, is clearly influenced by what is happening at the pump. His predecessor's approval numbers in his final year in office were never impressive, but they were at their worst when gas prices were at their highest.

I have no doubt that Obama remembers those days — and perhaps with some personal fondness. I don't mean that Obama was glad that prices went so high and, in the process, hurt so many people, but they did help him present himself as the anti–Bush during his last campaign — and Obama obviously would love to recapture the messianic feeling of that time. It propelled him to the presidency.

But now rising gas prices threaten to undermine Obama's re–election campaign, and he needs to project the image of a forceful president who is being proactive. Consequently, even though he himself has acknowledged that there is little, if anything, that a president can do to influence gas prices, he promised to form a task force to examine the situation and investigate whether something illegal was being done to take advantage of consumers.

Sounds good — except, of course, that it's nothing more than a P.R. stunt.

Obama is right when he says that out–of–control speculation is to blame. But excessive speculation is based on anxiety, not necessarily criminal intent.

In my opinion, a task force simply fuels (pardon the expression) the belief that someone out there is behind this.

The anxiety might ease if, as more and more people are suggesting, the situation in Libya is resolved. Libya itself produces a relatively small portion of the world's oil supply, but there are no oil producers who can make up even a small disruption in supply so, as long as the conflict in Libya continues, it seems likely to me that gas prices will remain high.

Some contend that America could make up for that disruption by drilling domestically — in Alaska or offshore. Again, I'm not an expert in these things, but there are at least two problems I can think of with that — there isn't enough oil in those locations to radically alter prices, and it would be years before the oil could be retrieved.

I've also heard talk of eliminating tax breaks for oil companies or adding a gas tax, neither of which seems likely to have much positive short–term impact.

If oil companies lose tax breaks, the most likely outcome, I believe, is that domestic production, not prices at the pump, will be reduced to make up for the lost revenue. And a gas tax is going to raise prices, not lower them.

Either of those (or a combination of the two) could provide funds for the development of alternative energy sources or mass transit expansion, but those are long–term solutions.

There are no simple answers in the short term.

Legal Lessons

---

Paul Cézanne's "The Murder."

---

The wording of laws can be tricky. But that is deliberate. Laws are intended to protect the rights of the accused as well as the rights of those who are not accused. And circumstances differ so the law has to be somewhat vague to cover all possibilities.

For the most part, law enforcement officials are aware of this ambiguity in legal language. They may confirm that they have searched a particular location, for example, but they will not confirm if certain people who are connected to that location are under suspicion — until an arrest is made.

That's a fine point in the law of which many people are unaware — and such legal ignorance has made many libel lawyers rich and many aspiring journalists poor — and unemployed.

I was reminded of that this week when police in Tracy, Calif., were investigating the disappearance of an 8–year–old girl, whose body was found stuffed in a suitcase submerged in a pond at a dairy farm.

During the police investigation, a nearby church and the home of its pastor were searched. Based on this information, a blogger speculated that the pastor "could have had something to do" with the murder — even though no one in authority had linked the pastor to the crime. The blogger acknowledged that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but her words implied that she considered the pastor a possible suspect.

I made a comment about this, and the blogger replied that she was free to speculate. She seemed oblivious to the consequences of being sued for libel, contending that all she had to do was offer an explanation for her actions. I said that it would be up to the jury whether to accept the explanation and pointed out that fair comment is considered a defense when the plaintiff is a public figure. I expressed doubt that the pastor of a church is considered a public figure. I was especially doubtful since the church appears to be a small one.

The thing about libel law is that even public figures can file suits if they feel they have been defamed, but it is up to the jury to decide who is right. The ruling may not go against the writer, but the legal defense itself can be costly. Judgments, of course, can be even costlier. Judgments in libel suits can be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars.

Are you old enough to remember Carol Burnett's libel suit against the National Enquirer in 1981? The tabloid accused her of public drunkenness, a charge to which she was particularly sensitive because her parents were alcoholics. It was a landmark case involving celebrities, and the jury awarded Burnett a $1.6 million judgment.

That amount was cut in half on appeal and eventually the case was settled out of court. But Burnett gave part of the money to the University of Hawaii and University of California at Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism to fund law and ethics courses. She said the lawsuit was a matter of principle, that it was never about the money.

In my experience, which includes a period in my life when I was a police beat reporter, the police often cast a wide net in their investigations. They're looking for evidence. In some cases, the only evidence that is recovered is microscopic forensic evidence — hairs or fibers that cannot be seen with the naked eye. They may not find it in a particular location, but how can they know until they search it?

Red flags may appear during an investigation for several reasons — for example, reluctance to cooperate with investigators. I heard no reports that the pastor did not cooperate. Apparently, there were no red flags.

Early today, some of the lingering questions in the case were answered. Police arrested a 28–year–old woman, who is a Sunday school teacher and the granddaughter of the church's pastor, and charged her with kidnapping and murder.

The victim was a playmate of the woman's daughter. The suitcase in which the girl's body was found belonged to the suspect. The woman and her daughter live with the pastor. I guess that explains why the church and the pastor's home were of interest.

Few other details have been released. The suspect has admitted that the suitcase was hers, but she claims it went missing the day the girl was last seen. No motive for the crime has been alleged.

But the case is a reminder to everyone — not just journalists — not to jump to conclusions.