Hi Cap!
Yes, it does not take much trauma to put a person into an emotional irrational state. Pity!
The point you make about logic raises the idea of what seems to me to be a fundamental problem for humankind. Here we are, cunning clever little chimps, victims of our necessary emotions, superstitions, and myths. Now that we have made the technology necessary for destruction on a vast scale available to all, and, in terms of environmental damage, are accelerating processes that even increase the rate of destruction, the fundamental human conflict seems both proximately dangerous and unresolved. (Einstein wrote about this a bit, I think.) I would characterize the problem as a conflict between logic and evil. ("logic", as used here is has a bit broader meaning than usual.) William Sloane Coffin wrote all 'round this notion. Of course, it is a fundamental in his logos.
This juxtaposition is nothing new. At(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos ) the Greek, Jewish, and Christian tradition of logos is sketched out, with the implication that opposite "the Christ" or "God" or "creative principle" (aka logos) lies a "dark side". This contrast is discussed in Genesis where the Hebrew word "timshel" is used - meaning "thou mayest" (prevail over evil).(
http://timshel.org/timshel.php ) The best, perhaps the only, arena for resolving conflicts between these two aspects of humanity is, imho, politics. This usage should be understood in a very broad sense.
Thus it seems to me that, while we obviously ought not to believe, for example, Fidel, we ought to listen to these voices and reason why they say what they do. (in Fidel's case, over 80, it seems to me that he has identified a genuine trend and seeks to use it as a lever - it's what Fidel does, and he's good at it). By the way, some contextual background for "El Supremo" that informs my ideas here is Eduardo Galeano's "Open Veins of Latin America", Arundhati Roy's "An Ordinary Person's Guide to Empire" and Gott's "Cuba, a History". In Bush's case, for another example, if one assumes that everything he says is a lie, and then compares his actions with his words, very soon one can see a neat package that points descriptively toward true-goal and grand strategy. (This technique is not limited to our dear leader - it works pretty well with any disingenuous character.)
I know what you mean when you use the term "leaders", but I think it's generally a misleading term, a deception, and that when we use it we tend to deceive ourselves. Most so-called leaders actually seem to try to prevent or minimize change, shaping it only when they must. Real leadership seems to come from the general population. This often places "leaders" in opposition to "their" people'(s), as we see everyday. A basic tool "leaders" use is naming a thing. Through naming conceptualization is framed and limited, and the array of options is limited. (And the first thing they name is themselves!) This notion then leads to a comparision of the terms "authority" and "power". It seems to me that "leaders" have power, guns, lawyers, money - but they generally have only whatever authority is temporarily loaned to them by people. This smaller relationship seems to parallel the relationship between logos and evil.
Moving to a focus here on the matter of bio-fuel politics it occurs me that fuel, in the contemporary world, conveys political and economic power, it is at least an amplifier of power. It does not convey authority - this remains in the individual hands of the general population. Because of peak oil supply constraints the natural evolution of the relationship between fuel and power is becoming asymmetrical - presenting "leaders" with what they see as political opportunity. This, in turn, tends to increase the already strained divergent interests between them and "their people". This is to say that the best interests of a "leader" is to control fuel, while the best interests of the people is to control it themselves. Two paths then open to the individual - obey and accept what is offered, or not. By implication a significant self-sufficiency in fuel would then be seen as a threat or danger to power. Numerous examples abound in petroleum, Iraq, Saudi, and so forth. And, to drive the nail in, it looks to me like there are emerging examples of this in the developing bio-fuel systems. Castro is "naming" the process - a basic first step. More generally, dear leader has named those who do not obey - "terrorists".
From this I think I can see that extracting bio-fuels from foreign peoples would tend to focus power in an Nth "leader", while developing a well engineered and ethical domestic system would tend to undermine an Nth "leader". It looks to me as though the interests of the ordinary people are generally and increasingly at odds with the interests of "leaders". That seems to be a setting fertile for sudden change. I wish I was young - an exciting revolutionary time just around the corner. Actually though I worry about the stability of things and my pension...
Smooth Sailing,
Phaedrus
