But at What Cost?

Yes the markets would eventually sort themselves out but at what cost? In a "Darwinian economic" sense, this is a good thing if it eliminates a weak bank and makes room for better, stronger banks. The big difference that people don't get, and this can not be stressed enough, is that we are not talking about one or two banks. We are talking about entire financial markets. If the markets fail, and again this cannot be stressed enough, everyone, including you and me, suffers greatly. If markets fail, businesses can not function and this means people lose jobs. If markets fail, people lose their economic power and this means people can not buy houses, cars, college educations, etc. If markets fail, people lose retirement plans. If markets fail, everyone suffers direct and devastating economic consequences. This is what people don't get and why it is necessary to take distasteful measures to make sure that does not happen. When the "victory" in letting banks suffer their due consequences and fail means that we lose jobs, houses, retirements, and personal wealth, that is not a Phyrric victory we can afford.

What Is "the Free Market Economy"?

It seems there is some confusion about "free market economics" and the economic rescue plan. Some opponents the the rescue plan oppose it because they believe it to be anti free market. The problem stems from a confusion between what "free market economics" really is and what is an ideology of government non-intervention in economics. These are not one and the same. Government intervention can be anti free market to be sure, but it is not so by definition. The ideology of non-intervention stems from the belief that the free market is the most effective and efficient economy and the concern that government intervention inhibits that by necessity. This is the same as the confusion between democracy and human rights. To be sure, democracy is the best tool to ensure human rights. This does not mean that human rights cannot be had without democracy nor does it mean that democracy is an absolute guarantee of human rights. Similarly, nonintervention is the best tool to enable free markets but it does not mean that free markets cannot exist with intervention nor is it a guarantee that free markets will exist.

The "economy" is what mathematicians and engineers refer to as a "solution space". A solution space is the collection all of the valid states that something can achieve given the governing laws or mathematics. For example, imagine a "fully posable action figure." Any position you can pose the articulated joints, without breaking it, is part of the "solution space" of the posability of the action figure. Each joint has a limited range of motion and therefore the solution space of possible poses is also limited. There are poses that are not part of the solution space that if put into that pose would require breaking one or more joints to do so. Where laws of nature are concerned, the action figure is made out of an indestructible material, meaning that try as you might, some poses, or solutions, are simply not physically possible.

For discussing the economy we'll use another more representative solution space model. Imagine you have something shaped like a soup bowl and in this bowl you have a marble. The bowl represents the solution space for the economy given the laws of economics such as supply and demand. The position of the marble in the bowl represents the state of the economy at any given time. As you can see, the marble will want to roll to the bottom of the bowl. When the marble is in bottom, this is what is called equilibrium. If left alone, the marble will stay at the bottom and if displaced will naturally tend to roll back to the bottom. This is called a "stable" equilibrium. ("Unstable" equilibrium would be something like balancing a broom handle - once balanced it will stay there but if disturbed it will fall.) This type of equilibrium is also what is called a "low energy state". This means that at the bottom of the bowl, the marble is in it's lowest energy state. If you push the marble up the lip of the bowl this will take energy and the marble will be in a higher potential energy location.

So what does this model mean in terms of economics? Consider the real estate market. We have seen two distinct states recently. In one case, prices were so ridiculously high that no one could afford to buy houses anymore. In another, prices have fallen so sharply that a lot of people have lost a lot of money. In both cases, price is determined by the laws of supply and demand. In this example, the laws of economics determine the shape of the bowl. In our bowl model, both of these states are toward the lip of the bowl. The marble was on one side of the bowl with high prices and now is rolling to the other side where prices are falling. Generally speaking, desirable states are at the bottom of the bowl and undesirable states are along the rim and the further up the rim as characterized by an out of balance economy. One aspect of the real economy is that, just like the marble in the bowl, it naturally wants to find the stable equilibrium point of lowest energy and free market economics does this very effectively and efficiently. In economics, this is the most optimal achievable operating state for the economy.

This natural tendency to seek stable equilibrium and the lowest energy state is what people who are "free market" proponents have in mind. The idea being that to leave the market (marble) alone, it will naturally attain the most optimal (lowest energy at the bottom of the bowl) achievable state. Now, before I move on to what this means in terms of the rescue package, let's take some time to look at a couple of concepts this model allows us to play with. Maybe you decide that you want the economy to occupy a state not on the bottom of the bowl? This is the case with things like price controls or other policies that attempt to force the economy into a particular state. Two situations can result. One is that the "desired state" is on the bowl but up on the lip. In order to achieve this state, you must push the marble up the lip and hold it there. This is not an efficient way to have an economy operate and if you drop the marble it's going to go rolling wildly around the bowl before returning to the bottom and we certainly don't want a wildly fluctuating economy. The other case is that the "desired state" is not even located on the bowl. In this case, the desired state in not even achievable within the laws and constraints of economics. You would be left with trying to push the marble around the bowl trying to put the marble some place it simply can't be.

But free market proponents sometimes have it wrong too. The idea that the market attains the most optimal state when left alone, when taken as ideology, can lead one to actions or inaction that are unwarranted. This is what caused many "free market" republicans to vote against the rescue bill. Their ideology is to allow the market to freely correct itself. Strictly speaking as mentioned above, this is a "nonintervention" ideology and not "free market economics." And this is where many "free market" proponents can go wrong. Just because the marble will eventually land at the bottom of the bowl does not meant that we should just sit by and allow the marble to follow any trajectory to achieve that. Certainly we do not want to obstruct that, but neither should we necessarily allow a fate determined by a "random" trajectory. As you can imagine, the marble can roll in many different directions and paths. These are all valid "free market" solutions as the marble is allowed to freely roll toward the bottom of the bowl. The thing is, not all of the possible trajectories are equivalent and we can and should influence what trajectory the marble takes. If one trajectory would produce a great deal of devastation and another less so, then by all means we should do what we can to influence the trajectory toward the less destructive path. This satisfies free market principles so long as we do not attempt to force the trajectory to follow any specific unnatural path. And this is what the rescue plan does. The likely trajectory if we did nothing would be to result in devastating consequences resulting in massive collateral damage to you and me and everyone else. The rescue plan simply attempts to influence the trajectory to take a less catastrophic path. The financial markets are still free to be priced according to "free market" economic principles such as supply and demand. What the rescue plan does is to remove some of the toxic product from the market in order to eliminate the negative effect that has on supply. As supply increases as a result of removing the "toxins", demand and pricing are free to adjust in response according to free market economic principles.

So now you might ask, if the marble wants to stay at the bottom of the bowl, how does it end up somewhere else on the bowl in the first place? The economy is not a static thing. Circumstances can and do change over time in response to changes in prevailing conditions. The most accurate answer in terms of the bowl analogy would be that the shape of the bowl is always changing. A simpler analogy would be if the bowl got bumped or tilted or something knocked the marble to thrust it away from the bottom of the bowl. In the real thing, this could be anything that alters supply and demand or resources. Examples are things like the dwindling supply of oil, a natural disaster such as a hurricane, new technology, changing cultural or social preferences. In the real estate market as well as the dot com boom and bust, one of the greatest disruptive influences was speculation. This was a sudden influx of large amounts of money into the real estate market that temporarily skewed the apparent demand in the market. This had the effect of a sharp whack on the marble that sent it spinning off wildly. And the availability of "easy money" (all of the "creative" loan products made available that enabled the ease with which money could be poured into the market) simply added fuel to the fire.

What "free market" economics is all about is this "equilibrium seeking" and allowing the economy to seek the path of lowest energy. However, just because it is most efficient to rely on the natural equilibrium seeking nature of free market economics, that doesn't mean we should allow the economy to pass along any trajectory from a disturbance back to equilibrium. We can, and often times should, act to nudge the trajectory toward one path and away from another. As long as we don't try to force it along a "higher energy" trajectory, this is still a valid free market solution. What we have to evaluate pragmatically is which possible paths incur more or less devastation along the way and how can we nudge the marble toward the least destructive path. The rescue plan is simply a very elegant nudge that allows the free market "marble" to do the rest. The rescue plan is consistent with free market economic principles. Rather than controlling the market by decree, the rescue plan puts the government in the role of participatory agent in the free market. The buying as an agent in the free market is strategised in such a way as to influence the free market trajectory on a more favorable and less destructive path.

Hello, Not Voting for Candidate A Is a Vote for Candidate B

This just boggles my mind, and it's true on both sides of the fence. Most recently it has come out McCain might choose a pro-abortion candidate. So, the answer? To not vote for McCain? And that means what? Obama, who is clearly much less conservative, wins? That would be the preferred outcome? And the Democrats are just as bad. Some HRC supporters, for example, will refuse to vote for Obama. So they would prefer that McCain would win, someone who would be much less representative of Democratic ideals? So some people would rather let someone who is less representative of their values win rather than vote for someone who doesn't exactly represent their values? Look people, the next president will either be Obama or McCain and not voting is not going to change that. So it would behoove you to vote for the candidate who more closely represents your values if for no other reason to keep out of office someone who would be even less representative of your values. If you withhold your vote because your party's candidate has offended you in some way, the only one you are hurting by not voting is yourself. If neither candidate is your ideal candidate that is irrelevant and pouting about it isn't going to change that. If you are smart you can suck it up and accept that your only options are McCain or Obama and vote for which ever is the next best thing and most closely represents your values (or against whichever is the next worst thing) or you can go off and pout and get what you get which might end up being the worse of the two for your values. To make the point, for those who oppose abortion rights, if McCain were to choose a pro-abortion VP, you would prefer to have a President AND a VP who stand for abortion rights than to vote for a ticket where only the VP is pro-abortion? And for HRC supporters, you would rather have McCain as president than vote for Obama? Yes, voting has consequences and so does not voting. Are you willing to accept the results and consequences of not voting? Remeber, what you choose to do, whether to vote or not, on November 2 this year has consequences for whether Obama or McCain is in the Whitehouse on January 20 of next year.

Yes, Russia, It Is You Who Is the Hypocrite, not the US

So Russia seeks to cast the US as hypocritical for expressing opposition to it's invasion of Georgia and has the audacity to raise the issue of Iraq? Well, let's put some things into perspective and just see who is the hypocrite.

If we look at crises that are actually analogous to the Georgia situation we see a completely different picture. In the Iraq war that actually is analogous to the current crisis in Georgia, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the US pushed Saddam out of Kuwait and back to his border. The US did not invade Iraq at that time. When Serbian troops were committing genocide against the Kosovo Albanians, NATO, led by the US, repulsed the Serbian troops only sufficiently to put a stop the genocide. And if you want to bring up the US invasion of Iraq, it took 12 years of as many UN resolutions that were obstructed, circumvented or simply ignored by Saddam before the US invaded. And even then the US attempted to gain the support of the international community. It didn't even take Russia 12 hours before they invaded Georgia.

Anytime the international community attempts to deal with crises around the world, Russia is always there acting to obstruct those attempts. Russia is always pushing for interminable talks, diplomacy, and negotiation. Even peaceful attempts with resolutions, sanctions, or peace keeping troops are obstructed by Russia. Russia states it's position as non-interference in the internal affairs of other sovereign states, even when those "internal affairs" include atrocities such as genocide. Now that there is a crisis in a sovereign nation they have an interest in, do they exercise the restraint and non-intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation that they impose on other nations by use of their veto power at the UN? No, they completely bypass all peaceful approaches such as the talks, diplomacy and negation they demand others utilize, they bypass the other peaceful approaches of resolutions and sanctions, and they even bypass a measured military action to repulse Georgian troops out of South Ossetia and go straight for the jugular with a full scale invasion of Geogia, a sovereign nation, with overwhelming military force. So why is it ok for Russia to immediately resort to extreme military force to "meddle in the internal affairs of a sovereign state" whenever they choose yet they obstruct even peaceful attempts of other nations and the UN to resolve other crises? If Russia wants to see hypocracy in international affairs, it need only look in the mirror.

Inflate Your Tires to Solve Our Energy Problems

Some people just don't get the point, even Obama. Obama seems to think that McCain was taking issue with whether or not inflating your tires saves gas, when in fact he was taking issue with whether or not telling people to inflate their tires is an energy policy or not. This from McCain pretty much sums it up: "That's not an energy plan, my friends -- that's a public service announcement." And if inflating your tires IS an energy policy, then at least McCain is doing something about it by handing out tire pressure gauges. I don't think either one has what I would consider a satisfactory energy policy but my point here is being honest about what was and was not said and what does and does not constitute an energy policy. But then again, at least Obama appears to be open, to some degree, to considering ideas to which he was previously opposed.

And as to being honest about what was and was not said, the recent tire flap harkens back to the flap over McCain's remark over troops in Iraq for 100 years.  The point was an arrangement not unlike the fact that we, to this day, have troops in Germany, Japan, and South Korea. Do people who have taken issue with McCain's comment think that these other troop deployments have been a bad thing? And if these have been a good thing then why wouldn't the exact same arrangement in Iraq not also be a good thing? The existing arrangements have been mutually beneficial for over 50 years and show no signs of major changes, so why would claims of 100 years of a similar arrangement in Iraq be unreasonable?

Hyperventilating Over Oil

(This just in... Obama says he would discuss a pragmatic approach to offshore drilling as part of a pragmatic over-arching energy policy -
"Like all compromises, it also includes steps that I haven't always supported," Obama conceded. "I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact.")

Why are people hyperventilating over broaching the topic of off shore drilling? The only thing that anyone has actually said is that if supply issues are contributing to the problem then let's talk about possibly increasing supply with exploitation in locations previously off limits. What's wrong with asking the question? It is a completely reasonable question to ask and Democrats and liberals are doing everything they can to stop people from trying to answer it in any pragmatic manner. If insufficient supply is part of the problem how does increasing supply not help? Will it solve all of our problems and make them all go away? Of course not. Only Democrats seem to think that this is the claim - or at least that since it won't solve everything we should not pursue it at all. But even if it is only 1 or 2 million barrels of additional oil, isn't that better than no additional barrels of oil? Does drilling for more oil preclude us from exploiting other solutions for our energy problems? No it doesn't. Except that Democrats seem to think it will. They say we should pursue conservation and alternate energy instead. Instead? Why not AND? And how is the fact that new drilling won't produce oil for many years an argument not to drill? Isn't that what investment is all about - expenditure today for future payoff? Democrats give any number of similar illogical arguments to not drill, which if true, then no wells would ever have been drilled in the first place. We would also never build bridges, or dams, or highways or any other large construction efforts as these don't show results until many years in the future. Yet, not surprisingly, many people actually understand that the reality is that quite often you must begin work today so that the benefit can be realized at a future date and that there is value to this. And that being the case, if it is indeed true that exploration and drilling today will not produce results for many years, isn't that in fact an argument to start now rather than delay and push realization of results even further into the future??? Oh yeah, Democrats don't seem to understand investing today for future payoff.

Some people have simply raised the question for discussion and Democrats have immediately started hyperventilating as if the drills had already started. The thing is some people want the debate in order to achieve rational, fully informed energy policy but Democrats are doing everything to prevent that. (hmm... wasn't it Democrats that were lambasting Republicans for having the audacity to quash debate on other topics? And now Democrats are doing exactly that which had them outraged at Republicans.) The same is true of nuclear energy. Let's start the justified discussion on merits. But instead Democrats immediately start hyperventilating as if atoms are already smashing. How dare anyone have the audacity to even broach the idea of nuclear energy. (Except that even uber-liberal France seems to grasp the pragmatism of nuclear energy. While hard to pin down it seems about 78% of electricity in France is nuclear generated). Ooh nuclear, evil bad, hiss - better we should all suffer carbon emissions and global warming than bury nuclear waste in some desolate uninhabited desert.

And as for the strategic reserve, the intent with that is for a rainy day when we have REAL problems. Oh yeah, that's right, Democrats don't believe in saving for a rainy day as the prospect of any future calamity is only hypothetical. If we tap our reserves today and then something happens like Israel strikes Iran, don't you think we'll then regret having tapped the reserves for something as frivolous as prices rather than keeping the strategic reserves for STRATEGIC purposes? Oh yeah, Democrats only live for today and tomorrow is only hypothetical and consequences tomorrow for actions today be damned. (In Democratically controlled California, we never seem to be able to save in times of plenty in order to have reserves in times of lean - no matter how much surplus revenue we ever have we always end up broke and unable to get a budget out on time. When our lakes and reservoirs are full that's always taken as green light to build more houses seemingly thinking that quantity of water will last forever and ignoring the fact that the lakes and reservoirs are not always full as is the case this year). And speaking of strategic issues, that drop of oil in the bucket from new drilling would take on a whole new degree of significance if something majorly unfortunate happened in the Middle East and our bucket got reduced to a tea cup.

And there are the claims that the proposed drilling would not be economically effective. Isn't that a decision or the oil companies? If they decide it doesn't make business sense they simply don't have to drill. This is like not asking the hot girl out because you decide she would not accept. Shouldn't it be her choice? It is a unilateral decision assuming a second party choice not necessarily in evidence. And like the hot girl, if she declines, then you know for certain one way or another and it's that much easier to move on. And if the outcome is ultimately that the oil companies decide it doesn't make business sense, then what is the harm in having the discussion and letting the oil companies decide for themselves rather than making that decision for them?

The problem is specious and nonsequitur "reasoning" for not drilling that are supposed to somehow be reasons to not even have honest discussion. No it doesn't solve the whole problem but that does not mean it is of no help or no use. No it won't provide oil today but maybe we should start now to make it available tomorrow. What we need is real debate based on real merit and not the false logic and hyperbole expressed by BOTH sides. If we really (and honestly) want more independence from foreign oil shouldn't we honestly be talking about ALL options including conservation and alternate energy AS WELL AS increased domestic oil supply and nuclear? None will single-handedly solve our problems - not even conservation or alternate energy - but they are ALL key components to a COMPLETE, rational, and pragmatic energy policy and none should be off limits to discussion simply because of ideology. Ideology and hyperbole is not the place to start to achieve such policy.

More Hypocrisy

It's ironic how Democrats would lambaste Republicans for preventing various items from being debated on the floor. Now that the issue of certain Democratic sacred cows are becoming of more salient interest, Democrats are resorting to some of the exact same tactics to prevent debate that they accused Republicans of using. With the energy situation the way it is, the issues of previously off limit drilling and nuclear energy are compelling topics for debate. But Democrats are actively preventing debate on these topics just like they accused Republicans of preventing debate on other topics. That's not to say we should necessarily be actively pursuing those things, but given circumstances shouldn't we at least be debating them? I guess when it's your sacred cow it's ok to prevent debate no matter how pertinent.

NPT

There is a great deal of misunderstanding of what the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is all about. And because of that there is a lot of misunderstanding as to what compliance actually means and what are the implications of non-compliance. The most common misunderstanding is with regard to actual weapons. Many people seem to believe that the NPT simply prohibits the possession of nuclear weapons and that therefore there is no violation unless actual weapons are discovered. The NPT is much more nuanced and sophisticated than that. In fact, possession of weapons would not just be a violation (in fact, technically it is not if you read the actual NPT text) but an utter and complete failure of the core philosophy of the NPT as a means to prevent the possession of weapons in the first place. The second misunderstanding is that the NPT is a mechanism to uncover weapons. It is not. The purpose of the NPT is not a "police force" to uncover weapons after the fact but it is a treaty requiring compulsory compliance and cooperation. The violation is not in the possession of nuclear weapons but failure to comply with its proscriptions and obligations. It is the obligation of the signatory to proactively comply with transparency. This is just like it is your obligation as a taxpayer to proactively pay your taxes not for the IRS to have come and get them. However, just like the IRS will come and get them if you don't pay your taxes and you will pay a penalty as a result, similarly, if the IAEA has to uncover clandestine activities, the signatory pays a price of lost trust and therefore being subject to closer scrutiny and suspicion. It is also much like audits, transparency, and financial disclosure requirements in business. These are not instituted to uncover financial shenanigans, although they can, but rather to prevent such shenanigans in the first place.

There are two key core principles to the NPT. The first is that the nuclear fuel cycle and access to fissile material is the linchpin to both energy programs and weapons programs. Without weapons grade fissile material it is not possible to build functioning nuclear weapons. The concept is two-fold. One is that weapons grade fissile material is a high hurdle and a higher hurdle than lower grade reactor grade fissile material and the other that the only conceivable use for weapons grade fissile material is for weapons. Thus by controlling the fuel cycle you control the ability to make weapons. And weapons grade material is a clear and unequivocal indicator of weapons intent.

The other core aspect to the NPT is that there is the implicit understanding of the possible calculus of some nations. That being that some nations could decide that it would be preferable to go to war to prevent an adversary from becoming nuclear armed rather than accept the possibility of annihilation at the hands of a nuclear armed adversary. Thus the intent of the NPT is to allow nations to pursue peaceful nuclear energy in a manner that will transparently preclude the potential of weaponization to eliminate the calculus and pretext for pre-emptive warfare.

The mechanism by which the NPT fulfills both core philosophies is with the Safeguard Protocols. This is, again, a two-fold philosophy. First there is transparency of all nuclear activities. Since the NPT provides for openly peaceful nuclear energy activities, any clandestine activities would necessarily be presumed to be of weaponization intent. Thus clandestine programs are expressly forbidden and the transfer of nuclear technologies, especially of a weaponized nature is also forbidden. The second prong is to control the actual fissile material. By monitoring the progress of all fissile materials from mining, processing, fueling, and disposal under full transparency, you ensure that no material finds it's way into weapons programs. Thus the two prongs are transparency of nuclear technology and programs and the transparency of the actual fissile material.

As a signatory to the NPT and agreeing to comply with and submit to the Safeguard Protocols, what do you get? You get the right to the unfettered pursuit of nuclear energy. You also get the assurance that the suspicions of your adversaries will not be aroused vis a vis nuclear weapons and thus eliminate tensions that could result in a preemptive strike over nuclear weapons suspicions. The distinction should be made that the right to nuclear energy is granted by the NPT and is therefore contingent on compliance with the Security Protocols.

Now what does all of this mean with regard to Iran? Iran has been found to have clandestine nuclear programs and to be in possession of black market weapons documents. Thus they are in violation of the NPT and the Safeguard Protocols by these expressly forbidden activities. As such, the only rational conclusion can be that they had the intent of developing weapons technologies. This directly abrogates the first philosophy that transparency allows for peaceful nuclear energy and precludes weapons and thus by extension the only conclusion is therefore weaponization. This expressly abrogates the trust (but verify) of the NPT and Safeguard Protocols and necessarily casts suspicion on all nuclear activities.

Iran says it has the right to the fuel cycle. Yes, the NPT grants that right. But this is no different than a mortgage on your home grants you the right to occupy that home. However if you fail to fulfill your obligations of making the required payments, you forfeit that right to occupy the home. Iran has failed to fulfill it's obligations to the NPT and therefore forfeits it's right to the fuel cycle.

Taken as pattern of behavior, it is impossible to come away with anything other than an intent to deceive and obstruct on the part of the Iranians. If their goals are truly only peaceful nuclear energy then why do they continue the deceit and obstruction? If they were to simply cooperate transparently they could have the nuclear energy they claim to seek. If their goal is truly peaceful nuclear energy then why do they insist on continuing to act and behave in ways that give cause to the international community to obstruct the achievement of that goal? If their goal is truly for the purposes of energy, then why have they repeatedly declined generous offers that would give them exactly that? And if they are so concerned about energy independence then why do the not first master the technology of oil refining. In spite of possessing vast amounts of crude oil they currently are dependent on others for their refined products used for internal consumption. It seems to quite the case of putting the cart before the house to work for nuclear independence but still be completely dependent on others for oil refining.

It seems that Iran is doing everything they possibly can to prevent the creation of the basis of trust and transparency that is at the core of the NPT. Yet they demand to be entitled to the benefits of the NPT. They refuse to fulfill their obligations under the NPT yet expect to be granted the privileges granted by the NPT. It also seems that they are intent on proving the preemptive strike calculus that the NPT is designed to defuse. Do they fail to understand that compliance with the NPT also helps to shield them from the calculus of the preemptive strike? Do they not understand that by their continued obstruction and intransigence they expose themselves to that calculus? While it is unlikely that a Western nation would strike, it is highly likely that paranoid Israel would not be so reticent to strike.

Nanny State

Jan Perry, a Los Angeles city-council member wants to ban fast food. This is just another example of trying to create a nanny government. I don't like fast food, don't eat it, don't think it is particularly good for you and would recommend against eating it, but that doesn't give any one the right to take away my freedom to eat what I want. If I want to stuff my face with burgers and fries day in and day out that's my business and nobody else's and certainly not the government's. And it's certainly not Jan Perry's business. Except that she thinks it is. I'm not saying eating fast food is not a problem. The problem is that Jan is a politician and politicians have only one tool in their tool box. That tool is legislation. So to politicians, every problem looks like it must be dealt with by legislation. The problem is not the fast food, the problem is people's inability to exercise moderation. Look, if you think fast food is a problem then don't eat it But that doesn't give you the right to tell other people what they can and cannot eat.

And there is the hipocracy. And this is the big problem. Liberals complain about things like the Patriot Act infringing on our rights, and rightly so. But then they have no qualms about turning around and taking away other freedoms that they have a problem with. They seem to think that government does not have the right to infringe our freedoms through surveilance but that goevernment does have the right to infringe our freedoms by taking away our right to choose how we want to live. The government doesn't have the right to take away any of our freedoms and liberals need to undersatnd that as well as conservatives. Personally, I would rather have my privacy invaded than have my freedom to choose taken away. Liberals tell us that we have the right to choose an abortion because we have a right to control our own bodies but then they want to tell us we don't have a right to choose what we put into our bodies. Hipocracy.

Just because something might be a bad choice doesn't give the government the right to make that choice for us and deny us the right to choose. Even if that means choosing unwisely.

And it's not just fast food, Jackie Speier wants to make us slow down. She thinks it's a good idea for us to slow down to save gas. I have no argument with that because it is a good idea and it does save gas. But she wants to take away our freedom to choose how fast we want to drive just because she wants us to be forced to choose to save gas. If she wants to slow down to save gas then she should. Anyone else who wants to can slow down also. I think it's a good idea and I drive slower than I used to. But it's not anyone's right to make that choice for everyone else.

But Why DRILL Act?

Liberals refuse to question their simplistic world view. In their view, anything associated with business, and especially "big oil" is always malevolent. Anything that business wants or does is attributed not to common business and economic sense but always to malevolent intent. Liberals always seek emotional satisfaction to their sense of indignation (even when indignation is unwarranted) and the most expedient way to assuage that indignation is to punish perceived malevolence. But seeking to understand business motivations and economic dynamics would not be as emotionally satisfying and would possibly disabuse them of an opportunity for emotional masturbation. The DRILL act is just an extension of this world view. The latest claim against opening up to even the slightest discussion of off sore drilling is that oil companies should drill on lands for which they already hold leases before exploring offshore or other environmentally sensitive areas, as if in their malevolence they would not seek the most cost effective source but rather ways to inflict the most harm. Firstly, the idea of off shore drilling has so far mostly been conjecture on the part of politicians and lay people. I don't know that any oil companies have actively indicated urgent interest in exploiting such new locales. But taken at face value, the argument about existing leases raises the question, except apparently to liberals, as to why oil companies are not actively exploiting these properties? It doesn't take business sense to know that the low hanging fruit are the obvious targets of first choice. If I am an oil executive and looking for places to drill for oil, am I going to choose someplace on easily accessible dry land or someplace off in the depths of the ocean? All thing being otherwise equal, the obvious answer is dry land. That is unless all things are not equal. If oil companies are not exploiting these leases, are the low hanging fruit not what they would appear to be and why? As a pragmatist, these are questions I want answered before going off and setting oil policy and legislation. But apparently in the liberal world view such questions and answers are irrelevant to creating legislation. It doesn't make sense to pursue more costly options before exploiting less expensive options. For liberals it's sufficient to just attribute it to malevolent intent and not bother to ask why. And that being the case, let's pass a bill to force them to use these properties first without first really understanding why this is not already happening. I believe that businesses in principle are motivated by economics and not malevolence. And as such it is important to understand the economic rational behind the things business do if there is to be any hope of having rational, effective, and and workable policies. Crafting economic policy based on an assumption of malevolence as opposed to economics can only lead to disaster.

Why Not Immunity?

A hot topic is the FISA government surveillance bill debate. One issue is that of retroactive immunity for telecoms that complied with government surveillance demands. Now, I am not looking to debate here the merits or demerits of the surveillance in and of itself. What I want to focus on is specifically the issue of immunity.

The telecoms were faced with a demand from the government that ostensibly had the force of law. Meaning that they could face legal liability if they refused to comply with the demands. Now, some groups want to pursue civil litigation against the telecoms for providing information to the government. It seems to me that if you are compelled by law to do something, you should not be held liable for civil claims resulting from compliance with that obligation. To be held liable in civil court places one in a position of choosing between legal liability and civil liability. This hardly seems like a justifiable predicament to in which to put or hold accountable an otherwise law abiding entity.

This is not meant to justify any actions, but it is unreasonable to expect someone to be forced to choose between legal and civil liability through no fault of their own. If the government comes to you and makes a demand having the force of law, it would be unfair to be put in liability by virtue of complying with a demand that you have no legal option but to comply. If there is issue with the legitimacy of the demand then that issue shall be with the government attempting to make the demand. The respondent should not be obligated evaluate the legitimacy and liability of compliance as compliance should be taken as a given on the part of the respondent. Of course the respondent has the right to object and pursue legal action to eliminate the obligation to comply. However, that right should not be construed as an obligation whereby opting not to pursue that avenue incurs civil liability. In short, a demand from the government having force of law, whether actual or implied, should, by necessity, justice, and fairness, convey civil immunity with regard to compliance with the demand.

The problem here is that people lose sight of what is just simply because they are seeking any excuse for punative action on a corporation whether justified or not. Sure, by all means take issue with the surveillance and the government program and pursue any fitting legal course of action. But whether or not the demand by the government placed on the telecoms was legitimate, the issue should be with the government for making the demand not with the telecoms for complying. Complying with a government demand, even if that demand is found to be illegitament, should not confer liability of any illegitimacy on the respondent.

Why Is Flip-Flopping Always So Bad?

A leader should be a leader and not a follower. Certainly someone who intends to be a "leader" but merely follows the prevailing winds in order to gain the popularity to get elected isn't much of a leader. A leader should be a trend setter not a trend follower. Anyone can follow and parrot a trend. A leader who has well reasoned positions should not have reason to change those positions. And of course there is the matter of principle.

But isn't it also wise to change a position when circumstances change or new evidence becomes available? It seems to me that ignoring a change in circumstance or evidence is just as irresponsible, if not more so, than changing your position to follow shifting political winds. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the original position was correct for the circumstances and evidence prevailing at the time the position was adopted. Now suppose the circumstances change such that the original basis for that position no longer applies or that new evidence becomes available that contradicts the original premise. Now that the original position has been rendered irrelevant, wouldn't it be the height of stupidity to not change your position? That's not being "principled", that's being ignorant. Yet apparently, given the propensity for leveling charges of flip-flopping at the slightest indication of a change in position, we are supposed to believe that stubbornly continuing to hold a position in spite of evidence that it has been rendered irrelevant is the sign of a good leader. It seems to me that a leader who is unable or unwilling to adapt to changing circumstances is doomed to failure.

Recently, Barack Obama intimated that he would reevaluate his position on Iraq based on the preset conditions on the ground. That sounds like a responsible approach to me. Let's recognize that things have changed in Iraq from over a year when the original position was adopted and a new position may be warranted. You would think Republicans would have jumped all over that as an indication that even Obama recognizes that Democrats' push to withdraw regardless of the consequences and the damage incurred is not the best approach. You would think, but no, they jumped all over him accusing him of flip-flopping. But not to let Republicans be the only source of disappointment, Obama quickly backtracked and said he never suggested that he would do anything other than what he stated over a year ago regarding Iraq - we wouldn't want anyone to think that we might adapt our position to changing new circumstances in Iraq because that would just be flip-flopping. The ironic thing is that, being the optimist, if things continue in Iraq as they have been recently, the vast majority of our troops would likely be withdrawn within Obama's 16 month time frame anyway regardless of who is president. Given all that has happened in the past 16 months, another 16 months does not seem like an unreasonable time frame to be mostly withdrawn by simply continuing the current program.

Interest Rate Policy vis a vis Inflation and Energy Costs

Some people talk of the Fed raising interest rates to combat inflation. That has me somewhat concerned. Let me start with the expression "when the only tool in your tool box is a hammer, all your problems look like nails." Controlling interest rates is one of the few economic tools in the Fed's toolbox. Let's examine that tool and the nail it is used for.

The typical model for inflation is that increased investment spending increases demand on resources. Excessive demand for resources presents upward pressure on prices due to simple supply and demand economics. This upward pressure on price is what ultimately manifests as inflation. Raising the interest rate serves to reduce demand for resources, and thus reduce inflationary price pressures, by making resources more expensive by the increased cost of money used to buy those resources. It should be noted that obviously real increased resource prices also serve to reduce demand by simple supply and demand market forces. The idea is to prevent real price increases by increasing the effective price when the cost of money is considered. So we should observe that both raising interest rates and the rising increase in the real cost of resources are both contractive economic influences but the latter has inflationary implications. The idea is to control inflation with a market mechanism we can control (interest rates) to throttle demand rather than allowing market forces to throttle demand via inflation. Interest rate control is a preventative measure to reduce real upward price pressures. Keep in mind that this tool only deal with domestic economic forces that we influence. Also keep in mind that with regard to interest rate policy, the converse is also true. That is, in an economy that is stagnant or contracting, reducing the interest rate is an expansionary influence by increasing investment spending by virtue of making the cost of money less expensive and thus the cost of buying resources less expensive. By simply market economics, the reduced cost drives up demand, which drives up supply, which expands the economy.

However, the problem we face is that the real price of energy is skyrocketing independent of domestic influences. Without getting too deep into global economics, the price of our domestic oil supply is being driven up by global influences which we have little control over. Oil is a global market and the global demand is increasing and driving up the price of oil which means that our domestic energy resource is becoming more costly. Of course the global oil market is fodder for entire dissertations in and off itself, so suffice it to say for the purposes here that domestically, the rising price of the resource of energy is a given. I'll touch on a little bit more on that later but first let's understand the nature of the problem.

The economy is exposed to pressures that are both inflationary and contractive by virtue of the increasing real price of the resource of energy. The question is that given we are dealing with the contractive influences of increased energy costs, why would we deploy the contractive influence of increased interest rates on top of that? Certainly this will have the effect of reducing the demand for energy, but since this is a global market over which we have only marginal influence, this is likely to have little effect on the cost of energy, which is a major driving force behind our economic problems. Decreasing our demand for oil will have downward price pressure on the cost of oil, but since we are only one player on the global energy market, that impact will likely be offset by increasing demand in countries such as China and India. The end result is that we would only marginally reduce inflation and the cost of oil, if at all, at the expense of an excessively shrunken economy. On the other hand, the contractive view of the problem would suggest lowering interest rates to spur expansion. However, this would obviously only increase the demand for already problematic energy resources.

Clearly the problem doesn't fit the model associated with the tool of interest rate control. Obviously if it's not a nail we're faced with, a hammer probably isn't going to be able to help. At this juncture there are really only two ways to deal with the economic impact of energy prices. We can figure out how to cope and deal with the higher cost of energy. We can buy smaller cars and use PT, like most other countries, and try to find more efficient ways to use energy that we do use so that we reduce cost by reducing how much we use. The other way is to reduce cost of energy by finding cost effective alternatives to dependence on the global oil market. This is by means of exploiting domestic oil sources and rational oil policies, exploiting alternate energy sources such as coal, nuclear, biofuels and fuels from waste and all of the conventional alternates with which we are already familiar, and developing new energy technologies and improving existing technologies. As I've said before, we need to actively pursue ALL of our options.

You Shouldn't Save $10 when What You Need Is $100

According to the logic of many politicians, they would give you the following advice: If you need $100 for something, and you have an opportunity to save $10 toward that $100 - don't. You should not be saving that $10 because it is not the $100 that you need. Not only that, but if you save that $10, it will somehow preclude you from also acquiring the other $90. For example, one of the most recent and flagrant examples is regarding off-shore drilling for oil. Now, I'm not arguing any pro or con positions on the merits of off-shore drilling because that's the problem I have - no one is discussing it on the basis of merit. I am merely using it to illustrate the non sequitur arguments against it. The argument that opponents are using against drilling are two. One is they say that it will not solve our energy problems. Two is that any drilling would not put any oil into supply for many years. THe same arguments are used against nuclear energy. I don't think anyone has said or claims that off-shore drilling would make our problems go away. No, it is true that it is not the $100 we are looking for, but it seems to me that it would be helpful to be $10 closer to that $100. It is also intimated that drilling for oil is somehow mutually exclusive of other energy programs. They say things like "we shouldn't drill for oil because what we need to be doing is conserving." How exactly does one preclude the other? Can't we drill for oil AND conserve AND develop alternate energy sources? Can't we save that $10 and another $20 here and another $30 there and then we will be that much closer to the $100 goal? It is interesting if not hypocritical that the ideas of others are measured against totality of solution whereas their ideas are not held to the same metric.

Since I'm talking about drilling for oil, what about the delay to seeing the additional oil in the supply and how is that an argument against drilling? Not only are we not supposed to save that $10 now, we shouldn't try to enable saving $10 tomorrow because that won't help us today. One claim I have seen is that even if we started drilling today, we would not see any oil until 2030. Do they not grasp the concept of investment? My God, if it's bad now, what's it going to be like in 2030 if we don't start today? It seems to me that it is an argument to get moving on it if it will take that long to see a benefit. Maybe if we don't start today, by 2030 it will be too late.

Now, I am all for discussing the merits of whether or not we should be drilling off-shore considering things like cost/benefit analysis and risks, etc. But don't try to tell me that we shouldn't pursue helpful rational ideas because they won't solve the entire problem or because they won't solve it right now today or by suggesting that it would somehow preclude other solutions that are not mutually exclusive. The pragmatist says that an opportunity to save $10 toward that $100 is still better than $0, it doesn't preclude saving other $, and even if we won't see that $10 until tomorrow, it's still better to have that $10 tomorrow even if we can't have it today.

And it's not limited to energy policy. It also happens a lot elsewhere. Other major examples are dealing with illegal immigration, health care, and economic policies. I am sure I will discuss these at sometime as well. Look for any time a politician says "we shouldn't do 'A' because it doesn't solve the whole problem" (why not fix the part 'A' does solve?) or "we shouldn't do 'A' because we should be doing 'B'" (why can't we do both?) (for that matter, if "A" is unacceptable because it does not solve 100%, why does that stipluation not also apply to "B"?) or "we shouldn't do 'A' because it won't see results until sometime in the future" (later is still better that not at all).

Another classic occurrence of this logic was with regard to the "Star Wars" effort. The argument was that we can't stop all of the missiles so we shouldn't even try to stop any. Maybe it's just me but it seems that fewer missiles reaching their targets is better than all of them reaching their targets. To be sure, there are many other arguments about things such as cost and implications related to game theory and we should be doing everything to prevent it from even happening in the first place (it's not not mutually exclusive), but to suggest that there would be no benefit to preventing some number of missiles reaching their targets even when that number is less than 100% just doesn't make sense. It would make a big difference to the people who are on the receiving end of the missile that doesn't get through. It would still suck, but at least they would still be around to care.

Many of today's problems are very large, complex, and multifaceted. My point here is that we need to debate and consider every proposal based on its merits. We should argue against a proposal based solely on the fact that it only addresses one facet of the problem. Even if that proposal only saves $10 of the needed $100, that's still $10 we wouldn't otherwise have. And since no proposal is likely to provide the entire $100, we need to save the $10 wherever we can find it.

When Speaking Against Oppression and Brutality Is 'Evil'

The West is calling for the oppression and brutality of Mugabe's regime to be dealt with. I guess that puts many African leaders in quite the pickle. Some African leaders refuse to criticize Mugabe because they don't want to be perceived as siding with the West against a fellow African "leader". The good thing is that they equate the West with speaking out against oppression and brutality. Or is it that they equate speaking out against oppression and brutality as Western? Either way, the West becomes synonymous with speaking out against oppression and brutality. So the problem created by those who attempt to vilify the West is that they also vilify the concepts we hold dear such as freedom, liberty, and human rights. So now they have created an environment where they have forced themselves to be complicit in the oppression and brutality because, for them, doing the right thing in opposing opression and brutality would be siding with the "evil West".

This is the idea of "acting white" on a global scale. Heaven forbid you should do the right thing because that's what the west/whites do. Working hard and getting an education is chastised as "acting white" in some American sub-cultures. Speaking out against oppression and brutality is chastised as "siding with the West" by some non-Western cultures. How absurd is that? It's as if you were to say you oppose the scientific understanding of gravity as a "Western" concept because that was developed by the westerner Isaac Newton. Or you oppose air travel as a "Western" thing because that was first developed in the West? All of these things are not unique to a particular culture. These are universal things that the West has harnessed to great success. The problem is in depriving yourself the universal tools to achieve success because those tools are associated with the "evil West".

Admittedly, many non-western people were subjected to western colonialism in the past. The problem is that they continue to see the West through that lens that is no longer representative of the West today. The West as a colonial power has been dead for well over half a century. The West today is a force against oppression and brutality wherever it is found. In placing yourself against the West today, that puts you on the side of supporting oppression and brutality. Ask yourself one simple question - if all world governments opposed oppression and brutality and embraced human rights, would there be any state on the West's "shit list"? The mistake made by many leaders is that it is an "us vs them" thing and that they are on our "shit list" because of that when the reality is that they are on our "shit list" because it's an us vs oppression and brutality thing. The concept of "Human Rights" is not a Western philosophy but rights to which all humans are entitled but that some states abrogate. Abrogation of human rights is what earns a spot on our shit list. The easiest, best, and only way off of our shit list is, quite simply, to STOP OPPRESSING AND BRUTALIZING YOUR PEOPLE AND START RESPECTING HUMAN RIGHTS.

Pieces of Paper in a Box

Mugabe is yet another sad example of a dictator who is completely incapable of grasping the import of democracy. It seems that they look at western democratic countries and say "look, they put pieces of paper in a box and congratulate themselves for a democratic election and say 'look how wonderful democracy is.' Then we shall also put pieces of paper in a box, and all of the pieces of paper shall have my name on it, and then they shall congratulate us and accept my rule as a 'democratically elected' government". What these dictators sadly fail to grasp is that an election is not about putting pieces of paper in a box. They sadly think that people putting pieces of paper in a box under duress and physical threat is an election and democracy. Do they think that we are fooled by the charade? What they don't understand is that what is at the heart of an election is the freedom to put any name on that piece of paper and have it count. An election and democracy are not about going through the motion of putting pieces of paper in a box, it's about what is on those pieces of paper.

Mugabe- we are not fooled. A tyrant dictator who forces his people to put pieces of paper with his name on them in a box is still a tyrant dictator and nothing more.

Can We Eliminate Affirmative Action Now?

It's looking like we are headed for the first US President who is Black. It seems that this combined with other aspects of US culture makes an argument of systemic discrimination unsupportable. When proponents are asked why they think we need affirmative action they usually give one of two answers. One is to compensate for discrimination. The other is that many people in society are disadvantaged. Let me address this in three parts: what is affirmative action, discrimination, and disadvantaged.

As implemented, affirmative action is the giving of "bonus points" or preference to various anointed minorities. In a nut shell this has the effect of giving the minority an advantage over the non-minority (or at least the unanointed minority, as some races aren't typically given preference, hmmm, but more on that later). By giving someone an advantage based on race or gender, you in effect, by necessity, put someone else not of that race or gender at a disadvantage. This is simply discrimination or bias no matter how you slice it. But affirmative action proponents don't see it as discrimination when the unanointed are the ones thusly victimized. If they did, that would make them hypocrites for speaking out against discrimination but then defending discrimination that harms a group of people simply because they are viewed as "the bad guy".

I don't think anyone would claim that there is no discrimination. And I don't think any rational person would claim that discrimination will ever be non-existent. But I think most people would say that discrimination is not only not endemic to our culture, but mostly antithetical to our culture. And by culture, I refer to the prevailing values of our society, especially as regarding race and equality in this case. So when discrimination is the exception rather than the rule, how do you justify blanket reverse-discrimination as a compensatory program? This is tantamount to assuming guilt without any requirement of evidence of any actual discriminatory action. It is apparently just to be assumed that wherever race or gender exists there is also discrimination. The proper balanced approach for maximal fairness is to give no preference to any race or gender and deal with discrimination on a case by case basis. We already have anti-discrimination and equal opportunity laws in place to deal with discrimination or bias on a case by case basis without resorting to the presumption of guilt - guilt by association: if you are not of the anointed you are guilty of discrimination and if you are of the anointed you are by definition a victim of discrimination. And sometimes the leap is made that by not being of the anointed one is a benefactor of discrimination or that being one of the anointed one has been disadvantaged due to discrimination. How does one know this? Again, this is a blanket assumption of guilt or disadvantage that may or may not be the case on an individual basis and blanket punitive "compensation" is neither just nor fair.

And if discrimination is such an endemic problem, then why does it not seem to be a problem for some minorities? There are some minorities that exist in a "nether-realm." They are minorities themselves yet they have success rates that equal and in some cases exceed those of "whites" and therefore are not recipients of preferences justified based on discrimination. These minorities surely must also endure the same discrimination that the anointed are claimed to be subject to, yet somehow is does not seem to be manifested by the same disadvantages. Many highly prosperous and highly educated fields have disproportionately high representation of certain minorities. Asians and Indians are highly prolific in fields such as medicine and engineering. If these minorities are apparently not held back by their race then what is the excuse for the anointed ones.

My anecdotal story is of a co-worker of mine at a job many years ago. She and her husband came here with literally nothing but the clothes on their backs and not speaking the language. Yet they worked hard to build good careers, a family, and send their daughter to college. If that is not disadvantaged I don't know what is. Yet so many people born in this country and grow up speaking the language (or at least having the opportunity to do so) consider themselves "disadvantaged". Are they any more disadvantaged than that co-worker? Some of the problem is a culture of victimization. The disadvantaged are told that they are where they are by no fault of their own but because they have been victimized by others. The problem with this is that it relieves them of the need to take responsibility for their own actions. Life is unfair and we don't all get dealt a sweet hand. But in poker, it's more about how you play the hand you are dealt than the hand itself. That co-worker was dealt one of the lowest hands yet her family played that hand quite successfully.

Another anecdotal story is about my college education. I was not admitted to the degree program of my first choice. I was however admitted to an alternate program at the same top caliber institution. I crossed paths with one of the anointed who was in my desired degree program. This person flunked at least one core required course multiple times and was on academic probation and used student loans to buy drugs. He eventually dropped out and went to a lower caliber school. I do not know if he ever graduated or with what degree. I, on the other hand, graduated quite successfully and went on to build a quite successful career in the field of my desired degree program. None of the parties involved were helped by affirmative action and all would have been better off had affirmative action not been in place. Of course I am not so presumptuous as to believe that had this person not been admitted to the degree program that I would have been in his place. But it stands to reason that had people of such inferior qualifications not been admitted, more people of my better qualifications would have been admitted.

Now, on the argument in favor of affirmative action because of being disadvantaged, again, I don't think anybody would deny that some are more disadvantaged than others. I am all for helping others help themselves and I think everyone should have the opportunity at the best education. (And that means fixing broken systems, not bussing the chairs on the titanic. Bussing doesn't solve anything but redistribute the problem with no net gain.) But what I don't understand is how helping the disadvantaged translates to giving preferential treatment to the anointed minorities. What is the logic? Is it that only those anointed can be disadvantaged? Is it that you cannot be disadvantaged if you are not one of the anointed? Is it that all of the anointed are always disadvantaged? Even Barack Obama has stated that his children not only are not disadvantaged but enjoy advantages that many others do not. So again, the balanced and fair view would be programs that help the disadvantaged regardless of being of the anointed or not and a blanket program based on race and gender is not the answer.

As much as society is trying to get to a colorblind society, it is hamstrung by institutionalized programs designed specifically to be the opposite and see everything in terms of race and gender irrespective of merit regarding the individual, the problem, or the program. How can we get to colorblindness when our government legislates racial and gender disparity and inequality?
One last anecdotal story. When affirmative action was eliminated in California, I recall reading "man on the street" interviews in the newspaper. One statement was "well I guess I'll just have to work harder now." Really? Welcome to the world of the unanointed.

An Evil Plot

It seems many people don't get the United States. Let's take a step back and look at what America is about. America is about people living in peace, freedom, and prosperity, with liberties, human rights, and equality and free from oppression and tyranny. Definitely an evil plot that we should want that for everyone in the world.