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.