Hiatus

The Age of Pericles blog is currently on hiatus. It will return with new features in late August.

The Gray Lady's Tortured Logic

Not A Man Of Principle

The Gray Lady tortured (waterboarded?) common sense in its May 24th editorial entitled "The Test Ban Treaty". The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty itself is a misbegotten endeavor born of exuberant good will following the end of the Cold War. As do most products of derelict international institutions, the Test Ban Treaty is attracting the adulation of self-styled bon vivants in print media. Only the Times, however, could advance an argument so riddled with platitudes and self-contradictions with a straight face.

"A formal ban on testing would make it harder for nuclear-armed states to build new weapons, and place another hurdle in the way of any country -- Iran comes immediately to mind -- thinking of starting an arsenal. North Korea's announcement on Monday that it had tested a nuclear device is a stark reminder of the many dangers out there."

The first howler encapsulates the main talking point of many in the laevosphere. The fact of the matter is that a formal ban on testing means nothing to Kim-Jong Il. North Korea was a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; when it became inconvenient, they withdrew. Therein lies the issue of using international institutions to coopt suspect regimes. The regimes bound by whatever measures have been enacted often have less to lose by non-cooperation than by compliance. Furthermore, the patients can take over the asylum, viz. Iran and Durban II. Put simply, uncivilized parties are unshackled by the artificial institutions of civilized nations. North Korea is already sanctioned and severely censured.....

The editors are right in saying that North Korea's nuclear tests are a stark reminder of global dangers. It's all downhill from there. After the mandated amount of Bush-bashing and expert shopping, the editorial concludes:

"A test ban will make it technologically much harder for other countries to press ahead with weapons development. And if Washington has any hope of rallying diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions for constraining Iran’s nuclear ambitions or North Korea’s program, it has to show that it, too, is willing to play by the international rules. For both of those reasons, the Senate needs to ratify the test ban treaty.

Their first point is demonstrably false. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty certainly didn't stop North Korea, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated that the nuclear issue is "closed" and is continuing nuclear processing. In this case, their actions and words are perfectly aligned- neither will budge on the issue despite heavy censure by the international community. Their second point is a total non sequitur- Quod erat demonstrandum, American ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty only serves to hamstring American weapons development because the states that the treaty is intended to constraint simply don't care about international norms. Furthermore, the treaty requires the ratification of Iran and North Korea before it comes into effect, and the likelihood of their accession is minimal. Of course, they could pull a Saddam

by agreeing but yanking a cloth over the eyes of the UN's toothless watchdog. In North Korea's case, it wouldn't be the first time. Thankfully, the President "has asked Vice President Joseph Biden to shepherd the treaty in the Senate." The wolf anticipates a meal.

Another Way To Look At Healthcare Spending

Liberals Use Improper Metrics To Color Healthcare Debate
The United States spends more per capita on health insurance than any other developed nation. Health spending is expected to rise to 20% of GDP by 2017. Medicare and Medicaid will consume 9% of the federal budget by 2035. The grim statistics march across the pages of the President's budget, fly forth from Nancy Pelosi's unctuous lips, and swim through the ocean of red ink that is the Obama deficit. No sane politician would extol the virtues of skyrocketing health costs, but research indicates that this cloud has a silver lining.

The two largest pharmaceutical companies, Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer, have research budgets of 11% and 15% of their total revenues. Both are based in the United States. The third largest pharmaceutical company, Bayer, is based in Germany where socialized medicine reigns. It budgets only 4% of its outlays for research. This gulf is not limited to private industry; the European Union governments spent $3.7 billion on health research. The National Institute of Health's budget is allotted at almost eight times that, and results show. The United States birthed or heavily affected the development of five of six of the most major medical advances in the last quarter century of the second millenium. Scientists working in America won more than twice as many Nobel Prizes in the field of medicine than those working elsewhere between 1996 and 2006. 

Proponents of universal health care may point to the fact that life expectancy in the United States is no higher than it is in Europe or Japan; however, the benefits of medical advances are not confined to the country in which they were birthed. For instance, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology now enjoys worldwide prominence though it was first developed in the USA. Furthermore, not all aspects of health relate to quality of health care. In the words of Mike Huckabee, we have a health crisis brought on by unhealthy habits. A study completed in 1993 demonstrated that factors like obesity and prevalence of smoking have a large impact on personal health spending. Were levels of tobacco use and obesity to be brought in line with those of Europe, the United States could only gain in terms of increased productivity and reduced spending. Contrary to liberal belief, there are places for improvement in the United States healthcare system that don't require a monolithic government program, known colloquially as a deficit machine.

Your Cash For Washington's Clunkers

A Potential But Unlikely Victim

Lovers of aged steel nationwide are up in arms about a new measure championed by the UAW and the ever congruent President. The bills, known officially as H.R. 520 and S. 247 but colloquially as "Cash for Clunkers", both propose issuing a voucher to consumers in exchange for the destruction of their old (yes, both bills capitalize the term) High Fuel Consumption Vehicle. Overall, the bills are just another species of how myopic government reaction can have far-reaching negative consequences in unexpected areas.

H.R. 520, the House bill proposed by Steve Israel (D-NY) with 9 additional sponsors, offers a $4,500 voucher towards the purpose of replacing a High Fuel Consumption Vehicle (a vehicle that gets less than 18 MPG) with a new model year Fuel Efficient Vehicle (intricately defined here). Were the bill to be passed and signed today, the $4,500 voucher would be applicable only to cars manufactured 7 years or fewer before the date of voucher issuance. The value of the voucher is inversely proportional to the temporal distance between issuance of voucher and date of vehicle manufacture, which is to say that owners of most cars of interest to classic car aficionados (vehicles manufactured before 1998) would receive a voucher worth only $2,500 towards the purchase of a new Fuel-Efficient Vehicle. Of course, the bill is terrifyingly complex, with exemptions and caveats left and right. What's important is the definition of a vehicle eligible for a voucher:

(6) ELIGIBLE HIGH FUEL CONSUMPTION AUTOMOBILE- The term ‘eligible high fuel consumption automobile’ means a high fuel consumption automobile that, at the time it is presented for participation in the program established under section 3--

(A) is in drivable condition; and

(B) has been continuously registered and licensed to operate in any State for a period of not fewer than 120 consecutive days for operation on public roads.

Thankfully, the eligibility requirements disqualify most classic project cars. Few vehicles manufactured prior to 1984 (upon which official antique status is conferred) are both A. driving and registered and B. worth less than the $2,500 prescribed for a vehicle of such age. By definition, parts cars do not meet that standard. As such, it is unlikely that H.R. 520 would make a significant impact on the availability of project vehicles or parts. S. 247 is effectively the same bill

Regardless of the potential impact H.R. 520 may or may not have on the automotive restoration industry, it's a bad idea because of its sure impact on low-income families. Many High Fuel Consumption Vehicles manufactured after 2002 (7 years between issuance of voucher and manufacture of vehicles translated to $4,500 voucher) still run reliably, but are worth less than the $4,500 offered via voucher. As such, no High Fuel Consumption Vehicles (read: SUVs and minivans which are great for carrying families) will be available for cash-strapped families already reeling from the recession for less than $4,500. Preliminary estimates place the cost of the bill at between 1 and 2 billion dollars per year. Essentially, taxpayer cash is going to pay for Washington's darling clunkers, notably the UAW, soon-to-be owners of 55% of Chrysler. So goes the law of unintended consequences, and so too does Congress' chronic myopia strike blow after blow at the prosperity of American families. Furthermore, fuel savings created by the program are projected to be between 40,000 barrels and 80,000 barrels of motor fuel per day, a scarce 0.3% of current (and ever-increasing) daily petroleum consumption. The Cash for Clunkers bill, like much market-tweaking legislation that comes out of the Capitol, doesn't measure up.

Holocaust Remembrance Day

Can You Tell?

Holocaust Remembrance Day was signed into law as a holiday in Israel in 1951 when the grimmest of horrors of the Holocaust were recent memories. Temporal distance has created emotional and intellectual insulation from the Holocaust's events, and so today it is especially important to fight ascendant forces of hatred from all sides of the political spectrum. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Noam Chomsky, are two separate heads of the same seven-headed dragon that breathes fiery ignorance worldwide. The former is an entrenched and virulent Iranian holocaust denier who was given a podium at the UN Durban II Anti-Racism Racism Conference, and the latter is "merely" a Holocaust prevaricator. But which is more dangerous? Even the untrained eye can see the patently ridiculous nature of Ahmadinejad's ramblings, but Chomsky is far more subtle. Society's greatest enemies, those who would sweep history under the rug in pursuit of a political objective, are burrowed deep within and are often indistinguishable from the Joe Six-Pack's of America. In closing, I leave you with two images, one above and one below- which pictures the soon-to-be-exterminated Jewish family, and which pictures Joseph Goebbel's (Nazi Minister of Propaganda) family? The fact that each could be the other illustrates that both victims and perpetrators of the Holocaust were entirely human. Biologically, homo sapiens has evolved little since the middle of the 20th century. The only barriers between the comparative enlightenment of the 21st century and the darker days of the 20th is experience and knowledge. To deny what we know to have happened is to knock down the only barrier to such events happening again.

Obama, Closet Epicurian

Epicurian Disciple Eats Government Coffers

The philosophy of Epicurus is commonly summed up in the phrase "Eat, drink, and be happy, for tomorrow we die." Though that passage is actually an amalgamation from Ecclesiastes (8:15) and Isaiah (22:13), it's one way of interpreting Epicurian teachings.  The Obama administration superficially clings to pretensions of fiscal  responsibility, but in reality, pecuniary hedonists run amok in the halls of the White House. Freehandedness in the "New Age of Responsibility" is prevaricated away by fingerpointing- "...we're inheriting very knotty problems...", for example. All budgetary ills are tossed at the feet of the Bush administration. That excuse is quickly losing its bite, as evidenced by his latest economic speech, entitled "A New Foundation", at Georgetown University. 

The speech itself was fairly standard campaign fare, replete with logically fallacious appeals to unnamed economic authorities and one-sided assignation of responsibility. Particularly troubling was his riff on the Hippocratic Oath in reference to preemptive nationalization:

“Rather, it is because we believe that preemptive government takeovers are likely to end up costing taxpayers even more in the end, and because it is more likely to undermine than to create confidence. Governments should practice the same principle as doctors: first do no harm.”

His opposition to preemptive takeovers and nationalizations is admirable. His analogy is less so. It reflects a common misconception is leftist circles that the government is the economy's doctor, while that's only true in the most Mengeleian sense of the word. The government cannot "operate" on the economy and create wealth by subsidizing demand for unprofitable energy, nor does it have any special affinity for management (c.f. AMTRAK, FNMA, public education, and anything else run/subsidized by the federal government). The fact that the President uses the Hippocratic Oath to justify his actions (or lack thereof) reveals a congruence of opinion with the lunatics of the left, notably those of Arianna Huffington's ilk. That's not change I can believe in.

A Nuclear American In Prague

Adrift In A Sea Of Nuclear Nuance

Late on Saturday night, President Obama's so-called "smart power" doctrine augured into the Pacific Ocean 1,300 miles off the coast of Japan with North Korea's three-stage Taepodong-2 missile. One would think that he'd abandon the foolish pretense that genuflection is the most expedient way to getting America's enemies' acquiescence, but apparently not. In fact, the President's speech in Prague on Sunday echoed previous policy dictations with perhaps a nod to the leftist faction in his party. The excerpts I quote discuss nuclear nonproliferation and, more importantly, include a fawning paean to total nuclear disarmament. Important points are boldfaced and numbered for easy demolition.

...Today, the Cold War has disappeared but thousands of those weapons have not. In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up. More nations have acquired these weapons. Testing has continued. Black market trade in nuclear secrets and nuclear materials abound. The technology to build a bomb has spread. <1> Terrorists are determined to buy, build or steal one. Our efforts to contain these dangers are centered on a global non-proliferation regime, but as more people and nations break the rules, we could reach the point where the center cannot hold.

...

Some argue that the spread of these weapons cannot be stopped, cannot be checked -– that we are destined to live in a world where more nations and more people possess the ultimate tools of destruction. Such fatalism is a deadly adversary, for if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then in some way we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable.

Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st century. (Applause.) And as nuclear power –- as a nuclear power, as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it. <2>

So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. (Applause.) I'm not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly –- perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. <3> But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, "Yes, we can." (Applause.)

Now, let me describe to you the trajectory we need to be on. First, the United States will take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons. To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same. Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies –- including the Czech Republic. But we will begin the work of reducing our arsenal. <4>

...

To achieve a global ban on nuclear testing, my administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. <5> (Applause.) After more than five decades of talks, it is time for the testing of nuclear weapons to finally be banned.

And to cut off the building blocks needed for a bomb, the United States will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons. <6> If we are serious about stopping the spread of these weapons, then we should put an end to the dedicated production of weapons-grade materials that create them. That's the first step.

Second, together we will strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a basis for cooperation.

The basic bargain is sound: Countries with nuclear weapons will move towards disarmament, countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them, and all countries can access peaceful nuclear energy. To strengthen the treaty, we should embrace several principles. We need more resources and authority to strengthen international inspections. <7> We need real and immediate consequences for countries caught breaking the rules or trying to leave the treaty without cause.

And we should build a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation, including an international fuel bank, so that countries can access peaceful power without increasing the risks of proliferation. That must be the right of every nation that renounces nuclear weapons, especially developing countries embarking on peaceful programs. And no approach will succeed if it's based on the denial of rights to nations that play by the rules. We must harness the power of nuclear energy on behalf of our efforts to combat climate change, and to advance peace opportunity for all people. <8>

But we go forward with no illusions. Some countries will break the rules. That's why we need a structure in place that ensures when any nation does, they will face consequences... <9>

1. President Obama is only half-right on this count. He underestimate the degree to which nuclear technology is available- Google "how to build a nuclear bomb", and you will come up with pages and pages of instructions on how to build a gun-type nuclear device similar in construction to the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Simply put, the developed world cannot multilaterally (let alone the US unilaterally) roll back the clock on nuclear technology any more than it can repress the invention of the lightbulb. The scientific know-how is out there waiting to be tapped by hostile regimes, and the United States would be best served with an effective nuclear deterrent.

2. The President's conclusion (that the US has a moral responsibility to act) is essentially a 'non sequitur' in relation to his premise (that the US is the only nation to have used a nuclear weapon). However, it nicely fits the narrative of the Grand Apology Tour, namely that the United States was in the words of Michelle Obama "just downright mean", not to mention morally irresponsible, before Obama came along.

3. That brings to mind to Obama's trademark "philosophy of persistence" which hasn't got a snowball's chance in Helen Thomas' steely gaze of working in the Middle East. It's absence of policy masquerading as policy- calling a meeting of the UN Security Council hardly counts as decisive action, and as the folks at Power Line note, it fits well with the convictions of miniature Mussolinis the world over. They'll persist in pursuing weapons of mass destruction, and the nebbishy Obama administration will persist in doing, well, nothing. Unless you think that strongly-worded letters constitute meaningful action.

4. Finally, the President presents a substantive policy statement. However, it's deeply flawed because reducing the size of the US nuclear arsenal is likely to spark a corresponding increase in the stockpiles of countries under the US nuclear umbrella. A larger nuclear force is a force against proliferation because allied countries have no need to develop their own deterrence force. Even worse, it could prompt non-nuclear countries to pursue armaments contrary to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Strategic deterrence is still an effective defense, because even unstable despots aren't invincible to radiation poisoning.

5. The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty is another one of those ideas that would work if only the regimes it meant to constrain cared what international institutions say about their behavior. The people of North Korea are forced to forage for seaweed and acorns to stave off starvation, and dissidents are locked up in concentration camps. The Iranian regime sentences teenaged girls to hanging for "adultery" if they are unfortunate enough to get raped. Events like that don't happen in countries whose leaders give a hoot about international perception. The Test Ban Treaty serves only to hobble the Western world in its quest to create an ever more powerful deterrent while it has no effect on repressive regimes.

6. Another new treaty? Megalomaniacs worldwide salivate at the thought. The endless array of agreements and official understandings between nations are great at creating the illusion of progress, when in reality they do little to muzzle those who would do harm to civilians in their quest for more power. Simply put, any leader determined enough to continue pursuing weapons of mass destruction in the specter of crippling economic sanctions isn't likely to be dissuaded by another photo-op handshake and meaningless signature. Besides, neighboring countries are likely to circumvent sanctions to continue imports for economic benefit.

7. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and so to is the road to nuclear roguishness. Oppressive pols like Kim Jong-Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have no qualms about lying, and it only takes one delivery of fuel intended for peaceful use to create a device capable of leveling New York. The geopolitical implications of fuel routed for employment in nuclear power plants getting hijacked for destructive purposes are enormous. Were either of the aforementioned leaders to acquire a nuclear weapon of any sort, it would irreversibly change the world's balance of power. It's therefore best to keep fissile material out of their hands, no matter how much they lay claim to benign intentions.

"I wouldn't lie to you..."

8. The President falls into the same category as Ted Kennedy in that Mr. Kennedy is entirely supportive of green energy initiatives as long as it doesn't affect his yachting course. I'm referring to Cape Wind, the offshore renewable energy project that is splitting the Massachusetts legislature. Mr. Obama is entirely supportive of nuclear power as long as it's not produced in the United States. He said as much on December 30, 2007:

"...Until we can make certain that nuclear power plants are safe ,that they have solved the storage problem, because I am opposed to Yucca Mountain and just dumping storage in one state in Nevada, particularly because there's a, potentially a, uh, earthquake fault line there, until we solve those problems and the whole nuclear industry can show that they can produce clean safe energy without enormous subsidies from the United States government, I don't think that's the best option. I am much more interested in solar, wind, biodiesel..."

France, that bastion of continental sophistication, powers 87.5% of the country with nuclear technology. Why can we not do the same here in the United States? Various lobbies have erected artificial obstacles to retard the progress of nuclear energy in the name of public safety. One issue is waste disposal, an issue that would be all but solved were the government to lift restrictions of nuclear reprocessing.

9. International legal frameworks are notoriously sieve-like. More importantly, of what consequences does Obama speak? Hopefully he's learned a lesson from the Oil-For-Food program, which Saddam Hussein circumvented entirely in order to procure military items. Sanctions are similarly avoidable, as Hussein proved by dodging economic sanctions, ducking military limits, and simply ignored humanitarian requirements. Such elusion was facilitated by collusive neighbors whose largely regionalized economies suffered under exportation restrictions.

The President's speech in Prague was standard campaign fare, jam-packed with hyperbole and highfalutin rhetoric. Most of his speeches lack in substance, but this example had plenty of concrete proposals. It's just too bad that the grand majority of them showed questionable judgement and a flawed worldview. A better alternative to the policy set proposed by the Obama administration would be a zero-tolerance arrangement in which suspected nuclear sites are prioritized as legitimate targets for a United Nations asset reacquisition.if the host country refuses to admit international inspectors. Otherwise, the UN watchdog will remain blind and toothless. We can hardly expect better results from the same supine international regime, but Europe seems determined to accede more and more ground. At least one nation must offer principled resistance. To paraphrase Obama's inauguration speech, America is ready to lead the world once again.

So let's get to it.