Yukiya Amano, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, made it clear that the number of nuclear reactors in the World is likely to increase in the nearest future.
This statement is valuable for two reasons:
1. IAEA's head is probably the most informed person in the World in regard to the developments involving the nuclear energy.
2. He is neither a political leader, nor representative of the nuclear industry, nor environmentalist, and as such can afford to be more objective than anyone else. This is even more underscored by the fact that Mr. Amano is Japanese, who probably finds it hard to be dispassionate about teh recent Fukushima accident.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Conditional morality
We now know more about the Oslo massacre - even though the murderer was a crazy man acting alone, there are many legitimate questions to ask about those who encourage the right-wing extremism and about the availability of guns. Both these factors contributed to the possibility of this tragedy.
Yet, there is one more factor that is not likely to be discussed much, even though it should be. Especially in the light of the revelations that the gunman himself described his actions as "gruesome but necessary".
Indeed, modern society accepts murder... if the murder is "justified". This is true as in popular culture, as well as in politics. All of us have seen many movies where a lone hero massacres scores of people out of revenge or simply because they are deemed "bad guys". While the hero's arch-enemy in these movies is usually a murderer himself (which still hardly justifies the extra-judicial justice), on the way to this arch-enemy the hero massacres dozens of nameless guards, soldiers, policemen, storm-troopers etc. (Storm troopers are particularly faceless, and therefore their murder is particularly easy.)
In our political life we accept murder, if the murdered people are terrorists, mercenaries, soldiers serving dictator etc., even though sometimes these people have no choice not to be on the side of our enemies (particularly soldiers). We also accept murder, if it is committed by rebels, freedom fighters or if it is done in the name of "resistance" (which are all just euphemisms for terrorism.) Many young people admire Che Guevara, even though he was nothing but a "professional revolutionary" - a person who committed murders for the sake of his political ideals.
But when we justify murder in the name of what seems "right" to us, we have to face the fact that someone will eventually commit the murder in the name of what seems "right" to him/her. And the Norwegian murderer's statement that his actions were "gruesome but necessary" means precisely that - he thinks that he is "right". Like many of our contemporaries he forgot that what makes the murder a crime is not the fact that it is illegal and punished by law, but the fact that it is morally wrong - always wrong!
Murder is always wrong! And when Norwegian government minister met with Hamas leader, despite Hamas's refusal to accept the international demand for renouncing violence, or when it supported a statehood bid by the Palestinian authority that is now allied with Hamas - the Norwegian government sent a wrong message: The murder is acceptable, if the murderer believes that his goal is noble.
Yet, there is one more factor that is not likely to be discussed much, even though it should be. Especially in the light of the revelations that the gunman himself described his actions as "gruesome but necessary".
Indeed, modern society accepts murder... if the murder is "justified". This is true as in popular culture, as well as in politics. All of us have seen many movies where a lone hero massacres scores of people out of revenge or simply because they are deemed "bad guys". While the hero's arch-enemy in these movies is usually a murderer himself (which still hardly justifies the extra-judicial justice), on the way to this arch-enemy the hero massacres dozens of nameless guards, soldiers, policemen, storm-troopers etc. (Storm troopers are particularly faceless, and therefore their murder is particularly easy.)
In our political life we accept murder, if the murdered people are terrorists, mercenaries, soldiers serving dictator etc., even though sometimes these people have no choice not to be on the side of our enemies (particularly soldiers). We also accept murder, if it is committed by rebels, freedom fighters or if it is done in the name of "resistance" (which are all just euphemisms for terrorism.) Many young people admire Che Guevara, even though he was nothing but a "professional revolutionary" - a person who committed murders for the sake of his political ideals.
But when we justify murder in the name of what seems "right" to us, we have to face the fact that someone will eventually commit the murder in the name of what seems "right" to him/her. And the Norwegian murderer's statement that his actions were "gruesome but necessary" means precisely that - he thinks that he is "right". Like many of our contemporaries he forgot that what makes the murder a crime is not the fact that it is illegal and punished by law, but the fact that it is morally wrong - always wrong!
Murder is always wrong! And when Norwegian government minister met with Hamas leader, despite Hamas's refusal to accept the international demand for renouncing violence, or when it supported a statehood bid by the Palestinian authority that is now allied with Hamas - the Norwegian government sent a wrong message: The murder is acceptable, if the murderer believes that his goal is noble.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Theatre of political absurd: how to cut a thing into halves?
This article in Haaretz (authored by Yossi Sarid) comes with the following statement: "The right wing has been in power for 35 years, with short intervals, but the left keeps running our lives from its fortified strongholds - the justice system, the media, academia."
Rational point of view:
Perhaps, there is too much of a scientist in me, but this made me laugh no less that the recent article about the "anti-witchcraft unit" in the Saudi Arabia. Indeed, how do you define left and right? The physically reasonable way is to cut the thing in the middle (center), which in politics would mean cutting between the two major parties, in the case of Israel between Likud (right) and Kadima (left). All the other movements than can be ranked according to their distance from the center.
If we adopt such a definition, it is easy to see that, contrary to the statement quoted above, left-wing governments spent significant time in power in the last 35 years.
Radical point of view:
It is unfortunately more often than not that people use a different definition of right and left: rather than compare their position to the existing spectrum of the opinions, they make an assumption that their position is the balanced one, and classify all other points of view in respect to theirs. Although this is a legitimate procedure, it naturally produces very subjective results, which look absurd in the eyes of the majority. In particular, a person, who objectively belongs to the extremely left part of a political spectrum, will see everyone else as right-wing and consequently come up with a ridiculous statement, which provoked this post.
The moment of truth comes when an intelligent person finds that majority of people hold the views that are significantly to the right (or left) of his/hers. In this case a liberal person adjusts his/her position or at least accepts that his/her views are rather extreme. However, more often people choose to insist that their views are the only correct ones, and try to force these views on everybody else. This has nothing to do with being liberal, but rather reflects communist/fascist tendencies. (Note: I use here the terms "communist" and "fascist" in general sense - as the terms for non-liberal/intolerant ideologies in the left and right respectively.)
Rational point of view:
Perhaps, there is too much of a scientist in me, but this made me laugh no less that the recent article about the "anti-witchcraft unit" in the Saudi Arabia. Indeed, how do you define left and right? The physically reasonable way is to cut the thing in the middle (center), which in politics would mean cutting between the two major parties, in the case of Israel between Likud (right) and Kadima (left). All the other movements than can be ranked according to their distance from the center.
If we adopt such a definition, it is easy to see that, contrary to the statement quoted above, left-wing governments spent significant time in power in the last 35 years.
Radical point of view:
It is unfortunately more often than not that people use a different definition of right and left: rather than compare their position to the existing spectrum of the opinions, they make an assumption that their position is the balanced one, and classify all other points of view in respect to theirs. Although this is a legitimate procedure, it naturally produces very subjective results, which look absurd in the eyes of the majority. In particular, a person, who objectively belongs to the extremely left part of a political spectrum, will see everyone else as right-wing and consequently come up with a ridiculous statement, which provoked this post.
The moment of truth comes when an intelligent person finds that majority of people hold the views that are significantly to the right (or left) of his/hers. In this case a liberal person adjusts his/her position or at least accepts that his/her views are rather extreme. However, more often people choose to insist that their views are the only correct ones, and try to force these views on everybody else. This has nothing to do with being liberal, but rather reflects communist/fascist tendencies. (Note: I use here the terms "communist" and "fascist" in general sense - as the terms for non-liberal/intolerant ideologies in the left and right respectively.)
Sunday, July 17, 2011
"Tent city" protests in Tel Aviv
There is an ongoing protest in Tel Aviv about the housing prices.
Here are my comments:
1. The protest demonstrates the ignorance of the most protesters, as well as of the politicians involved, about the mechanisms behind the market economy. While the government may restrict the prices, this will likely result in the reduced offer on the housing market, i.e. in the shortage of the available housing.
2. In the case of the politicians supporting the protesters this ignorance is most likely deliberate. Particularly, particularly, this seems to be the case in regard to the members of the Meretz and Hadash party, who hold advanced University degrees. Given that they are among the smallest parties, their bet is a) either to bring down the government in a hope that the next government will be formed by Kadima which will allow Meretz and Hadash to become part of the ruling coalition, or b) playing to the feelings the most extreme/uncompromising of their supporters to ensure the party's re-election (at the moment Hadash and Meretz hold respectively 4 and 3 seats in 120-member Knesset.)
3. It is ironic that protests expand from Tel Aviv to Ben-Gurion University in Beer Sheva, since the housing in Beer Sheva is known to be quite cheap. This may be an indication of the fact that the protests reflect the political aspirations of the student union leaders, rather than those of the students themselves.
4. The support from the Spain's M15 movement is also not something that the protesters should be proud of. Indeed, the protests in Spain were triggered by the government attempts to introduce austerity measures in order to prevent a Greece-like economical crisis. It is also worth remembering that economically unjustified availability of the housing is believed to be the reason for the recent World economic recession.
Added:
Here is a relevant reference to a basic economics textbook:
Gregory Mankiw, "The Principles of Economics". In particular in Chapter 6: "Supply, Demand and government policies", there is a relevant example on p.125: "Rent control in New York City".
Here are my comments:
1. The protest demonstrates the ignorance of the most protesters, as well as of the politicians involved, about the mechanisms behind the market economy. While the government may restrict the prices, this will likely result in the reduced offer on the housing market, i.e. in the shortage of the available housing.
2. In the case of the politicians supporting the protesters this ignorance is most likely deliberate. Particularly, particularly, this seems to be the case in regard to the members of the Meretz and Hadash party, who hold advanced University degrees. Given that they are among the smallest parties, their bet is a) either to bring down the government in a hope that the next government will be formed by Kadima which will allow Meretz and Hadash to become part of the ruling coalition, or b) playing to the feelings the most extreme/uncompromising of their supporters to ensure the party's re-election (at the moment Hadash and Meretz hold respectively 4 and 3 seats in 120-member Knesset.)
3. It is ironic that protests expand from Tel Aviv to Ben-Gurion University in Beer Sheva, since the housing in Beer Sheva is known to be quite cheap. This may be an indication of the fact that the protests reflect the political aspirations of the student union leaders, rather than those of the students themselves.
4. The support from the Spain's M15 movement is also not something that the protesters should be proud of. Indeed, the protests in Spain were triggered by the government attempts to introduce austerity measures in order to prevent a Greece-like economical crisis. It is also worth remembering that economically unjustified availability of the housing is believed to be the reason for the recent World economic recession.
Added:
Here is a relevant reference to a basic economics textbook:
Gregory Mankiw, "The Principles of Economics". In particular in Chapter 6: "Supply, Demand and government policies", there is a relevant example on p.125: "Rent control in New York City".
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Forgotten Freud
Wall Street Journal comes with this article on the dream-interpretation: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303678704576439831114438292.html?mod=WSJEUROPE_hpp_editorsPicks_2
I agree that the dream-interpretation is an interesting subject. However, I am astonished that the article neglects the pioneers of this field, first of which is, of course, Sigmund Freud. Indeed, the article goes only as far as to say "With imagery and symbolism, dreams can reveal important insights that we might not consciously notice otherwise, experts say. Dreams are "a different mode of thought," says Deirdre Barrett, a psychologist, professor at Harvard Medical School and author of the book "The Committee of Sleep." "
But the article really does not go further than discussing what is contained in his "The Interpretation of Dreams" or "The Introductory Lectures to Psychoanalysis" (Which are a very easy and interesting to read books as well.)
It is sad that more than a hundred years after Freud's discoveries, and after the sexual revolution, the mankind still denies this scientist the credit for opening a new field and getting many things correct.
I agree that the dream-interpretation is an interesting subject. However, I am astonished that the article neglects the pioneers of this field, first of which is, of course, Sigmund Freud. Indeed, the article goes only as far as to say "With imagery and symbolism, dreams can reveal important insights that we might not consciously notice otherwise, experts say. Dreams are "a different mode of thought," says Deirdre Barrett, a psychologist, professor at Harvard Medical School and author of the book "The Committee of Sleep." "
But the article really does not go further than discussing what is contained in his "The Interpretation of Dreams" or "The Introductory Lectures to Psychoanalysis" (Which are a very easy and interesting to read books as well.)
It is sad that more than a hundred years after Freud's discoveries, and after the sexual revolution, the mankind still denies this scientist the credit for opening a new field and getting many things correct.
Friday, July 8, 2011
"Right of free movement" or privilege to enter a country without visa
Here is the recent news about "flightilla", i.e. the plan by several hundreds of pro-Palestinian activists (mainly Europeans and Americans, i.e. holding European and American passports, allowing them visa-free entry to Israel) to arrive simultaneously to the Israel's Ben-Gurion Airport and hold there a protest.
I have already written elsewhere about the common misconception among the Western "liberals", who do not realize that their well-being and the very ability to hold and practice their liberal views are guaranteed by their governments imposing restrictions on access by non-Westerners. This misconception is on full display in relation to the "flightilla" - as one American activists said:
“I have been using my name, because I do not have anything to hide. I am hoping that my right to free movement will be allowed by all the countries through which I am traveling,”[Emphasis mine]
This person, obviously accustomed to freely traveling with her American passport, appears to be ignorant of the fact that any country has a right to deny access to unwelcome individuals. And this right supersedes these individuals right to free movement (whatever it means). Indeed, this activist's own country, the United States, exercises this right in respect to many foreign nationals by requiring them to obtain visas before visiting the US and often refusing to grant the requested visas. Indeed, had the Palestinians decided to arrive "en mass" to a US airport, this attempt would be countered in the very root by the US embassy.
Moreover, the ignorance about the US denying (rightfully) access to may foreigners becomes even more striking when we think about the millions of illegal immigrants living in the US, and the ongoing national debate on this issue, and the possibility of the immigration reform. In the World where the "right to free movement" were supreme, the illegal immigrants would not exist.
Finally, I would like to stress that, although I use the US as an example, all countries concerned about the well-being of their citizens practice similar harsh measures. There is no "right of free" movement between the countries - but there is a privilege to enter a country without visa.
I have already written elsewhere about the common misconception among the Western "liberals", who do not realize that their well-being and the very ability to hold and practice their liberal views are guaranteed by their governments imposing restrictions on access by non-Westerners. This misconception is on full display in relation to the "flightilla" - as one American activists said:
“I have been using my name, because I do not have anything to hide. I am hoping that my right to free movement will be allowed by all the countries through which I am traveling,”[Emphasis mine]
This person, obviously accustomed to freely traveling with her American passport, appears to be ignorant of the fact that any country has a right to deny access to unwelcome individuals. And this right supersedes these individuals right to free movement (whatever it means). Indeed, this activist's own country, the United States, exercises this right in respect to many foreign nationals by requiring them to obtain visas before visiting the US and often refusing to grant the requested visas. Indeed, had the Palestinians decided to arrive "en mass" to a US airport, this attempt would be countered in the very root by the US embassy.
Moreover, the ignorance about the US denying (rightfully) access to may foreigners becomes even more striking when we think about the millions of illegal immigrants living in the US, and the ongoing national debate on this issue, and the possibility of the immigration reform. In the World where the "right to free movement" were supreme, the illegal immigrants would not exist.
Finally, I would like to stress that, although I use the US as an example, all countries concerned about the well-being of their citizens practice similar harsh measures. There is no "right of free" movement between the countries - but there is a privilege to enter a country without visa.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Oil prices and the Iraq war: disavowing the myth
The liberal media propagate an ungrounded belief that the increase in oil prices, that we have witnessed in the last decade, is a direct consequence of the American invasion of Iraq, and hence the President Bush's fault. While I always assumed that this is likely to be true, the discussion that I had yesterday with a friend of mine, made me reconsider this position.
The correlation between the rise in oil prices and the Bush's presidency can be seen from the following graph:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/Brent_Spot_monthly.svg/800px-Brent_Spot_monthly.svg.png
The price of oils seems to be almost constant or even decreasing from 1987 (beginning of the graph) till Bush's presidency, when it steadily goes up. Hence, one concludes, the rise in oil prices is the consequence of George W. Bush's policies.
This point of view, however, does not hold the closer scrutiny, as we look more carefully at the dates and correlate them with the particular events:
Let's us keep in mind that the Bush's presidency occurred during 2001-2008
What we see in the graph is:
1. The overall rise in oil prices begins in 1999, during the Clinton's presidency, even before George W. Bush became his party's main candidate.
2. The oil prices begin to fall as the result of George Bush becoming the president and continue to fall till 2002, despite 9/11 events and the NATO invasion of Afghanistan during this period.
3. The next rise in prices begins in 2002, a year before the invasion of Iraq, and seems unaffected by the Iraq invasion. The latter can be seen from the median on the following graph:
http://www.oilworld.tk/wp-content/uploads/Oil-price-charts-1.jpg
If anything can be said about the correlation between the oil prices and the Iraq war, it is that the price growth was slowed by the US invasion in 2003, as well as after the killing of the anti-American leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and begging of the coordinated US-Iraqi counter-terrorist operation Operation Together Forward in the middle of 2006.
4. By taking a more generous timeline, we see that the current rise in the oil price is not unprecedented, and can be claimed to be "all time high" only if we discount the inflation.
http://2buygold.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/1306229445-32.gif
5. Finally, returning to the very first graph, we note that the significant fall in the oil prices in 2009, i.e. when Barack Obama became the president, was followed by even steeper increase, despite the American withdrawal from Iraq and the steps to appease the Arab World undertaken by the Obama administration.
Conclusions:
1. There is no obvious correlation between the oil prices and the war in Iraq - the oil price begins to rise steadily before the beginning of war and does not experience jumps as the results of the military actions. Thus, the rise in prices most likely determined by deeper reasons than George Bush's policies.
2. There are however obvious instances when the oil price growth was slowed as the result of the military action (beginning of war in 2003 and American successes in mid-2006.)
3. The rise of oil prices so far looks insensitive to the attempts of the Obama administration to annul George W. Bush policies by withdrawing from Iraq and engaging with the Arab World (i.e. the oil-producing countries).
The oil prices continue to rise.
Added later:
A possible objective reason for the oil price growth might be the fact that the consumption of oil has been growing faster than its production, as indicated here.
While Saudi Arabia has expressed its willingness to increase the oil production, out of fear that sharp increases in price may damage the market, the OPEC failed to achieve the corresponding agreement.
However, the data shown in these articles do not give a straightforward explanation for the steady growth of the oil price since 2002.
The correlation between the rise in oil prices and the Bush's presidency can be seen from the following graph:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/Brent_Spot_monthly.svg/800px-Brent_Spot_monthly.svg.png
The price of oils seems to be almost constant or even decreasing from 1987 (beginning of the graph) till Bush's presidency, when it steadily goes up. Hence, one concludes, the rise in oil prices is the consequence of George W. Bush's policies.
This point of view, however, does not hold the closer scrutiny, as we look more carefully at the dates and correlate them with the particular events:
Let's us keep in mind that the Bush's presidency occurred during 2001-2008
What we see in the graph is:
1. The overall rise in oil prices begins in 1999, during the Clinton's presidency, even before George W. Bush became his party's main candidate.
2. The oil prices begin to fall as the result of George Bush becoming the president and continue to fall till 2002, despite 9/11 events and the NATO invasion of Afghanistan during this period.
3. The next rise in prices begins in 2002, a year before the invasion of Iraq, and seems unaffected by the Iraq invasion. The latter can be seen from the median on the following graph:
http://www.oilworld.tk/wp-content/uploads/Oil-price-charts-1.jpg
If anything can be said about the correlation between the oil prices and the Iraq war, it is that the price growth was slowed by the US invasion in 2003, as well as after the killing of the anti-American leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and begging of the coordinated US-Iraqi counter-terrorist operation Operation Together Forward in the middle of 2006.
4. By taking a more generous timeline, we see that the current rise in the oil price is not unprecedented, and can be claimed to be "all time high" only if we discount the inflation.
http://2buygold.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/1306229445-32.gif
5. Finally, returning to the very first graph, we note that the significant fall in the oil prices in 2009, i.e. when Barack Obama became the president, was followed by even steeper increase, despite the American withdrawal from Iraq and the steps to appease the Arab World undertaken by the Obama administration.
Conclusions:
1. There is no obvious correlation between the oil prices and the war in Iraq - the oil price begins to rise steadily before the beginning of war and does not experience jumps as the results of the military actions. Thus, the rise in prices most likely determined by deeper reasons than George Bush's policies.
2. There are however obvious instances when the oil price growth was slowed as the result of the military action (beginning of war in 2003 and American successes in mid-2006.)
3. The rise of oil prices so far looks insensitive to the attempts of the Obama administration to annul George W. Bush policies by withdrawing from Iraq and engaging with the Arab World (i.e. the oil-producing countries).
The oil prices continue to rise.
Added later:
A possible objective reason for the oil price growth might be the fact that the consumption of oil has been growing faster than its production, as indicated here.
While Saudi Arabia has expressed its willingness to increase the oil production, out of fear that sharp increases in price may damage the market, the OPEC failed to achieve the corresponding agreement.
However, the data shown in these articles do not give a straightforward explanation for the steady growth of the oil price since 2002.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)