Authority, Obedience, and Integrity - Ernest Dempsey

It’s been a year and a half since my disobedient temperament became manifest upon the ‘authorities’ at my employer institute – the National Center of Excellence in Geology (NCEG), University of Peshawar. Every now and then I get some irrational order from my boss and, in response, I write a critical answer to it. The reply vanishes and the concerned people assume silence. Certainly, they are doing their homework on deposing me while saving their ‘faces’ (no reason to use the more vulgar equivalent here) at the same time. Whether or not they succeed is not very easy to predict but one thing that I learnt from my encounters during this conflict is ‘NO to servile obedience!’

The word ‘disobedience’ is itself a treachery seen in many languages; in those I am familiar with, it is always made to sound like a negative act or quality. Disobedient children, disobedient students, disobedient workers – all are used in a way that makes them sound guilty of an offensive act. Of course, language is society’s faithful slave, serving a vital function to the society (as against the individual) that uses it. Obedience is the name of going tame before societal expectations and social pressure, losing your individual voice and personal integrity (provided you have managed to drag these on in your adult life). You say ‘no’ to someone who wants to cash your trust in social currency and you become a criminal in their eyes.

Authoritative systems work mainly by coercion. In early times, the fear of pain would coerce people to obey the one with the sword. Today, the fear of losing your job (and hence bread) works to impel you for obeying the one who manages your personal file (employee’s record). Now you may wonder whether obedience really is such a bad thing. I admit it is not in many cases. But that is only when you are sure, both formally and inwardly, that the affair in question is fair without any objectionable point that compromises your self-respect (you must have some, I mean to say). As it happens, in a great many number of cases, we clearly see the wrong side of authority and are left with two choices: (1) remain silent and complaint, (2) speak up against the wrong. The former is the more convenient choice for a large number of people since it brings social rewards (and material pleasures as well). But it is only the latter choice of questioning the abuse of authority that saves our integrity. Whether social reward or individual integrity is important to you is your choice – your INDIVIDUAL choice.

One thing I must not miss telling here is about the nature of the slippery process of accepting/resisting authoritative abuse. It all works by a reinforcing mechanism, i.e. you nod to coercion once and it becomes harder to shake your head the next time, even when more is being robbed of you (which usually is the case). On the contrary, once you give the coercive attempt a damn, you are very likely to save more next time when a similar, or even greater, threat comes to scare you. This is why my seniors did not think of pressing on me to mark my presence at the office while excluding themselves of this regulation (an act of discrimination in workplace), though my colleagues, serving in the same position as me, were coerced into following the self-made rule each time they straggled from it.

Now, my bragging about my disobedient antics may sound foolhardy to some of you. But I strongly feel it as my duty, as a responsible human individual, to discourage authority of any kind from coercing individuals into wrongful obedience. I have started enjoying being ‘disobedient’ and the word does not sound negative to me anymore. My watchword? It’s ‘NO’! Try it and you’ll love it. After all, it is shorter than ‘YES’ and will save you a tiny bit of energy.


Ernest Dempsey

DEBATE ABOUT ENERGY -- M. Stefan Strozier

It is very interesting to watch the pundits, journalists, lobbyists and politicians debate what to do about the energy crises. These groups will have to compromise, because they have to take action to show they are working to solve the problem. They must show action because the problem is not going to disappear; in fact it is going to get worse, with gas rising to at least $5, and probably closer to $6 per gallon.

The compromise must include major offshore drilling, in the form of new oil platforms. It should also include drilling in ANWAR. The most important thing is to implement change that is meaningful, because this opportunity won’t come along again for decades. It any event, Americans won’t tolerate a weak fix. Nuclear energy must begin anew. The argument that these actions will take years to ‘bring about change at the pump’ is meaningless. Do people who make this point purpose doing nothing instead? Moving incrementally on alternative energy options is not going to solve our present problem, and it may not even solve the energy crisis in the near-future, or the regular future.

We must drain and use the entire strategic petroleum reserve. Right now, it is nothing more than a bombing target for the Chinese Air Force. Draining it will show the world a confidence of staggering proportion, with minimal change to our national security. I argue our security will be advanced; both tactically by saving the cost of maintaining an obvious target, and strategically, by having at least some effect on the price of gas, and by showing that we are going to absolve ourselves of being dependent on oil. Maintaining a strategic reserve is a clear indicator of dependence. Furthermore, it’s a lame attempt at showing a false strength, which is what dependence is. Saudi Arabia has a strategic reserve too, underground, and we are beholden to it.

We must also invest in other types of energy, wind, solar, geothermal, cars that run on hydrogen (like rocket engines, a technology we’ve had for decades), battery-powered cars, and anything related. And, we must invest in research and development, because there are very real and meaningful things coming out of R&D in the energy sector. The notion that the political Left is the “good guy” in this issue is not only misleading but wrong. In fact, in this issue, the Left is being highly misleading, and worse, where their arguments are leading are bad places, full of pain. The energy sector – the oil companies – are the good guys. It is their innovation that is going to save us. We must invest in that future. The only way we can do that is giving them more oil platforms. Increasing the amount of oil being produced creates nothing bad; it only changes who is controlling the wealth. I would rather that American companies control the wealth of the world – or, at least a substantial amount of that wealth. There is much more to oil companies and the energy sector of our economy than just “oil and profit”. Trash dumps, for example, fall in this category. There are smart ways to deal with trash, and we need to act on them now.

The Left is trying hard to make this issue an emotional one. Senator Obama won’t be a part of this consensus – that may be a good thing or a bad thing. Obama and McCain will lend partial voices. A refrain from those who favor only “green energy” – the Left – is that “this issue is incredibly complex.” In fact, the issue is very simple: gas prices are too high. What “makes it complex” is energy is an issue that is normally debated in Washington; but is now priority no. 1 among Americans. Most political issues are fought over and there is rarely any change in how they are dealt with, or impact people. But when any such issue – like energy – becomes a problem for Americans, then Washington gets very scared and confused, because now they must actually do something. And taking action means that there will be winners and losers. Incidentally, language is always very important. I hear – or read in newspapers – phrases like this all the time: ‘incredibly complex’, ‘totally wrong’. Similarly, I frequently read sentences that are constructed poorly. This Think Tank is ‘all about’ finding the how behind things. My examples indicate weak thinking and writing. Errors like these reveal much about the writer. Mainly, they demonstrate that the writer is involved in the issue, and is unable to separate him or herself from it. The issue is so important to them they are willing to change the actual meaning of words to fit their ‘incredible’ emotions about it. Rather than being the exception, this is the rule in writing, in 2008 America. When gas prices reach $5 a gallon, however, the emotions of Americans will trump those of the Left. Against this, no argument can stand, though right now the Left is the side purposing wild arguments, and using irrelevant language, like claiming oil companies don’t need any more leases and should use all the ones they have (they have done that), and they will be ‘drilling next to polar bears’, respectively.

We must take advantage of the cards on the table. We have been given a miracle chance to change our future, right now. If we mess up this one, not only will there not be another chance, but we will be in sad shape for decades, and ultimately may never recover the planet (for our own survival, as well as many other species, though the planet will live on with other species), and the human race will soon become extinct. Sadly, that’s the simple truth.

6-20-08 -- M. Stefan Strozier

"Nothing Can Stop the U. S. Air Force"

No, apparently, there are things that can stop the U. S. Air Force; namely, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the Government Accounting Office, an oversight branch of Congress. The president, it would appear, is impotent. I was an officer in the USAF for 6 years, and a sergeant in the Army for 5+ years before that, so I have a feel for the culture of the Air Force.

The Air Force shipped live, armed nuclear weapons over US soil, and then shipped nuke parts to Guam, and Robert M. Gates fired the AF chief of staff and the secretary of the AF. This week, the GAO told the AF that its contract with North Fork Grumman for new tankers was unfair, and awarded the contract back to Boeing Corp. Who knows what else is happening that I have no idea about. I've read that Gates is upset with AF leadership because they are not focusing on the 2 wars at hand, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Air Force has problems, and they need fixing. I had a great time in the AF, and I feel strongly that I left it better than I received it. But they had a lot of problems when I was in, and the problems seem to have metastasized. The source of the problem, simply put, is a severe lack of leadership at the AF. I recognized that instantaneously, upon being commissioned. Having come from the army, I had a unique perspective, and I was also a decorated enlisted soldier. The problem is not necessarily with the individual people, and a lot of my friends are still officers in the AF, by now captains and majors. Without getting too much into the culture, since it changes, there is a generational gap in the AF, between my group and those ranked Full Colonel and above. The latter are "cold warriors" and they are the ones who are the leaders, at present. The good news is my group, still up and coming, is fundamentally different than this old group, so there is still hope.

In the military, there are the Army and the Navy, and everything else is a subset of that. The Marines have a big problem with that, but they accept it. I don’t mean the Marines pretend to accept that they are not a major branch, or sometimes to – they fundamentally accept it and deal with it. They find ways around it. The AF came from the Army, and is the most recent military branch. Unlike the Marines, the AF has no history, and tradition is vital in the military. I don’t know much about the Navy; but one thing I know is that in some key ways it is like the army. There is a sharp divide between the officer and the enlisted corps. Strangely, the AF always stuck me as more like the Marines than the army in its interaction between the ranks. I reasoned that this was because the AF wanted to break from the Army, but it always struck me as bizarre to listen to ROTC cadets trying to drill like Marine troops. I’ve worked in the field with a lot of Marines, when I was a soldier, and needless to say, the AF can’t hold a candle to the Marines, so why even pretend? The AF will never be the Marine Corps – not even remotely close, so stop trying. That is my first piece of advice to the AF, but it is pithy to my point: leadership. Leaders have to recognize their strengths and weaknesses. More to the point is the fact that Close Air Support is a bastard step-child in the AF, because it deals with supporting the army. That's a problem because it's wrong -- it's an example of poor leadership.

The other problem for the AF is their officer corps itself. In the military in general, officers have their own culture. The AF is the least military branch, and this presents a problem for its officers in presenting a unified face. Their officers are the least-respected, in a military sense. In every military branch there are 2 main principles. One, those in combat are the most important part of a particular service, and consequently get the best jobs and the most attention, and make the important decisions. In the army, that means ‘combat arms’ officers are the quickest to the rank of general, and are the ones in charge. General David Petraeus is no doubt combat arms, probably infantry; I would be willing to bet. In my opinion, this is not always wise, because these officers are not always the brightest of the lot. But, the army has found a way to make it work. Secondly, those officers commissioned from military academies are more important than those who went through ROTC. Again, this can mean some good leaders are passed over for arbitrary reasons that only concern tradition that is strictly enforced. But the Army and Navy, and the Marines, can get away with this. In the case of the AF, none of it works, and is counter-productive. Complicating matters further, the pilots in the AF are the ones in combat. Even enlisted are not in combat in the AF. That presents a damn-near crisis of leadership because from what I saw in the military in general, pilots are very bad leaders. Even those pilots who were born with an inkling of leadership skills have no clue what they are doing because there is no one to show them how to be a leader. It takes training and mentorship to learn how to be a leader; it doesn’t just arrive overnight in a package. So, you can see, by letting pilots from their academy run the AF, they have little if any leadership. how do they do it, then? The answer is that AF has – by far – the most professional, excellent enlisted corps of all 5 services, far and away. There are a few bad apples; but the AF enlisted corps is something to marvel, and it runs the AF, and baby-sits the often child-like pilots and commanders.

What is the solution to the problem? The AF needs to get rid of its pilot-friendly culture, thank its enlisted corps, and look closer at ROTC officers for leaders. The AF needs to develop its own culture. That culture is not going to be a military culture, like the Army or Navy, nor even the Marines. It has to be different. It might help to realize that, really, pilots are not in all that much trouble to begin with, hard as that may be for them to accept. Barring these changes, the AF will always be a quasi-military, more civilian branch of the military, even more civilian in nature than the Coast Guard, and unlike the CG, a service with no leaders or even it's own culture.

6-18-08 M. Stefan Strozier

ENERGY

President Bush today has called for lifting the decades-old ban on offshore drilling, and this is a good idea. Offshore oil rigs actually create marine habitat in the form of reefs. The arguments about this subject fall on two sides: those who say it won’t make a difference and hurt the environment and those who say it will yield oil quickly, and help America. These rigs will also create American jobs. I’ve also read that it’s better for America to manufacture its own oil, instead of paying for it from less savory sources. The argument that offshore oil well drilling will hurt the environment is inaccurate, and one of those arguments used to influence people through marketing efforts, rather than the truth. As for whether or not drilling will yield profits, that’s debatable, and once you start crunching numbers who can say accurately? It depends how you analyze the numbers that matters. The point is that we can’t predict the future. What if the green revolution is a failure? We need a backup plan, and producing our own oil is such a plan. Finally, the notion to tap into our strategic reserves is also useless talk, and something which will change little. I’m surprised to hear Obama even mention it. We should use up our strategic reserves – however long that will last us, maybe a couple months in a tough summer – and then move forward with a new plan. They amount to a bombing target and not much else, and cost money through maintenance. Congress is to blame here because they have taken no action. Too often the refrain is “that’s just how Washington works” but that’s not accurate, and never was the case prior to 1965. Think of FDR, or Kennedy, Eisenhower, Lincoln, Jefferson. There were men of action. But since the culture wars of the 1960s, everything must be carefully considered first and then nothing happens. Much could have been done for many years to avert our present crises. Congress’ low poll rating is well-deserved. Investing in solar, wind, etc. is great but the main motivation with doing that is emotional. It makes us feel good and happy to go green. People who want to be happy are a dangerous lot. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

THE INTERNET

We invite anyone to contribute to our think tank and widen our reach. In looking at our competitors, I see they are simply sharing ideas. As with things like advertising or publishing, the Internet changes everything. Think tanks were much more influential when the “old media” was in place, and an expert could go on TV and share his ideas and people would take note. But with the Internet, there is no quote-unquote party line. The only line exists between those who grew up with the old media and those who did not. What is the role of a think tank, then, in the digital age? It is not the same as it was in times past. No matter who is writing for the Cato Institute, for example, what that person is writing might go altogether unnoticed. A “center” – let’s call it – should not seek to be a blog, like the Huffinton Post. That Web site is linked to many places and its main advantage is the speed with which it updates. A printed newspaper doesn’t stand a chance against the Huffinton Post. Bloggers create topics these days, like journalists used to do. So the role of a think tank is also to create ideas and stories, but at a much deeper level. Thus, we don’t need a lot of people writing for us, or need to be linked to everyone in the world. We – whoever ends up writing for CSPSAPC – simply needs to examine issues as in-depth as possible, and thinking about them does not necessarily mean graphs and charts, as this is not a corporation watching its bottom line grow. A few good writers and some good readers are all we need.

June 17th, 2008 M. Stefan Strozier

Welcome to CSPSAPC. There is much to discuss. The idea is to gather as many contributors as possible, and to keep this a fertile environment for thought. Therefore, we will be posting advertisements and seeking contributors too, whenever possible. Google Ad words now connects with YouTube, in yet another merging of technology with great, long-term importance.

The '08 elections are center stage in any current analysis; but there are many other areas that have not been examined very thoroughly in the MSM yet this year. Therefore, I hope to get caught up with several topics that require scrutiny. Let's start with Obama. It's nice to see that he has developed a basic economic plan, one that largely deals with the environment, which he said yesterday Al Gore advised him to help create. I doubt that's the case at all, and if it is then Al Gore's plan for the environment is pretty sad, indeed. My degree is in science (geology) with graduate work, not politics, so I feel confident to put forth my insight. The first point is that I think we should allow offshore drilling, as soon as possible. And here I agree whole-heartedly with McCain, let the states decide. But, I would go further, and make a large federal project, starting with ANWAR in Alaska. A country like Norway has more money they they know what to do with thanks to their offshore oil platforms in the North Sea. Why can't we do that? The objections come from the environmentalists. But like their feminist cohorts, they are locked in the 1970s, along with their thinking. It is imperative that now we think smartly, and not emotionally. The problems we face today are vast and imminent. Drilling in ANWAR will have a nominal effect on the environment, global warming or anything else, for that matter, so why not do it? We have to think about this matter within its larger context. Drilling for oil -- at least with oil platforms -- actually creates habitat, in terms of santuaries for fish populations in the form of new reef systems. There is hardly any pollution that is caused by the drilling, and jobs are created. What is bad about it at all? The only counter-arguement is that we are making more oil; but what difference is a few million gallons right now in the global picture? It matters little, but that small amount could make a big difference in America's influence and near-future. I argue we are negligent by not drilling there. By gaining much needed capital, and energy, we can leverage other environmentally-friendly plans that we want to implement, and do it sooner. Why must we take the spartan, principled path, when it serves no purpose at all? But the environmental lobby will likely influence Obama to not take this option, ironically. This new generation of Americans needs to learn how to think for themselves, instead of being slaves to the 1960s. I see potential with this upcoming group but they have a way to go yet, IMHO.

TORTURE

Next, the decision by the Supreme Court the other day to allow habeas corpus challenges from GITMO detainees was a wise one. I read an article today in the Wall Street Journal today (2 of them, actually) that contended the decision was a bad one, and I watched McCain and Fred Thompson say the same thing on TV. One point in the WSJ was that we are in wartime and in other wars our past detainees, such as the Japanese or Germans or Confederates, did not have any habeas corpus rights in America, and that further the GITMO detainees aren't even on American soil. But the point here, seems to me, that those other examples were mistakes. That is how I've looked at them all my life. Shouldn't we seek to avoid mistakes, and work toward a more perfect Union? The only time that habeas corpus was ever suspended justifiably was when Abraham Lincoln did it, and his tactics were at least as rough as Bush's -- probably rougher. I am not sure if even Lincoln was justified in that case. But Bush is definitely not justified with what he is doing -- our present situation of the War on Terror is nothing like the Civil War's danger to our democracy and survivability of our constitution. So let the Court's ruling stand, I say.

Congress -- again, in today's WSJ -- is making noises to charge current or former Bush officials with crimes for implementing torture such as water-boarding. I think Bush needs to be impeached. It may still happen. However, barring that, and in light of what I just wrote about habeas corpus, we need accountability for our government. That is what makes us Americans, and what our constitution requires. What Bush's administration did was wrong. It cannot be justified.

And last -- for now -- Iraq is becoming more stable, it's true. But that does not equal success. Stability following 6 years of chaos is not success under any circumstances. McCain is seriously misguided in his belief that we must maintain a presence in Iraq, no matter how long. Obama is sticking to his guns and wants to exit. I think Obama's words are already having an effect on Iraq, not anything the surge is doing, or the Bush administration is saying.