Atomic politics | Nuclear regulations
Harry Reid is confused between "loyalty" and "integrity" – Bill Magwood is a man of integrity
A post titled Bill Magwood, NRC Democrat, Is 'Treacherous, Miserable Liar' And 'First-Class Rat,' Says Harry Reid offers an illuminating view of political thinking coming from inside the Washington, DC beltway. That way of thinking, in this case, can be traced back to Las Vegas, NV and the mob-influenced power politics that played a role in the Sin City's development. As many of us may recall, the people who climbed to the economic and political top of the heap in that city were from organized crime families that operated from their own code of ethics.
In the "ethical" behavior code ingrained into people who grow up in that milieu the word "loyalty" is often confused with "integrity".
A person who is loyal agrees to follow the direction of his boss, no matter what. If the boss says "jump", the loyal follower says "how high?" If the boss says "shoot that guy", the loyal follower pulls the trigger without worrying about the moral and legal prohibitions against murder. In contrast, a person with integrity seeks to follow higher principles like truth, justice, and established law. A person of integrity has a questioning attitude, engages in serious study, seeks scientific confirmation, and makes decisions after carefully considering the consequences – not just for himself but for most other people who might be affected by the decision.
In the world of organized crime, and, apparently, in the world of power politics as exercised by Harry Reid, a loyal follower is highly valued. A loyal follower makes promises and blindly follows through, even if they have to break laws or harm people who are in the way. A loyal follower is someone who can be entrusted to carry out orders, even if they violate the law and even if they put that follower into grave personal danger.
Aside: I've known a few people in positions of power who valued loyalty above all else and who wrote fitness reports to reward those who demonstrated personal loyalty – and to harm those people with the integrity to serve a higher calling. Fortunately, I was never assigned to work directly for that kind of leader. I came close one time, but there were enough layers between me and the guy who wanted to fire me that I was reasonably well protected from the s#%$-storm that occurred when he thought I had betrayed him. End Aside.
For power seekers nurtured in mob style leadership training, a man of integrity who engages in thoughtful decision making that results in taking action that is in opposition to the person who thinks they wield power can be considered to be a "treacherous, miserable liar" (Reid's words). The mob style power politician can think that building power by doing favors, collecting loyal followers, and bribing where necessary is the right way to do business because they have never been told otherwise. They might have never been exposed to people who stand up and fight for what is right instead of what is ordered.
Here is a quote from the Huffington Post piece about Reid's reaction to having been fooled into thinking that he was supporting a loyal man when, instead, he was actually supporting the nomination of a man of integrity. When that man of integrity did not say "how high" when told to jump and did not shoot at the Senator's favorite target when told to kill Yucca Mountain, Reid got angry enough to provide a personal interview with a sympathetic reporter who seems to have the same moral confusion between loyalty and integrity.
In an interview with The Huffington Post, the Nevada Democrat savaged Bill Magwood, a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, when asked if he thought the Democrat had a chance to become NRC chairman.
"You know, when you're in this government, this business of politics, the only thing that you have is your word," said Reid, seated in his Capitol office. "I can be as partisan as I have to be, but I always try to be nice. I try never to say bad things about people. Bill Magwood is one of the" — Reid paused, deciding which adjective to reach for, before picking them all — "most unethical, prevaricating" — he paused again, this time for 10 full seconds — "incompetent people I've ever dealt with. The man sat in that chair — right there — and lied to me. I've never, ever in my life had anyone do that. Never."
Though I was not in the room at the time, I can guess that what Reid believes is a "lie" was really something quite different. I suspect that, if Reid actually had a personal conversation with Bill Magwood, he asked him a carefully phrased question like "Will you do the right thing on Yucca?" It is well known within Washington, especially among people who are at least nominally members of the Democratic Party, that Reid considers that "the right thing on Yucca" is to kill the project.
Many people who are governed by integrity and a search for the truth, however, do not look for hidden meaning in the words of others. Though the smart ones are aware that it happens, they do not engage in "wink and nod" communications. I suspect that Bill Magwood probably answered truthfully with something like "Of course, Senator. I will do the right thing."
I suspect that Reid believed he had extracted a promise from Magwood during that meeting to work to kill the project while Magwood probably left the meeting with some relief, thinking that he had only been directed to follow the law and the science when making his decision about whether or not to license the project after the completion of the careful reviews that he knew the application would receive by the NRC technical staff.
I've had the pleasure of meeting Bill Magwood. During my days as an atomic entrepreneur, I briefed him and his staff at the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy about Adams Engines, a concept for small, modular power plants that would take advantage of work that his office was doing in developing nuclear reactor fuel that could safely produce coolant gas temperatures approaching 1000 degrees C. The meeting lasted for a couple of hours.
Mr. Magwood was fully engaged and asked a number of penetrating questions that indicated technical competence and a strong desire to do the right thing. He personally explained the careful roadmap that he and his scientists had laid out to develop and fully test the fuel that we needed. I was not happy about learning that the DoE was not planning to have its fuel fully qualified until 2022, but I respected the fact that they had sound, scientifically-based reasons for taking so long to accomplish the important task.
In my opinion, Bill Magwood is no "industry" sycophant, but he is a well-educated, thoughtful man who fully understands the special nature of nuclear energy technology. He knows that it provides human society with tremendous value, but he also knows that it caries a high burden of responsibility to handle it correctly.
I imagine that he knows that a decision about long term storage that affects the entire country right now and may have some remote possibility of having a dangerous effect on future generations requires careful thought and investigation. He knows that making such a decision based on the political desires of one man from a low population state is fundamentally wrong.
I want to share one more quote from the Huffington Post article that indicates that Bill Magwood is a rare, but valuable, breed within Washington, DC. He is a man willing to engage in the political game who also has deep technical knowledge about nuclear energy. I believe we are fortunate in having at least two other members of the commission who are members of that small group. He is not someone who claims nuclear expertise merely because he has studied nuclear "issues."
In June, Magwood's internal wrangling against Jaczko culminated in the chairman's resignation. Magwood was immediately floated as a replacement chairman, but the Obama administration, aware of Reid's opinion of Magwood, passed him over. The term of the new chair, Allison Macfarlane, ends in 2013.
Reid said that Magwood's behind-the-scenes maneuvering was unforgivable. "He's a first-class rat. He lied to Rouse, he lied to me, and he had a plan. He is a tool of the nuclear industry. A tool," Reid said. "Magwood was a shit-stirrer. He did everything he could do to embarrass Greg Jaczko." Reid has donated $10,000 to help Jaczko pay the considerable legal bills he racked up defending against Magwood's allegations.
Jaczko was "the first chair that has never been part of the nuclear industry," Reid said, explaining the intense opposition. "That commission was a tool to the nuclear industry. Greg Jaczko, this young guy, he of course worked for me. He was against Yucca Mountain. But they knew that going in."
Reid can tolerate ideological or political disagreement, he said, as long as his opponent is honest.
Once again, that quote demonstrates how some people can confuse loyalty with honesty and integrity. Reid may have thought that Magwood made him a promise, but what Reid forgets is that Magwood swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States. He became a member of a Commission with legal obligations to serve the people of the United States by making nuclear energy available and safe.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, initially established as the Atomic Energy Commission by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, was formed to enable the use of nuclear energy helping to ensure that it remained safe. The law was enacted by properly elected representatives of the people of the United States and it has been supported by thousands of elected representatives since that time. It is not a tool of the nuclear industry, it is a tool of the people of the United States. We want, and need the clean, reliable, affordable power that is locked up inside the nuclei of a trio of heavy metals – uranium, thorium and plutonium. We want, and need the almost miraculous capabilities provided by the radioactive isotopes associated with unlocking that energy store.
One more thing – can anyone tell me why a Senator from a state so small that it only has three congressional districts has so much power? That is not supposed to happen based on the civics lessons that I learned in school.
Jeff Immelt of GE thinks nuclear is too hard – no surprises there
Defending nuclear energy professionals
SARI Comment on EPA's ANPR for 40 CFR 190
On February 4, 2014, the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) asking for interested stakeholders to review and provide comments and information about 40 CFR 190, Environmental Standards for Uranium Fuel Cycle Facilities. The comment period, originally scheduled to last 120 days, was extended to 180 days. That…
Why can't existing nuclear plants make money in today's electricity markets?
What does it mean when nuclear plant owners tell people that their plants are struggling to make money in competitive markets as currently structured? They are attempting to more precisely state what is often misleadingly dismissed by journalists as "nuclear plants cannot compete." The more commonly used statement gives the impression that nuclear plants produce…
Conservative groupthink afflicts US nuclear energy industry
ByRod Adams October 5, 2012 July 13, 2020
Though I have a deep and abiding respect for the vast majority of the people I have met who work in the nuclear energy industry, it is time for me to risk losing a few friends with some brutal honesty. Decision making has become unbalanced in the "conservative" direction to a point of a dangerous…
Evidence shows humans can tolerate FAR higher radiation doses than governments allow
Dr. Jerry Cuttler has been concentrating his research on the health effects of low dose radiation for more than 15 years. The events at Fukushima and the human tragedy of the poor decision making both during and after the release of modest quantities of radioactive material have reinforced the importance of his work. Dr. Cuttler…
Additional evidence re: nonproliferation & antinuclear alliance
After posting Nonproliferation is a disguised antinuclear energy effort, I received the following comment via email. The author has given me permission to share it, with attribution. I know John Holdren well and this article in spot on. John does not weigh energy poverty very high and weighs nuclear weapons proliferation exceedingly highly. This dominates…
Lisa Stiles and Rod Adams met for a chat about recent nuclear industry meetings including the American Nuclear Society annual meeting that Lisa attended in San Diego in early June and the Platts – DOE Small Modular Reactor meetings that Rod attended in Washington, DC in late June. After signing off with Lisa, Rod asked…
Brian Mays says:
"You dirty rat!" That Reid is a real class act, isn't he?
I guess he now thinks that he's James Cagney.
A question that you from the US can answer.
I understand that Reid is setting up a site and account to help Dr Jaczko with legal fees following his tenure at the NRC.
Is this for real ? In most countries, if legal actions are taken against an individual who served in government in a high ranking position his former employer will provide all the necessary funds so that he can defend himself.
Is this a scam ?
You can contribute to his legal defense fund here:
http://www.JaczkoLegalFund.com/
But a bit of a correction. It's not for future and forthcoming bills, but past and outstanding bills during the dust up (or "whisper campaign") that eventually resulted in his resignation. He hired two lawyers to consult on issues as they were developing in the media (understandable given the high profile nature of the charges). As I am sure you are aware, and as has been reported here (I would expect), the NRC's Inspector General found Jaczko did not overstep his authority, no rules were broken, and he made no unilateral decisions that affected companies holding NRC licenses.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/27/us/investigation-finds-no-violations-by-nuclear-head.html?_r=1
It appears the debacle is over. His colleagues on the Commission had always asserted their differences with him were not on substantive matters before the Commission, but on personal demeanor and management style. If anybody thinks any different, they certainly aren't saying so in public. And one would think the NRC's own Inspector General had the full confidence of the other Commissioners, and received a full accounting of their grievances (and reported fairly and accurately in it's report). Any suggestion to the contrary implies the Commissioners were not telling the truth before the Congress, that deeper and more substantive legal issues pertain, and that the Inspector General may be covering up matters that have not yet been brought before the public. In which case, the Agency itself needs to be taken to task (and not simply the man).
@El
I have a copy of the full report. It has been completely mischaracterized in the ad supported media and in your comment.
Perhaps one day soon, I will get around to pulling some additional juicy sections out for public comment. In the meantime, you might want to read my post at the following link:
https://atomicinsights.com/2012/07/jaczkos-antinuclear-pursuits-will-seek-other-venues.html
Helen says:
Jaczko WITHHELD information from the commissioners. No rules were broken?
Since when is the NRC a dictatorship.
Magwood: a man of integrity!
Atomikrabbit says:
Like Magwood, Reid also swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States as a US Senator. Unlike Magwood, Reid violates this oath every day by unilaterally blocking implementation of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the duly enacted law of the land.
Other than political cowardice, could someone please explain to me why this is not an impeachable act? And let's not forget his willing co-conspirators, the President and Sec of Energy.
George Carlin says:
Reminds me of Reid calling for an audit the FED bill for the last 25 years and than one passes the house by an overwhelming majority and he refuses to even let it go to an up or down vote in the senate.
Uli says:
Why is the Democratic leadership of the US Senate content to chose a man who is confused to represent them. Surely there must be a senator who is loyal to the american people who can do a better job.
You have got to be kidding me if you think any of the power players in DC, Republican or Democrat, act any differently than Reid. Unfortunately, lying, cheating and stealing are standard, daily practice for getting what you want.
I always laugh when Republicans get on their high horse about a Democrat pulling the same crap as Republicans. I'm not excusing the behavior but please don't take us for fools with the Pollyana routine.
@gerry
I'm no Pollyanna. I worked in DC for 9 years, long enough to know that bad behavior is not uncommon, but it is also not the norm. There are good people in politics; it is worth the effort to find them and support them rather than condemning the whole enterprise.
How else to you suggest we rule ourselves if not through political processes?
I tend to agree that there is not too much difference between the two major parties; I am not a big fan of the two party, winner take all system that we have in place. However, it is unlikely that we can change it by giving up and adopting the cynical attitude that you are displaying.
Albert Rogers says:
Thank you, Rod. As a retired civil servant, I take pride that I was never a bureaucrat. A bureaucrat is a person to whom the opinion of the boss is more important than the proper execution of the job. In the Government, as you have indicated often, one's proper loyalty is to "the People". In the Regulatory Commission where I worked, there were indeed a few people who were simply bureaucrats. Sad to say, now I think of it, the proportion rose as one looked higher up in Management.
But having also worked at IBM, which is one of the good companies, I do not believe that the private sector is any less bureaucratic than the public sector.
David Walters says:
You guys are way to myopic. There was almost nothing about Reid's position on nuclear energy that got him elected excepting the issue of Yucca Mountain, which most Nevadians were against. So in that sense Nevada got who they wanted. He's elected by the state of Nevada not the people as a whole.
Secondly nuclear energy is not the most pertinent issue even for Reid, there are other issues of more importance from any politicians perspective that he has to deal with as head of the Senate, a position based solely on seniority and nothing else.
D, are you denying the assertion that political leaders are one of the biggest reasons the nuclear industry has been held back? Sorry if I come accross as a one-issue voter but I believe that cheap, abundant energy is necessary for a thriving economy and the most important factor in lifting nations out of poverty.
Rod, obviously the only way to remove Reid from his powerful position as senate majority leader would be for republicans to gain the majority. Go on and keep voting "D", but get used to the words "wind" and "solar". Not trying to be offensive, you seem like a nice guy.
@Jon
We had a good shot at getting rid of Reid, but the R's nominated an easy-to-defeat clown.
I am not, and never have been, a party-line partisan. In fact, I was a registered Republican until I moved to VA because my home state of Florida did not allow anyone to vote in primaries without a party affiliation.
Here in VA, there was no requirement to declare a party at registration and we have open primaries.
If you look at the records, however, you will find that there are a lot of hypocritical R's who like wind and solar as long as the dollars flow back to their political bases.
Sorry folks, the demise of the nuclear industry in Britain began when Reagan's friend Margaret Thatcher sold off the CEGB, which belonged to the people, to private industry. British Energy, which seems to have most of the surviving reactors, is now part of a French company, that was privatized much more recently.
I am trying to persuade my D friends that wind and solar are a delusion. The folk who fund the R lot know it. Chevron even has videos that PBS lets them show in return for their financial support, telling us of their enthusiasm for the Unreliables. That proves they see them as no threat.
… there are other issues of more importance from any politicians perspective that he has to deal with as head of the Senate, a position based solely on seniority and nothing else.
David – I think that you're confusing Reid's position with the president pro tempore, which since circa 1949 has been held by the most senior member of the majority party by tradition.
When it comes to seniority, Reid is outranked by nine of his fellow Democratic Senators, almost one-sixth of the Democratic Caucus. So clearly, more than seniority is used to determine the Majority Leader.
@Brian Mays
Thanks for that info. I thought there was an election for Majority Leader, but I had not yet taken the time to do a quick search.
The only reasonably understandable explanation for Reid's power is his role as a power broker who uses techniques familiar in Chicago, Sicily, Las Vegas and certain areas of NYC. Someone once told me that "what goes in Las Vegas" often gets recorded for future use as a tool of power and there are way too many members of the 100 who enjoy engaging in compromising activities.
Rod – There is an election.
There is also an election for president pro tempore, by the way, but the convention for the past six decades years has been to vote for the Senator with the most seniority. The current president pro tempore has been in the Senate since before Kennedy was shot.
You can thank Senators Bill Frist (R-TN) and John Thune (R-SD) for the election of Harry Reid as the Minority Leader of the Senate in 2005 (and election as Majority Leader in 2009). Tom Daschle (D-SD) was the choice of the party for Majority and Minority leader from 2001 – 2005. He was favored to continue in this role because of his expertise in Health Care Reform (and early supporting roles in the Obama and Clinton campaigns). Daschle lost his seat at the end of 2004 to John Thune by a mere 4,508 votes. It was a closely contested race with current Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist campaigning for Thune in South Dakota (thus nationalizing the election). Leading in the polls in all but the final weeks, it was the only time since 1952 that a Leader of the Senate had lost a bid for re-election.
There should be some term limits in the Senate, in my opinion.
And the theory that a significant part of Reid's power is derived from the fact he could have so many eyes and ears to know what happens in Vegas is quite interesting and could well be true.
Mike Repucci says:
It's not that Harry Reid is confused by the difference, but as a typical politician (read "dirt-bag") in his mind "loyalty" IS "integrity" rather than truth, justice, ethical behavior, and the rule of law. Are there any politicians with integrity?
@Mike Repucci
Yes. There are political leaders who have integrity. I do not agree that Reid's behavior and attitude are typical of the entire breed. He is from a certain portion of the political spectrum – that group that believes that power is more important than truth and that loyalty is more valuable that honest, questioning attitude service to a higher calling.
It is self defeating in a democracy to tar all political leaders with the same brush. We have to find and support the ones that truly want to lead us in a better direction.
(One of my college classmate got spit out of DC in less than 2 yrs as a congressman. Another is doing a better job of learning the ropes, not to get along, but to survive and make a positive difference.)
It was a long time ago, but to my mind there are few politicians more honest and devoted to the People's welfare than Aneurin Bevan, the Welshman who was Minister of Health in the postwar Labour government. He was a genuine socialist.
Also, although I have not made enough study of it, I note that in Keynes's "Consequences of the Peace" -of Versailles, he has good words to say for Woodrow Wilson, who saw that the swingeing penalties to be imposed upon Germany were unjust and unlikely to be fulfilled. Wilson was outflanked by Lloyd George, Clemenceau, and Orlando.
Wikipedia says:
"The Treaty of Versailles has been criticized as a vindictive agreement that violated the spirit of Wilson's Fourteen Points. The harsh terms hurt the German economy in the 1920s and contributed to the popularity of leaders such as Hitler who argued for the restoration of German honor through remilitarization."
I fancy that Obama is honest, but too ready as a Christian to forgive people who have not repented.
I take one exception to the main article. I also think, even for very different reasons, that the Yucca Mountain scheme was a lousy one. Charles Till damns it not with faint praise, but with faint toleration, in his Frontline interview in 1996.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html