The White House is under attack on its plan to open up areas for drilling off the East Coast — a plan long opposed by environmentalists and now attracting renewed criticism with the growing disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
The spill is now believed to exceed the Exxon Valdez but some experts — gushing 200,000 gallons a day, here.
The first lawsuits by fishermen have been filed over the devastation to the Gulf. The White House is reportedly reconsidering its plan to open up sensitive areas off the East Coast to drilling. It appears that it only takes a massive environmental disaster to get the Obama Administration to reconsider such plans. Hypothetical examples of a massive oil spill from an oil rig a few weeks ago were viewed as simply too speculative by the Administration.
UPDATE: After first defending the policy, the White House is now saying that the disaster was sufficient to get it to take the new drilling off the table — at least for the moment, here.
Elaine:
here is a sample of her thoughts:
On Reason
Reason integrates man’s perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions, thus raising man’s knowledge from the perceptual level, which he shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which he alone can reach. The method which reason employs in this process is logic—and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.
“Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 62.
On War
Wars are the second greatest evil that human societies can perpetrate. (The first is dictatorship, the enslavement of their own citizens, which is the cause of wars.)
“The Wreckage of the Consensus,”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 224
On Abortion
An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).
Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?
“Of Living Death,”
The Voice of Reason, 58–59
On Art
Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments. Man’s profound need of art lies in the fact that his cognitive faculty is conceptual, i.e., that he acquires knowledge by means of abstractions, and needs the power to bring his widest metaphysical abstractions into his immediate, perceptual awareness. Art fulfills this need: by means of a selective re-creation, it concretizes man’s fundamental view of himself and of existence. It tells man, in effect, which aspects of his experience are to be regarded as essential, significant, important. In this sense, art teaches man how to use his consciousness. It conditions or stylizes man’s consciousness by conveying to him a certain way of looking at existence.
“Art and Cognition,” The Romantic Manifesto, 45
On Civil Disobedience
Civil disobedience may be justifiable, in some cases, when and if an individual disobeys a law in order to bring an issue to court, as a test case. Such an action involves respect for legality and a protest directed only at a particular law which the individual seeks an opportunity to prove to be unjust. The same is true of a group of individuals when and if the risks involved are their own.
But there is no justification, in a civilized society, for the kind of mass civil disobedience that involves the violation of the rights of others—regardless of whether the demonstrators’ goal is good or evil. The end does not justify the means. No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others. Mass disobedience is an assault on the concept of rights: it is a mob’s defiance of legality as such.
“The Cashing-In: The Student ‘Rebellion,’”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 256.
On Religion
PLAYBOY: Has no religion, in your estimation, ever offered anything of constructive value to human life?
RAND: Qua religion, no—in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points. They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and, on a very—how should I say it?—dangerous or malevolent base: on the ground of faith.
“Playboy’s Interview with Ayn Rand,” March 1964
On Racism
Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.
Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.
Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.
“Racism,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 126
Honestly, how much of that do you disagree with? She is not the buffoon you and others think she is or make her out to be. You may not agree with all of her ideas but she certainly is not second rate in the realm of ideas. Steven Colbert could only hope to have a mind as good as hers.
And how did 18th century liberalism work out for slaves, indigenous peoples, women…?
Elaine:
I have seen that and others. We have had a mixed economy for a very long time and it isn’t working out very well. We have had a social safety net for almost 80 years and it is bankrupt. Maybe it is time to try something different for a change.
Maybe we need to bring back 18th century liberalism. Thomas Jefferson would approve.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-tIY99QFFk&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
“I have stated repeatedly that the trend in this country is toward a fascist system with communist slogans. But what all of today’s pressure groups are busy evading is the fact that neither business nor labor nor anyone else, except the ruling clique, gains anything under fascism or communism or any form of statism—that all become victims of an impartial, egalitarian destruction.”
“The Moratorium on Brains,” The Ayn Rand Letter, I, 3, 3.
Slarti:
are you selling your nanotube carbon filters here in the states or in an emerging industrial country?
Also Damascus swords may have nanotubes as part of their structure but I am pretty sure the sword makers did not know that was what was giving them strength. And they certainly didn’t know how to use them to filter water.
Slarti:
“There is an enormous body of evidence (plus an obvious logical argument) that industry will reduce pollution and increase safety given financial incentive to do so.”
You think penalties are the way to go, I don’t. The construction industry had a problem with lost time accidents 20 years or so ago. OSHA wasn’t really doing anything to prevent them. Construction became safer when insurance companies started giving large rebates on premiums for good safety records.
Industry will only pass the tax or penalty on to the consumer. It will make up for the added cost with better service or it will just make less money per unit. It may change some habits. The best way is to allow broader access to legal remedies by injured parties. In other words if a corporation has soiled your nest sue the living bejeebers out of them. It should be left to the private sector and government should be the referee with an objective set of laws.
Buddha,
I’m glad you explained your usage of ‘inure’. For a second there I thought you had made a grammatical error in the midst of one of your customary logic bombs, but I see that I was mistaken… Rock on dude!
Byron,
Re: deaths via cholera vs. death via industrial negligence
The choice you present is a false one – the correct answer is both leave you dead and we should reduce both as much as possible. Reducing industrial negligence (say via giving the injured parties a significant ownership stake in the companies at the expense of the investors and holding the management criminally liable) does not mean increased disease. In fact, clean air and water results in a huge benefit to the public health.
Buddah:
I agree that K St. is a problem and should go. The only way to get rid of K St. is to clean up government. K St. exists to buy favors from government. Like I said above you don’t blame the shop keeper for paying protection money to the Mafia. If the Mafia doesn’t exist the shop keeper doesn’t have to pay. If government didn’t sell protection in the form of legislation that favors one business or industry over another K St. wouldn’t exist.
Government is the problem and K St. was created by corporations to influence politicians. I am against Fascism but correct me if I am wrong, that is a particular form of government.
Byron said:
“The oil will be cleaned up and BP will pay and in a few years it will be a bad memory like the Exxon Valdez.”
In a few decades there will most likely still be serious ecological and economic effects of this spill on the effected regions which BP will never pay for.
Byron,
You are an intelligent guy who argues for capitalism with passion and reason but you seem to have a blind spot in your logic here. You have no examples of industry reducing pollution and increasing safety when it is not in their financial interest to do so. There is an enormous body of evidence (plus an obvious logical argument) that industry will reduce pollution and increase safety given financial incentive to do so.
Let’s imagine that you are a mine worker in West Virginia. Would you feel safer if you knew that your death in a preventable accident would result in a massive hit to your company’s profits (which would support your family in your absence) and that there was a union watching the mine with the power to shut it down if reasonable safety measures were not taken or if you knew that a successful attempt at unionization would make the company shutter the mine and that your death would result in a pittance for your families that would not effect the massive profits that the company was making?
Elaine:
I hope BP has to pay, it certainly isn’t my fault or your fault. I don’t think tax payer dollars should be used to clean up or pay shrimpers for lost wages, or people engaged in tourism for lost revenues. This wasn’t a natural disaster after all.
It is called Purple Kush, it is for medicinal use so I cant send you any 🙂 All us capitalists are just mellow, laid back and going with the flow. Not hardly but when in Rome . . .
“Who is in control? Politicians, they are the ones that have pull to sell. Business doesn’t have any political pull.”
Wrong. Lobbyists are in control. Lobbyists get their funding from corporations. Lobbyists gained their power by bribes and campaign contributions to inure themselves to the system like a parasite. And just so we are clear I mean inure in the transitive verb form as in to accustom to accept something undesirable. Like children inured to domestic violence. You think non-corporate citizens are in control? You’re just simply full of crap now. A graduate of 7th grade civics knows better. Oh, that’s right! The conservatives have been removing civics as a core requirement for years now haven’t they? Money talks and bullshit walks, eh? How about this lil’ “family snapshot”?
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/19/news/economy/oil_money/index.htm
Business doesn’t have any political control? Yet you yourself have acknowledged that K St. is the problem? As Dr. Smith might say, “Business has ALL the control, you bubble-headed nincompoop! Oh, the pain!” I have seen you decry fascism yet you de facto defend it at every turn with ridiculous comments like the above. Now you’re not just making stupid assertions but on their face preposterous assertions.
Byron–
You are such an optimist and idealist–at least where corporations and the private sector is concerned. BP is going to clean up every last drop of oil.(?) Isn’t that lovely? No animals will ever have died. No habitats or coastlines will ever have been affected. No fisherman or shrimpers or the tourism industry will ever have had to suffer the consequences. And, of course, no government resources will ever be used or taxpayers money spent to help with the cleanup.
Hell, shit happens!
Gee, I wish I could score sumathat stuff you been smokin’!
🙂
In my experience, a lot of ‘accidents’ happen in industry because in spite of what a number of people, [be they engineers, or experts, workers or the populace beginning to feel the pinch of damage]say…business either continues as usual or oppresses opposing voices in order to gain an advantage in emerging technology. [which is actually stifling new technology….].
That is the dynamic that I would like to see changed. It is not concordant with either free market or Democratic principle. It is also not as productive as collaborative behavior that works faster and better to problem solve. It is, quite simply, time to change…
And my inner snark; isn’t 20 hours from pouring concrete to charging up the engines, in such a big operation…just a tad shy of safe margins????
Elaine:
Accidents do happen, man is not omniscient and technology can only take us so far. The more technologically advanced we are the more we are able to control our environment. But human error is always going to be a factor.
The oil will be cleaned up and BP will pay and in a few years it will be a bad memory like the Exxon Valdez. Hopefully we will learn something from this and put in proper safeguards so it doesn’t happen again.
Byron–
You’re misreading what I’ve written in my comments. I’m not saying damn progress and industry–let’s go back to the dark Ages or prehistoric times. I’m saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
“Why is it OK to die of cholera but not from an industrial accident? Currently man can control both through technology.”
Did I suggest it was okay to die of cholera?
Man can control industrial accidents through technology?????
Really? How’s the cleanup of that oily spilly thing from the explosion on the oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico going for ya?
And how about that coal ash spill in Tennessee in 2008?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=TVA_Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_ash_spill
And remember this?
Huge Spill of Hog Waste Fuels an Old Debate in North Carolina
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/25/us/huge-spill-of-hog-waste-fuels-an-old-debate-in-north-carolina.html
Buddha:
“So tell me again how graft and criminal action doesn’t circumvent regulation?”
Who is in control? Politicians, they are the ones that have pull to sell. Business doesn’t have any political pull. They are buying protection from various politicians. Like the shopkeepers in New York city buying “protection” from the Mafia. At least the Mafia is straight forward about it and the victim (the shopkeeper) isn’t the one being blamed for having to buy protection.
“Keep in mind the overall situation. By the nature of a mixed economy, government has favors to dispense and penalties to impose. That intervention is the *fundamental* fact driving firms’
contributions and lobbying activities. The guilt is on the government, not the businesses. Even when a business lobbies for favors (as opposed to preventing penalties), the primary thing to criticize is not business favor-seeking but the government’s having favors to bestow. Yes, secondarily, you can criticize the businesses, but the set-up is not their fault, and they could argue that they are being penalized in various other ways, so in seeking favors, they are still being only defensive on net balance.”
Dr. H. Binswanger
well it’s just sad….the thing Byron says is cramping innovation is not that thing…it is the lack of ability for the differing sectors to work together with open ears so they are providing what is needed…and effectively dealing with identified problems…not just what makes their pockets jingle. We DO need industry…it DOESN’T HAVE to be dirty nasty. The kind of innovation that could put this country back on an ascendant path COMES from industrial machinery…but not a dysfunctionally closed system which is how it seems to operate right now…
Elaine:
So we stop all industry so that we can all live in mud huts and subsist on nuts and berries? At least we wont ingest some pesticide and breath in some pollution.
What is the answer? A hundred years ago you had millions of people dying from outbreaks of cholera, typhus, dysentery and other diseases. Today we have very few deaths to those diseases.
Almost 50,000 people a year die on our roads and hundreds die in plane crashes. Technology comes at a cost but then so does being primitive. I would say on the whole more people die and have died due to primitive conditions because of disease than have died from technology (excepting automobile deaths).
Why is it OK to die of cholera but not from an industrial accident? Currently man can control both through technology.