On Oil Spills and the Risks of Modern Civilization
By mcoppock | May 30, 2010
I think there’s some truth to the argument made in this US News & World Report article. Basically, so it goes, Americans (and, probably, all of Western civilization) are too far removed from the dirty stuff to understand just what it takes to fix the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. To that I’d add that they’re also too intellectually lazy to learn to conceptualize such things even in the lack of direct experience.
This seems right:
It’s all so last millennium, that filthy business in the depths of the Gulf of Mexico.
It reeks of yesterday’s fuel, yesterday’s sweaty labor – a hands-on way of life from another time. Today’s Americans don’t care to know how the gas comes to the pump, the food to the table, the iPad to the store.
Just make sure they do.
I’ve often thought the same as I have conversations with people who think the leak is proof that drilling for oil is inherently a bad thing, and that we should just stop. I think about the profound complexity of modern civilization, from the production of so many goods with so few people (only 14% of the US work force, as the article points out), to the massive distribution network that makes it possible to eat avocados out of season in such faraway places as the Midwest, to the almost magical ability to hold an entire conversation with someone on the other side of the planet in real time on a handheld device.
Folks just don’t get such things, and so they call for government—who they also see as magical—to overcome obstacles that they don’t comprehend. That today’s government is ever so happy to oblige is fodder for a different discussion.
The article finishes with:
If Aristotle were blogging about all of this, he would probably have little patience with the armchair experts and the pontificators who think the solution should be as easy as Malia Obama suggested when she asked her father, "Did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?"
The Greek philosopher said "those who dwell in intimate association with nature" are apt to understand the big picture. "Lack of experience diminishes our power of taking a comprehensive view."
I disagree with this only in that I think people should be able to conceive of such complexity, only they’re just not willing to do so. Being ignorant has always allowed such people—most people, unfortunately—to evade reality up until reality strikes out and bites them. That Aristotle himself wrote about such things means that this isn’t exactly a new phenomenon, but then his time didn’t have TV and movies and the Internet to provide people with the next best thing to hands-on experience. If people don’t understand the difficulty of drilling 5,000 feet underwater, then it’s their own damn fault.
The result of such ignorance, of course, will be blind calls for less—or no—drilling that ignore the reality of what that and all drilling makes possible. Nobody wants to give up the miracles of modern life, but they’ll stand on the sidelines and call for the destruction of what makes such miracles possible. To do otherwise would force them to face the far more difficult reality that what they enjoy most in life comes from things that entail the risk that something might go wrong.
They would need to recognize that leaks can happen when you tap into the Earth’s mantle, that radiation can be released when you harness the power of the universe’s most fundamental forces, that bacteria can grow on plants that are transported from a farm thousands of miles from their final destinations. Such risks are legion, and most people evade the fact it’s take such risks or, well, die anyways—after an abbreviated lifetime of abject poverty, starvation, and struggle followed by an ignominious death. Such has been the lot of mankind throughout most of our history, and the vast majority of Westerners live lives of relative ease and comfort as the direct result of the risks we take.
In short, we trade the certainty of a short and brutish life for the possibility that a well might leak, or a nuclear power plant might melt down, or the spinach salad might contain microbes that make us ill. The problem is, most people don’t know this because they choose to believe that things just happen—that the food is delivered on time, that the water is drinkable, that the light will turn on when they flip the switch.
One day, we’ll find ourselves hungry, thirsty, and in the dark. And, it will happen because we refuse to recognize that some oil gushing out of a broken well is part of the price we pay for the good life.
Topics: Economics, Environmentalism, Poison, Politics | No Comments »
Obama’s View on the Military’s Purpose
By mcoppock | May 29, 2010
Here’s a quick bit on how Obama sees our military’s purpose:
Addressing nearly 1,000 graduating cadets at the U.S. Military Academy, many of whom will likely head to war in Iraq and Afghanistan under his command, Mr. Obama said all hands are required to solve the world’s newest threats: terrorism, the spread of nuclear weapons, climate change and feeding and caring for a growing population.
Mr. Obama said the men and women who wear America’s uniform cannot bear that responsibility by themselves. "The rest of us must do our part," he said.
Set aside for the moment Obama’s predictable altruism and collectivism—of course he thinks that “the rest of us must do our part.” But what exactly does he think the military can do to impact climate change and “feeding and caring for a growing population.”
It bears consideration.
Topics: Poison, Politics | No Comments »
Obama’s Thin Skin
By mcoppock | May 29, 2010
Obama is many things. Tolerant of criticism isn’t one of them—but then, since when do dictators take criticism well? Writing about this aspect of Obama’s character at Politics Daily, Peter Wehner said:
Not surprisingly, Obama’s thin skin leads to self pity. As Daniel Halper of The Weekly Standardpointed out, in a fundraising event for Sen. Barbara Boxer, Obama said, “Let’s face it: this has been the toughest year and a half since any year and a half since the 1930s.”
Really, now? Worse than the period surrounding December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001? Worse than what Gerald Ford faced after the resignation of Richard Nixon and Watergate, which constituted the worse constitutional scandal in our history and tore the country apart? Worse than what Ronald Reagan faced after Jimmy Carter (when interest rates were 22 percent, inflation was more than 13 percent, and Reagan faced something entirely new under the sun, "stagflation")? Worse than 1968, when Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. were assassinated and there was rioting in our streets? Worse than what LBJ faced during Vietnam — a war which eventually claimed more than 58,000 lives? Worse than what John Kennedy faced in the Bay of Pigs and in the Cuban Missile Crisis, when we and the Soviet Union edged up to the brink of nuclear war? Worse than what Franklin Roosevelt faced on the eve of the Normandy invasion? Worse than what Bush faced in Iraq in 2006, when that nation was on the edge of civil war, or when the financial system collapsed in the last months of his presidency? Worse than what Truman faced in defeating imperial Japan, in reconstructing post-war Europe, and in responding to North Korea’s invasion of South Korea?
Yes, I think that’s about right. It’s a rather sobering list, actually, and definitely puts things in perspective. Obama, as President of the United States, should be conscious of that history, and it should inform his every decision. Instead, he speaks and acts as if he’s ignorant of it, and you know what they say about forgetting history.
Topics: Poison, Politics | No Comments »
R.I.P. Gary Coleman
By mcoppock | May 28, 2010
Only 42 years old, Gary Coleman died today of an intercranial hemorrhage after falling and striking his head earlier in the week. He’ll best be remembered for the line, “Whatchoo talkin’ ’bout, Willis?" in the show “Different Strokes” that ran from 1978-86.
I’ll always remember Coleman for his role as the diminutive foster child, having been one myself during the first decade of my life. Like many child stars, he suffered from a number of issues later in life and never regained his early success. For some reason, his death has gotten under my skin—maybe it’s his age (I’m only two years older), maybe it’s the nostalgia, maybe it’s that I could relate to the show so closely, but nevertheless I’m saddened.
Condolences to his family.
Topics: Culture | No Comments »
How to Choose Meat
By mcoppock | May 26, 2010
Okay, here’s some food (literally), or rather, some meat. As in, how to choose the best meat. thekitchen.com has the goods, and here’s a sample:
In no particular order, this is what we think about when we’re choosing a piece of meat out of the case:
1. Well-Butchered – A skilled butcher who cares about the quality of his or her products will usually have well-butchered pieces of meat on display. Cuts of the same variety should be about the same size and thickness. The cuts of meat should also be smooth with no ragged edges, hacked bits, or uneven sections.
Good stuff. Go read the whole thing (it’s short).
Topics: Culture, Food | No Comments »
Dr. Hurd – Immigration Isn’t the Problem
By mcoppock | May 24, 2010
It’s pithy, but right on the mark:
In a totally free society, immigration would not be an issue. This is because in a free society, nobody would be forced to take care of anybody else. In such a society, the only people who would WANT to come would be the most productive and those most capable of taking care of themselves.
They say that common sense isn’t so common, and this is one issue where that cliché couldn’t be more apt. Read the whole thing (it’s short).
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
Newsflash: Steyn Eviscerates Obama Again
By mcoppock | May 23, 2010
Mark Steyn is one of the few non-Objectivist writers I can think of who says the right thing more often than not, even when the right thing is politically incorrect. He has ample opportunity to do so, of course, given the Obama presidency, and in an article in the National Review he’s true form.
Discussing Obama’s tendency to say the wrong thing at the wrong time, he says:
Like a lot of guys who’ve been told they’re brilliant one time too often, President Obama gets a little lazy, and doesn’t always choose his words with care. And so it was that he came to say a few words about Daniel Pearl, upon signing the “Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act.”
Pearl was decapitated on video by jihadist Muslims in Karachi on Feb. 1, 2002. That’s how I’d put it.
This is what the president of the United States said: “Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is.”
Now Obama’s off the prompter, when his silver-tongued rhetoric invariably turns to sludge. But he’s talking about a dead man here, a guy murdered in public for all the world to see. Furthermore, the deceased’s family is standing all around him. And, even for a busy president, it’s the work of moments to come up with a sentence that would be respectful, moving, and true. Indeed, for Obama, it’s the work of seconds, because he has a taxpayer-funded staff sitting around all day with nothing to do but provide him with that sentence.
Instead, he delivered the one above. Which, in its clumsiness and insipidness, is most revealing. First of all, note the passivity: “The loss of Daniel Pearl.” He wasn’t “lost.” He was kidnapped and beheaded. He was murdered on a snuff video. He was specifically targeted, seized as a trophy, a high-value scalp. And the circumstances of his “loss” merit some vigor in the prose. Yet Obama can muster none.
I quoted more than I like to here, but I think this is important stuff. So many people, I think, like Obama as they do at least in part because he strikes them as so eloquent and statesman-like. Steyn points out here that he really isn’t, and it’s not just an inability to think on his feet that holds Obama back. It’s something deeper.
That is:
Notice how reflexively Obama lapses into sentimental one-worldism: Despite our many zip codes, we are one people, with a single imagination. In fact, the murder of Daniel Pearl teaches just the opposite — that we are many worlds, and worlds within worlds. Some of them don’t even need an “imagination.”
It’s an overly simplistic analysis, but I’ll say it nevertheless: this gives a hint to Obama’s fundamental anti-Americanism. He simply does not see anything special about America that is worth noting in a speech like this or in his foreign policies in general. This isn’t what Steyn says specifically—and do, read the entire article, but Steyn says some important things—but it’s what strikes me about Obama at every turn.
It’s not fair to have dragged you into this article under such pretenses, however, and so yes of course Steyn is talking about Obama’s generally vapid sense of things and inability to articulate the principles involved. In the end, though, Steyn is really (and appropriately) more about what Obama thinks about such things as terrorism in general and what that means for America:
I mentioned last week the attorney general’s peculiar insistence that “radical Islam” was nothing to do with the Times Square bomber, the Pantybomber, the Fort Hood killer. Just a lot of moments “capturing the world’s imagination.” For now, the jihadists seem to have ceased cutting our heads off. Listening to Obama and Eric Holder, perhaps they’ve figured out there’s nothing much up there anyway.
In short, it doesn’t mean anything good.
Topics: Poison, Politics, Terrorism | No Comments »
« Previous Entries Next Entries »