Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Because women don’t get to have “man caves” Previous entry: Discover the qualifications for FRC founder Dr. George Rekers’ travel assistant/luggage carrier

Take no seagulls prisoner

I’ve been watching this oil spill disaster in the Gulf with no small amount of sadness and horror, but haven’t had much to say, because what can you besides, “Bleeerarrrrrgh?!” The coincidental nature of things, with this disaster happening so close to Obama making offshore drilling a centrist centerpiece item, has already started turning up conspiracy theories about how leftist environmentalists destroyed the environment to prove a point.  (Right wingers assume everyone else is an venial and short-sighted as they are.  They also believe that environmentalists can’t really care about the environment, because again, projection.)  I think the nation may be in the throes of denial, even with all the coverage.  It’s becoming clear that no one really stopped to think about what it would take to stop an oil spill like this, or to clean it up.  They’ve got one cap on, but it hasn’t even slowed the leakage, which is no doubt bigger than the state of Delaware by now.  I worry this is the end of the Gulf Coast as we know it; goodbye marshlands, goodbye shrimp.  Things may come back slowly, but I suspect nothing will ever be the same.

It was hard for me to wrap my head around the arrogance and short-sightedness that led to this disaster, until last night, in the course of my bedtime reading, I was reminded of the Taliban destroying the Buddhas of Bamyan.  The two incidents don’t necessarily seem to have much in common; the Taliban deliberately set out to wipe out these priceless artifacts because they offended their joy-killing, art-hating sensibilities.  The oil spill, of course, is an accident.  But I’d argue that there’s a common thread between the incidents that led up to both these acts of unfathomable destruction. 

Whatever the ostensible excuse the Taliban had for destroying the Buddhas, outsiders can clearly see that they’re motivated mainly be a petulant unwillingness to engage or regard anything that makes them feel smaller or less important.  Pleasure and beauty offend fundamentalists, because these things are out of their control and present a threat to their death grip on power.  Art reminds people that there’s something more than the tightly controlled, colorless existence offered by fundamentalism, and so the fundamentalists are wary of it.  In Afghanistan, they just destroy amazing pieces of art that remind you of the long history and imagination and diversity of humanity.  Here, Christian fundamentalists fight against pop culture by replacing it with weak replicas that are meant to satisfy the urge without giving too much of that dangerous pleasure. 

The struggle between environmentalists and wingnuts has a similar flavor to it.  Wingnuts mock and deride environmentalists for their awe at the grandeur of nature, for their desire to let it exist uncontrolled and unexploited by humans.  Nature can quickly make a person feel small and mortal.  You look over vast ecosystems clipping along doing their own thing indifferent to you, and you realize that this was all here before you were, and will all be here when you leave.  Unless, of course, you level it, take all the resources, and leave a wake of destruction in your path. A lot of environmentalists use rape metaphors when describing what polluters do to nature, and a lot of feminists criticize them for it.  But it’s hard not to think of it in those terms when the pro-pollution side glories in the same kind of metaphors.


(Yeah, yeah, you could say it’s a sex metaphor and not a rape metaphor, but I’d point out that the retrograde politics of conservatives mean there’s no substantive difference, metaphorically speaking.  Sex/rape, either way they think the woman is dirty and ruined afterwards.  It’s the egalitarian, feminist view that doesn’t see sex as somehow winning one over on and degrading a woman.)

“Drill, baby, drill!” was a slogan that revealed that, for conservatives, the potential for environmental destruction is a reward unto itself. It excites.  It makes you feel big and important, that mere nature will bend to your will.  Only softies care about things like preserving the past or securing the future.  Past and future are concepts that offend the narcissism of right wingers, since both concepts remind you that there’s more to this world than you and what you want.  Preserving the environment for its own sake seems pointless, since that just means that it’ll survive you, which reminds you that you’re mortal and will one day be forgotten.  And so just as the Taliban blew up those Buddhas that stood as stark reminders that there’s more to this universe than their petty little egos, so American conservatives yelled, “Drill, baby, drill!”

Of course, Obama is to blame for giving in to this most petty and childish side of American conservatism, in order to scramble for a few votes he’s not going to get, either from the public or from Republican members of Congress.  (Look how quickly Lindsay Graham was able to find an excuse to back out of supporting climate legislation even after getting his way on offshore drilling.)  Offshore drilling is like catnip to politicians of all stripes, since it fits the short-sighted popularity trolling that most politicians live for.  The very concept of creating a long term legacy seems to be a lost cause in modern American politics; thank god this wasn’t true in the past, or we’d not have things like national parks that are off limits from the “drill baby drill” wingnutteria. 

Maybe the immediate effects of this oil spill will give people pause before we go find some other irreplaceable precious environmental resource to destroy.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 10:38 AM • (103) Comments

Sometimes I think Democratic candidates would most surely beat the Republicans at the polls by simply declaring, “Hey, you guys are right!  I’m totally voting for my Republican opponent!”  They’d go running so fast to find somebody else to vote for…

Comment #1: libdevil  on  05/05  at  11:46 AM

Your last line reads as more optimistic than I am yet. I’d really like to see how the polling shifts on offshore drilling after this. I’m worried that people, and the bullshit they’re fed, may be just that stupid. I quite hope to be found wrong.

Comment #2: samanthab.  on  05/05  at  11:49 AM

People are short-sighted and selfish.  Plus, the issue is sold to them in terms that appeal to that: your own gas prices vs. this beautiful stretch of nature that you rarely if ever will see.  I suppose this post falls into that framework, too. But I was just expressing frustration.  *sigh*

Tying this to people’s own desires, or sense of pride might be the ticket.  I think a lot of the way modern America is built is in such a way that our interdependence on nature is hidden from us, and we think it’s not real.  We don’t connect the shrimp we eat with the Gulf Coast.  We don’t think about how the food we eat and the air we breathe are nature.  We think of nature as a cute little artifact, not this thing that we need to survive.

Comment #3: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/05  at  12:00 PM

“has already started turning up conspiracy theories about how leftist environmentalists destroyed the environment to prove a point. “

““Drill, baby, drill!” was a slogan that revealed that, for conservatives, the potential for environmental destruction is a reward unto itself. It excites.  “


The theory that conservatives revel in the destruction of the environment is just as stupid as the theory that Obama torpedoed the oil rig.  The slogan “drill baby, drill” is just a stupid catch-phrase for conservative voters to lap up; marketing and nothing more.  It reveals as much about conservatives as the Maytag repair man does about dryers.

Comment #4: anoNY  on  05/05  at  12:00 PM

Well said.  It was so obvious that the “drill baby drill” chanting was rooted in “you’re there and I’m going to fuck you whether you like it or not bitch” mentality.  I cringed everytime I saw it.  And to have a woman leading it…

Comment #5: JennyLI  on  05/05  at  12:06 PM

Sorry anoNY, anyone who watched the RNC convention and saw the hate on all of those faces, would have to disagree.

It was sexual.  It was brutal.  It was all about here I am with my big dick and I’ll do whatever I want with it.

Don’t tell me I’m being stupid just because I can read people’s faces when they’re not even trying to hide their ugly emotions.

Comment #6: JennyLI  on  05/05  at  12:08 PM

anon, you continue to think arguing by assertion is effective.  It’s adorable.  It’s a lot like….mansplaining!  Of course, I backed my argument up by pointing out the delight conservatives took in imagery that was openly aggressive and destructive, so you’re kind of on loose footing here.

Comment #7: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/05  at  12:12 PM

Maybe the immediate effects of this oil spill will give people pause before we go find some other irreplaceable precious environmental resource to destroy

I cant imagine why you would think this - there have been many many previous spills without any such epiphany.

Comment #8: firefall  on  05/05  at  12:12 PM

Of course, Obama is to blame for giving in to this most petty and childish side of American conservatism, in order to scramble for a few votes he’s not going to get, either from the public or from Republican members of Congress.

I know this reveals me as a hopeless Obot but, really, can we drop the meme that this spill is Obama’s fault in any way, shape or form?  Unless you think he has magic powers that make oil rigs blow up after expressing his support for exploring the possibility of maybe doing more offshore drilling, the man had nothing to do with this disaster and the federal government seems to be doing everything it can to try and solve the problem.  It’s especially silly since, as you said, the legislation that includes that language hasn’t even passed, so there has been no actual change in our offshore drilling policy.

Comment #9: Mnemosyne  on  05/05  at  12:16 PM

“The theory that conservatives revel in the destruction of the environment is just as stupid as the theory that Obama torpedoed the oil rig.”

Oh really?  Have you ever seen the lustful way many “conservatives” get when they talk about drilling/mining/damming/clear-cutting?  I’ve got relatives who not only take pride in the human ability to <strike>wreak havoc</strike> exploit nature, they also thoroughly enjoy the fact that it will make the Dirty Hippies angry.

It reminds me of of the way hunters talk.  “They are such a beautiful animals…” they say, just before they shoot them, all the while claiming they don’t just get off on killing things that did them no harm, and whose death serves no purpose. 

The slogan “drill baby, drill” is just a stupid catch-phrase for conservative voters to lap up; marketing and nothing more.  It reveals as much about conservatives as the Maytag repair man does about dryers.”

Yeah sure.  What it reveals is two important things: There is no extent the wingnut marketers will not go to in order to manipulate The Base into doing their bidding.  And there is no level of stupid and illogical reasoning The Base will not accept if they think it’s a “Conservative” thing to do…

Comment #10: MikeEss  on  05/05  at  12:16 PM

“I’ve got relatives who not only take pride in the human ability to wreak havoc exploit nature, they also thoroughly enjoy the fact that it will make the Dirty Hippies angry.”

Same here. They have no understanding of anything outside of their immediate sphere of influence. Their univers revolves around them and will dies as soon as they do.

“No reason to preserve that beautiful scenery. It won’t matter as soon as I’m gone”.

Comment #11: Mark  on  05/05  at  12:30 PM

Wow. My spelling is horrible today.

Comment #12: Mark  on  05/05  at  12:31 PM

Mark, I sympathize.  My spelling is horrible everyday.

Comment #13: helen w. h.  on  05/05  at  12:39 PM

If you want a useful example, check out Atlas Shrugged, the closest thing the modern conservative has to a handbook. In the very beginning, the Big Strong Manly Hero Dude is looking at a gorgeous natural landscape, and thinking of all the ways it can be mined and logged to create raw materials for his giant phallic skyscraper. The land as it is is worthless, merely raw materials for his “genius.”

To this mindset, the environment is merely “useful” but not meaningful in any other sense. Of course, the rather large fact that killing the landscape means killing off humans *too* is somehow overlooked. Because that would be admitting that we are not, in fact, almighty gods and masters, but just another mammal which needs an ecosystem to survive.

When you bring up this fact…that sustainability is required to maintain human life—you inevitably get blather about space-travel, planet colonization, or even living on space stations. Use up this planet, we’ll do without or get a new one. Instead of acknowledging that in all likelihood, we’d kill ourselves long before our technology got us there, and the other fact that wasting an entire planet because you can’t be bothered to maintain it is the height of stupidity.

Comment #14: emjaybee  on  05/05  at  12:41 PM

I find it interesting that almost no one is mentioning that Halliburton was in charge of the safety measures and that US regs on off-shore drilling are poor compared to Indonesia, Malaysea, North sea country requirements, etc.  And that no one had considered testing any of the safety measures under simulated pressure that would be pressent (no doubt because our national labs were gutted under Reagan and pretty steadily leveled to ruble strewn scorched earth since).

Comment #15: helen w. h.  on  05/05  at  12:42 PM

One of the things my wife wants to do before it’s too late is take a trip to the Florida Keys and try to see the Key deer.

I weep because it may already be too late for that.  Lord knows how this oil spill is going to affect the environment even miles away from any shore.

Comment #16: Falconer  on  05/05  at  12:51 PM

@3"We think of nature as a cute little artifact, not this thing that we need to survive. “

Yep, when my parents lived on Hawaii, I remember being with my Dad and seeing a current going in about 12 different directions and a mom leading a very small child into the water. When my Dad warned her that it wasn’t a good idea to take a toddler into the water under those conditions, she got all huffy and acted like he was trying to tell her what to do. And there would *constantly* be tourists dying there under dead obviously problematic conditions. People just do not understand that the environment isn’t Disneyland. It would involve a humility that they’re uncomfortable with.

Comment #17: samanthab.  on  05/05  at  12:56 PM

Wingnuts mock and deride environmentalists for their awe at the grandeur of nature, for their desire to let it exist uncontrolled and unexploited by humans.

Yup.  They’ve been doing this since at least 1799.  See: George Walker’s The Vagabond.  And even then they were making it us/them political.

Comment #18: Ranylt  on  05/05  at  01:03 PM

“The slogan “drill baby, drill” is just a stupid catch-phrase for conservative voters to lap up; marketing and nothing more.  It reveals as much about conservatives as the Maytag repair man does about dryers.”

You reveal your ignorance of the basics of marketing.  I’m in IT, but I know for a catch phrase to be effective, it has to tap into the emotional states of people.  You either enhance the positive or minimize the negatives, depending on what more strongly motivates the listeners/consumers.  The Maytag repaiir man was such a successful, long running campaign because having to spend hundreds of fraking dollars and use up a day of vacation time in order to get an appliance fixed is a major hassle people really, really want to avoid.  Drill Baby Drill was so effective for the reasons Amanda stated.  It was doubly effective because while it enhanced positives for conservatives who like their nature tamed and controlled as Amanda argued, it also tapped into their pleasure at annoying their opponents

Comment #19: Ron O.  on  05/05  at  01:06 PM

About a week after the spill started I watched a doc on the Exxon Valdez.

Twenty years later the destruction is still palpable.  Still you can find oil along the shore lines, the herring never returned and a once prosperous fishing community is still suffering from the economic effects.

Out of sight, out of mind unfortunately.

Comment #20: hypatia  on  05/05  at  01:22 PM

I think a lot of the way modern America is built is in such a way that our interdependence on nature is hidden from us, and we think it’s not real.  We don’t connect the shrimp we eat with the Gulf Coast.  We don’t think about how the food we eat and the air we breathe are nature.

Not to get all Marxian about it, but that sounds a lot like alienation of labor: We also don’t often connect the clothes we’re wearing to the 12 year-old girl who sewed them together for poverty wages under probably unsafe (and almost definitely unhealthy) conditions.  Capitalism has its pros and cons, but the invisibility of the sources of our day-to-day survival is one of the huge problems with it.

Comment #21: jTuba  on  05/05  at  01:24 PM

I think it may be a clue that nature is often thought of as feminine - “Mother Nature.”  Maybe we should consider that little nuance when we look at those rage-filled faces screaming “Drill Baby, Drill!” They even use “Baby,” one of their favorite pet names for feeeeeeemales.

Comment #22: Anfractuos  on  05/05  at  01:41 PM

Ann Coulter once stated explicitly that God gave humans license to “rape” the Earth. 

Which for some reason reminds me of Tom Friedman saying we invaded Iraq so we could tell some Arabs to “suck on this.”

Which for some reason reminds me of Chuck D rapping that “America’s a dude and the Earth’s a girl.” 

Anyway, great post Amanda.

Comment #23: Gator90  on  05/05  at  01:53 PM

I find it interesting that almost no one is mentioning that Halliburton was in charge of the safety measures and that US regs on off-shore drilling are poor

and that Halliburton lobbied Cheney (whom they always paid more $$$ in ‘deferred comp’  than he earned as VP) and Bush vigorously to ease safety requirements for this and other deepwater rigs.

Or that Halliburton/BP were drilling 7,000 feet deeper than their permit allowed.  THAT might save people from the $75 million cap on damages—BP didn’t play fair, so insurance might not cover their asses on this.

Comment #24: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  05/05  at  01:55 PM

I don’t know about that hypatia.
I still remember rubbing the sticky black goo off my feet after a day at the beach some 39 years ago.  It left an impression on me, and on the state of CA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_oil_and_gas_in_California

Comment #25: helen w. h.  on  05/05  at  01:58 PM

There’s a biblical backing to their insanity too.  So many times I’ve heard fundies use the “God gave us this world for our own use” argument.  They so easily find some out-of-context passage to back up their over-consumption (I think this is a main theme of Meet the Duggers…or is it 18 and counting…what’s the name of that show…anyway, you know what I’m referring to, right?).  It’s disgusting and eye-opening to think that people really function at maximum consumption because they CAN.  Ick.

Comment #26: Aureas  on  05/05  at  02:01 PM

To be clear, I don’t think conservatives are pro-spill. They just don’t think in those terms; they’re so focused on the initial exploitation and destruction from the drilling that they don’t think about the way it can get out of hand.  They want to destroy, they justify it by assuming it’s limited.  But like many criminal exploitations, it can quickly get out of hand.

Comment #27: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/05  at  02:06 PM

I don’t know about that hypatia.
I still remember rubbing the sticky black goo off my feet after a day at the beach some 39 years ago.  It left an impression on me, and on the state of CA.

Trust me the people of Cordova, Alaska remember well but is it still in the general thought of most Americans? No.  They saw it on the news, probably between the double homicide and an ad for their local Chevrolet dealer, and hey it was sad to see slicked up sea otters, but it’s over now. 

They don’t have to see the continuing devastation so what skin is it off their back if companies don’t have all those annoying regulations on them as they drill for oil, they get to pay 2.80 for a gallon of gas instead of 3.50.

Comment #28: hypatia  on  05/05  at  02:19 PM

““Drill, baby, drill!” was a slogan that revealed that, for conservatives, the potential for environmental destruction is a reward unto itself. It excites.”

Really? That doesn’t seem a bit of a stretch to you? This kind of thinking sounds just like the anti-choicers saying women have abortions because they like killing babies.

Comment #29: kiki  on  05/05  at  02:19 PM

Except that the pro-choice slogan is, “Every child a wanted child.”  If it was, “Scrape, baby, scrape!” you’d have a point. But it’s not.

Comment #30: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/05  at  02:21 PM

“The theory that conservatives revel in the destruction of the environment is just as stupid as the theory that Obama torpedoed the oil rig.”

Conservatives aren’t pro-spill, but the glee they take in “pissing off hippies” and wasting resources is part of the general reverlry their enjoy at the idea of destroying the environment. For example, I live in Lexington, KY and on April 22, Earth Day, a large caravan of trucks, SUVs and a couple cars (and one Prius, which was seriously weird) got together to drive around “New Circle Road” which is a road that circles the city to specifically waste gas and pump needless carbon into the air in order to mock environmentalists and the spirit of Earth day itself. They know that its pollution, they enjoyed the idea of trashing the Earth. They are dominance loving assholes (oh, and it was sponsored by a local country radio station). They are pro-environmental destruction and much of this is justified by “dominionist theology” which used to push for nuclear war to bring about the “end times” but now dominionist preachers are claiming that the end times will come when we’ve used up all the oil (which god timed perfectly to run out when he pre-ordained it). So, being wasteful is A SACRAMENT. This is not fringe, though its rarely addressed or turned into sound bites—its subtly promoted in the pulpit, but explicitly understood among the evangelical leadership.

Comment #31: Thealogian  on  05/05  at  02:44 PM

There is a whole branch of feminism called eco-feminism which looks at the construction of women and nature as resources to be dominated by men. Genesis states that man will have dominion over the earth and also that women will be subject to their husbands and give birth in pain. I highly recommend “The Great Cosmic Mother” by Sjoo and Mor, especially the chapter called The Machine for an over view of some of this. Other eco-feminists would eschew the view from the ancient past but also look at the similarities of the intertwined oppression of women and the earth.

I am not making the case that women are innately more anything but there is something to our history of child bearing and rearing that gives us an education most men don’t receive and there is something to the acculturating men into the role of soldier that calls for them to reject their capacity for empathy with other humans and non human beings. This means the world is being ruled mainly by beings who are trained to block out much vital information. We really need an eco-feminist revolution that will change planetary thinking from dominating nature and people and all peoples considered closer to nature (i.e. indigenous cultures and women) to non dominating ethos that works with nature and empowers women in the public sphere and allows men to grow by participating in caring work.

Comment #32: artemix  on  05/05  at  02:45 PM

True the slogan is different, but how people are interpreting them are pretty much the same. Hmm, I suppose what I’m talking about is more of the attitude than the actual slogan. Reading the comments here today, I see several people proclaiming that conservatives love destroying the environment for the sake of destroying the environment. I find that ridiculous. Like I said before, to me that kind of thinking sounds just like those lovely anti-choicers making wild claims about women loving killing babies.

Comment #33: kiki  on  05/05  at  02:51 PM

Oops, sorry. The above comment was directed at #30.

Comment #34: kiki  on  05/05  at  02:53 PM

You’re right on with this, Amanda, except instead of referencing the oil spill, let’s talk about Mountaintop Coal Removal.

Leveling a mountain. On purpose.

Conservatives saw something slightly phallic in nature and decided to rip it off.

Comment #35: humanadverb  on  05/05  at  03:01 PM

So many times I’ve heard fundies use the “God gave us this world for our own use” argument.

You know, my parents gave me a car for my own use, but they would have been pretty pissed off if I’d totaled it.  Who accepts a gift from someone and then proceeds to trash it because they can?

Yet more proof that many fundies have never moved past the mentality of an 8-year-old.  “It’s mine and I can do what I want with it and you can’t stop me, nyah-nyah!”

Comment #36: Mnemosyne  on  05/05  at  03:06 PM

I’m going to pick nits here, just ‘cuz I’m a bird nerd, and note that there really isn’t such a thing as a seagull. They’re just gulls. Lots of different kinds of gulls, but no seagulls.

I just can’t bear to watch any of the coverage of this disaster, though. Too ghastly.

Comment #37: millie  on  05/05  at  03:11 PM

Let me clarify.

They love destroying the environment because it’ll piss off the “hippies”.

And a lot of what they do, the main goal is pissing off the hippies.

Comment #38: Karmakin  on  05/05  at  03:13 PM

Also, they just love destruction.

Comment #39: quercus  on  05/05  at  03:17 PM

Sorry, kiki, but I’ve never heard a woman talk about having an abortion for fun—the sole exception to prove the rule might be the artist who had unprotected sex and then displayed the used tampons.

There are MANY MANY conservatives and dominionists who claim that it’s their sacred right to use things up.  Who don’t give a shit about anything but profit, and actually take glee in harming the environment.  Rush Limbaugh carries on in such a manner before Earth Day.  Thealogian’s local radio station.  Glenn Beck and company talking about turning on all their appliances during Earth Hour.

Are they happy there was a spill?  No.  Are they willing to do anything to minimize damages or potential damages?  Not if it means a cent of lost profit.  Fox News is already trying to claim that the leak was liberal/Democratic sabotage to try to force more environmental protections/regulations on an already overburdened industry.  (All industries are overburdened.  We shouldn’t regulate anything.)

and the Dominionists are just crazy fucks who think they’re going to be Raptured, and that the sooner they can goad the middle east into war, the sooner they get to go to heaven.  They’re pretty fucking evil, and they refuse to believe in climate change, peak oil’/water, or anything that requires any responsibility.  Or if they do believe, they believe that it’s just a sign that Rapture is coming and they get to leave us behind and go “neener neener neener” while we have to suffer through.

It’s not that hard to find, unfortunately.

Comment #40: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  05/05  at  03:17 PM

“Reading the comments here today, I see several people proclaiming that conservatives love destroying the environment for the sake of destroying the environment. I find that ridiculous.”

I’m very happy for you that you’ve never met nor had to deal with this sort of flaming asshole, but just because it’s a phenomenally childish mindset does not mean that a shocking percentage of the population hasn’t managed to make it into adulthood with it quite intact.  Assholes trash lots of stuff just for the sheer joy of trashing it.  See also, griefers.

Comment #41: preying mantis  on  05/05  at  03:17 PM

They love destroying the environment because it’ll piss off the “hippies”.

Did anyone remember the conservative blogosphere’s response to “earth hour” or whatever it was? They wanted to purposefully waste as much as energy as possible just to stick it to those environmentalists. I’m sure the troll can search for it on RedState.

Comment #42: bay of arizona  on  05/05  at  03:34 PM

I am not making the case that women are innately more anything but there is something to our history of child bearing and rearing that gives us an education most men don’t receive

That’s kind of doing that, sorry.  I’m an environmentalist, and I’ve never had children.  The goddess-worshiping stuff always puts me off because it plays right into the same stereotypes that encourage conservatives to uphold destruction as virtuous because it’s masculine.  You mean well, I’m sure, but most people think male is better than female, masculine is better than feminine, and therefore if conservation is feminine and waste is masculine, most people will actually be more, not less predisposed to prefer waste.

Comment #43: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/05  at  03:50 PM

“..To be clear, I don’t think conservatives are pro-spill…”

You know, I think the conservatives ARE pro-spill, and pro-environmental-disaster. Their apocalyptic mind set loves death and destruction, the rapine and terrorizing of “the other”, whether it is human or Nature.

I doubt you’ll find too many of them trying to rescue the birds and marine life dying from this spill.  In fact, I’d bet good money that many of these people are looking forward to the oil destroying the entire Gulf, getting into the gulf stream and entering the Atlantic, maybe circumnavigating the Earth! Wow!  They’ll feel the same sort of vicarious sexual pleasure as they experience when seeing women, children and other “weak” (minority) people abused and degraded.  And they won’t believe it will affect THEM at all.

I know ‘conservative’ types who were angry and disappointed that “only” 3,000 people were killed in the 9/11 attack.  They wanted 10,000 to be killed, hell, they wished AlQueda had set off an atomic bomb. Preferably in NY City or San Francisco.

For example, witness the enjoyment people have of doomsday movies: “2012”, or the earlier “When Worlds Collide” type movies.  The wingers are sure that They, the special few, would have a berth on the Ark, and a front-row seat to view, snf masturbate to, the annihilation of the World.

A commenter on C&L;ends every comment with “Conservatism is a mental illness”.  It’s kind of annoying to read over and over; but that commenter is correct.  The right wing isn’t really conservative anymore, they are perverted in almost every way, and they like it.

Comment #44: Kwillow  on  05/05  at  03:51 PM

Conservatives aren’t pro-spill, but the glee they take in “pissing off hippies” and wasting resources is part of the general revelry their enjoy at the idea of destroying the environment.

I’ve long wished I had the resources and knowledge to start my own restaurant—one of those where everything is aggressively high-fat, high-calorie, high-sugar, and high-gonna-shorten-your-life-if-you-eat-it that you hear about from time to time. Lots of plate-sized quadruple bacon mega-cheeseburgers drizzled in extra bacon grease and a side order of Crisco.

Hire some actors to portray stereotypical environmentalists/food advocacy/hippies/liberals, put them behind a screen to keep ‘em safe, then have them tell the diners not to eat all that crap, don’t you know how unhealthy it is, what a waste of resources, why must you make us hippies so angry!

You’d have Republicans eating themselves into comas right before your eyes, and paying you money for it. It would be simultaneously glorious and horrifying…

Comment #45: Scott  on  05/05  at  03:53 PM

A friend and I were at Grand Isle on the Louisiana coast just last week, after the spill but before we had really begun to understand what it was going to mean. We stopped at this little fishing village to get some lunch, and listened to the fishermen talk about their catches—shacks with homemade signs advertising shrimp and crab line the highway. Then we hung out at the state park on the beach, and in the evening birded along an oak thicket and marsh. The cacophony from the terns and wading birds out there was amazing. On our way back home from the airport on Sunday, we ran into a couple of fishermen down from Alaska, and we talked about what had happened to their communities after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. They still haven’t recovered all of these years later, and that’s what’s in store for the fishing communities we visited on the LA coast. I’m too sad for anger at this point, after having seen first-hand what is about to be destroyed. The air in New Orleans smelled strongly of petroleum at night.

Comment #46: jenofiniquity  on  05/05  at  04:00 PM

Scott:  seen the commercial for KFC’s new sandwtch:

“...The new KFC Double Down sandwich is real! This one-of-a-kind sandwich features two thick and juicy boneless white meat chicken filets (Original Recipe® or Grilled), two pieces of bacon, two melted slices of Monterey Jack and pepper jack cheese and Colonel’s Sauce. This product is so meaty, there’s no room for a bun!...”

They claim it is only 540 calories.

Comment #47: Kwillow  on  05/05  at  04:01 PM

Whatever the ostensible excuse the Taliban had for destroying the Buddhas, outsiders can clearly see that they’re motivated mainly be a petulant unwillingness to engage or regard anything that makes them feel smaller or less important.  Pleasure and beauty offend fundamentalists, because these things are out of their control and present a threat to their death grip on power.  Art reminds people that there’s something more than the tightly controlled, colorless existence offered by fundamentalism, and so the fundamentalists are wary of it.  In Afghanistan, they just destroy amazing pieces of art that remind you of the long history and imagination and diversity of humanity.  Here, Christian fundamentalists fight against pop culture by replacing it with weak replicas that are meant to satisfy the urge without giving too much of that dangerous pleasure.

This is incredibly half baked, and reveals that you know approximately nothing about art history or religious history.

The Christian church, both Catholic and Orthodox, is responsible for the preservation and promotion of art throughout Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.  Additionally, Muslims obey the no graven images rule, which they have almost never broken even for secular purposes.

If the Taliban had destroyed non-figurative art, particularly some gorgeous, traditional, non-figurative Muslim mosaics, you might have a point, but, as far as I know, they didn’t.

Comment #48: keshmeshi  on  05/05  at  04:21 PM

So, its OK to destroy precious, irreplaceable artworks if you are a “sincere” religious bigot?

Comment #49: Kwillow  on  05/05  at  04:34 PM

You’re right on with this, Amanda, except instead of referencing the oil spill, let’s talk about Mountaintop Coal Removal.

Leveling a mountain. On purpose.

Conservatives saw something slightly phallic in nature and decided to rip it off.

Seriously, this is evil.  I’m from southern WV (the explosion last month was two mountains over from where I grew up and my dad and grandparents still live) and it is awful—and I can’t say anything horrible enough about Don Blankenship.  Man is a complete bastard. 

I was just home at Easter and we went riding with my dad, which is a favorite pasttime back home.  He took us to an old deep mine that has been abandoned for years so that my son could look for fossils, which was a good time and it reminded me how much I miss mountains now that I live in NW Ohio where it is ridiculously flat.  But the route he wanted to take to get back isn’t there anymore because somebody has a brand new strip mine.  Dad was through there at Christmas, and there was a mountain, but just 4 months later, it is gone.  And it is completely devastating to see—it almost looks like a lunar landscape.  No trees, no soil, no grass, everything just gone down to the bedrock and a giant hole in the middle where there used to be a mountain.  Just gone.  I took pictures of it, just as a reminder.

I mean, we have a history down there of the coal companies killing the land and the people for profit, and we’re mostly used to it.  Hell, I’m from Buffalo Creek and I have family who died in that disaster (a couple of years before I was born).  But it seems like it’s been getting worse in the last decade or so.

Comment #50: ks  on  05/05  at  04:39 PM

really isn’t such a thing as a seagull.

Seeing as I’ve never encounters a species of gull exclusive to the CA shoreline, that doesn’t surprise me in the least.  grin

So, its OK to destroy precious, irreplaceable artworks if you are a “sincere” religious bigot?

Apparently so:


The Byzantine Iconoclasm (Greek: Εἰκονομαχία, Eikonomachía) refers to two periods in the history of the Byzantine Empire when Emperors, backed by imperially-appointed leaders and councils of the Greek Orthodox Church, imposed a ban on religious images or icons. The “First Iconoclasm”, as it is sometimes called, lasted between about 730 and 787, when a change on the throne reversed the ban. The “Second Iconoclasm” was between 814 and 842. Iconoclasm, Greek for “image-breaking”, is the deliberate destruction within a culture of the culture’s own religious icons and other symbols or monuments, usually for religious or political motives. People who engage in or support iconoclasm are called iconoclasts, a term that has come to be applied figuratively to any person who breaks or disdains established dogmata or conventions. Conversely, people who revere or venerate religious images are derisively called “iconolaters” (εἰκονολάτραι). They are normally known as “iconodules” (εἰκονόδουλοι), or “iconophiles” (εἰκονόφιλοι).

Comment #51: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  05/05  at  04:56 PM

“This is incredibly half baked, and reveals that you know approximately nothing about art history or religious history.
The Christian church, both Catholic and Orthodox, is responsible for the preservation and promotion of art throughout Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.  Additionally, Muslims obey the no graven images rule, which they have almost never broken even for secular purposes.”

The fact that the good Muslims of Afghanistan somehow managed to coexist with two carved images of a figure of no interest to them for almost 1500 years must be an aberration, which is why it was so gosh darned important for Mullah Omar to reverse himself (after saying in 1999, “The government considers the Bamyan statues as an example of a potential major source of income for Afghanistan from international visitors.”) and destroy the Buddhas in 2001.

Wiki: “According to UNESCO Director-General Koïchiro Matsuura, a meeting of ambassadors from the 54 member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) was conducted. All OIC states - including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, three countries that officially recognised the Taliban government - joined the protest to spare the monuments.[15] A statement issued by the ministry of religious affairs of Taliban regime justified the destruction as being in accordance with Islamic law.[16] Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates later condemned the destruction as “savage”.[17]”

Well, I guess if all those Muslims demanded the statues destruction…oh wait!  They didn’t want the Buddhas destroyed!  So maybe Islam’s strictures didn’t really require the Afghani vandals to act.  But what the hell do the Saudis know — after all they’re only the keepers of the single most important religious site in all of Islam…

Comment #52: MikeEss  on  05/05  at  05:01 PM

<We really need an eco-feminist revolution that will change planetary thinking from dominating nature and people and all peoples considered closer to nature (i.e. indigenous cultures and women)</i>

Christ on a pogo stick.  The last thing we need is a feminist revolution that perpetuates noble savage bullshit.  Indigenous cultures are considered “closer to nature” because White colonists have spent centuries pushing this supposed compliment as a justification for colonization, expropriation, and, in the case of the Native Americans, outright genocide.  Holding up “indigenous cultures” as paragons of modern environmental ideals exoticises and renders them as Others, in the same way as when people talk about the “ancient wisdom of the Orient.”

The belief that indigenous cultures are “closer to nature” continues today to serve as a justification for the poor conditions on reservations (after all, they want to live close to nature, so they can be put anywhere, nearby communities can oppose any development plans while claiming to have the best interests of the tribe at heart, and the federal government need not worry about providing adequate funds to build schools, roads, hospitals, etc.).  Further, indigenous cultures are not monolithic or interchangeable; some have pro-environmental traditions, others do not. 

This is one of the chief dangers of woo feminism and woo ecology (and really, woo anything).  By eschewing any rigorous historical investigation in favor of constructing a narrative out of (nearly) whole cloth, they fill in a lot of the (self-imposed) blanks with their own unconscious bias.  Not surprisingly, those blanks get filled in with paternalistic, racist ideologies.  However laudable the goal, that’s not okay, and the presence of non-woo feminists and ecologists show the harm to be wholly unnecessary.

Comment #53: Thom  on  05/05  at  05:25 PM

People just do not understand that the environment isn’t Disneyland. It would involve a humility that they’re uncomfortable with.

samanthab, I think understanding would also up an end to those awful “taunt the animals that might bite” shows and only show the survivors who “bravely” battled the animals. *sigh* It’s such a tedious meme.
I think that Grizzly Man was a great movie - it showed what happens when you mess with nature like an idiot.

Comment #54: Danica Lefse Queen  on  05/05  at  05:37 PM

hypatia @28:
The Santa Barbara oil spill was literally seen and experienced by a far larger number of people than that in Alaska.  That is why people in MA, NC and WA may remember it not as a news story, but as something they themselves experienced. 
More people live in CA.  More people visited CA during the time of the Santa Barbara Straights spill than live in AK at the time of its spill.  CA has a government not so dependent on oil leases for its survival (and with far less personal stake in oil revenues for the general population).  It is, therefore, both easier and more favorably viewed as a necessity to regulate oil operations in CA than it is in AK, despite both having experienced massive spills.  It’s also easier for peolpe outside CA to understand why they would want to do so (as CA is “real” to more of them than AK is).

Comment #55: helen w. h.  on  05/05  at  05:40 PM

Additionally, Muslims obey the no graven images rule, which they have almost never broken even for secular purposes.

But there’s a big difference between not making graven images yourself and destroying other graven images made by people who don’t necessarily share your beliefs. 

As MikeEss pointed out, Islamic cultures managed to coexist with ancient works of art that counted as “graven images” for centuries.  You can’t really justify this as anything but fanaticism and selfishness (selfish because it rests on the idea that it’s more important for you to push your religion on everyone and everything than for future generations to be able to enjoy great works of art).

Comment #56: Erda  on  05/05  at  05:43 PM

Regarding EcoFeminism: we have an eco-feminism course at the Women & Gender Studies department at the University I work at (I teach in the ENG dep, but I’m starting an appointment with WGS this summer). Anyway, it hasn’t been taught for years because woo-feminism is being more closely examined. I actually just grabbed some of the texts for that class and the eco-feminism critical texts as well as some newly mined “ecological feminism” anthologies to see about re-designing the course to address the very concerns Amanda & Thom have brought up. Studying the eco-feminist movement & apologists, examining their assumptions & intellectual frame work and then looking at other ways of articulating intersectional justice work (ecological feminism then, which does not embrace the feminizatiom of nature because that rhetorically serves the dominionists, etc). is a good idea. So, just to let you all know in terms of critical writing, most EcoFeminism comes out of the 1990’s and at least in terms of academic writing, contemporary eco-related feminist literature is trying to call out eco-feminism woo.

Comment #57: Thealogian  on  05/05  at  05:48 PM

Kesh didn’t say the destruction of the icons was ok, he (she?) questioned Amanda’s claim that the Taliban was motivated “mainly” by a perverse hatred of profundity. If that’s true, no one has yet given any good reason to believe it in this thread. Do we have some strong reason in this case to believe that the Taliban was motivated by a hatred of art rather than by a desire to destroy idols of an ostensibly false religion?

Comment #58: Vojtas  on  05/05  at  05:49 PM

How is it that we can go through the main article, and 54 comments (and counting), yet no one seems to appreciate that “drill, baby, drill” isn’t something sexual and isn’t something that anyone wants to do to deliberately pollute the environment, but means that conservatives think we need to increase our domestic production of petroleum and decrease our dependence on imported oil?

The facts are clear and simple: we need petroleum to maintain our current economy and lifestyle.  We can hope that, in the future, there will be well-developed and well-engineered alternative energy sources which will decrease our need for petroleum, but those things are just that: in the future.  We need oil, today, to get to work, to produce things, to heat our homes and our businesses, to get food from the farm to the grocery store, to help due virtually everything that goes on in modern society.

Petroleum is the simplest and most efficient form of portable fuel for energy of which we know; that’s why it’s the basis of modern industrialized society.  We drill for oil, where we can, because we need the stuff.  Nobody wants accidents and nobody wants to see spills, but if the alternative is not enough available petroleum, then some risks have to be taken to get it.

Comment #59: Dana  on  05/05  at  05:51 PM

Thom @53, well put.

Comment #60: helen w. h.  on  05/05  at  05:51 PM

Muslims obey the no graven images rule, which they have almost never broken even for secular purposes.

Islam has been the religion of Afghanistan for 1000 years, and those Buddhist statues survived just fine until the Taliban, and explicitly fundamentalist movement, came to power. Furthermore, there is plenty of representative secular art in Muslim cultures and always has been, even though Mohammed is never depicted. So Amanda is dead on when she talks about a fundamentalist hostility to art and beauty.

The example of Byzantine iconoclasm is an interesting parallel because it had similar origins: in the chaos in Asia Minor following the Muslim conquest of the Levant and North Africa, successful military leaders like the emperors Leo III and Constantine V advocated a sort of fundamentalism that regarded representational religious images as being the cause of the military defeats, and leveraged their military success as proof of their righteousness with the support of the military, even in the face of opposition from the religious mainstream of the time.

Comment #61: Tyro  on  05/05  at  05:56 PM

Except, DANA#59, the oil that is “drilled, BABY, drilled” is NOT used domestically, it is sold on the World Market to whoever pays the highest price.

Your concern with maintaining our current wasteful and polluting lifestyle is touching, but Drilling, Baby, Drilling (aka: oil volcano spills) won’t help us meet that noble goal.

“Nobody wants accidents” is true, but nobody will lift a finger, or spend a penny to stop an accident from happening is also a fact.  And when the “accident” happens, it is the fault of environmentalists.  How and why?  “Shut-up!” that’s how & why.

Comment #62: Kwillow  on  05/05  at  06:04 PM

Yeah, what Tyro said at #61. Religion and art have always gone well together (honestly, I prefer the geometric Muslim stuff to most Christian stuff). Except when some nut bags come along to trash the place.

It is also funny that the original commenter, way up there, points to a period (dark/middle ages) to defend religion as upholders of art. Isn’t that when they were running around painting fig leaves over all the classics?

The Catholic church didn’t the Renaissance was hardly fundamentalist. Think of all those Papal bastards.

Comment #63: humanadverb  on  05/05  at  06:07 PM

Dana, it’s almost as though you think we’re as dumb and uninformed as you are…

Since we don’t have very large oil reserves, and domestic drilling doesn’t affect the price (and depleting our oil reserves to deal with a short term problem can’t possibly be a good idea), it is fair to assume that getting a stadium full of people whipped up into a psychotic frenzy chanting “drill baby drill” was just a means of exploiting a bunch of sexual excitement that cones with enthusiasm for drilling stuff and pissing off hippies.

I mean, I think huge machines are cool, too, but they’re tools. There will always be some other big machine to get excited about, and oil rigs aren’t necessarily it.

Comment #64: Tyro  on  05/05  at  06:12 PM

“Petroleum is the simplest and most efficient form of portable fuel for energy of which we know; that’s why it’s the basis of modern industrialized society.  We drill for oil, where we can, because we need the stuff.  Nobody wants accidents and nobody wants to see spills, but if the alternative is not enough available petroleum, then some risks have to be taken to get it.”

And I suppose you think we ought to just ignore Peak Oil and pretend it will last forever, or at least long enough so that you can live as you do now ‘til the very last.  Screw future humans on Earth because we won’t put in the effort to develop the next generation(s) of energy production technology until it’s too late to avoid huge disruptions.

Great thinking there, Mr. Pico.  I’m sure future generations will praise us for keeping our heads up our asses and leaving them with the smoking ruins of our civilization as their birthright…

Comment #65: MikeEss  on  05/05  at  06:16 PM

Dana:

I’m not so sure about putting all this psychological gender-loading on the phrase, but “drill baby drill” is quite clearly meant to evoke sex, especially coming out of a woman who has traded on her looks her entire life. It’s also something of a war cry and a thought-stopper—it’s short, punchy, memorable, and therefore perfect for some sort of motivational speech.

As for the rest of it: don’t we use way too much petroleum as it is? Yes, we need it to maintain our economy and standard of life *right now*. But we’re still going to have to find ways to, say, substitute waste cornstalks for plastic and build fuel cells running on some pretty dubious inputs (waste food, dogshit, that sort of thing). In fact, I’m going to make a prediction that by the end of the 21st century, horse breeding and care will make a huge comeback as a profession.

Comment #66: BrianX  on  05/05  at  06:31 PM

I can’t believe anybody in the media actually gave that douchebag former Arabian horse trainer the time of day as a supposed expert on handling disasters.  Oh wait, Brownie was on Fox News, and was interviewed by Neil Cavuto, so yes, I totally can believe that.

It’s now come down to a former Bush acolyte literally accusing President Obama of masterminding a plot to cause what likely will become the worst oil spill in history.  And he purposely did it just so that he could undermine the efforts of those benevolent oil companies who are all just looking out for the little guys.

Comment #67: DTG in STL  on  05/05  at  06:32 PM

Muslims obey the no graven images rule, which they have almost never broken even for secular purposes.

Depends on the Muslim. There’s nothing in the Koran against representational art. There’s a supplementary tradition that amounts to one scholar writing about another guy who claims to have overheard the Prophet talking about something that can be interpreted as referring to representational art if you stretch:

I heard the Prophet saying, “Allah said, ‘Who are most unjust than those who try to create something like My creation? I challenge them to create even a smallest ant, a wheat grain or a barley grain.’”

Vague hearsay: seems like a reasonable justification for destroying and vandalising irreplaceable works of art, no?

Generally, the Sunnis and various sub-sects buy into it to one degree or another, while Shias have historically tended to be a little more relaxed about it (that’s The Man himself in that Persian Muslim artwork, BTW).

Now the kind of arsehole fundies that Amanda discusses are quick to latch onto such a flimsy religious rational, of course, because they’re all about excercise of power and control and spiteful puritanism.

That tendency is not limited to Muslims or the Taliban, of course, but combine that nasty fundamentalist attitude with the usual 10% of any religion who are destructive psychopaths, throw in a theocratic state that lets the latter run rampant, and yeah, you’re going to see that kind of thuggish behaviour.

Which brings us to modern American conservatives, who would be unrecognisable to someone like Teddy Roosevelt but for their jingoism and racism. Their extreme free market religion is that of selfishness, thoughtless self-indulgence and short-term thinking, as Dana was kind enough to demonstrate.

Give them the kind of corpratist state they want, and a good number of them would gladly blast T.R.‘s face off Mt. Rushmore in a quest for oil to fuel their SUVs.

Comment #68: Gracchus.  on  05/05  at  06:54 PM

Do we have some strong reason in this case to believe that the Taliban was motivated by a hatred of art rather than by a desire to destroy idols of an ostensibly false religion?

Yep!  The vast majority of Muslims aren’t hell bent on destroying priceless works of art.  It’s not a result of Islam.  It’s a particular brand of Islam, one that is marked by this petty, fundamentalist, right wing, beauty-hating, misogynist mindset.

Comment #69: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/05  at  07:03 PM

“Give them the kind of corpratist state they want, and a good number of them would gladly blast T.R.’s face off Mt. Rushmore in a quest for oil to fuel their SUVs.”

...there are “conservatives” among us who would happily use the last barrel of oil to fuel the last SUV, to get them to the top of the last mountain, where they would use the last drops to power the last chainsaw, with which they would cut down the last tree (if they were “lucky” it would fall on the last example of some endangered species or some hippies trying to stop them), the wood from which they would use to light a fire, upon which they would burn the last copies of An Inconvenient Truth, while dancing around the fire naked — and they’d consider all that a great use of Earth’s resources…

...and then after the sun went down, and it started to get dark and cold, they’d complain that Democrats were doing a terrible job of running the government, and wonder where the next Ronald Reagan was who’d fix everything and bring it all back to the way they like it…

Comment #70: MikeEss  on  05/05  at  07:10 PM

BrianX wrote:

I’m not so sure about putting all this psychological gender-loading on the phrase, but “drill baby drill” is quite clearly meant to evoke sex, especially coming out of a woman who has traded on her looks her entire life. It’s also something of a war cry and a thought-stopper—it’s short, punchy, memorable, and therefore perfect for some sort of motivational speech.

Sure; so what?  Motivational speeches are what they are, and in this case, we are looking for more domestic oil production.

As for the rest of it: don’t we use way too much petroleum as it is? Yes, we need it to maintain our economy and standard of life *right now*. But we’re still going to have to find ways to, say, substitute waste cornstalks for plastic and build fuel cells running on some pretty dubious inputs (waste food, dogshit, that sort of thing). In fact, I’m going to make a prediction that by the end of the 21st century, horse breeding and care will make a huge comeback as a profession.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with looking for substitutes; that’s part of progress.  But we have to recognize that those substitutes aren’t ready now, and we have to support our economy now while we develop those substitutes.  That includes increasing domestic production of oil where we can.

Comment #71: Dana  on  05/05  at  07:17 PM

Kwillow wrote:

Except, DANA#59, the oil that is “drilled, BABY, drilled” is NOT used domestically, it is sold on the World Market to whoever pays the highest price.

True enough, but as world production increases, the supply increases, and the price decreases.  It doesn’t really matter if the gas in your car today came from Saudi Arabia if the price of that gasoline was held down slightly by increased production in the United States.

Of course, if our own production were high enough, we couldn’t be embargoed or coerced by other countries; that, in itself, would be a huge advantage.

Of course, we do have one already existing source of energy which could replace a lot of the petroleum currently used in the United States: building a lot more nuclear power plants could replace existing power plants which run on diesel fuel.  The technology already exists, and the engineering has already been done.

Comment #72: Dana  on  05/05  at  07:22 PM

“Of course, we do have one already existing source of energy which could replace a lot of the petroleum currently used in the United States: building a lot more nuclear power plants could replace existing power plants which run on diesel fuel.  The technology already exists, and the engineering has already been done.”

..‘cause the only thing better in the “conservative” mind than an oil platform off the coast — operated by rapacious companies with all the integrity and morals of a wingnut bible-thumping preacher on the prowl for money and ass, waiting to ruin the ecology anywhere near it — is a series of future Chernobyls littering the country — all operated by rapacious companies with all the integrity and morals of a Conservative Republican politician on the prowl for money and ass, waiting to spill their toxic contents on the countryside and leave it radioactive for centuries…

Great thinking…

Comment #73: MikeEss  on  05/05  at  07:49 PM

We really need an eco-feminist revolution that will change planetary thinking from dominating nature and people and all peoples considered closer to nature (i.e. indigenous cultures and women)

That is so full of shit, especially the indigenous cultures part.  People keep confusing the technical/structural capacity to do great damage, or the lack thereof, with morality.  And some people, including assorted indigenous people (I live and work for one such group, so I’ve seen it directly) intentionally make that association, sometimes out of honest belief, sometimes out of ulterior motives to play up the “noble savage” stereotype.

Consider this: do people think the Classic Greeks and the Egyptians were closer to nature?  Probably not, because we see the evolution of culture and technology from them up to the present day Western civilization as being part of the same continuum.  Yet if we cut that continuum short, say by aliens invading during those civilizations’ heydays, people would have said the exact same thing about them as they say about indigenous people today.  Those societies simply didn’t have the technology or population to make the kind of large scale environmental impacts we do now (because most people aren’t Captain Planet villains who destroy the environment just for no reason other than the Evulz).

Generally speaking, “indigenous peoples” today fall into two overlapping categories: people who live in marginal environments, and people who had alien cultures invading their territory and cutting off their internal development.  The people in marginal environments (and I live in one) aren’t going to be able to have much of an impact because they won’t have the population base technological advancement a civilization requires which can have a large effect on the environment: if everyone is out collecting and gathering food and materials just to survive, there’s no excess capacity for the thinkers and tinkerers.

The people who had their internal development get cut off are the ones who never reached the technological level to have the impacts civilizations do today.  They didn’t ruin their environments because they were closer to nature and the planet: they just hadn’t yet developed the technology to do so efficiently.

Comment #74: KeithM  on  05/05  at  07:55 PM

MikeEss:  I think nuclear power would be a step up from coal and petroleum.  Chernobyl is a terrible worst-case scenario to be sure, but unchecked global warming from the continued use of fossil fuels is a worse one, and far more likely.  We can and should pursue wind and solar energy as well, but in the short and medium term, the risks of increased use of nuclear power in the US strike me as far less than the continued (or even increased) use of fossil fuels.  Keeping Yucca Mountain contained for 400 years is a manageable problem; pushing the oceans back is not.

Comment #75: Thom  on  05/05  at  08:04 PM

And to continue, some examples right off the top of my head: megafauna extinctions in North America and Australia are closely associated with the arrival of Homo sapiens.  Head-Smashed-In-Buffalo-Jump is named due to the enormous number of skeletons found at the base of the cliff, one of the many places where “closer to nature” people drove entire herds of animals off cliffs, typically killing a hell of a lot more than could be used as meat or material, causing an enormous wastage.  Technology in the form of the riding horse and bow, later the gun, actually reduced the killing initially because local hunters had the ability to kill selectively, thus only what they really needed.

In the Atlantic Provinces of Canada, there’s been research showing that deer were going extinct due to local overhunting, and that their comeback happened because of introduced Eurasian diseases that killed off much of the local indigenous population and it took a few centuries before the human population (indigenous and colonist) came back by which time deer weren’t a primary necessity any more, so they had a reprieve.

If you’d given the native North and South American cultures a few centuries more solitude and safety from the Eurasian bugs, at some point someone would have developed the capacity to pillage the environment just as well as the Middle Eastern, European, or Southeast Asian civilizations.

Or maybe not, if you believe everything in Guns, Germs, and Steel, but even there Diamond was making the argument that differences were due to other things than inherent human values and beliefs.

Comment #76: KeithM  on  05/05  at  08:07 PM

Of course, if our own production were high enough, we couldn’t be embargoed or coerced by other countries

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride: the united states simply doesn’t have enough petroleum
to bypass any possible embargo. You shouldn’t made policy decisions based on delusions you hold: you must make policy decisions based on actual facts.

Comment #77: Tyro  on  05/05  at  08:33 PM

Hey anyone still trying to reason with Dana.  He’s arguing while using what he thinks are indisputable facts but are really 30-year-old talking points that were already becoming dated when they were first coined.  He has no clue how limited the effect of offshore drilling would be - a drop in the bucket - and doesn’t want to have a clue; and he is way way willfully behind (not that he ever looked into it) on his thinking (I can’t help but giggle using that term in relation to him) and understanding (ditto) about the capabilities of already existing alternative energy sources that are truly only waiting for investment to swing away from oil and gas sources toward the alternative way.

But it’s Dana’s type of indoctrinated not-wanting-to-know-more-than-he-already-thinks-he-knows kind of thought process and, well I’ll just say it, his personal brainwashing, that has kept us at the mercy of big oil all these decades and would continue to do so if we give even the least bit of serious attention to the type of things he or anyone else says or still believes.  If someone like Dana can’t open his programmed mind enough to want to grasp facts as they exist rather than how he thinks things are (big personal revelation got him this far, he thinks), then ignore them.  I’m done.

Comment #78: News Nag  on  05/05  at  09:00 PM

“We can and should pursue wind and solar energy as well, but in the short and medium term, the risks of increased use of nuclear power in the US strike me as far less than the continued (or even increased) use of fossil fuels.”

As a science-oriented guy myself, there is a certain amount of logic to this, although my understanding is there’s not all that much fissionable fuel around either.  I wouldn’t have a problem with nuclear plants — right up until I remember that it will be the Exxon, BP, Halliburton, Massey, and Enron mentalities that will be “responsible” for the safety of those plants.  And thanks to decades of mindless “deregulation”, and regulatory capture, the Feds are no longer in a position to ensure regulations are in place and followed to ensure our continued ability to live on this continent.

Whatever quick-and-sleazy short-turn-profits-are-all-that-matter mindset lead to the 3-Mile Island disaster (to name an event that happened here and not thousands of discountable miles away) is still there, at best, and is likely worse now than ever.  France and Japan can mind their nuke plants with a minimum of drama.  But here in the US, with one political party completely insane and the other beholden to everyone except the American People, I have zero faith that we are any longer capable of thoughtfully building and operating such dangerous devices.

With a coal or oil plant, you get constant production of pollution, granted, but if a coal or oil plant “fails”, you don’t have to permanently evacuate the countryside for a 100-mile radius around the plant.  And the pollution stops as soon as you close the plant.  Not true for nukes, unfortunately…

Comment #79: MikeEss  on  05/05  at  09:04 PM

Chernobyl was actually the third worst nuclear energy plant disaster in the former USSR. My father, who is a retired Geologist from one of the National Labs and who worked on Yucca personally—and disapproves of it on the basis that transporting the materials there would be far too dangerous for it to be a feasible storage site—told me that the other accidents (know at first only through Scandinavian observation/seismic detection and later admitted to through international data sharing—were both remote, but the second to worst (they are known by number-names which I can’t remember) caused an entire lake to evaporate in minutes.

Now, here’s the thing I think (and my father agrees—oh, he also worked on global warming studies in the 1970’s & 1980’s) that carbon is an immediate threat that will only be dealt with with a mixed-energy economy and nuclear will be in that mix—though it is actually far more expensive than wind/solar/hydro because of waste disposal. The thing is, the current energy companies that are in charge of mining operations, oil rigs and every other extractive energy source would be in charge of safety and of course, they are all about the bottom line. Regulation is a must—and perhaps public utility models should own/operate instead of for-profit—for this industry to be safe. Unfortunately, the biggest problem working against a good energy policy is American penchants for slogans and single-energy solutions. Drill baby drill is genius, as it is evil. Substituting nuclear for fossil fuels is easy rhetorically, expensive to operate and thus attractive to the energy giants. Solar and wind can be smaller operations—even neighborhood ventures, so they are harder to make into transferable commodities and locked down by specific interests. This is both good and bad. Communities are going to have to agitate for renewables and take more responsibility for energy development—a one source solution is attractive slogan wise, but the real solutions are complicated. Kinda like all liberal solutions—they are right, but hard to explain to petulant, know-nothings who love to wallow in willful ignorance and environmental irresponsibility.

Comment #80: Thealogian  on  05/05  at  10:30 PM

As a science-oriented guy myself, there is a certain amount of logic to this, although my understanding is there’s not all that much fissionable fuel around either.

Only if you count a certain way.

Given current and projected demand (ie, no ridiculously huge building programs), at prices below $80/pound there’s a known 80 year supply (which is incidentally significantly more than other materials).

If the price doubles, currently uneconomic (but known) reserves increase to 200 years.  If the price goes up to six times current values, it becomes economic to extract uranium from phosphate deposits, (which adds another 400 years), and seawater (which adds over 57,000 years worth).

The other factor to consider is that because of the relatively low price of uranium, many reactor designs are very inefficient in their use of uranium.  If you switch a standard light water reactor for a CANDU, you get a 40% reduction in the amount of fuel required.  If you take the fuel burned in a LWR and either extract the uranium and plutonium or simply re-engineering the spent fuel mechanically (so no reprocessing) to fit in a CANDU fuel rod assembly, you get 50% more energy out of the same amount of uranium.

Thorium is three times as common as uranium (remember, over 57,000 years worth of uranium).  You can use thorium in an ordinary reactor to breed U-233, which at the end of the day gives you about 150,000 years worth.

If you use a fast breeder reactor, just uranium supplies alone (say the 80 year supply I started with) can be extended 60-100 times (so 4800 to 8000 years worth).

So combining fast breeder tech with more efficient use of nuclear fuel in reactors combined with a rising price gradually bringing more reserves into an economic status combined with thorium tech combined with the fact that at a sufficiently high price it’s economic to extract uranium from ordinary granite…well, “peak nuclear”, even with an expansion of current production, is a few millennia down the line.

Comment #81: KeithM  on  05/05  at  11:27 PM

“Yep!  The vast majority of Muslims aren’t hell bent on destroying priceless works of art.  It’s not a result of Islam.  It’s a particular brand of Islam, one that is marked by this petty, fundamentalist, right wing, beauty-hating, misogynist mindset.”

Everything said here can be true without it being the case that the motivation for the destruction of the icons came mainly from a hatred of art. The reason I ask in this case is that there’s a long history of iconoclastic ideology in Islam, especially in South Asia (This ideology was not necessarily put into practice all the time; the Catholic Church in Goa razed more temples than did the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire combined, Aurangzeb notwithstanding):

-Muhammad himself is supposed to have taken part in the destruction of the Kaaba’s icons
-Mahmud of Ghazni (in Afghanistan) sacked Somanatha in the 11th century for the ostensible purpose of destroying the central icon (the temple’s massive wealth presumably played some role as well). This incident was a popular subject of South Asian court epics through the 17th century.
-“Muslim chroniclers of the Medieval period repeatedly portray the destruction of politically significant images and temples, coupled with the establishment of mosques, as a conversion, a transformation of the land of heathens into the land of Islam” -Richard H. Davis
-The Delhi Sultanate, the Deccan Sultanates, and the later Mughals all continued to desecrate Hindu religious monuments while at the same time supporting the flowering of Indo-Persian art, architecture, and literature

So we have a region whose historians and poets have, since the early Middle Ages, applauded iconoclasm, now taken over by a particularly zealous brand of an iconoclastic religion. They have some gigantic religious monuments left over from an Indian (let’s not forget quasi-religious nationalism), non-Abrahamic religion. Destroying monuments is a way of denigrating whoever erected them and raising the status of your group, so destroying big Buddhist statues is like saying ‘fuck you’ to Buddhism while also laying another claim to the land for whatever hardcore brand of Islam. That by itself strikes me as a sufficient state of affairs for the destruction to occur. Certainly there could be, on top of that, a hatred of art (although I’d be very surprised to find that it was the “main” motivation). Why do we think, in this particular case, that hatred of art was the driving force?

Comment #82: Vojtas  on  05/06  at  12:26 AM

Okay, so there could be plenty of fissionable fuel given the right circumstances.  Glad to hear it.  It still won’t be too cheap to meter, but anyway…

Now to the big problem: How do we re-create an America where the short-sighted and mindless pursuit of gigantic, quick, slash-n-burn, short-term profit (which guarantees a nuclear “it’s not if, but when” major accident likelihood) is set aside in favor of slower, safer, more stable, long term profitability, with proper government oversight and laws/regulations that have big enough teeth in them to make violating them unthinkable?

I don’t know about you, but the thought of a (let’s say) BP Nuclear (I don’t know if there such a beast, but nevertheless) inflicting their wares on innocent Americans via sleazy gov/private revolving-door lobbyists, crooked and craven political operators, sweetheart deals, and old-fashioned Cheney-style corruption should send chills through us all…

Comment #83: MikeEss  on  05/06  at  12:40 AM

there’s a long history of iconoclastic ideology in Islam, especially in South Asia (This ideology was not necessarily put into practice all the time;

Granted, if you go to Turkey, all of the churches, when they were converted into mosques, had their iconography plastered over: and yet, plenty of the Byzantine-era statues and columns were allowed to stay (and are still there). The Taliban does fall into a very special category. It wasn’t just the destruction of Buddhist statues, it was the banning of music, too, and all other sorts of lifestyle crackdowns. So, yeah, I think “hatred of art” is a perfectly fair assessment.

Comment #84: Tyro  on  05/06  at  12:50 AM

Wow, did they ban all music, or just ‘modern’ stuff?

Comment #85: Vojtas  on  05/06  at  01:25 AM

It still won’t be too cheap to meter, but anyway

People so get that quote wrong every time.

The context in which that line was used was a presentation in which the speaker was saying that humanity shouldn’t content itself with conservative goals, that being able to produce power too cheap too meter, however ridiculous that might appear now and however unlikely it might eventually turn out to be shouldn’t be reasons why we shouldn’t stop trying.  It was one of a number of things he listed in that presentation, but that was the one everyone hooked on.

Think of it like a speaker today talking about how the goal should be power generation with no environmental impact.  As a realistic endpoint it’s pretty much impossible (any kind of development or technology has some kind of impact somewhere), but as something to strive for it’s a laudable goal.

Comment #86: KeithM  on  05/06  at  02:26 AM

Whatever the ostensible excuse the Taliban had for destroying the Buddhas, outsiders can clearly see that they’re motivated mainly be a petulant unwillingness to engage or regard anything that makes them feel smaller or less important.

Sorry, disagree.  Have you even seen a picture of Muslims swirling around the Kabba during the Hajj?  It’s awesome in the original sense.  Being part of that might make any other religious icon seem small.

I believe you’re conflating the Taliban with American wingnuts beyond what you can support with their similarities. I have no problem believing that the Taliban destoryed the Buddhas for good religious rather than psychological reasons - Buddhism isn’t a religion recognised by the Qu’ran, which forbids worshipping idols.  Simple as that.  They did it because they had the power to do it, and their view of Islam - which they consider self-evidently superior to supersitions like Buddhism - motivated them to do so.

To give an analogy, if you (Amanda Marcotte) had the power, you’d mandate an abortion clinic in every city and major town, open to all women regardless of income.  You wouldn’t be doing this because you hate babies and want to see them suffer, and you’d regard such an accusation from wingnuts to be, well, wingnuttery.

Comment #87: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  05/06  at  03:59 AM

The fact that the good Muslims of Afghanistan somehow managed to coexist with two carved images of a figure of no interest to them for almost 1500 years must be an aberration,

The Taliban are a new movement, arising from Afghan refugees trained in Pakistan, and basing their ideological claim to power on being a “pure” form of Islam.  Karen Armstrong pointed out that such movements have a long history in Islam in response to secular corruption.

Well, I guess if all those Muslims demanded the statues destruction…oh wait!  They didn’t want the Buddhas destroyed!  So maybe Islam’s strictures didn’t really require the Afghani vandals to act.  But what the hell do the Saudis know — after all they’re only the keepers of the single most important religious site in all of Islam…

The Catholic Church accepts evolution and global warming.  Since they’re the people who compiled and kept the Bible, does this mean that every Christian automatically believes the same thing?

Comment #88: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  05/06  at  04:13 AM

And to continue, some examples right off the top of my head: megafauna extinctions in North America and Australia are closely associated with the arrival of Homo sapiens. 
The same with every goddamned island we’ve ever inhabited, for that matter. Giant lemurs, terrestrial crocodiles, horned turtles, the biggest damn eagle that ever lived, dwarf elephants and mammoths, dwarf ground sloths, flightless members of almost every group of birds, and that’s just off the top of my head…

In the Atlantic Provinces of Canada, there’s been research showing that deer were going extinct due to local overhunting, and that their comeback happened because of introduced Eurasian diseases that killed off much of the local indigenous population and it took a few centuries before the human population (indigenous and colonist) came back by which time deer weren’t a primary necessity any more, so they had a reprieve.
In addition, I read recently that analysis of cougar DNA revealed that the cougars of North America were wiped out in the initial batch of extinctions, and the continent was later repopulated by migrants from South America. Actually, it’s amazing how many species thought of as South American are actually pan-American species which lost their North American populations during the Pleistocene Extinctions.

The Steller’s Sea Cow provides another good example. While Europeans finished it off, theirs was only the final blow to a species already exterminated over the vast majority of its original range (the sea cow once lived across most of the North Pacific coast, from Japan to California!) thousands of years prior (presumably for the same reason: it was easily hunted and apparently delicious).

Comment #89: Devonian  on  05/06  at  04:24 AM

Of course, we do have one already existing source of energy which could replace a lot of the petroleum currently used in the United States: building a lot more nuclear power plants could replace existing power plants which run on diesel fuel.  The technology already exists, and the engineering has already been done.

Gee, Dana, you’re advocating switching to a power source that depends on massive government subsidies to operate?  One for which no insurance cover can be supplied commercially?

I guess you’re only against government welfare when it’s, you know, the poor, women and children who want it.  Shovelling your and other people’s tax money at big corporations is just dandy with you.

Comment #90: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  05/06  at  04:25 AM

Devonian, we have recently learned that the Coyotes in the woods near our (urban) house are actually Coywolves! http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/02/17/for_coyotes_at_least_study_finds_new_englanders_a_special_breed/

Which explains why they are both large and hang out in social groups of 2-4.  They apparently interbred with the remnants of the wolf population and the hybrids were better able to exploit the food sources in the environment (explaining their recent resurgence).

Comment #91: Ms Kate  on  05/06  at  09:43 AM

Gee, Dana, you’re advocating switching to a power source that depends on massive government subsidies to operate?

Without subsidies, none of the currently in use nuclear reactors have ever been profitable. The promotion of nuclear energy was a PR move by the DoD. Its only purpose is to

a) funnel taxpayer dollars to nuclear reactor constructors
b) provide a socially acceptable reason to be making material that can be used in nuclear weapons

The sabre-rattling against Iran is mostly based on the recognition that it is a player (though a minor one) on the international stage, no matter how much is made of it being about making sure democracy is triumphant and getting rid of terrorists. And there’s a reason the world don’t want them to have nuclear energy: when you strip away the PR, nuclear reactors are inefficient methods of energy production whose only purpose is to provide a friendly face to a war technology. As much as Iran protests that they just want the energy, any analyst with a clear mind (who might on another day lie to your face about how nuclear energy is good and efficient so that the West can continue building bombs) knows that the only reason for Iran to want a reactor is to be able to produce a nuclear weapon.

Comment #92: BlackBloc  on  05/06  at  10:23 AM

TLDR: If Iran wanted to produce a lot more cheap energy, they wouldn’t be trying to go nuclear. The reason why they want to go nuclear is the same reason the West went on the nuclear energy path, it is to have the capability to produce nuclear weapons.

Comment #93: BlackBloc  on  05/06  at  10:25 AM

Of course, Obama is to blame for giving in to this most petty and childish side of American conservatism, in order to scramble for a few votes he’s not going to get, either from the public or from Republican members of Congress.

So far only one commenter has addressed this line.  Way up @9 Mnemosyne tut-tuts it by saying that we musn’t criticize Obama for anything having to do with offshore oil drilling lest we play into the wingnut meme that Obama was responsible for the spill.

Well, Obama was clearly not responsible for the spill. And nothing we say or do will have any impact on that wingnut meme because, like most wingnut memes, it is reality-free. So giving it a kind of heckler’s veto over what we say about Obama and the environment seems, at best, unnecessary.  I’d go further and say it’s foolish.

My reaction to the quoted sentence was the opposite of Mnemosyne’s (then again, nobody has ever called me an Obot, tho’ I did vote for the guy and would do so again given the awful choices we had in November 2008).

Why assume that Obama’s support for offshore drilling was based on the obviously ridiculous political calculation that, this time, if he’d given an inch to the take-a-mile crowd, they’d settle for the inch?  Doesn’t it make more sense to think that, like the so-called “clean coal” that Obama has always enthusiastically supported, our President simply felt drilling was a good idea?

The bar for environmental consciousness in our political life is extraordinarily low.  The Republican Party has an official, dogmatic commitment to global warming denialism.  The Democratic Party, more or less, accepts scientific reality.  In the logic of our two-party system, this is somehow supposed to make the Democratic Party environmentally friendly, despite the fact that, in 2008, candidate Obama (and candidate Clinton, for that matter) never proposed anything remotely approaching a serious response to global climate change and, not surprisingly, President Obama continues to promote policies that are killing the planet, if a little more slowly and with less relish than President McCain would have.

The fact that Obama, in fact, had nothing whatsoever to do with causing this particular environmental disaster is, in the big picture, fairly cold comfort.

Comment #94: Ben Alpers  on  05/06  at  10:37 AM

#92

As much as Iran protests that they just want the energy, any analyst with a clear mind (who might on another day lie to your face about how nuclear energy is good and efficient so that the West can continue building bombs) knows that the only reason for Iran to want a reactor is to be able to produce a nuclear weapon.

It is true that nuclear power generation is inextricably linked with the ability, at least, to create nuclear weapons. However, you should look at this from the Iranian point of view. First of all, there is the issue of simple national pride. The entire industrialized world has nuclear power plants. They want nuclear power plants to show that they are as good as the industrialized nations. This may be foolish from your point of view but you have to admit it is perfectly understandable for a nation like Iran.

Then there is the issue of Iran’s security and strategic interest. Imagine being Iran. Now imagine there is this other nation, called the USA, which has been dominant in world affairs for the past sixty years. Further, imagine that this nation the USA, had started a coup against your government fifty years ago, and had placed a puppet government in your nation which was only recently overthrown. The rulers of the USA are constantly finding legal reasons to get you in trouble, and make no secret of their desire to attack you. Furthermore, there is another smaller nation called Israel, much closer to you, which definitely has nuclear weapons, constantly talks about attacking you, and is closely linked with the USA.

If I was running Iran, I would never give up nuclear power and/or the possibility to create nuclear weapons, they would actually have to pry it from my cold dead hands. If the Americans or the Israelis decided that I lacked the ability to retaliate there is no telling what they would decide to do. No, my pride and my sense of security and my desire for personal advancement would all be inextricably wrapped around my nuclear option.

Comment #95: atheist  on  05/06  at  10:51 AM

#94

The bar for environmental consciousness in our political life is extraordinarily low.  The Republican Party has an official, dogmatic commitment to global warming denialism.  The Democratic Party, more or less, accepts scientific reality.  In the logic of our two-party system, this is somehow supposed to make the Democratic Party environmentally friendly,

Ben, the worst part is, that so far as I can tell, your stark view is 100% correct.

Comment #96: atheist  on  05/06  at  11:27 AM

Dana probably got a massive government grant to retrofit his edsel with roll cage protection, seat belts, and modern safety features.  Never mind that it gets 5mpg, he’s being green by recycling a vehicle, while getting to call himself a traditionalist!

Comment #97: Ms Kate  on  05/06  at  12:20 PM

Vojtas @ 85:
Music, with the exception of centain, unaccompanied, religious chants.  No traditional/folk songs as well as no pop; nothing that combined an instrument with a voice, nothing with a singing voice, especially a female one (which is not that rare in Persian traditional/folk music).

Comment #98: helen w. h.  on  05/06  at  12:40 PM

when you strip away the PR, nuclear reactors are inefficient methods of energy production whose only purpose is to provide a friendly face to a war technology.

Thus explaining the quite extensive Canadian nuclear weapons program…oh wait, that’s right, we don’t have any.  How odd.  Now why would we have been in the nuclear power business for decades now and not be producing weapons if the only reason to be in the nuclear power business was to provide cover for weapons?

Well, I can think of two reasons.  One might be the super-seekrit Canadian nuclear arsenal.  The other might be that said argument is a bullshit one anti-nuclear activists like using because they want to scare people away from a power generating technology because a related technology is used as a weapon.  Yet someone medical research gets a pass even though closely associated technology (or even the same research) can be used for biological warfare, and materials research gets a pass even though the same materials used in wind turbines is used in combat aircraft (just to name two examples).

Comment #99: KeithM  on  05/06  at  01:25 PM

Weapon grade nuclear waste (e.g. the payloads removed from missles) does get processed for fuel.

Comment #100: helen w. h.  on  05/06  at  02:13 PM

Weapon grade nuclear waste (e.g. the payloads removed from missles) does get processed for fuel.

That was one of the reason why the uranium price fell in the mid to late 1990s: the reactors were able to burn material that was intended for nuclear weapons, or came from decommissioned warheads as the US and Russia cut down their stockpiles.  The price rose again as that glut of fuel ran through the system.

Comment #101: KeithM  on  05/06  at  10:04 PM

Another, more recent example of Fundies being afraid of art is in Somalia, where the Shabab oppose any music on the radio. It’s as if they thought the mere enjoyment of music was as much a threat to them as telling Hitler when and where Eisenhower would attack would weaken us.

Of course, Christians also have been anti-music when it wasn’t rigorously enslaved to their cause—see the criticism of Rock and Roll from the churches.

Comment #102: Judge Moonbox  on  05/06  at  11:02 PM

Been reading this blog for year but never commented before.  This is spot-on—I can remember when the Buddhas came down and my thought at the time was that the civilized world would at some point need to confront, with arms, the culture that performed that act.

Years later, driving through mountaintop removal sites in southern WV and northern KY and I got the same exact feeling.  Except that culture is mine.  Thanks for the post, Amanda.

Comment #103: krisfromwv  on  05/10  at  02:48 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.