Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page
]]]]]]]]]]]]]] COMMENTS BY FREEMAN 07656GAED [[[[[[[[[[[[[
(9/10/88)
POB 326
Park Ridge, NJ 07656
July 30, 1988
Dear Dr. Beckmann,
I've now written to all on my list about the Shoreham tax write-
off except the newspaper. I'm biding my time on another Letter-to-the
Editor because they already published one from me and I don't want to
wear out my welcome. I'll wait and see if the boys in Albany come
through for Cuomo. If they do, or if Cuomo tries a tactic that ex-
cludes the legislature, then I'll write. In the meantime, perhaps
another local will get his letter published.
The editorial and op-ed page of our paper, the RECORD, seems to
have taken a dog-leg to the Right this year. They've got several
conservative columnists and the cartoonist McNeely. They can still
put out melted-candy bar editorials, however.
I think one reason THE NEW YORK TIMES seems to be more pro-
nuclear power these days is that they see the U.S. as being more pro-
Israeli the less dependent on foreign oil.
If the politicians let Shoreham open they'll get egg on their
faces. Cuomo is already on the skids and he'll just go faster. If
they persist in keeping it closed, it will become a Tar Baby. First,
increasing power rates on Long Island will be popularly linked to
Shoreham being closed, EVEN IF THEY WERE TO GO UP FOR ANOTHER REASON.
Can you imagine your own electricity rates not going up for the next
ten years? Second, brownouts on Long Island or requests for decreased
electricity consumption will be linked (rightfully) to Shoreham being
closed. Third, a possibly contracting economy on L.I. Fourth, the
cost and trouble of actually dismantling Shoreham. Fifth, the cost
and trouble of building replace-ment plants and power lines to bring
in (reliable?) replacement power. Sixth onward, things I haven't yet
thought of. Additionally, pro-nukes will be able to use Shoreham as
a Reductio ad Absurdum against the anti-nukes. The bottom line is
that the politicians are trying to throw away $5.3 billion plus all
the ancillary costs mentioned above.
The only way the anti-nukes can cut their losses is to let Shore-
ham open. It may not be enough.
(Now, you can tell me Dr. Beckmann; I won't tell anyone. Pro-
mise. Just between you and me. Gov. Cuomo is one of your subscri-
bers, isn't he? He decided that the only way to discredit the anti-
nukes was this scheme to ostensibly keep Shoreham from opening. Well,
you let him know that I think he's a genius.)
The anti-nuclear movement in this country is finished, which is
not surprising; it was bankrupt from the start. People have generally
been in favor of nuclear power almost all along and now more and more
are waking up to the fact that they aren't afraid of it. What chance
does Sternass have against an air-conditioner you can't run on a 95
degree summer day? By the way, where are Sternass, Kaldicotte, Gof-
man, et al? They went too far and turned themselves into hysterical
anti-scientific caricatures. Now the bozos are too afraid of Green-
house Effect and Acid Rain. They can't deal with these without re-
sorting to a scientific rigor heretofore missing. If they were to
acquire said rigor to put themselves in the position of demonstrating
that these factors weren't yet demonstrable enough to be arguments FOR
nuclear power, how could they use that as an epistemological founda-
tion for arguing that we shouldn't have nuclear power? Using the same
rigor they can't continue to be anti-nukes. To abandon it for their
previous irrationality will make them look all the more irrational.
Now their (slightly) less obnoxious brethren are crying "Greenhouse
Effect" and destroy- ing the anti-nuke position. This isn't pretty.
Congratulations, to you and Samuel McCracken, et al. You've
really made a difference. All we have to do is keep beating the
drums and driving the know-nothings out of the picture. There's a lot
of work to do and it won't be easy. The country still needs a ratio-
nal energy policy and unfortunate-ly there is still so much irrational
nonsense about.
* * * * *
Bush can't win if he keeps trying to occupy a "center" just below
Dukakis. Practically everybody seems to think that Reagen's political
success was due to his TV personality. This means Dukakis will win
because there are more Dems than Reps and are more expert at giving
away other people's money-- or at least promising to do so.
* * * * *
Thanks for recommending HOOVER DAM. I first saw the dam in '59
and for me it's always been the greatest sight in the world. Hogan's
MINDS, MACHINES AND EVOLUTION is greatly educational and enjoyable. I
do think that he too vigorously separates science from deductive rea-
soning. [This only refers to one essay, "The Revealed Word of God,"
BG] It's a tool that might tell you where to look for something.
Deductive reasoning, after all, is not a logical fallacy.
* * * * *
To further digress, I was interested in the Ayn Rand correspon-
dence section in Ft. Freedom. While I largely broke free of her in
'72, for reasons I won't go into here, I have to say that even when I
was her fervent admirer I deeply regretted the lack of intellectual
give and take. She gave and she gave and she gave, but by middle age
she was no longer renewing herself and she ended up with less and less
to give. She ran out of material, not brains. She was much more a
moralist than an intellectual. I never liked Galt's speech. Who was
he talking to? My parents? The culture at large? The fictional
world of ATLAS SHRUGGED? It wasn't me. I was only 19 and innocent of
the crimes he was animadverting upon. If you're going to use that
tone with me, please have a reason, but I still had the chore of ex-
tracting the ideas. And I tend to prefer a friendlier narrative voice.
In any case, I pretty much foresaw everything that subsequently
happened to the Ayn Rand movement. It's just a cult that gets smaller
and smaller.
* * *
Cordially,
Brant Gaede
Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page