Everyone agrees on the importance of the First Amendment right to free speech, but few acknowledge that this right embodies a responsibility for what one says. For example, in the local debate over the closure of Diablo Canyon, those speaking out in favor of the closure must bear the responsibility for any negative social, economic, and environmental effects on our community that will result from the closure. Maybe their opposition of nuclear power gives them a sense of importance, a feeling that they are doing good, yet this must also be viewed in light of the negative consequences of their actions and speech. No amount of pretending otherwise will save the community or the environment.
Ye adamant defenders of the Second Amendment right to bear arms need to take some responsibility, too, for things like Aurora, Orlando, Sandy Hook, the recent Las Vegas massacre, and all the others in the seemingly endless chain of gun violence. You unquestioningly align yourself with the likes of the NRA (whose clear purpose is to protect the right of gun manufacturers and dealers to make a buck), which for decades has cowered Congress into doing its bidding without so much as a whimper of objection, and you call that democracy. No matter how you look at it, you, too, just like the NRA, have blood on your cold, dead hands.
Talk is cheap, they say. If there is to be any hope for the future, those that insist on exercising these rights need to occasionally question their own beliefs, and carefully consider and understand the consequences of their actions and speech, if only to be sure that they are not doing more harm than good. There is no difference between a person who does wrong thinking they are doing right, and a person who deliberately does wrong. The effect is the same. As a Vietnam veteran, I have understood this for a very long time. So, before you raise your voice and hoist your banners, you had best be sure that you know what you are talking about, that you clearly understand the consequences of your actions, and that you be willing to accept responsibility for them. Otherwise, when the world goes to hell, ignorance will not be an excuse.
Mark Henry
San Luis Obispo
This article appears in Oct 12-22, 2017.
Good point Mr. Henry. Many get their “knowledge” from some radio or TV blow hard appealing to emotion. These Radio/TV types are very often short on data to back what they say.
On Diablo Canyon, we saw many local agency heads (schools, law enforcement, economic development, emergency services) go to the mike at the PUC meeting a swaar allegiance to what they believed is the Establishment wishes – i.e., that the plant be closed.
We need to remember the names of these officials when schools suffer from budget reductions, parks close due to loss of tax base, police services get trimmed due the loss of one billion dollars coming into the community from Diablo Canyon operations.
These officials have one motivation in mind – protect their jobs by showing support of the Establishment and help the fossil fuel natural gas industry sell more product. Because that happened in a big way when the San Onofre plant shut in the San Diego area.
Diablo Canyon is the State’s No.1 fighter of global warming because it puts out 2.3 billion watts of electricity furnishing electricity to 3 million homes without emitting one molecule of earth-heating CO2. The San Onofre closure was the equivalent of putting 2.5 million more cars on California roads.
William Gloege
Santa Maria, Ca
Indeed, trying to close the safest form of electrical generation in California — Diablo Canyon, is an act of ignorance, surprisingly willful ignorance on the part of those wishing for closure.
The fact that Diablo both produces >20% of all Calif’s clean power and provides higher quality jobs, and stimulates higher-quality education than any gas-dependent ‘renewables’ deployments can, seems an inconvenient truth to anti-nuclear factions.
Diablo even delivers ~$1B to the local economy, far more than any other energy source on its acreage could. Then there’s the longevity — Diablo could run for 100 years, with basic maintenance of its gear, much as has already been done over its years of unmatched social service since 1986.
And, if San Onofre were repaired, as is perfectly possible, we could boast that Calif. has >40% of its clean power produced by 24/7 sources that will continue on for many decades. Fortunately other states and other countries recognize this, along with scientists like James Hansen, authors like James Lovelock, environmentalists like Ansel Adams, and leaders like the Dailai Lama..
Perhaps we should impose a Carbon Tax on antinuclear organizations?
;]
—
Dr. A. Cannara
650-400-3071
Menlo Park. Calif.