TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Blackout Thoughts

Blackout Thoughts

The blackout needs no introduction I think; I'm sure most of you have either experienced it or know about it from your news sources.

What I want to bring up is this: I think that this event, more than any other in recent history (AFAIK), has brought a serious question to many minds: "Is the modern way of living a good way of living?"

I answer with a No. We are so dependent on technology and electricity, that a blackout has driven us to a very bad situation. If there was no power for several days, maybe even weeks, then the situation would have become quite anarchical.

Last night in Toronto, everywhere I went I saw a festive mood... as soon as the Rat Race stopped for a day, people felt so much better! I wonder, out of all those people, how many stopped to think, "What am I doing in my 'usual life'? Why am I wasting my time? Work-food-sleep-work-food-sleep, is it worth it? Is this....living?"

Thoughts, comments?

Re: Blackout Thoughts

quote:

Originally posted by Alccode "Is the modern way of living a good way of living?" I answer with a No. We are so dependent on technology and electricity, that a blackout has driven us to a very bad situation. If there was no power for several days, maybe even weeks, then the situation would have become quite anarchical.

Disagree.

The life expectancy today is in the 70's. In the middle ages it was in the 30s.

Technology is not the problem. Progress is not the problem. There are things that could be better but I choose to think that we have not reached our final destination yet as a civilization. And that along the way there will be inequalities and our lives will be less than perfect. BUT, things are getting better. Give it a few more centuries. We have only just begun.

gosh, this sounds serious doesn't it

A Rave without Lights and Muzik...

a nomadic state sounds good

Wandering around Toronto last night was awesome. It was crazy, I could actually see the stars clearly.

Re: Blackout Thoughts

very interesting thread, have been thinking pretty much of this latly...

quote:

"Is the modern way of living a good way of living?"

Yes it is a good way of living, unfortunaly it's also a vulnerable way of living too. I don't think people would be happier if there was no electricity, no modern things, just look at the people in the 3rd world... do you think their way of living is better then ours? I don't think so. But the tragic things with this is that guys like Usama bin Laden exists. Imagine if he would blow up a couple of big power startions in us, in the middle of the winter. blowed powerplants is not that easy to fix so it would take a while. People would probably freeze to death. Thats not a good socity. I think the easy solution to this is more small energy sources, like solar plants and wind plants... that would make the socity much more secure, but unfortunally us is a corrupted country wich only cares about it's big companys. Probably many big energy companys would go bancrupt if the energy was made in small scales. But there would be a hell of a lot new small companys making good money on that instead, but that would make the rich poorer and why would bush support such a thing?

quote:

Last night in Toronto, everywhere I went I saw a festive mood... as soon as the Rat Race stopped for a day, people felt so much better! I wonder, out of all those people, how many stopped to think, "What am I doing in my 'usual life'? Why am I wasting my time? Work-food-sleep-work-food-sleep, is it worth it? Is this....living?"

this is very interesting, i think it is worth it, but i also think that the modern way of living in europe is different to the us modern way of living. while europeans work less and less (40-35 work hours a week, more vacation, etc...) the americans work more and more... I don't think you will go on like that forever, and i don't really think that you are so productive while working that much...

Re: Re: Blackout Thoughts

Thanks for the replies everyone.

quote:

Originally posted by loudcloud Disagree.

Good!

quote:

The life expectancy today is in the 70's. In the middle ages it was in the 30s.

I disagree as to why this is an indication of "progress" or a good thing at all. People don't need to live longer -- people need to live better. After 50 or 60, most people just "die"! I mean that in the sense that they have lost life -- they spend their last 20 or 30 years rotting away, not developing themselves, just waiting to physically die. Though somewhat of a generalization, I do not see many elderly people "living life" -- 99% of elderly people I see have emptiness in their eyes, boredom in their eyes -- how dare they be bored with life??

Living longer is not good. Having an exciting and fulfilling 30 years to live is far better, IMO, than having a mediocre 70.

quote:

Technology is not the problem. Progress is not the problem. There are things that could be better but I choose to think that we have not reached our final destination yet as a civilization. And that along the way there will be inequalities and our lives will be less than perfect. BUT, things are getting better. Give it a few more centuries. We have only just begun. gosh, this sounds serious doesn't it

I would like to think it is serious. Maybe for us "first-worlders" it is "getting better" but I don't see anything getting better for the rest of the globe. Look at Africa; all hell is breaking loose there, the media doesn't even care. Genocides, tribal warfare, starvations, diseases, you name it. The only reason this Liberian thing is firing up now is because of the politics involved. Otherwise, who cares?

Look at China. The Yangtze is now dammed for monetary and political reasons -- miles of river coast with thousands of years worth of rich cultural history is now submerged forever. And why? To satisfy some corporate and political bureaucrats; to provide more power to fuel this technology.

I see what you mean with Technology & Progress, and tentatively agree in the sense that yes, of course, technology as a concept and tool is perfectly "harmless" -- to use an overused metaphor, "Guns don't kill People, People kill People."

But -- the way people have been using technology is simply unacceptable from the point of view of the planet. We are so dependant on it, that we have totally veered off from nature. Yet, as I said in another post, it doesn't really matter in the long run -- "Nuclear Wasteland or Eden on Earth, it doesn't matter" -- but I'm sure that humanity as it stands doesn't think that way. And yet humanity is living on a fundamentally unbalanced foundation. We take so much away from nature and from this planet, and don't return enough, if anything. The amazon forest is disappearing faster than you can imagine -- entire species and ecosystems being obliterated forever just in that spot -- overfishing is depleting the ocean of much of its richness and variety -- drilling of oil is causing a lot of greenhouse gas to be produced and not to mention oil spills and other forms of oil pollution -- etc.

However, I don't think this is the main issue. What is more at stake here is our basic humanity.

Are we "going down the wrong path" in deviating from our original lifestyle, our "natural" lifestyle? People are so asleep, so unaware of nature, that they have "stopped hearing the Sun ringing" (that's from Otherland). Nomadic, "primitive" peoples live more in tune with nature -- they can sense seasonal patterns, smell storms before they arrive, feel wellsprings under their feet, they live off the land. We as an industrialized society has lost that "touch".

There is a great article in this month's National Geographic about a researcher/adventurer/environmentalist/etc. trying to protect Amazonian tribes from society (no, not the other way around). Basically, he used to be all for "contact" with the "savages" back in the '60s and '70s. Every time he would contact a new tribe, he would be amazed at how they were contended. And they have no electricity or anything modern! But after contact with society they would be destroyed -- from diseases, from "progress" -- thievery was introduced, deception was introduced, their basic balance was destroyed. So this researcher "learned his lesson," so to speak, and now has devoted his life to detecting the locations of such tribes and making sure that they never come in contact with the modern world.

Of course, the opposite may equally well be argued -- What does it matter that our way of life is "worse"? It is just different -- we as a species are not shackled by any "God" to live in a rigid way "according to Nature" -- in fact it is in our very nature to look ahead, to expand, to develop new things!

So is there ultimately no way of saying what is the proper way of living? Just like there is no "right" or "wrong" -- are things the way they are just because they are?

Personally I would like to keep it that way and feel contented -- but there is something nagging at me from the inside -- without having tasted the "savage" life, the "primitive" life, the "natural" life, I don't think I have the right to decide for myself that this way of living is "better." And especially after last night, after seeing people revert to a more primitive, albeit happier state, this nagging voice is getting stronger. But who can say for certain?

Re: Re: Blackout Thoughts

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew have been thinking pretty much of this latly...

I'm glad.

quote:

Yes it is a good way of living, unfortunaly it's also a vulnerable way of living too. I don't think people would be happier if there was no electricity, no modern things, just look at the people in the 3rd world... do you think their way of living is better then ours? I don't think so. But the tragic things with this is that guys like Usama bin Laden exists. Imagine if he would blow up a couple of big power startions in us, in the middle of the winter. blowed powerplants is not that easy to fix so it would take a while. People would probably freeze to death. Thats not a good socity. I think the easy solution to this is more small energy sources, like solar plants and wind plants... that would make the socity much more secure, but unfortunally us is a corrupted country wich only cares about it's big companys. Probably many big energy companys would go bancrupt if the energy was made in small scales. But there would be a hell of a lot new small companys making good money on that instead, but that would make the rich poorer and why would bush support such a thing?

See my above post for my views on this.

quote:

this is very interesting, i think it is worth it, but i also think that the modern way of living in europe is different to the us modern way of living. while europeans work less and less (40-35 work hours a week, more vacation, etc...) the americans work more and more... I don't think you will go on like that forever, and i don't really think that you are so productive while working that much...

Oh yes, in Europe it is an entirely different story -- people are much more laid-back there. I'm originally from Serbia myself, and when visiting there, I am amazed at how lively people are, especially in the evenings. The streets are always busy, people are socializing all over the place, having a blast... it's not like in many large North American cities like New York, where people are afraid to go out at night...

I like how in Europe people are shifting more towards a "green" future in terms of energy production whereas the U.S. is reverting back to nuclear power (and more nuclear waste...) But the basic issues of our humanity are still at stake. There is a degree in deviation between North America and Europe, of course, but they are both easily lumped together in the industrialized "First World" department and hence a "burden" to the planet and still a Question Mark.

Re: Blackout Thoughts

quote:

Originally posted by Alccode ....Work-food-sleep-work-food-sleep, is it worth it? Is this....living?"

with sex, yes. without it, no.

quote:

Originally posted by Alccode Living longer is not good. Having an exciting and fulfilling 30 years to live is far better, IMO, than having a mediocre 70.

agreed.

quote:

I would like to think it is serious. Maybe for us "first-worlders" it is "getting better" but I don't see anything getting better for the rest of the globe. Look at Africa; all hell is breaking loose there, the media doesn't even care. Genocides, tribal warfare, starvations, diseases, you name it. The only reason this Liberian thing is firing up now is because of the politics involved. Otherwise, who cares?

now you see the cruelty of society. unless it has financial, social, or political potential, no one gives a shit

quote:

But -- the way people have been using technology is simply unacceptable from the point of view of the planet. We are so dependant on it, that we have totally veered off from nature. Yet, as I said in another post, it doesn't really matter in the long run -- "Nuclear Wasteland or Eden on Earth, it doesn't matter" -- but I'm sure that humanity as it stands doesn't think that way. And yet humanity is living on a fundamentally unbalanced foundation. We take so much away from nature and from this planet, and don't return enough, if anything. The amazon forest is disappearing faster than you can imagine -- entire species and ecosystems being obliterated forever just in that spot -- overfishing is depleting the ocean of much of its richness and variety -- drilling of oil is causing a lot of greenhouse gas to be produced and not to mention oil spills and other forms of oil pollution -- etc.

true. during the industrial evolution, society's relationship with technology became symbiotic.

quote:

Are we "going down the wrong path" in deviating from our original lifestyle, our "natural" lifestyle? People are so asleep, so unaware of nature, that they have "stopped hearing the Sun ringing" (that's from Otherland). Nomadic, "primitive" peoples live more in tune with nature -- they can sense seasonal patterns, smell storms before they arrive, feel wellsprings under their feet, they live off the land. We as an industrialized society has lost that "touch".

i believe we are.

quote:

There is a great article in this month's National Geographic about a researcher/adventurer/environmentalist/etc. trying to protect Amazonian tribes from society (no, not the other way around). Basically, he used to be all for "contact" with the "savages" back in the '60s and '70s. Every time he would contact a new tribe, he would be amazed at how they were contended. And they have no electricity or anything modern! But after contact with society they would be destroyed -- from diseases, from "progress" -- thievery was introduced, deception was introduced, their basic balance was destroyed. So this researcher "learned his lesson," so to speak, and now has devoted his life to detecting the locations of such tribes and making sure that they never come in contact with the modern world.

hmm... you have a link? im interested. also maybe you should read up on a tribe called kaiowas. they lived in the rain forests of brazil and conflicted with the governments modernization of the land. so they commit mass suicide in protest of the new order

quote:

Personally I would like to keep it that way and feel contented -- but there is something nagging at me from the inside -- without having tasted the "savage" life, the "primitive" life, the "natural" life, I don't think I have the right to decide for myself that this way of living is "better." And especially after last night, after seeing people revert to a more primitive, albeit happier state, this nagging voice is getting stronger. But who can say for certain?

go camping for a couple weeks.

quote:

Are we "going down the wrong path" in deviating from our original lifestyle, our "natural" lifestyle? People are so asleep, so unaware of nature, that they have "stopped hearing the Sun ringing" (that's from Otherland). Nomadic, "primitive" peoples live more in tune with nature -- they can sense seasonal patterns, smell storms before they arrive, feel wellsprings under their feet, they live off the land. We as an industrialized society has lost that "touch".

you talk about the eat-sleep-work-(sex) life where people in this modernized society go wake up, go to their boring jobs, come home eat, (have sex with their wives, if their love life hasn't kicked hte bucket yet). if we were to move back to a primitive society then this method of living would become much more overbearing than it is today.
as is obvious in the amount of work required to keep one's self alive in a primitave society. and if humanity is meant to get away from this humdrum method of living, then taking away technology and the society we know it today would definatly take us back in the wrong direction
technology gives us tools to help make the work we need to do to stay alive easier. even the most primitive tribes running around in the deep amazon have developed some technologies to make their lives easier. they use spears to hunt and fight eachother (many of those tribes are just as violent and ruthless *actually alot more* then societies today), they use fire to cook and give them light (you don't see gorillas sitting around a camp fire), they cut down trees to build their homes, etc etc.
all this is using "technology" to make life easier.

now, i agree with you on the point that it is man's use of technology that is causing problems. man, like all animals, by nature is self serving. i can throw in all the stuff about darwinian evolution and such. ever since the dawn of civilization there have been leaders who have the postive consequences (in most general cases) of helping a certain group better its way of living. these leaders also do things that are self serving for either their people, themselves or both.
such is the case with say africa or the amazon. we have large corporatoins who make ass loads of money from striping the natural resources of such places. and these countries who have these resources are paralized by corporations and national interests which give lots of money to a select few in the nation and themselves (and the network continues all the way into each of us individually, in one way or another). the suffering in such 3rd world countries continues because things are working well for us now, and no one wants to make changes. and also the striping and destruction of the earth's resources continues because the bigwigs in charge with the money and power don't want to make changes.

altho it may appear that technology is hurting our environment with its big factories emiting poisenous gases or cars sucking up oil and spitting it back out as co2, it is man's use of technology in its naturally selfish ways that is hurting the planet.

you mentioned europe. here is an example of mankind starting to realize the harm it is doing and generally speaking taking the leading role of "maturing" human society. they are starting to use technology that is cleaner for the environment and better off all around. they like america still have a hell of a ways to go to actually making things in the world better, but i think they are ahead of us.

all of us have roughly 80 years on this earth. the point of life or of humanity should be for everyone to live those years as happily and fulfilling as possible. technology is a major tool in making that possible. if i lived in the future, i would love to explore space and see other planets and whatever mystories lay in our univers and would like to better my knowledge as to how it is everything exists and what else exists out there. only with continued advancements in technology can this happen. if someone finds that they will be most content living with nature wandering around and drinking from streams and hunting their own food, they should by all means be able too. i for one like living in an airconditioned home and being able to get on my computer and having access to almost any information i need at the touch of a button. i like being able to learn new things easily. i like being able to live confortably enough i'm able to pursue my passions.

heres sorta another anology i had to answer whehter we would be better off without technology
when i was really young, i had a cat. one day i remember i really didn't want to go to school and i saw my cat lounging around and i wondered, how great it would be to be a cat. not do anything just lounge around all day. thoughts on felines and lazyness aside. i came to realize when i got older, if i were to live like that (or like an ape or extremly primitive human culture) i would never know the joys of music, i woudl never understand that there is more to my universe than just the planet i live on, i would probably never know the joys of friendship etc i would spend my life trying to get food, sleep, follow my insticts to find a mate and continue my species. have babies then continue to eat and sleep until i died.
why limit humanity to such a "pointless" state of existence when it is capable of sooooooo much more.

what we should worry about is not whether we are better off with technology or if we are better off back when we were intune with nature. we should be worrying about our societies, our leaders our selfish ambishions.
now you cant change human nature, what we need to do is find ways that we can use it to our advantage.




wow that was a long very poorly put together post. i covered alot of stuff (lots of stuff that probably didn't have to do with what we were talking about) but oh well.
enjoy if you wanna read it all. i sure as hell don't its too long

Wow this is one of the most interesting threads i have ever read, good points Alccode and montie.

Technology in itself is a good thing, there would be almost no fun things in life without technology. BUT the problem is, it's used wrong, and why is it used wrong? becouse people are so addicted of money, ppl does whatever it takes to to get rich, they don't care if they polute the world, destroy the rain forests, treat 3rd worlders (hehe guess you can't say so but you know what i mean?) like animals. And everyone has this sick expectations, the president has to rice the GDP and satisfy all the sponsors of his camaign and all CEOs has to make the stockholders happy. If not, someone else will take their place. that makes them almost have to walk over dead bodies to get things done, 5 billion dollars is not revenue enough, so they cut all their africa emploeys salarie's from $1 a day to $0.5 a day... there is something wrong with whole system!

Right now in my country there is a big debate about why europe is behind us in eceonmic development. It may be becouse we work less then you and that's also what many guys claim. It may also be that we are much more "green" in our thinking, in my country actually the laws are pretty tough, and we are one of the leading countries in the world in that aspect. I think that's better to be the cleanest country in the world then the richest. I also think the same is about working, i don't won't to be forced to work more than 8 hours a day, even if that would make my country the richest in the world. But i guess you are the rich country because you get all our (and the rest of the world's) invstment moneys, you would go bancrupt without them. And we don't live a bad life here, not at all, we are like nr 17 on the world's GDP/capita list, but on the other hand we have better technology than most countrys, we have like most mobilephones,computers,broadband/capita in the world. We also have e good school system (it's far from perfect though...) so our country really has invested for the future... But we are a small country so it doesn't really matter if we are the only one doing this. Now EU is on a good way making europe a better place living, but without US fighting for envirmental issues, it's pointless. Most of the countrys in the world has signed the koyoto protocol, but not US, the "gratest" country in the world... You guys over there, DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE WORLD'S PROBLEMS!!!

I think you're not looking at the past way of life in a realistic way. The only thing that was better then was the fact there was more social interaction than now. On the other hand, the world was much more cruel, and people needed to work more, while at the same time they were undernourished and unhealthy. Not to mention total lack of security. Now, as far as future development goes, I'd say things will begin to improve, as robots will take over much of the boring manufacturing and farming businesses, so people will again have more time to interact between each other.

And as far as the nuclear/green power issue, you're not quite correct. Europe indeed did want to switch to wind/solar power plants in the past, but there is a crucial problem. Those power plants simplly don't provide enough power. If you look at France, for example, you'll see that 80% of their power is nuclear power. So the real choice is between nuclear and thermal power plants. Nuclear power plants are very clean as they produce minimal amounts of waste that is safely discarded. Thermal power plants on the other hand produce huge amounts of waste and garbage, while at the same time they give out far less electricity. So the general sentiment against nuclear power is only making things worse, because it is causing increased production of more polluting and less efficient thermal power plants. The only fully clean power plants with high output are hydroelectric plants, but the problem is that they can't be built just anywhere. And they do produce large accumulation lakes like the chinese three gorges dam, which caused millions of people to be relocated.

quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio Wandering around Toronto last night was awesome. It was crazy, I could actually see the stars clearly.

I thought about that the night of the blackout as I was driving home after dark in Chicago, how people in New York, Toronto, Detroit, etc. were being able to see the stars clearly. Some of those people have probably never seen more than 3 or 4 of the brightest stars in their lives....

The light pollution of a large city is amazing....It never gets totally dark.

I go home to the small town every so often just so I can sit on the deck at my mom's and look up and see all the stars.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 And as far as the nuclear/green power issue, you're not quite correct. Europe indeed did want to switch to wind/solar power plants in the past, but there is a crucial problem. Those power plants simplly don't provide enough power. If you look at France, for example, you'll see that 80% of their power is nuclear power. So the real choice is between nuclear and thermal power plants. Nuclear power plants are very clean as they produce minimal amounts of waste that is safely discarded. Thermal power plants on the other hand produce huge amounts of waste and garbage, while at the same time they give out far less electricity. So the general sentiment against nuclear power is only making things worse, because it is causing increased production of more polluting and less efficient thermal power plants. The only fully clean power plants with high output are hydroelectric plants, but the problem is that they can't be built just anywhere. And they do produce large accumulation lakes like the chinese three gorges dam, which caused millions of people to be relocated.

The issues of nuclear meltdown and nuclear waste were effectively solved by the engineers at Argonne National Labs in the early 1990's with their Integral Fast Reactor. But the end of the Cold War spelled an end to virtually all government funded nuclear research in the U.S. and they lost their funding.

The Three Gorges Dam also has major environmental concerns that have been glossed over. The reservoir is going to drown what was an industrial city with all of it's hazardous and human waste, quite possibly causing an ecological and public health disaster down stream.

MrS

I think that everyone makes of life what they want to. I'm glad that despite all the problems that exist we today have greater freedom and liberty to pursue happiness then humans ever did in the past. If you have your head stuck up your bosses ass and arent enjoying life its your fault not society's, so dont go around messing up my happiness. you are free to chase your own dreams and goals, It's your life, do with it what you want, and i'm happy that today i can do it more easily then i could have in the past. if you wanna live like in the pre-electricty days, go buy yourself a ranch and cultivate the land. if you want to live entering the corparte machine because you like to have direction, fine. just dont make fun of people who chose their own way of life, even if it does envolve candle lit bongo raves.

blackouts are fishy

can you say:

Bump

?

quote:

Originally posted by Eisbaer blackouts are fishy

Greg Palast thinks so too:

quote:

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=257&row=0 Power Outage Traced to Dim Bulb in White House The Tale of The Brits Who Swiped 800 Jobs From New York, Carted Off $90 Million, Then Tonight, Turned Off Our Lights Greg Palast ZNet Friday 15 August 2003 I can tell you all about the ne're-do-wells that put out our lights tonight. I came up against these characters -- the Niagara Mohawk Power Company -- some years back. You see, before I was a journalist, I worked for a living, as an investigator of corporate racketeers. In the 1980s, "NiMo" built a nuclear plant, Nine Mile Point, a brutally costly piece of hot junk for which NiMo and its partner companies charged billions to New York State's electricity ratepayers. To pull off this grand theft by kilowatt, the NiMo-led consortium fabricated cost and schedule reports, then performed a Harry Potter job on the account books. In 1988, I showed a jury a memo from an executive from one partner, Long Island Lighting, giving a lesson to a NiMo honcho on how to lie to government regulators. The jury ordered LILCO to pay $4.3 billion and, ultimately, put them out of business. And that's why, if you're in the Northeast, you're reading this by candlelight tonight. Here's what happened. After LILCO was hammered by the law, after government regulators slammed Niagara Mohawk and dozens of other book-cooking, document-doctoring utility companies all over America with fines and penalties totaling in the tens of billions of dollars, the industry leaders got together to swear never to break the regulations again. Their plan was not to follow the rules, but to ELIMINATE the rules. They called it "deregulation." It was like a committee of bank robbers figuring out how to make safecracking legal. But they dare not launch the scheme in the USA. Rather, in 1990, one devious little bunch of operators out of Texas, Houston Natural Gas, operating under the alias "Enron," talked an over-the-edge free-market fanatic, Britain's Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, into licensing the first completely deregulated power plant in the hemisphere. And so began an economic disease called "regulatory reform" that spread faster than SARS. Notably, Enron rewarded Thatcher's Energy Minister, one Lord Wakeham, with a bushel of dollar bills for 'consulting' services and a seat on Enron's board of directors. The English experiment proved the viability of Enron's new industrial formula: that the enthusiasm of politicians for deregulation was in direct proportion to the payola provided by power companies. The power elite first moved on England because they knew Americans wouldn't swallow the deregulation snake oil easily. The USA had gotten used to cheap power available at the flick of switch. This was the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt who, in 1933, caged the man he thought to be the last of the power pirates, Samuel Insull. Wall Street wheeler-dealer Insull created the Power Trust, and six decades before Ken Lay, faked account books and ripped off consumers. To frustrate Insull and his ilk, FDR gave us the Federal Power Commission and the Public Utilities Holding Company Act which told electricity companies where to stand and salute. Detailed regulations limited charges to real expenditures plus a government-set profit. The laws banned power "trading" and required companies to keep the lights on under threat of arrest -- no blackout blackmail to hike rates. Of particular significance as I write here in the dark, regulators told utilities exactly how much they had to spend to insure the system stayed in repair and the lights stayed on. Bureaucrats crawled along the wire and, like me, crawled through the account books, to make sure the power execs spent customers' money on parts and labor. If they didn't, we'd whack'm over the head with our thick rule books. Did we get in the way of these businessmen's entrepreneurial spirit? Damn right we did. Most important, FDR banned political contributions from utility companies -- no 'soft' money, no 'hard' money, no money PERIOD. But then came George the First. In 1992, just prior to his departure from the White House, President Bush Senior gave the power industry one long deep-through-the-teeth kiss good-bye: federal deregulation of electricity. It was a legacy he wanted to leave for his son, the gratitude of power companies which ponied up $16 million for the Republican campaign of 2000, seven times the sum they gave Democrats. But Poppy Bush's gift of deregulating of wholesale prices set by the feds only got the power pirates halfway to the plunder of Joe Ratepayer. For the big payday they needed deregulation at the state level. There were only two states, California and Texas, big enough and Republican enough to put the electricity market con into operation. California fell first. The power companies spent $39 million to defeat a 1998 referendum pushed by Ralph Nadar which would have blocked the de-reg scam. Another $37 million was spent on lobbying and lubricating the campaign coffers of the state's politicians to write a lie into law: in the deregulation act's preamble, the Legislature promised that deregulation would reduce electricity bills by 20%. In fact, when in the first California city to go "lawless," San Diego, the 20% savings became a 300% jump in surcharges. Enron circled California and licked its lips. As the number one contributor to the George W. Bush campaigns, it was confident about the future. With just a half dozen other companies it controlled at times 100% of the available power capacity needed to keep the Golden State lit. Their motto, "your money or your lights." Enron and its comrades played the system like a broken ATM machine, yanking out the bills. For example, in the shamelessly fixed "auctions" for electricity held by the state, Enron bid, in one instance, to supply 500 megawatts of electricity over a 15 megawatt line. That's like pouring a gallon of gasoline into a thimble -- the lines would burn up if they attempted it. Faced with blackout because of Enron's destructive bid, the state was willing to pay anything to keep the lights on. And the state did. According to Dr. Anjali Sheffrin, economist with the California state Independent System Operator which directs power deliveries, between May and November 2000, three power giants physically or "economically" withheld power from the state and concocted enough false bids to cost the California customers over $6.2 billion in excess charges. It took until December 20, 2000, with the lights going out on the Golden Gate, for President Bill Clinton, once a deregulation booster, to find his lost Democratic soul and impose price caps in California and ban Enron from the market. But the light-bulb buccaneers didn't have to wait long to put their hooks back into the treasure chest. Within seventy-two hours of moving into the White House, while he was still sweeping out the inaugural champagne bottles, George Bush the Second reversed Clinton's executive order and put the power pirates back in business in California. Enron, Reliant (aka Houston Industries), TXU (aka Texas Utilities) and the others who had economically snipped California's wires knew they could count on Dubya, who as governor of the Lone Star state cut them the richest deregulation deal in America. Meanwhile, the deregulation bug made it to New York where Republican Governor George Pataki and his industry-picked utility commissioners ripped the lid off electric bills and relieved my old friends at Niagara Mohawk of the expensive obligation to properly fund the maintenance of the grid system. And the Pataki-Bush Axis of Weasels permitted something that must have former New York governor Roosevelt spinning in his wheelchair in Heaven: They allowed a foreign company, the notoriously incompetent National Grid of England, to buy up NiMo, get rid of 800 workers and pocket most of their wages - producing a bonus for NiMo stockholders approaching $90 million. Is tonight's black-out a surprise? Heck, no, not to us in the field who've watched Bush's buddies flick the switches across the globe. In Brazil, Houston Industries seized ownership of Rio de Janeiro's electric company. The Texans (aided by their French partners) fired workers, raised prices, cut maintenance expenditures and, CLICK! the juice went out so often the locals now call it, "Rio Dark." So too the free-market British buckaroos controlling Niagara Mohawk raised prices, slashed staff, cut maintenance and CLICK! -- New York joins Brazil in the Dark Ages. Californians have found the solution to the deregulation disaster: re-call the only governor in the nation with the cojones to stand up to the electricity price fixers. And unlike Arnold Schwarzenegger, Gov. Gray Davis stood alone against the bad guys without using a body double. Davis called Reliant Corp of Houston a pack of "pirates" --and now he'll walk the plank for daring to stand up to the Texas marauders. So where's the President? Just before he landed on the deck of the Abe Lincoln, the White House was so concerned about our brave troops facing the foe that they used the cover of war for a new push in Congress for yet more electricity deregulation. This has a certain logic: there's no sense defeating Iraq if a hostile regime remains in California. Sitting in the dark, as my laptop battery runs low, I don't know if the truth about deregulation will ever see the light --until we change the dim bulb in the White House.

Here's another good anti-deregulation editorial in the NYTimes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/16/opinion/16KUTT.html

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.