TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bush and the Blackouts
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Bush and the Blackouts

Bush immediately after the power-cuts:

quote:

President Bush said Friday the massive blackout that struck the Northeast and upper Midwest -- as well as parts of Canada -- is a "wake-up call" to modernize the electricity system. [...] Bush, taking questions from reporters while visiting the Santa Monica Mountains north of Los Angeles, described the delivery system as "old and antiquated" "This is an indication that we need to modernize the electricity grid," said Bush, who repeated his call for lawmakers to pass a broad energy bill.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS...kout/index.html

Two days later:

quote:

The Bush administration intends to side with a Senate Republican attempt to freeze a disputed regulatory proposal meant to strengthen the nation's aging power transmission system, which was blamed in last week's massive blackout, a senior administration official said yesterday.

Well, that's quite a quick change in rhetoric. Only took two days to shift from "repeating his call for lawmakers to pass a broad energy bill" to attempting to freeze the passage of an energy proposal in the senate. Why would they want to freeze these proposals intended to "modernize the electricity grid" as Bush put it?

quote:

"The two villains are the utilities and the Congress," said Bill Richardson, who as energy secretary from 1998 to 2000 advocated free-market reforms. "The utilities don't want to change their monopoly status. And there are some strong lobbies that said to Congress, 'Don't vote for this legislation to modernize utilities because they aren't good for us.' " [...] With Congress's return, the battle resumes, pitting two sides in a divided electric-power industry backed by millions of dollars in lobbying and campaign contributions, which have succeeded until now in blocking passage of any energy legislation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2003Aug16.html

So it's the lobbiers and campaign contributers helping prevent the passage of this bill then is it? Which companies would that include then?

quote:

The top two executives of FirstEnergy Corp. [...] are key financial supporters of President Bush, according to campaign records. H. Peter Burg, chairman and chief executive, was one of three hosts of a $600,000 fundraiser for Bush's reelection campaign in Akron, Ohio, on June 30. Vice President Cheney was the featured speaker. Anthony J. Alexander, FirstEnergy's president and chief operating officer, was a "Pioneer" for Bush's last campaign, meaning he raised at least $100,000. Alexander also contributed $100,000 to Bush's inaugural committee. The Energy Department has dispatched teams of investigators to the Midwest and Northeast. Democrats have questioned whether Bush's administration coddled electric companies because of his long personal ties to the energy industry. FirstEnergy's ties could increase Capitol Hill scrutiny of the White House handling of the blackout aftermath. Bush's campaign had no comment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2003Aug18.html

Oh dear. Would it be worth pointing out, here, that FirstEnergy are under investiagtion for their part in the blackouts?:

quote:

The investigative arm of Congress is looking into the federal government's handling of problems at a nuclear plant owned by FirstEnergy -- the Ohio-based utility at the center of the investigation into last week's blackout. [...] The request came after criticism of the NRC's handling of the Davis-Besse plant owned by FirstEnergy Corp., the Akron based electric conglomerate that owns four of the five Ohio power lines that tripped, a major failure during last week's blackout. Wells said the GAO investigation would look at "how the NRC is addressing these major issues and the adequacy of the NRC inspection process with respect to the Davis-Besse plant."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/18/bl...firstenergy.ap/

Now FirstEnergy would have a good reason to oppose the FERC proposal as it "shift(s) authority away from [...] major electric utilities" and is likely to infringe upon "their monopoly status" in the state of Ohio (as they currently own 4 of the 5 stations there). So what's the point of all this? The point is as follows:

The Republicans have monetary links to FirstEnergy, a company under investigation for its part in the recent US blackouts. Two days after saying defiantly that the power grid was in need of an overhaul and that legislation needed to be passed to overhaul it, the Republicans find themselves blocking an energy proposal in the senate - that would drastically modernize the system - which would also take authority away from companies such as FirstEnergy in "control[ing] the flow of power over state lines and oversee[ing] the upgrade of the transmission system" and challenge their virtual monopoly in the state of Ohio and elsewhere. This same company is under investigation for their part in the blackouts and questions are being raised about the US government's handling of the problems at these plants, dating back over a period of more than 18 months.

Could the scope of the blackouts have been minimised without Bush's connections to the big energy companies (would FirstEnergy have been forced to address these problems had they not been major GOP contributers)? Is Bush backing away from his initial "pro-modernization" stance on the insistance of companies like FirstEnergy? Could this errupt into another Enron type scandal for Bush and the Republican party at some point in the future?

Thoughts?

Edited to add:

Further evidence of FirstEnergy's role in the blackouts and the likelihood that the entire incident was actually triggered by faulty transmission lines owned by that company:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4140-2003Aug16.html

no one cares.. stop trying to make up stuff.

hey renegade just curious...you sound so sure of yourself in yoru posts...say you thrown into the presidential seat do you think you can do a better job than bush?

Bush's 2000 primary campaign took in a record $101 million, and officials project that this number will almost double in 2004. Central to Bush's success have been his "Pioneers," supporters who pledge to raise at least $100,000 in hard money for his primary bid.

Recently, through a lawsuit that challenged the new federal campaign- finance law filed by Texans for Public Justice, it had been discovered that there had been 538 of these so called "Pioneers", enough, if each fulfilled their pledge to account for more than half of Bush's campaign money. About 170 of these 538 Pioneers were business owners, presidents, or CEOs, including those of Enron, Dynegy, Staples, Shell, Occidental Chemical, Edison Electric, ect. (not sure about First Energy, although it's possible)

It's really no surprise then that Bush gives very strong support to the suggestions of these men. Infact, Bush's energy policy closely mirrors the demands made by "energy Pioneer" lobbyists. Although it has yet to pass Congress, MBNAs (a big credit card company in the US) project to try to pass a bill to make personal-bankruptcy laws much harder to enact has also enjoyed Bush's strong support. Does it surprise you then that Charles Cawley, a "Pioneer" and CEO of MBNA, gave Bush more than $240,000.

Is our democracy for sale to the highest bidder?

(source: Harper's Sept. 2003)

quote:

Originally posted by PeacefulWarrior Is our democracy for sale to the highest bidder?

yes

let's not forget bush didnt want to help california during our energy crisis

quote:

Originally posted by TuanAnh213 hey renegade just curious...you sound so sure of yourself in yoru posts...say you thrown into the presidential seat do you think you can do a better job than bush?

criticism and evaluation of political officials is not and should not be restricted to those capable of the job. public opinion and good investigative reporting (think woodward and bernstein with watergate) hold our politicians accountable for their actions and decisions, which is about the only thing keeping them from become term-elected dictators. if no one discusses what they due, regardless of how valid or invalid the discussion, politicians have no one and nothing to answer to.

[sarcasm] its soooooooo great to know that our country is in the good hands of our beloved corporate gods[/sarcasm]

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus no one cares.. stop trying to make up stuff.

Just because this post doesn't support your point of view doesn't mean that noone cares. And in case it is made up, you are free to expose the lie, but back up your claims.

quote:

Originally posted by rizen yes let's not forget bush didnt want to help california during our energy crisis

Niether did Grey Davis. Too many fruits and nuts in California.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus no one cares.. stop trying to make up stuff.

All the people on the NORTHEAST cares!!!!!!!!!. And I heard that the same states are still vulnerable for more upcoming blackouts.

Renegade, great post, big props.. I actually read it, not like some peeps that just seem to post without even reading it. Everything done with facts and proofs, very well done.

What can I say.. everything thought about Bush and his friends, it dont surprise me at all.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus no one cares.. stop trying to make up stuff.

"Few things are harder to put up with than a good example."
- Mark Twain (1835-1910)

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus no one cares.. stop trying to make up stuff.

Ah Yoepus my old friend, welcome back.

You're welcome to think what you want obviously, but I'm just wondering why you thought I was making stuff up when every issue I raised was backed up by an article from a reputable news company? Which bits in particular do you think I made up?

quote:

hey renegade just curious...you sound so sure of yourself in yoru posts...say you thrown into the presidential seat do you think you can do a better job than bush?

Yes.

And take note of what daffodil said, because he pretty much hit the nail on the head there - political systems are dependant on criticism and scrutiny to evolve. If everyone just went around saying "things are fine" instead of objectively scrutinising the system, then we would be living in the same conditions we were 12,000 years ago. There would be no democracy, no liberty, no human rights or any other of the things that make up the political system you currently take for granted - the only reason they exist is because people over the ages have had the courage to say: "things could be better".

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Ah Yoepus my old friend, welcome back.

Ahh my favorite nemesis its good to be back

quote:

You're welcome to think what you want obviously, but I'm just wondering why you thought I was making stuff up when every issue I raised was backed up by an article from a reputable news company? Which bits in particular do you think I made up?

Because your just looking to make up something that brings the current administration into a bad light, be it deserved or not.

Look these are the facts:
1. Bush is for upgrading the energy gird
2. Bush is against the FERC proposed bill
3. First Energy gave Bush Admin money.
4. First Enegry is being investigated regarding blackout
5. Other Energy companies gave the Democrates money
6. Other Energy Companies are begin investigated regarding blackout

I fail to make any conneciton between ANY of those facts.
What you are tyring to do is make something out of nothing.

For all I know the FERC is lead by many former Energy Execs, their close ties with their former employers are proably much stronger then whatever ties they have tried to buy with Bush.

From a brief bio on the FERC chairman for instance (http://www.eerc.und.nodak.edu/windiv/speakers.asp) I found out he has close relations with the Texas Railroad Commision. Whoever actually is into politics in Texas knows that the TRC is basically an offical (texas) government lobby group for big oil and energy companies with a lot of power. Using this stupid logic I can claim the FERC bill is actually a bill FOR energy companies that they would love to see. Actually I would claim that indeed the FERC is basically one big lobby group for energy companies.

Even your Washington post article states:

quote:

Elizabeth A. Moler, former FERC chairwoman and now a lobbyist for Exelon, a utility

Look the former FERC chair returned to her role as a.... no but it can't be... lobbyist for a power company... hmmmm.

Look just because its an FERC bill does not mean its any good.. Infact from my unexpert reading on the subject I figure that the FERC bill would open up the energy girds to a state which would increase possible earnings to many energy companies by allowing Enron style energy trading to be conducted on a larger scale in more energy markets yet increase the risk of energy grid failure through coglomerate run energy rule making.

No but it can't be that. Using your logic the Republicans are against the bill and we all know the republicans = bad. Therefore the bill must = good. And therefore Bush against bill = TRUE EVIL.

We also know that corporations are EVIL, espcially energy corporations that give Bush and Republicans (EVIL) money (UMBER EVIL).
but...

quote:

Backing FERC's rules are companies, including Exelon, Entergy, Duke Power, New England Electric Utility System and Southern California Edison

Oh oh.... FERC BILL is supported by EVIL energy corporation.. that must mean the FERC BILL = EVIL. But wait Bush = EVIL (since he's republican) and him being against the BILL is therefore... no it can't be.. GOOD.. No thats a contradiction! It can't be true. Bush != good thats the first rule of Aussie politics... eck.. eck.. world is collapsing, losing hippie vision.. everything is getting dark.... must be good can not be evil...


Yes so what that drama is supposed to tell us is this;
Your grasping for something we still don't know.. you are making baseless connections between seemingly unrelated facts.

Perhaps due to the power outages, the government is under the vigilant eye of the people, and no matter how much the lobbist pay they when a public is awoken no ammount of money can buy refuge. Perhaps Bush is acting his role in the service to the people, especially when doing something obviously in the blant interest of EVIL energy cos might cost him 04. Perhaps Bush actually has some people studying the situation, and perhaps they want to know what happened first and what is the problem before jumping in and fixing it. And perhaps that is not the FERC (energy co. backed) bill.

Or as I said previously briefly and to the point;

quote:

no one cares.. stop trying to make up stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Niether did Grey Davis. Too many fruits and nuts in California.

grey davis had no choice, either have the power out or agree to the deregulation. try reading up on it

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Niether did Grey Davis. Too many fruits and nuts in California.

you forgot the flakes

rizen has a good point though. i find it strange that when california was in a major energy crisis that lasted for quite sometime, bush didnt do shit. but when the power is out for a couple days in a few states, bush says we need improvement...

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Ahh my favorite nemesis its good to be back Because your just looking to make up something that brings the current administration into a bad light, be it deserved or not. Look these are the facts: 1. Bush is for upgrading the energy gird 2. Bush is against the FERC proposed bill 3. First Energy gave Bush Admin money. 4. First Enegry is being investigated regarding blackout 5. Other Energy companies gave the Democrates money 6. Other Energy Companies are begin investigated regarding blackout I fail to make any conneciton between ANY of those facts. What you are tyring to do is make something out of nothing. For all I know the FERC is lead by many former Energy Execs, their close ties with their former employers are proably much stronger then whatever ties they have tried to buy with Bush. From a brief bio on the FERC chairman for instance (http://www.eerc.und.nodak.edu/windiv/speakers.asp) I found out he has close relations with the Texas Railroad Commision. Whoever actually is into politics in Texas knows that the TRC is basically an offical (texas) government lobby group for big oil and energy companies with a lot of power. Using this stupid logic I can claim the FERC bill is actually a bill FOR energy companies that they would love to see. Actually I would claim that indeed the FERC is basically one big lobby group for energy companies. Even your Washington post article states: Look the former FERC chair returned to her role as a.... no but it can't be... lobbyist for a power company... hmmmm. Look just because its an FERC bill does not mean its any good.. Infact from my unexpert reading on the subject I figure that the FERC bill would open up the energy girds to a state which would increase possible earnings to many energy companies by allowing Enron style energy trading to be conducted on a larger scale in more energy markets yet increase the risk of energy grid failure through coglomerate run energy rule making. No but it can't be that. Using your logic the Republicans are against the bill and we all know the republicans = bad. Therefore the bill must = good. And therefore Bush against bill = TRUE EVIL. We also know that corporations are EVIL, espcially energy corporations that give Bush and Republicans (EVIL) money (UMBER EVIL). but... Oh oh.... FERC BILL is supported by EVIL energy corporation.. that must mean the FERC BILL = EVIL. But wait Bush = EVIL (since he's republican) and him being against the BILL is therefore... no it can't be.. GOOD.. No thats a contradiction! It can't be true. Bush != good thats the first rule of Aussie politics... eck.. eck.. world is collapsing, losing hippie vision.. everything is getting dark.... must be good can not be evil... Yes so what that drama is supposed to tell us is this; Your grasping for something we still don't know.. you are making baseless connections between seemingly unrelated facts. Perhaps due to the power outages, the government is under the vigilant eye of the people, and no matter how much the lobbist pay they when a public is awoken no ammount of money can buy refuge. Perhaps Bush is acting his role in the service to the people, especially when doing something obviously in the blant interest of EVIL energy cos might cost him 04. Perhaps Bush actually has some people studying the situation, and perhaps they want to know what happened first and what is the problem before jumping in and fixing it. And perhaps that is not the FERC (energy co. backed) bill. Or as I said previously briefly and to the point;

Well said Yoepus, couldn't have said it better myself. It surprises me at how many people here call the mainstream population "sheep" for blindly supporting Bush but it appears that many here exhibit sheep-like qualities as well by immediately jumping on the anti-Bush/anti-Republican bandwagon. Believe it or not, most Republicans want what's good for the nation as much as Democrats do, simply their means to achieve that end differ. Of course we can look at the fact that every company is connected with the Republicans and the Democrats in some way and constantly accuse the government of duplicity. My question is, when Democrats achieve control of the executive branch or congress are all the accusations going to stop?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well said Yoepus, couldn't have said it better myself. It surprises me at how many people here call the mainstream population "sheep" for blindly supporting Bush but it appears that many here exhibit sheep-like qualities as well by immediately jumping on the anti-Bush/anti-Republican bandwagon. Believe it or not, most Republicans want what's good for the nation as much as Democrats do, simply their means to achieve that end differ. Of course we can look at the fact that every company is connected with the Republicans and the Democrats in some way and constantly accuse the government of duplicity. My question is, when Democrats achieve control of the executive branch or congress are all the accusations going to stop?

also remember that there's more to a bill than is in a summary. they often have acts attached that have no relevance to the bill. don't tell me y'all have forgotten (EDIT) amber alert that was tucked into a homeland security bill, and the rave act tucked into some bill i can't remember and i'm sure occrider can ()

bills include a plan for financing whatever they create, and if they financing plan sucks the bill is often opposed. another common rant from this forum is that people get their news from only one biased source (cnn or fox or whatever network is demon for the day), but by simply taking what is posted and not doing your own research before responding you do the same thing.

we're all arguing our side when we post so you can be assured all facts are selectively posted. i'm not attacking or criticizing anyone, this is just what happens when you argue for your cause -- keep doing it, debate is good!

and no, accusations will not stop if democrats take control and they shouldn't. as i've posted before, criticism and skepticism of the government should NEVER stop. they day it does we're all completely fucked.

quote:

Originally posted by daffodil also remember that there's more to a bill than is in a summary. they often have acts attached that have no relevance to the bill. don't tell me y'all have forgotten the rave act that was tucked into a homeland security bill.

Actually the amber alert bill.

quote:

bills include a plan for financing whatever they create, and if they financing plan sucks the bill is often opposed. another common rant from this forum is that people get their news from only one biased source (cnn or fox or whatever network is demon for the day), but by simply taking what is posted and not doing your own research before responding you do the same thing.

Couldn't agree more. I can't tell you how many times I've researched a source only to find it is completely misleading (cough ... international war crimes tribunal ... cough ... renegade ). I don't find fault with Renegade for presenting this interesting perspective. I just think it's asinine that everybody (including many people on these forums) are so partisan that they automatically take Renegade's fact A, fact B, and fact C and arrive at his postured theory D without asking any questions or deviating from the if person is republican then evil conspiracy, proof.

quote:

we're all arguing our side when we post so you can be assured all facts are selectively posted. i'm not attacking or criticizing anyone, this is just what happens when you argue for your cause -- keep doing it, debate is good! and no, accusations will not stop if democrats take control and they shouldn't. as i've posted before, criticism and skepticism of the government should NEVER stop. they day it does we're all completely fucked.

One can only hope!

quote:

Originally posted by daffodil also remember that there's more to a bill than is in a summary. they often have acts attached that have no relevance to the bill. don't tell me y'all have forgotten the rave act that was tucked into a homeland security bill.

This is true porkbarralling, and adding extra clauses in a bill sometime lead it to become a completely different thing then one has intended. There was one bill not so long ago that I remember was so full of excess things that its orginal purpose had become meaningless. I remember the Bush administration actually was against this bill as well, which I think was the correct thing to do. I can't remember what bill it was, but it was something that sounded very "good" such as a tax cut, or education... damn alcohol erasing memory!

Also another mini rant. I hate people also that say this and this company contributed so and so much to Bush's campaign. If we all recall the elections of 2002 were a far cry from Bush winning. In fact one that was giving money to the GOP canidate seemed to actually be simply throwing his money away. It was not seen as realistic that Bush could come and beat an incumbent Vice President for a very popular administration. Look many companies contribute money and as I calculate it, you rarely have a topic where there is such dominace of one lobby group as opposed to another.

Also I will be keen to point out that Clinton I believe had collected much more money in his campagins then Bush (I think this is true.. I may be making things up though... you gotta admit it sounds authentic ) and what got many people angry he accepted contributions from foriegners which is illegal (also don't really no.. but ya sounds right huh?) if we all recall the Chinese scandal.
Of course on this particular incident there was many critism. However this is the only critisim I remember from the Clinton admistration regarding where they go their money from.. so I do actually think it is a bit one sided. I have heard at least half a dozen accusations against Bush..

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Also I will be keen to point out that Clinton I believe had collected much more money in his campagins then Bush (I think this is true.. I may be making things up though... you gotta admit it sounds authentic )

my memory isn't so great, even for an article i read yesterday! i think said article discussed bushes campaign financing and mentioned that bush raised more money in 2000 than any candidate ever and he was expected to quadruple that amount for 2004.

i know i just ranted about people not doing research, but i read so many articles every day i have no idea where to find the article to verify.

and porkbarreling! i knew there was a name for it. damn memory... and it happens all the time. politicians love to use it in negative campaigning: "Sen. Jones says he is for the environment but he voted against a bill that would eliminate greenhouse gas emissions by 2006." however, there was a provision redirecting all income taxes into the governor's personal bank account in that bill, so good ole jonesy voted against it.

quote:

Originally posted by daffodil my memory isn't so great, even for an article i read yesterday! i think said article discussed bushes campaign financing and mentioned that bush raised more money in 2000 than any candidate ever and he was expected to quadruple that amount for 2004.

Ya I remember reading something like that too... but I don't think its true for some reason. But thats just my gut

i dont think it will be quadruple, but it will double. i saw somewhere bush's goal is 200million, 100million more than 2000.

Okay, I tried writing a response last night, but Internet fucking Explorer froze about 40 minutes into writing it (that's what I get for trying to load pdf files I guess). Let's try again:

quote:

Look these are the facts: 1. Bush is for upgrading the energy gird

Well he certainly said that he was for upgrading the grid, but what I'm arguing is that his desire to see the grid "modernized" and his desire to appease the lobbiers and his donors may be mutually exclusive goals. I cited the article outlining the freezing of the FERC proposal because it went into detail about the influence large corporations can have over the legislative process - can you argue against my contention that the lines separating corporate America and governmental America are being blurred under the Bush government? Do you think it unreasonable that I call into question the GOP's impartiality on such issues when they are so heavily funded by corporations with a vested interest in preventing proposals like this one from passing through?

quote:

2. Bush is against the FERC proposed bill

And I'm merely asking why. I don't have definitive proof that the Republicans are against this proposal due to their connections with big industry - and I'm not even suggesting that it's the only reason that they may be opposing it - but taking into account Bush's character history and the evidence presented, why do you find my suggestion that these connections are influencing the Republicans decision to vote the proposal down so unreasonable?

quote:

3. First Energy gave Bush Admin money. 4. First Enegry is being investigated regarding blackout

No, FirstEnergy are being investigated for causing the blackout. Read from the last article I provided:

quote:

Three electrical transmission lines failed in Ohio on Thursday afternoon, possibly after one of them came in contact with a tree, in a fast-paced series of events that investigators said yesterday they are now "fairly certain" triggered the biggest blackout in U.S. history. [...] FirstEnergy Corp., the Akron, Ohio, power company that owns those lines, released a statement yesterday saying that before the power lines failed, a unit in its Eastlake Plant in Eastlake, Ohio, tripped off. According to the statement, the company initially believed its system was stable and that there was no call to isolate it from the rest of the grid.

You also forgot to mention 4a): "Congress is looking into the federal government's handling of problems at a nuclear plant owned by FirstEnergy". Now, as I say, at this early stage there is still no definitive proof that there is a connection between the federal government and the failure to identify faults in the property of FirstEnergy (the prime suspect in the cause of the blackout) but the evidence at this stage, I feel, is good enough to call into question the Bush administrations role in the entire ordeal. The NRC (a government funded agency headed commissioners hand-picked by president Bush himself) knew that there were problems with FirstEnergy's nuclear plant yet allowed it to continue running depite safety concerns. To quote the CNN article:

quote:

Some critics in Congress have questioned whether the NRC bowed to pressure from FirstEnergy Corp. and allowed the utility to keep Davis-Besse operating despite concerns about the reactor lid.

Seems strange, does it not, that the NRC would ignore major problems with a nuclear plant that just happened to be owned by one of Bush's major campaign donors? Now, if it turns out that this original evidence is misleading, and the federal government can be cleared of any responsibility in the power failure then fine, I'll quite happily retract what I'm saying. But, again, given what I've presented from the evidence available, I fail to see how this speculation is in any way unreasonable.

quote:

5. Other Energy companies gave the Democrates money

Your point being? Not to drag this into a debate along party lines, but at least the Democrats recognised the problems with the current system and attempted to introduce a bill (voted down by the Republicans) to rectify the problem:

quote:

In June 2001, Democrats in the House advanced a proposal that would offer $350 million in federal loans for the express purpose of updating the outdated power grid. House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX) blasted the proposal, calling it �pure demagoguery� and arguing that Democrats �have no credibility on this issue whatsoever.� House Republicans voted it down. Then they voted it down again. And then a third time. Three straight party line votes killed the bill, while the White House worked behind the scenes to orchestrate the death blow. After the bill was scuttled, Democrats issued a supplemental report once again arguing for the need to address the situation. Included in their statement is this prophetic excerpt: �The obsolescence of the nation's electric power transmission grid has become an emergency that requires immediate attention. The problem is not one limited to just California, or even the Western states: it is clearly a national problem that potentially affects all citizens.�

http://www.thedailyenron.com/docume...32640-93614.asp

Meanwhile, despite warnings from the NERC, the Bush administration continued to ignore the issue:

quote:

The organization responsible for preventing massive blackouts in the United States has been warning for months that the nation's system of voluntary compliance with electricity standards is inadequate and could result in just the kind of widescale power outage that occurred yesterday. Indeed, in a document written just days ago, the North American Electric Reliability Council said there has been "a marked increase in the number and seriousness of violations" of guidelines governing the nation's power companies and that "the very stability of the electric system upon which our economy and our society depends" has "no effective recourse today to correct such behavior." The document goes on to warn that "the longer it takes to establish this new system, the greater becomes the risk and magnitude of grid failures."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...ential_blackout

quote:

6. Other Energy Companies are begin investigated regarding blackout

Yes, but there's only one prime suspect as to the cause of the blackouts, and I'm sure I don't need to tell you which company that might be.

quote:

For all I know the FERC is lead by many former Energy Execs, their close ties with their former employers are proably much stronger then whatever ties they have tried to buy with Bush. From a brief bio on the FERC chairman for instance (http://www.eerc.und.nodak.edu/windiv/speakers.asp) I found out he has close relations with the Texas Railroad Commision. Whoever actually is into politics in Texas knows that the TRC is basically an offical (texas) government lobby group for big oil and energy companies with a lot of power. Using this stupid logic I can claim the FERC bill is actually a bill FOR energy companies that they would love to see. Actually I would claim that indeed the FERC is basically one big lobby group for energy companies.

Well now who's making basless speculation?

Do you know that the FERC has strong ties with the industry, or does the preface "for all I know" give your grasping-at-straws approach away? Do the recent actions of the FERC indicate that there may be nepotistic ties with major energy corportations, as there currently exist within the Bush administration? Regardless, as I'm a fair man, I'll assume that the FERC is little more than a conglomeration of ex-energy industry execs whose sole purpose is to scratch the backs of major energy corporations. Even granting this perspective, we still have some problems.

For instance the proposal instigated by the FERC is opposed by a great many of the major energy companies and - like I say - is generally antithetical towards the goals of "big business" as "it "shift(s) authority away from [...] major electric utilities" and is likely to infringe upon "their monopoly status" ". If the FERC were merely an organisation instituted to support big business, why would their proposal facilitate an outcome that works against it? Why are so many large companies lobbying to have the proposal voted down?

Given this I fail to see how you "can claim the FERC bill is actually a bill FOR energy companies that they would love to see" as this is quite clearly not the case.

quote:

Look just because its an FERC bill does not mean its any good.. Infact from my unexpert reading on the subject I figure that the FERC bill would open up the energy girds to a state which would increase possible earnings to many energy companies by allowing Enron style energy trading to be conducted on a larger scale in more energy markets yet increase the risk of energy grid failure through coglomerate run energy rule making.

Not really. In fact the new proposal takes the power away from the state, offering instead the creation of "regional transmission organizations to control the flow of power over state lines and oversee the upgrade of the transmission system". I can't say whether such a proposal would open the doors to more "Enron style energy trading" but I can say that the creation of these regional bodies would have gone long way towards preventing the decay of of the transmission lines in Ohio, as it takes autonomy away from the major companies. Under the current laws, according to the head of the NERC "the government's rules "are not now enforceable" ". The issue of whether further deregulation of the industry is a good thing or not is up for debate (probably subject matter for another thread) but at least the current proposals "impose mandatory rules on power companies to fulfill their obligations on the energy grid" - in other words, FirstEnergy, under these proposed guidelines, would have been forced to fix their faulty property (both quotes taken from the boston.com article).

quote:

No but it can't be that. Using your logic the Republicans are against the bill and we all know the republicans = bad. Therefore the bill must = good. And therefore Bush against bill = TRUE EVIL.

Now you're starting to get it.

quote:

Bush != good thats the first rule of Aussie politics...

I'll ignore the rest of the part surrounding this quote as I feel that I've addressed it above, but I must take issue with this. So the first rule of Aussie politics is that "Bush doesn't equal good" hmmmm? Remind me, who was the third nation in Bush's "coalition of the willing"? Let me see there was the US, the UK and.....

In fact if anything, the political atmosphere here is completely the opposite. Anyone who publically denounces Bush, or any politician who denounces Bush in parliament is automatically branded "anti-American". No debate necessary. Look at what happened when Simon Crean outlined his opposition the Iraqi war:

quote:

Based on anti-American comments expressed by leading members of the Opposition, Ambassador Schieffer had expressed alarm over the degree of anti-American sentiment in the Labor Party, revealing that the party had failed to develop constructive relations with the Bush Administration. [...] The attacks on the US by the likes of Brereton and Latham were unconscionable, poisonous and defamatory.

http://www.brookesnews.com/031402creanus.html

Now that's an editorial piece, but it's exactly the same rhetoric that came from the Liberal Party (the party currently in power) when Crean's Labour party announced, simply, that it didn't support the Iraqi campaign. Note how easily the argument was dismissed: "you don't agree with the stance of the Bush administration, therefore you are anti-American". Take a look at this editorial piece as well (the author is a sub-editor of Melbourne's most popular newspaper):

quote:

This deep desire to see the US in the most depraved light is growing -- particularly in Europe -- and in Australia now influences important politicians. It may not be long before it influences our foreign policy, too. It's of course clear that many of our "intellectuals" are, as Downer says, "obsessed with anti-Americanism".

http://heraldsun.news.com.au/common...5E25717,00.html

Note how he derides all views he disagrees with as being "anti-American" and that, somehow, the intellectual left-wing necessarily defines its views in opposition to those of the Bush administration. This is flawed, simplisitic, paranoid thinking, yet sadly it is highly prevelant in Australian politics as it is increasingly so on this board: "disagree with the Bush administration? You're an anti-American! The only reason you oppose Bush's policies is because you hate the US, you racist commie, admit it! Your views aren't based on carefully considered political and moral principles, you just don't like Americans! Consider your view-point debunked!"

And continuing this line of thought, Occrider:

quote:

It surprises me at how many people here call the mainstream population "sheep" for blindly supporting Bush but it appears that many here exhibit sheep-like qualities as well by immediately jumping on the anti-Bush/anti-Republican bandwagon.

I'm not sure if this was in any way directed at me, but I think that's a fairly simplistic viewpoint and that you're being overly-dismissive, a priori, to the views I hold. You think I'm just criticising Bush for the sake of it? Even if this were the case - that I did hold some bias against this administration that would force me to be critical of them regardless of how good, altruistic and beneficial their policies were - if they didn't give me so much material by constantly and consistently behaving in a fashion that could only be described as "compromising the welfare of citizens at home and abroad" with ill-advised, purely executed and - at base - stupid policies, I wouldn't be able to discuss them as much as I currently do, would I? Make no mistake about it, virtually everything that the administration has done has been detrimental to the common good, making things worse rather than better: they've invaded two Middle-Eastern nations, slaughtering thousands of innocents in the process and made a complete mess of the rebuilding process in both cases. This is an administration embroiled in corporate scandal, big-business nepotism and one that has pushed the almighty US economy to the brink of recession despite Bush's "revolutionary" tax-cuts. They've overturned international environmental treaties, showed utter contempt for international law (in their derailing of the UN and continuing refusal to allow the creation of an International Court that tries American citizens), utter contempt for human rights (in, among other things, their treatment of prisoners in Camp X-Ray) and continue to ignore the will of the rest of the globe in any way possible.

If I were subserviently being "anti-Bush" and were criticising his policies merely because I "don't like him" then all I can say, as an "anti-American biggot", is that they're making my job of knee-jerk criticism very, very easy indeed.

quote:

My question is, when Democrats achieve control of the executive branch or congress are all the accusations going to stop?

Once again, if the question was directed at me, then I can only say "yes". While I consider the Democrats to be the lesser of two evils, I still consider them - for all intents and purposes, and as I said in another thread - Republicans sans balls. Even the democratic candidate whose views I most agree with - namely Howard Dean - has some views I am quite willing to say that I disagree with - his stance on gun control for one. And if Lieberman (aka Bush Lite) gets the ticket, then you'd better believe the criticism will continue to flow. In fact, if it is Lieberman against Bush in the election, then I'll probably support Bush - while it may mean another 4 years of misery, at least it will tell the Democrats that they aren't going to get very far by putting up candidates who should really be working for the other side and that they must be a strong, well-defined party rather than the party that only exists to agree with everything the Republicans say and do.

quote:

Couldn't agree more. I can't tell you how many times I've researched a source only to find it is completely misleading (cough ... international war crimes tribunal ... cough ... renegade ).

Meh.

quote:

I don't find fault with Renegade for presenting this interesting perspective. I just think it's asinine that everybody (including many people on these forums) are so partisan that they automatically take Renegade's fact A, fact B, and fact C and arrive at his postured theory D without asking any questions or deviating from the if person is republican then evil conspiracy, proof.

Once again, the "if person is republican then evil conspiracy" is a flawed, all too simplistic manner of deflecting criticism directed at the Bush administration. You're welcome to argue against the points I or anyone else raises in this forum, of course, but if I or anyone else have their views dismissed out of hand as being "anti-Bush" or "anti-American" then I think I'm going to scream.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Occrider: I'm not sure if this was in any way directed at me, but I think that's a fairly simplistic viewpoint and that you're being overly-dismissive, a priori, to the views I hold. You think I'm just criticising Bush for the sake of it? Even if this were the case - that I did hold some bias against this administration that would force me to be critical of them regardless of how good, altruistic and beneficial their policies were - if they didn't give me so much material by constantly and consistently behaving in a fashion that could only be described as "compromising the welfare of citizens at home and abroad" with ill-advised, purely executed and - at base - stupid policies, I wouldn't be able to discuss them as much as I currently do, would I? Make no mistake about it, virtually everything that the administration has done has been detrimental to the common good, making things worse rather than better: they've invaded two Middle-Eastern nations, slaughtering thousands of innocents in the process and made a complete mess of the rebuilding process in both cases. This is an administration embroiled in corporate scandal, big-business nepotism and one that has pushed the almighty US economy to the brink of recession despite Bush's "revolutionary" tax-cuts. They've overturned international environmental treaties, showed utter contempt for international law (in their derailing of the UN and continuing refusal to allow the creation of an International Court that tries American citizens), utter contempt for human rights (in, among other things, their treatment of prisoners in Camp X-Ray) and continue to ignore the will of the rest of the globe in any way possible. If I were subserviently being "anti-Bush" and were criticising his policies merely because I "don't like him" then all I can say, as an "anti-American biggot", is that they're making my job of knee-jerk criticism very, very easy indeed.

Well said! Too bad you had to waste it on me, my comments weren't directed at you . Sheep follow they don't lead.

quote:

Once again, if the question was directed at me, then I can only say "yes". While I consider the Democrats to be the lesser of two evils, I still consider them - for all intents and purposes, and as I said in another thread - Republicans sans balls. Even the democratic candidate whose views I most agree with - namely Howard Dean - has some views I am quite willing to say that I disagree with - his stance on gun control for one. And if Lieberman (aka Bush Lite) gets the ticket, then you'd better believe the criticism will continue to flow. In fact, if it is Lieberman against Bush in the election, then I'll probably support Bush - while it may mean another 4 years of misery, at least it will tell the Democrats that they aren't going to get very far by putting up candidates who should really be working for the other side and that they must be a strong, well-defined party rather than the party that only exists to agree with everything the Republicans say and do.

Fair enough, what do you have against Lieberman by the way? I never would have thought that any candidate could would warrant a bush vote from you.

quote:

Once again, the "if person is republican then evil conspiracy" is a flawed, all too simplistic manner of deflecting criticism directed at the Bush administration. You're welcome to argue against the points I or anyone else raises in this forum, of course, but if I or anyone else have their views dismissed out of hand as being "anti-Bush" or "anti-American" then I think I'm going to scream.

Wasn't directed at you once again. It's one thing to be a critic of Bush and provide supporting evidence to establish credibility. It's quite another thing to consistentely criticize or jump to premature conclusions without any credence or evidence at all.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Fair enough, what do you have against Lieberman by the way? I never would have thought that any candidate could would warrant a bush vote from you.

In terms of social policy, Lieberman is essentially a "BUsh Lite." I thought he was dead on with that title. A better one though would be "an elephant in a donkey costume." I hate Lieberman almost as much as Bush. He's got a broom so far up his social/religious conservative ass, and he even has less charisma than Bush. His name is an oxymoron for sure, and if he wins the nomination, he'll have no chance in hell against Bush. It would be almost like voting for the same guy anyways. I'd hate to see the situation in Iraq continue to deteriorate, but that could be the one factor that brings Bush down along with the economic down-turn. I honestly think the American people need to see the bodies of dead US soldiers on the news...


I'm also amazed that Renegade would take the time to learn so much about the policies, and politics of the US (not to mention write a novel of a post).

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