|
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.
___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/
|
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. 
