Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Ah! So you admit that people ARE blaming the blackout on the Bush
Administration, which you challenged me to find the proof of. Now you
want to spin it as "well yea, Bush is responsible, and here's why".
Nevermind that trhe issue of pollution and other conditions have been in
place isince the late 1970's and through several presidents in the
meantime.

I didn't say he was responsible for the blackout, silly. However, if you
believe one bit of interconnected info, you can draw your own conclusions:
Some are saying that insufficient capacity caused the blackout. Some experts
dispute that claim. But, this is all beside the point.

But let me ask a question of pure logic; how is Bush, by "bending to the
wishes of the electric industry", making it harder to make electricity?
It would seem that if the electric companies are citing EPA regulations
as being too costly to comply with, as the excuse for the sorry state
that they are in, that Bush's sympathetic position would make it easier
for them to fix their problems. So tell me again how this is Bush's
fault?

Dave

Bush makes it harder to generate power because he creates situations where
litigation is absolutely inevitable, and he knows it full well.

Litigation? In what way? Besides, one of this country's biggest problems
is the over litigation that comes out of the courts, which end up
costing the taxpayers, in many different ways. Reduction of litigation
would be a good thing IMHO.


Or....to be
more correct, the results are known to whomever makes him do what he does,
since I'm 100% sure he doesn't understand the consequences of his actions.

I'm not 100% sure of many things. You would have to be GWB himself to
make that statement, and expect to be even close to being factual.



As far as "too costly", I dealt with that in a message I wrote to you a few
minutes ago: The utilities think ruining air & water is a consequence we
must accept. I say eating the cost of cleaner equipment is a consequence the
utilities must accept.

Either way, how does Bush, by clearing the path for these electric
companies, make it harder for them to make power?

Reality is this: Electricity costs money. If the costs to make
electricity rise due to mandated pollution controls, then the costs of
said electric will proportionately rise, and be ultimately passed on to
the consumer. Who will feel the pinch the most? The same people you guys
on the left always champion; the poor.
So do you want affordable electric, so the poor can maintain some
standard of living, or do you want electric that will be affordable to
only the "upper echelons" of income?

Dave