OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Gould 0738 wrote:


We got Udai and Kusai ratted out for $30mm. A few days' expense, even at
a
reducd rate of a billion every 90 days.

Would $100 million rat out OBL? $200 million? $300 million, a US green
card,
and a total plastic surgery makeover for the informant and his family?
There's
a price that would buy OBL, and it's probably a lot cheaper than the
course
we're on.....*if* our intention is to catch the criminal ******* at the
head of
the organization that blew down the WTC etc.


Chuck, you assume that the people with the information, are as consumer,
and materially oriented as an American. Many of those people loath what
the american dollar stands for, and offering it as an incentive to "give
up" their comrades, will not have the same appeal. Offer them the 70
virgins and the all night party at Allah's, and then they might think
about it......

Dave

The burgeoning black market in the Middle East for Western goods suggests
that people over there are as materialistic as anyone else.

I hope you are right. It makes our job of "westernizing" them to reject
regressive totalitarian regimes that much easier.

But you still have to crack the Islamic fundamentalist, who still
belives that he'll go to Allah with 70 virgins if they kill an
infidel....

Dave

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

Gould 0738 wrote:

Chuck, you assume that the people with the information, are as consumer,
and materially oriented as an American. Many of those people loath what
the american dollar stands for, and offering it as an incentive to "give
up" their comrades, will not have the same appeal. Offer them the 70
virgins and the all night party at Allah's, and then they might think
about it......

Dave

Well let's do the math he

$200 million. Subtact 25 million to purchase a "palace" in most any state in
the union. $175 million left. Pay 100 guys
$100k a year each to guard your sorry butt for 50 years, $125 million left.
Hire 70 women to service your every desire. You should probably find women
willing to live in a palace and put on an act once ever so often for what,
$200k a year apiece? I guess it would take about ten years to screw through the
rest of the money- at which time even Allah would have to admit the gals were
no longer virgins.


The math is fine, but you're still assuming that these staunch followers
of radical islam, will be tempted by it.

Dave

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

Chuck,
Since you have all the answers to finding the terrorist leaders, have you
ever considered contacting the government, army and CIA. Copy the
newspapers on your suggestions so they can apply pressure so Bush and
Company don't continue to waste our time. I am not sure, but it might be
more effective than writing 1000 word essays in rec.boats.

If you really believe your suggestions have validity, it is silly not to
tell the people who can utilize this info.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
We knew for years who we were hunting in the Atlanta bombings. Your
argument
lost again. I think you're wrong about the price that would buy Osama.
How
much
would it take for you to plant a nuclear device under the Space Needle?



I wouldn't.

But you miss the point. The people closest to OBL are (according to what
we
know)
baby rapers, sadists, murderers, thugs, thieves, and other assorted
garbage.
They're all for sale.

Look at the suicide bombers: their families get a few thousand $US and
that
(partially) motivates a very desperate act.

Not everybody has a price, but we don't need "everybody" to rat out or
eliminate OBL.

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


BTW, there have been "news" articles, from the typical propagandists,
who try to spin this blackout as yet another failure of the Bush
administration.

I'd love to see those articles. Got any?

You know how to use google, look them up. I'm not doing your homework
for you. Try using "Bush administration" "blackout" and "failure" as
keywords.

Dave


OK...I see the problem here. In between "blackout" and "Bush", there is path
which winds too much for you to understand. Fortunately, we can straighten
the path so you won't hyperventilate:

1) Proven fact: Pollution from coal-burning electric generating plants in
the Midwest blows East, and ends up in NY, PA and New England. Chemists know
this because they've inserted tracers into fuel supplies and found those
same tracers downwind.

2) Proven fact: Among other things, the particulates include things like
mercury, which ends up in our water.

3) Politicians and electric companies from states like Ohio have STOPPED
claiming that #1 and #2 are untrue, and have switched to saying that it's
prohibitively expensive to install equipment which would drastically reduce
emissions.

4) Bush and his EPA are bending to the wishes of the parties mentioned in
#3, and allowing them to expand generating capacity without using technology
which would minimize the problems mentioned in #1 and #2.

5) Elliot Spitzer, NY's attorney general, is preparing to take the offending
parties to court before more damage is done.

I say Bush is hindering the production of sufficient electricity. You will
say Spitzer is the problem. Take your pick.


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.

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

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Joe" wrote in message
...
Really? What exactly did she say?

http://www.thejewishpress.com/news_a...p?article=2751



" Limbacher notes that a year ago, “Clinton slammed a Bush administration
proposal to
allow utilities to upgrade their plants by relaxing a few of the more
punishing environmental
regulations. She warned of ‘dirtier air and rising temperatures’ that would
expose citizens ‘to
increased childhood asthma rates, higher sea levels and more acid rain and
mercury-tainted
fish.’”

Must be painful when a politician says something which is true, something
which makes it even more obvious that your president has a huge supply of
kneepads which he uses when servicing his campaign contributors. Your boy is
currently doing exactly what Ms. Clinton mentioned: dismantling clean air
regulations. The results are obvious. Example: Tupper Lake, in the
Adirondacks, where I vacation each year, now has mercury warnings for most
of its fish. President Nookular Boy couldn't give a damn.

So then we should blame Clinton for the blackout, since Bush is the one
that wants to help them, while the environmental groups would rather the
electric generating plants go bust than relax pollution laws.

If it weren't so pathetic, it would be funny. Everyone complains about
the cost of energy yet the environmental faction of the left:

Opposes the creation of additional nuclear (nookular) plants, due to the
waste disposal issues.

Opposes the expansion of coal burning plants due to pollution issues.

Opposes the drilling for oil on our own shores to reduce the dependancy
on foreign oil, due to perceived environmental impacts.

Embraces new technology like wind power.... Unless you're a Kennedy and
oppose the locating of those windmills in your backyard.

Is now making noise about the large lakes (Which are also great boating
places) created for hydro-electic plants, due to changes to the natural
habitat. There are some who want to drain lakes like Mead and Powell.


Meanwhile, we are facing an energy crisis. The latest blackout, and the
crisis in California a few yeasr back, should serve as a warning and a
wake up call. Do we want energy or not? What will we be willing to give
up to get it?

Dave

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

The math is fine, but you're still assuming that these staunch followers
of radical islam, will be tempted by it.

Dave

oudai? kousai?

Only takes one guy, if it's the right guy.

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

On 27 Aug 2003 15:23:25 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

We knew for years who we were hunting in the Atlanta bombings. Your argument
lost again. I think you're wrong about the price that would buy Osama. How
much
would it take for you to plant a nuclear device under the Space Needle?



I wouldn't.

But you miss the point. The people closest to OBL are (according to what we
know)
baby rapers, sadists, murderers, thugs, thieves, and other assorted garbage.
They're all for sale.

Look at the suicide bombers: their families get a few thousand $US and that
(partially) motivates a very desperate act.

Not everybody has a price, but we don't need "everybody" to rat out or
eliminate OBL.

No, I don't miss the point. You made the point. Where do you get your
information about those closest to OBL? Who says they don't have the same
feelings for him that you have for the people of Seattle? Osama is not a poor
guy. The people closest to him are most likely living quite well and not
suffering for lack of money.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

But there ARE other members of whatever name you wish to apply to the
terrorists groups. The perps on 911 were not acting alone. While you can
cut off a plant by the branches, and it keeps growing back, until you
hit the roots of the evil, it will also keep coming back.

All BS aside Dave. The "roots of evil" lie deep in the hearts of all men. We
cannot premeptively kill everybody we judge capable of potential evil. There
would be nobody left.

The ringleaders should be brought to justice covertly.

For what purpose other than "feel good" pride? You think the group will
fall apart when the leader is caught? As far as we know OBL is already
dead, and the group is still functioning.

Because we are a system that is based on justice. (Justice is different than
revenge).
Justice demands that the guilty be made to account for the crimes of 9-11, etc.
Revenge does not serve justice, it just feels better to the common man.

We have captured several of the "top dogs" in Al Qaeda. How many more do
we need to catch? And even when we do, there are still junior members
ready to step in. We have to stamp out the environment which creates
these people.

Good idea. When do you propose we start? Most of our recent actions have
fostered international hatred for the US and
perpetuated the environment that spawns desperate criminal terrorist martyrs.


What's just a bit scary about your guy and his crew is the
espoused philosophy that we should now attack everybody who
might, in the future, do some harm to the United States (maybe).

That's one hell of an exaggeration. It's not the way you portrayed it.

No? why not go back up a few paragraphs to your comment about stamping out the
sources? Did you not mean invading the countries where we theorize the
terrorists might be, and tearing down any governments we thing might be
supporting them?

We have intelligence that tells our government (But not the propaganda
speculators) exactly who and where terrorists are likely to be hiding
out, and which governments either overtly or covertly support them.

We
have a responsibility to stamp out the whole plant, or it will just grow
back.

We know this: we better not miss as many as 19.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "19" reference.



Nineteen guys did 9-11.

No, it hasn't. You just misunderstood. I stated that If you believe that
it's in the best
interest of this country to NOT know all the gory details, then you
can't complain when they do hold back the information. And we know
that's the typical MO of the left, when they are constantly on the

attack, criticising the administration for not being "straight up" with
the people.

*if* the government chooses to make a public statement prior to or during the
invasion of a country or other dramatic, overt act, the government should not
deliberately mislead the public with that statement. That's not a tough
standard to accept, is it?

I have some very terrible news for you. The odds that you actually have any
clue about the actual "gory details" are close to zero.

The same goes for you, but that hasn't stopped you from speculating all
sorts of theories (not so coincidently critical of our administration's
motives) as to what has been happening and why. The whole "war for oil"
mindset.

We have exactly the same resources. The official government press releases. The
national and international media. Etc.

I have a specific source for questioning the administration's motives. It was
published and endorsed by the most influential members of Bush's cabinet
several years ago. It outlines a general gameplan for the United States to
establish a global empire, and recommends specific steps to accomplish the
goal. One of the first recommended steps is the occupation of Iraq. We're not
talking some left wing spinmeister's hallucination- we're talking about a
document that the right wing authors take enough pride in to publish on the
internet. You know exactly where to find it. (NAC)

All you or I know is what we read in the papers or (in your case) hear on
talk
radio.

And you too evidently. You seem to know far too much about what is being
spewed out by the latest Limbaugh clone.

The right wing is a dangerous element. It's good to know what the "group think"
is up to.

I listen about ten minutes a day. It's too hilariously entertaining to pass up
completely, and by analyzing the manipulative techniques these guys are using
so successfully one can learn quite a bit about controlling others with
prejudice, emotion, and misinformation.
Never can tell when skills like that might prove useful, or when it may be
necessary to more actively defend against same.

Every government, including this one, keeps important secrets from the
press.

You are correct, and for good reason. Yet why do your bretheran on the
left constantly criticize our administration for this practice? Why do
these people feel that the public has the right to know everything? And
when they find hints of certain classified material, they right away
jump to the conclusion that the government is "up to no good"? (Of
course this depends on whether there's a republican in office)

See previous comment. The government, D or R, should never use a press
conference, SOTU speech, or other "official" opportunities to deliberately
mislead the American people. It's flabbergasting that any two Americans would
ever disagree on this.........but, oh well.



International diplomacy is like a poker game- you might be likely to bluff
but
it's unlikely you'll show your actual cards around the table while the bets
are
going into the pot.

Except that we hold the winning hand.


I guess. "Let's see. A two of clubs, a four of diamonds, a jack of spades, a
king of hearts and a seven of clubs. Oh, yeah......
and a nuclear arsenal and status as the only remaining superpower in the
world.....
looks like we win again."

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


" Limbacher notes that a year ago, "Clinton slammed a Bush
administration
proposal to
allow utilities to upgrade their plants by relaxing a few of the more
punishing environmental
regulations. She warned of 'dirtier air and rising temperatures' that
would
expose citizens 'to
increased childhood asthma rates, higher sea levels and more acid rain
and
mercury-tainted
fish.'"

Must be painful when a politician says something which is true,
something
which makes it even more obvious that your president has a huge supply
of
kneepads which he uses when servicing his campaign contributors. Your
boy is
currently doing exactly what Ms. Clinton mentioned: dismantling clean
air
regulations. The results are obvious. Example: Tupper Lake, in the
Adirondacks, where I vacation each year, now has mercury warnings for
most
of its fish. President Nookular Boy couldn't give a damn.

So then we should blame Clinton for the blackout, since Bush is the one
that wants to help them, while the environmental groups would rather the
electric generating plants go bust than relax pollution laws.


Every public company's shareholders face risk, even in a relatively
bulletproof industry like mine (grocery). Utility shareholders have known
for at least 20 years that this day was coming. Tough ****.


If it weren't so pathetic, it would be funny. Everyone complains about
the cost of energy yet the environmental faction of the left:

Opposes the creation of additional nuclear (nookular) plants, due to the
waste disposal issues.

Would YOU like to live within 100 miles of a nuclear waste dump built near
an earthquake fault?



Opposes the expansion of coal burning plants due to pollution issues.

So, you think the "pollution issues" are acceptable as they are? How about
if they increase by 25%, and either kill the fish in your favorite waters,
or make those fish inedible? Do you consider that just incidental to our way
of life?


Opposes the drilling for oil on our own shores to reduce the dependancy
on foreign oil, due to perceived environmental impacts.

I guess you've forgotten the Exxon Valdez incident, and the fact that they
bitched and moaned about taking responsibility for it. Or, the fact that GE
still won't own up to its part in poisoning the Hudson River, and claims
they shouldn't have to help pay for it. These are NOT exceptions, Dave.


Embraces new technology like wind power.... Unless you're a Kennedy and
oppose the locating of those windmills in your backyard.

If that's true, it's silly. I think wind farms are cool, and I'm sure the
equipment manufacturers will gradually find ways to make the machinery more
attractive, just as cell tower manufacturers have.



Is now making noise about the large lakes (Which are also great boating
places) created for hydro-electic plants, due to changes to the natural
habitat. There are some who want to drain lakes like Mead and Powell.

Do you feel this type of opposition is the rule? In other words, for every
100 hydro facilities, how many are being picked on?


Meanwhile, we are facing an energy crisis. The latest blackout, and the
crisis in California a few yeasr back, should serve as a warning and a
wake up call. Do we want energy or not? What will we be willing to give
up to get it?

I'm not willing to give up clean air & water to appease the shareholders of
utilities in Ohio. Every company gets beat up sometimes. The well managed
ones recover just fine, especially when they have a virtual monopoly.

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Which brings us back to the original statement, how would you "hunt"
down a criminal such as OBL or SH, when we have no legal right to
enter
the country which harbors him? If the host country refuses to help
us,
do we just turn around, or do we comitt an act of war by defying the
wishes of the host country? That was the whole premise for the
campaign
against Afghanistan and Iraq. Remember, that aiding the terrorists was
akin to being an accessory to the "crime", and are therefore equally
culpable.


I just figured it out, Dave. I can't believe it took so long. You are
actually a skel who lives on the streets, and stumbles into an internet
cafe
with panhandled coins to use their computer a couple of times a day. How
else could we explain what you just said, other than to blame
intravenous
narcotics use and a diet of Thunderbird?

"no legal right to enter the country which harbors him" ?????

So: If we sent spies to hunt down and kill OBL, that would be wrong
because
we might not have the legal right to enter countries without their
permission. But, if we send enough people in military uniforms, it's a
different story? A patriotic endeavor?


Sigh. It figures that you just don't get it. Try reading it again a
little slower this time.

The point, if you still don't get it, is that if we want to play the
good guy, and respect the sovereignty of all nations, then we have no
right to cross the borders of any country which hides terrorist camps,
without their cooperation. Last time I looked, most are not
cooperating. So what's the difference if we send in covert assasins or a
full blown military garrison?

Dave

The word "covert" answers your last question. By sending troops into a
sovereign nation, we did exactly what terrorists have been pointing at, as
an excuse for their actions. By using covert assassins, it's a bit harder to
pin the blame on us, at least in the eyes of the world.

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

I for one believe that dissenting opinion is good for America. Since you
have such strong beliefs and you have the answers, I just wish you would be
able to help solve the problems. I am not sure, but I don't know how many
cabinet members, members of congress or those in power who could actually
help solve these problems read rec.boats. Possible a letter to the editors
might be help the Bush Admin. see the how futile their efforts have been.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Chuck,
Since you have all the answers to finding the terrorist leaders, have you
ever considered contacting the government, army and CIA. Copy the
newspapers on your suggestions so they can apply pressure so Bush and
Company don't continue to waste our time. I am not sure, but it might be
more effective than writing 1000 word essays in rec.boats.

If you really believe your suggestions have validity, it is silly not to
tell the people who can utilize this info.




Kerist.

I expressed an opinion.

I know, there's no need to express any opinions that differ from the
"official"
opinions held by the Bush cabinet and
expounded upon by their radio prophets.

To do so would be unpatriotic.

Flog me already.



"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
We knew for years who we were hunting in the Atlanta bombings. Your
argument
lost again. I think you're wrong about the price that would buy Osama.
How
much
would it take for you to plant a nuclear device under the Space
Needle?



I wouldn't.

But you miss the point. The people closest to OBL are (according to
what
we
know)
baby rapers, sadists, murderers, thugs, thieves, and other assorted
garbage.
They're all for sale.

Look at the suicide bombers: their families get a few thousand $US and
that
(partially) motivates a very desperate act.

Not everybody has a price, but we don't need "everybody" to rat out or
eliminate OBL.

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

Is "covert action" another name for terrorist action?


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Which brings us back to the original statement, how would you "hunt"
down a criminal such as OBL or SH, when we have no legal right to
enter
the country which harbors him? If the host country refuses to help
us,
do we just turn around, or do we comitt an act of war by defying the
wishes of the host country? That was the whole premise for the
campaign
against Afghanistan and Iraq. Remember, that aiding the terrorists
was
akin to being an accessory to the "crime", and are therefore equally
culpable.


I just figured it out, Dave. I can't believe it took so long. You are
actually a skel who lives on the streets, and stumbles into an
internet
cafe
with panhandled coins to use their computer a couple of times a day.
How
else could we explain what you just said, other than to blame
intravenous
narcotics use and a diet of Thunderbird?

"no legal right to enter the country which harbors him" ?????

So: If we sent spies to hunt down and kill OBL, that would be wrong
because
we might not have the legal right to enter countries without their
permission. But, if we send enough people in military uniforms, it's a
different story? A patriotic endeavor?


Sigh. It figures that you just don't get it. Try reading it again a
little slower this time.

The point, if you still don't get it, is that if we want to play the
good guy, and respect the sovereignty of all nations, then we have no
right to cross the borders of any country which hides terrorist camps,
without their cooperation. Last time I looked, most are not
cooperating. So what's the difference if we send in covert assasins or a
full blown military garrison?

Dave

The word "covert" answers your last question. By sending troops into a
sovereign nation, we did exactly what terrorists have been pointing at, as
an excuse for their actions. By using covert assassins, it's a bit harder
to
pin the blame on us, at least in the eyes of the world.

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

Actually Chuck is a self proclaimed extreme left liberal Dem. When he thinks Howard
Dean is to conservative for his taste, one can see how far left old Chuck is.


"Bill Cole" wrote in message
. net...
So it looks like the current administration is doing a good job tracking
down the top 50 Iraqi's. I think they have found over 80% of them. Let's
be honest Chuck, you are only interested in finding fault because you do not
like Bush's party. Be proud of the fact that you are a democrat, don't be
ashamed. Stand up and say, "I am Chuck and I am a democrat". You will
feel better for it.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
The math is fine, but you're still assuming that these staunch followers
of radical islam, will be tempted by it.

Dave

oudai? kousai?

Only takes one guy, if it's the right guy.

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

"Jim" wrote in message
. net...
Actually Chuck is a self proclaimed extreme left liberal Dem. When he thinks Howard
Dean is to conservative for his taste, one can see how far left old Chuck is.



Oops, make that "too" conservative.

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 23:13:25 GMT, "Bill Cole" wrote:

So it looks like the current administration is doing a good job tracking
down the top 50 Iraqi's. I think they have found over 80% of them. Let's
be honest Chuck, you are only interested in finding fault because you do not
like Bush's party. Be proud of the fact that you are a democrat, don't be
ashamed. Stand up and say, "I am Chuck and I am a democrat". You will
feel better for it.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
The math is fine, but you're still assuming that these staunch followers
of radical islam, will be tempted by it.

Dave

oudai? kousai?

Only takes one guy, if it's the right guy.

You're comin' down pretty hard there, Bill. Prolly oughta ease up on him some or
he'll stop writing those great articles 'bout boating in the great northwest.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

When Chuck writes anything concerning boating, he is one of the best
contributors in this newsgroup. When he is spewing forth his political bs
he is just static.


"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 23:13:25 GMT, "Bill Cole"
wrote:

So it looks like the current administration is doing a good job tracking
down the top 50 Iraqi's. I think they have found over 80% of them.
Let's
be honest Chuck, you are only interested in finding fault because you do
not
like Bush's party. Be proud of the fact that you are a democrat, don't
be
ashamed. Stand up and say, "I am Chuck and I am a democrat". You will
feel better for it.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
The math is fine, but you're still assuming that these staunch
followers
of radical islam, will be tempted by it.

Dave

oudai? kousai?

Only takes one guy, if it's the right guy.

You're comin' down pretty hard there, Bill. Prolly oughta ease up on him
some or
he'll stop writing those great articles 'bout boating in the great
northwest.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

You're comin' down pretty hard there, Bill. Prolly oughta ease up on him some
or
he'll stop writing those great articles 'bout boating in the great northwest.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale,

Bill? Coming down hard? He's one of the more rational righties, IMO. Sticks to
issues rather than name calling, (most of the time), a record that some of his
fellow travelers should aspire to.

Happy to exchange jabs with Bill any day.
He generally says "I think you're wrong, and here's why......" rather than "I
think you're wrong because anybody left of GWB is always wrong and you,
personally, are a sh*thead." A tactic some of his fellow travelers should
consider emulating.

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in

We were discussing the response to 9-11.
How many of the "top 50 Iraqis
had a hand in 9-11?

Where's Osama Bin Ladin?
Where's Saddam Hussein?

I did not know Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11, but since you
believe he was, shouldn't we go after his top 50 henchmen?

Where are the weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent danger to
the
United States?

I thought we were discussing 9-11, but to answer your question anyway, if I
was a betting man, I would guess they are over in Syria or buried out in the
middle of the desert. Do you honestly believe that SH was not stockpiling
weapons of MD? Do you believe the pictures of his citizens killed with
weapons of mass destruction were a figment of the bush administration? Do
you believe he was trying to develope a nuclear weapon was a figent of the
bush administration? I doubt he has nuclear capabilities today, but he has
been working on it for years. Even Clinton's administration was concerned
about SH and his weapons of MD.

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

Bill Cole wrote:

I for one believe that dissenting opinion is good for America.

As is your right to counter said opinion.

Since you
have such strong beliefs and you have the answers, I just wish you would be
able to help solve the problems. I am not sure, but I don't know how many
cabinet members, members of congress or those in power who could actually
help solve these problems read rec.boats.

Try none.


Possible a letter to the editors
might be help the Bush Admin. see the how futile their efforts have been.

That sounds like a great idea. The common people should all give up expressing
any opinions, and just write letters to editors and politicians. I suppose you
would still allow all opinions that support your conservative agenda, however?

That's the wonderful thing about freedom of speech. I'm free to speak. You're
free to say "shut up", and I don't have to listen.
Same thing works 180 degrees around.

As for the Bush administration seeing "how futile" their efforts have been?
I believe that everything is going pretty well in accordance with the Bush
plan. Failure to capture OBL for almost 2 years now, failure to find WMD,
failure to find SH.......none of those things are really important- even though
we were told they were our moral justifications for the last two wars.

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

I did not know Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11, but since you
believe he was, shouldn't we go after his top 50 henchmen?

You introduced the "top 50 Iraqis" into the discussion about responding to
9-11.
Even though our government implied that SH conspired with his sworn, mortal
enemy, OBL, to pull of 9-11, the case seems weak at best.

I thought we were discussing 9-11, but to answer your question anyway, if I
was a betting man, I would guess they are over in Syria or buried out in the
middle of the desert. Do you honestly believe that SH was not stockpiling
weapons of MD?

If he had any, they were manufactured outside of Iraq and brought in. The last
time we were able to detect any trace of WMD manufacture in Iraq was 1998.
Inspectors last year not only did not find any weapons, they were unable to
detect even the slightest chemical or biological trace of any recent
manufacturing activity. The ordinance has a 3- 5year shelf life.

Item from Radio Netherlands (hopefully an acceptably objective source) follows:

*******
With the battle for Baghdad fizzling out without the use of chemical weapons by
Iraqi troops, Washington's critics are demanding to know what has happened to
Saddam Hussein's purported weapons of mass destruction. Former chief UN weapons
inspector in Iraq Scott Ritter is one of those who has heaped scorn upon
President George Bush's administration for going to war. In this interview with
RN's Saskia van Reenan, Mr Ritter, a former US marine officer, explains why he
sees US justifications for waging war as dishonest excuses for empire-building.

"The threat that Iraq poses from weapons of mass destruction I think has been
clearly exposed as a lie. We were told to expect chemical weapons to rain down
on troops as soon as they crossed over the border from Kuwait into Iraq, but
that didn't happen. We were then told that as we closed in on the so-called
‘red line' around Baghdad – the 50-mile circle – that as soon as we
breached that, chemical weapons would be used. That didn't happen. Then we said
chemical weapons would be used as a last-gasp defence of Baghdad but that
didn't happen. What chemical weapons? We were told that the presidential
palaces were brimming over with weapons of mass destruction, but we now occupy
many of the presidential palaces and we've found nothing."

"If Iraq were to have weapons of mass destruction today, they would have had to
reconstitute a manufacturing base since 1998, since weapons inspectors left. No
one has provided any information of a substantive nature that sustains that
allegation. Clearly Iraq had the potential, they had time, they had four years
between the time I left and other inspectors left in 1998 and the time that the
new UNMOVIC inspectors returned in the fall of 2002."

"I have clearly stated that Iraq could reconstitute a limited capability within
six months, so the potential is there for Iraq to have done this, but that
potential doesn't automatically translate into reality, and we did have
inspectors on the ground for almost four months, and they found nothing.
Furthermore they investigated over a dozen sites highlighted by the Central
Intelligence Agency as being prime suspects for producing weapons of mass
destruction and they have found nothing."

(sidebar begins)
DISSENSION IN THE RANKS: Scott Ritter began his fall from grace in the eyes of
the US establishment in the first Gulf War, when as a junior military
intelligence analyst he began filing reports contradicting the official US
estimates of the number of Scud missiles destroyed. Later appointed chief UN
weapons inspector in Iraq, he resigned in 1998, claiming that President Bill
Clinton was too lenient on Saddam Hussein's regime. Since then, Mr Ritter has
performed what his critics see as an about-face; he now says it is highly
unlikely Baghdad possesses dangerous amounts of weapons of mass destruction.

( Side bar ends-Ritter's comments continue):

"Clearly Iraq could have hidden something, we know that Iraq tried to hide
things from us in the past, but this 5 to 10 percent of unaccounted-for
material doesn't mean that Iraq didn't account for it, it means that we can't
verify the Iraqi accounting. Iraq claims to have destroyed everything, they
just can't prove that they destroyed everything. We can prove that 90 to 95
percent were accounted for."

"But let's talk about that missing material. In the field of biological
materials, anthrax. Iraq produced anthrax in liquid bulk form, it has a shelf
life of three years under ideal storage conditions, the last known batch came
out in 1991. I might be a simple marine, not able to do adequate mathematics,
but I think 1991 plus three gives you 1994. What anthrax does Iraq have? None
of the anthrax they produced prior to 1991 can be viable today, it simply can't
be."

"The nerve agent sarin: there's talk of 1000 tonnes of Iraqi nerve agent
unaccounted for, because there's 6500 munitions that we can't account for
dating from 1983 to 88. The problem is, that even if Iraq tried to hide that
stuff, it can't be viable today because that nerve agent has a shelf-life of
five years. So even though we can't give a final disposition of that 5 to 10
per cent that's unaccounted for, I can tell you this; regardless of what
happened to it, it's not worth anything today, it can't hurt anyone. So I come
back to the basic question: what weapons of mass destruction?"

***********************

Now, Bill, this guy was only the chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq for a
while. Surely, he can't know as much as Rush Limbaugh or the other rw radio
spinmeisters about WMD.

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

Chuck,
I don't have any problem with idle chit chat, you and I are doing that
right now and it is fun. I just thought you had strong felt beliefs and
seem to be intelligent enough to want to make a change for the better.
Rec.boats is a great place for idle chit chat, it is a terrible place to try
to improve the world.
When was the last time you saw anyone change their mind in rec.boats?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Bill Cole wrote:

I for one believe that dissenting opinion is good for America.

As is your right to counter said opinion.

Since you
have such strong beliefs and you have the answers, I just wish you would
be
able to help solve the problems. I am not sure, but I don't know how
many
cabinet members, members of congress or those in power who could actually
help solve these problems read rec.boats.

Try none.


Possible a letter to the editors
might be help the Bush Admin. see the how futile their efforts have been.

That sounds like a great idea. The common people should all give up
expressing
any opinions, and just write letters to editors and politicians. I suppose
you
would still allow all opinions that support your conservative agenda,
however?

That's the wonderful thing about freedom of speech. I'm free to speak.
You're
free to say "shut up", and I don't have to listen.
Same thing works 180 degrees around.

As for the Bush administration seeing "how futile" their efforts have
been?
I believe that everything is going pretty well in accordance with the Bush
plan. Failure to capture OBL for almost 2 years now, failure to find WMD,
failure to find SH.......none of those things are really important- even
though
we were told they were our moral justifications for the last two wars.

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

It depends on who initiated the action, and who's on the receiving end. :-)
If we do it, it's righteous. If someone else does it, it's terrorism.

"Terrorism is the warfare of the poor. Warfare is the terrorism of the rich."

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

On 28 Aug 2003 03:08:00 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

You're comin' down pretty hard there, Bill. Prolly oughta ease up on him some
or
he'll stop writing those great articles 'bout boating in the great northwest.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale,

Bill? Coming down hard? He's one of the more rational righties, IMO. Sticks to
issues rather than name calling, (most of the time), a record that some of his
fellow travelers should aspire to.

Happy to exchange jabs with Bill any day.
He generally says "I think you're wrong, and here's why......" rather than "I
think you're wrong because anybody left of GWB is always wrong and you,
personally, are a sh*thead." A tactic some of his fellow travelers should
consider emulating.


Are you talking about Harry and jps again?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

On 28 Aug 2003 03:50:44 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

I did not know Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11, but since you
believe he was, shouldn't we go after his top 50 henchmen?

You introduced the "top 50 Iraqis" into the discussion about responding to
9-11.
Even though our government implied that SH conspired with his sworn, mortal
enemy, OBL, to pull of 9-11, the case seems weak at best.

I thought we were discussing 9-11, but to answer your question anyway, if I
was a betting man, I would guess they are over in Syria or buried out in the
middle of the desert. Do you honestly believe that SH was not stockpiling
weapons of MD?

If he had any, they were manufactured outside of Iraq and brought in. The last
time we were able to detect any trace of WMD manufacture in Iraq was 1998.
Inspectors last year not only did not find any weapons, they were unable to
detect even the slightest chemical or biological trace of any recent
manufacturing activity. The ordinance has a 3- 5year shelf life.

Item from Radio Netherlands (hopefully an acceptably objective source) follows:

*******
With the battle for Baghdad fizzling out without the use of chemical weapons by
Iraqi troops, Washington's critics are demanding to know what has happened to
Saddam Hussein's purported weapons of mass destruction. Former chief UN weapons
inspector in Iraq Scott Ritter is one of those who has heaped scorn upon
President George Bush's administration for going to war. In this interview with
RN's Saskia van Reenan, Mr Ritter, a former US marine officer, explains why he
sees US justifications for waging war as dishonest excuses for empire-building.

"The threat that Iraq poses from weapons of mass destruction I think has been
clearly exposed as a lie. We were told to expect chemical weapons to rain down
on troops as soon as they crossed over the border from Kuwait into Iraq, but
that didn't happen. We were then told that as we closed in on the so-called
‘red line' around Baghdad – the 50-mile circle – that as soon as we
breached that, chemical weapons would be used. That didn't happen. Then we said
chemical weapons would be used as a last-gasp defence of Baghdad but that
didn't happen. What chemical weapons? We were told that the presidential
palaces were brimming over with weapons of mass destruction, but we now occupy
many of the presidential palaces and we've found nothing."

"If Iraq were to have weapons of mass destruction today, they would have had to
reconstitute a manufacturing base since 1998, since weapons inspectors left. No
one has provided any information of a substantive nature that sustains that
allegation. Clearly Iraq had the potential, they had time, they had four years
between the time I left and other inspectors left in 1998 and the time that the
new UNMOVIC inspectors returned in the fall of 2002."

"I have clearly stated that Iraq could reconstitute a limited capability within
six months, so the potential is there for Iraq to have done this, but that
potential doesn't automatically translate into reality, and we did have
inspectors on the ground for almost four months, and they found nothing.
Furthermore they investigated over a dozen sites highlighted by the Central
Intelligence Agency as being prime suspects for producing weapons of mass
destruction and they have found nothing."

(sidebar begins)
DISSENSION IN THE RANKS: Scott Ritter began his fall from grace in the eyes of
the US establishment in the first Gulf War, when as a junior military
intelligence analyst he began filing reports contradicting the official US
estimates of the number of Scud missiles destroyed. Later appointed chief UN
weapons inspector in Iraq, he resigned in 1998, claiming that President Bill
Clinton was too lenient on Saddam Hussein's regime. Since then, Mr Ritter has
performed what his critics see as an about-face; he now says it is highly
unlikely Baghdad possesses dangerous amounts of weapons of mass destruction.

( Side bar ends-Ritter's comments continue):

"Clearly Iraq could have hidden something, we know that Iraq tried to hide
things from us in the past, but this 5 to 10 percent of unaccounted-for
material doesn't mean that Iraq didn't account for it, it means that we can't
verify the Iraqi accounting. Iraq claims to have destroyed everything, they
just can't prove that they destroyed everything. We can prove that 90 to 95
percent were accounted for."

"But let's talk about that missing material. In the field of biological
materials, anthrax. Iraq produced anthrax in liquid bulk form, it has a shelf
life of three years under ideal storage conditions, the last known batch came
out in 1991. I might be a simple marine, not able to do adequate mathematics,
but I think 1991 plus three gives you 1994. What anthrax does Iraq have? None
of the anthrax they produced prior to 1991 can be viable today, it simply can't
be."

"The nerve agent sarin: there's talk of 1000 tonnes of Iraqi nerve agent
unaccounted for, because there's 6500 munitions that we can't account for
dating from 1983 to 88. The problem is, that even if Iraq tried to hide that
stuff, it can't be viable today because that nerve agent has a shelf-life of
five years. So even though we can't give a final disposition of that 5 to 10
per cent that's unaccounted for, I can tell you this; regardless of what
happened to it, it's not worth anything today, it can't hurt anyone. So I come
back to the basic question: what weapons of mass destruction?"

***********************

Now, Bill, this guy was only the chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq for a
while. Surely, he can't know as much as Rush Limbaugh or the other rw radio
spinmeisters about WMD.


....as an interesting aside: Scott Ritter hails from the area I live
in. About two years ago, he was arrested on charges involving the
"procurement" of an under-age female, over the internet. A member of
the NY DA's office offered a dismissal, based upon lack of evidence.
Once the deal was accepted, the DA's assistant was fired.

Huh?

Politics offers such a wonderful and wide palette of reality. If you
don't like the color of the sky, just wait a bit.

noah

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

...as an interesting aside: Scott Ritter hails from the area I live
in. About two years ago, he was arrested on charges involving the
"procurement" of an under-age female, over the internet. A member of
the NY DA's office offered a dismissal, based upon lack of evidence.

A dismissal based on "lack of evidence" is pretty darn close to a complete
exoneration. "We're going to charge you with doing this, but we don't have any
evidence that you did" IOW, political grandstanding.

Once the deal was accepted, the DA's assistant was fired.

Must be a liberal plot. Or the assisstant DA tried too hard to make a case
where none existed. Opinions will vary based upon political perspective. :-)

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Which brings us back to the original statement, how would you "hunt"
down a criminal such as OBL or SH, when we have no legal right to
enter
the country which harbors him? If the host country refuses to help
us,
do we just turn around, or do we comitt an act of war by defying the
wishes of the host country? That was the whole premise for the
campaign
against Afghanistan and Iraq. Remember, that aiding the terrorists was
akin to being an accessory to the "crime", and are therefore equally
culpable.


I just figured it out, Dave. I can't believe it took so long. You are
actually a skel who lives on the streets, and stumbles into an internet
cafe
with panhandled coins to use their computer a couple of times a day. How
else could we explain what you just said, other than to blame
intravenous
narcotics use and a diet of Thunderbird?

"no legal right to enter the country which harbors him" ?????

So: If we sent spies to hunt down and kill OBL, that would be wrong
because
we might not have the legal right to enter countries without their
permission. But, if we send enough people in military uniforms, it's a
different story? A patriotic endeavor?


Sigh. It figures that you just don't get it. Try reading it again a
little slower this time.

The point, if you still don't get it, is that if we want to play the
good guy, and respect the sovereignty of all nations, then we have no
right to cross the borders of any country which hides terrorist camps,
without their cooperation. Last time I looked, most are not
cooperating. So what's the difference if we send in covert assasins or a
full blown military garrison?

Dave

The word "covert" answers your last question. By sending troops into a
sovereign nation, we did exactly what terrorists have been pointing at, as
an excuse for their actions. By using covert assassins, it's a bit harder to
pin the blame on us, at least in the eyes of the world.


Then we become, in essence, the same sort of terrorist that we're
fighting against.

Dave

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:



The point, if you still don't get it, is that if we want to play the
good guy, and respect the sovereignty of all nations, then we have no
right to cross the borders of any country which hides terrorist camps,
without their cooperation. Last time I looked, most are not
cooperating. So what's the difference if we send in covert assasins or
a
full blown military garrison?

Dave

The word "covert" answers your last question. By sending troops into a
sovereign nation, we did exactly what terrorists have been pointing at,
as
an excuse for their actions. By using covert assassins, it's a bit
harder to
pin the blame on us, at least in the eyes of the world.


Then we become, in essence, the same sort of terrorist that we're
fighting against.

Dave


Exactly. Take your pick. We can throw our weight around like we've been
doing since the beginning of our imperialist days (Cuba, Phillippines,
1898-ish), or we can be quiet about our adventures. If art is any indication
of popular opinion, I think people prefer the James Bond approach.

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

Gould 0738 wrote:

So it looks like the current administration is doing a good job tracking
down the top 50 Iraqi's. I think they have found over 80% of them. Let's
be honest Chuck, you are only interested in finding fault because you do not
like Bush's party. Be proud of the fact that you are a democrat, don't be
ashamed. Stand up and say, "I am Chuck and I am a democrat". You will
feel better for it.

We were discussing the response to 9-11.
How many of the "top 50 Iraqis
had a hand in 9-11?

We don't know yet. But I'll bet there are some.


Where's Osama Bin Ladin?

Dead? Does it really matter?

Where's Saddam Hussein?

Dead? Hiding?


Where are the weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent danger to the United States?

It's a BIG desert out there......

Dave

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

Gould 0738 wrote:

I did not know Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11, but since you
believe he was, shouldn't we go after his top 50 henchmen?

You introduced the "top 50 Iraqis" into the discussion about responding to
9-11.
Even though our government implied that SH conspired with his sworn, mortal
enemy, OBL, to pull of 9-11, the case seems weak at best.

I thought we were discussing 9-11, but to answer your question anyway, if I
was a betting man, I would guess they are over in Syria or buried out in the
middle of the desert. Do you honestly believe that SH was not stockpiling
weapons of MD?

If he had any, they were manufactured outside of Iraq and brought in.

Not necessarily.


The last
time we were able to detect any trace of WMD manufacture in Iraq was 1998.

By what means?


Inspectors last year not only did not find any weapons, they were unable to
detect even the slightest chemical or biological trace of any recent
manufacturing activity. The ordinance has a 3- 5year shelf life.

Key phrase: "were unable to find". That does not mean that they were not
there, only that the inspectors failed to find them. You seem to imply
that the Iraqi's were "up front" and honest when it came time to show
the inspectors around. Like I said before, it's a BIG desert.



Item from Radio Netherlands (hopefully an acceptably objective source) follows:

*******
With the battle for Baghdad fizzling out without the use of chemical weapons by
Iraqi troops, Washington's critics are demanding to know what has happened to
Saddam Hussein's purported weapons of mass destruction. Former chief UN weapons
inspector in Iraq Scott Ritter is one of those who has heaped scorn upon
President George Bush's administration for going to war. In this interview with
RN's Saskia van Reenan, Mr Ritter, a former US marine officer, explains why he
sees US justifications for waging war as dishonest excuses for empire-building.

Scott Ritter is suspect already. He seems to have his own agenda, which
he is actively promoting. He's done a 180 degree turnaround since his
days as an inspector. There are also enough skeletons in his closet, to
cast doubt upon his true motives.


"The threat that Iraq poses from weapons of mass destruction I think has been
clearly exposed as a lie. We were told to expect chemical weapons to rain down
on troops as soon as they crossed over the border from Kuwait into Iraq, but
that didn't happen. We were then told that as we closed in on the so-called
‘red line' around Baghdad – the 50-mile circle – that as soon as we
breached that, chemical weapons would be used. That didn't happen. Then we said
chemical weapons would be used as a last-gasp defence of Baghdad but that
didn't happen. What chemical weapons? We were told that the presidential
palaces were brimming over with weapons of mass destruction, but we now occupy
many of the presidential palaces and we've found nothing."

"If Iraq were to have weapons of mass destruction today, they would have had to
reconstitute a manufacturing base since 1998, since weapons inspectors left. No
one has provided any information of a substantive nature that sustains that
allegation. Clearly Iraq had the potential, they had time, they had four years
between the time I left and other inspectors left in 1998 and the time that the
new UNMOVIC inspectors returned in the fall of 2002."

They had those same 4 years to become creative with techniques to hide
those same weapons.

Does any sane person believe that Saddam Hussein, with his past history
and his personality type, would be willing to just "give up" his own
imperialistic aspirations? Or would it be more fitting of his
personality, for him to attempt subterfuge?



"I have clearly stated that Iraq could reconstitute a limited capability within
six months, so the potential is there for Iraq to have done this, but that
potential doesn't automatically translate into reality, and we did have
inspectors on the ground for almost four months, and they found nothing.

It's easy to not find something, if you are not looking in the right
places.

Furthermore they investigated over a dozen sites highlighted by the Central
Intelligence Agency as being prime suspects for producing weapons of mass
destruction and they have found nothing."

(sidebar begins)
DISSENSION IN THE RANKS: Scott Ritter began his fall from grace in the eyes of
the US establishment in the first Gulf War, when as a junior military
intelligence analyst he began filing reports contradicting the official US
estimates of the number of Scud missiles destroyed. Later appointed chief UN
weapons inspector in Iraq, he resigned in 1998, claiming that President Bill
Clinton was too lenient on Saddam Hussein's regime. Since then, Mr Ritter has
performed what his critics see as an about-face; he now says it is highly
unlikely Baghdad possesses dangerous amounts of weapons of mass destruction.

One wonders what event precipitated his "about face"......


( Side bar ends-Ritter's comments continue):

"Clearly Iraq could have hidden something, we know that Iraq tried to hide
things from us in the past, but this 5 to 10 percent of unaccounted-for
material doesn't mean that Iraq didn't account for it, it means that we can't
verify the Iraqi accounting. Iraq claims to have destroyed everything, they
just can't prove that they destroyed everything. We can prove that 90 to 95
percent were accounted for."

Of course, that's only the stuff that we KNEW about......


"But let's talk about that missing material. In the field of biological
materials, anthrax. Iraq produced anthrax in liquid bulk form, it has a shelf
life of three years under ideal storage conditions, the last known batch came
out in 1991.

Key word: "known".


I might be a simple marine, not able to do adequate mathematics,
but I think 1991 plus three gives you 1994. What anthrax does Iraq have? None
of the anthrax they produced prior to 1991 can be viable today, it simply can't
be."

Unless, of course, they made more since......


"The nerve agent sarin: there's talk of 1000 tonnes of Iraqi nerve agent
unaccounted for, because there's 6500 munitions that we can't account for
dating from 1983 to 88. The problem is, that even if Iraq tried to hide that
stuff, it can't be viable today because that nerve agent has a shelf-life of
five years. So even though we can't give a final disposition of that 5 to 10
per cent that's unaccounted for, I can tell you this; regardless of what
happened to it, it's not worth anything today, it can't hurt anyone. So I come
back to the basic question: what weapons of mass destruction?"

***********************

Now, Bill, this guy was only the chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq for a
while. Surely, he can't know as much as Rush Limbaugh or the other rw radio
spinmeisters about WMD.

He appears certainly naive to the very real possibility that Iraq has
had opportunities to make and hide new WMD. Ritter's logic appears to be
cemented in the snapshot of what he knew in 1998 (Assuming that he had
the whole picture then), and he does not even consider the posibility
that they might have made more on the QT, not to mention underground
alliances with other like minded regimes.

You have been quick to point out that our mightly military has thusfar
failed to find both OBL and SH. Yet you seem perfectly satisfied that
the UN weapons inspectors were able to find all of Iraq's weapons. That
logic seems a bit contradictory.

Dave

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

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

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


" Limbacher notes that a year ago, "Clinton slammed a Bush
administration
proposal to
allow utilities to upgrade their plants by relaxing a few of the more
punishing environmental
regulations. She warned of 'dirtier air and rising temperatures' that
would
expose citizens 'to
increased childhood asthma rates, higher sea levels and more acid rain
and
mercury-tainted
fish.'"

Must be painful when a politician says something which is true,
something
which makes it even more obvious that your president has a huge supply
of
kneepads which he uses when servicing his campaign contributors. Your
boy is
currently doing exactly what Ms. Clinton mentioned: dismantling clean
air
regulations. The results are obvious. Example: Tupper Lake, in the
Adirondacks, where I vacation each year, now has mercury warnings for
most
of its fish. President Nookular Boy couldn't give a damn.

So then we should blame Clinton for the blackout, since Bush is the one
that wants to help them, while the environmental groups would rather the
electric generating plants go bust than relax pollution laws.


Every public company's shareholders face risk, even in a relatively
bulletproof industry like mine (grocery). Utility shareholders have known
for at least 20 years that this day was coming. Tough ****.

A non-answer. We're not talking about decreased shareholder value here.
We're talking about bankruptcy. Are you, as a consumer, willing to have
your electric bill double, or more, so that the electric companies can
be brought into EPA standards, and increase their capacity?


If it weren't so pathetic, it would be funny. Everyone complains about
the cost of energy yet the environmental faction of the left:

Opposes the creation of additional nuclear (nookular) plants, due to the
waste disposal issues.

Would YOU like to live within 100 miles of a nuclear waste dump built near
an earthquake fault?

Of course not.



Opposes the expansion of coal burning plants due to pollution issues.

So, you think the "pollution issues" are acceptable as they are? How about
if they increase by 25%, and either kill the fish in your favorite waters,
or make those fish inedible? Do you consider that just incidental to our way
of life?

Personally, I could care less about fish. But to your point, how much
pollution are you willing to accept? How much are you willing to pay to
see it happen?




Opposes the drilling for oil on our own shores to reduce the dependancy
on foreign oil, due to perceived environmental impacts.

I guess you've forgotten the Exxon Valdez incident, and the fact that they
bitched and moaned about taking responsibility for it. Or, the fact that GE
still won't own up to its part in poisoning the Hudson River, and claims
they shouldn't have to help pay for it. These are NOT exceptions, Dave.

Accidents happen. That's reality. The threat of an accident should not
keep us from technological progress. Otherwise, we should go back to
living in log cabins, growing our own food, and reading by lamps fuels
with animal fat.


Embraces new technology like wind power.... Unless you're a Kennedy and
oppose the locating of those windmills in your backyard.

If that's true, it's silly.

Tell that to RFK jr. He's the one making the noise.


I think wind farms are cool, and I'm sure the
equipment manufacturers will gradually find ways to make the machinery more
attractive, just as cell tower manufacturers have.

Again, tell that to the people who are actively fighting the "farm" that
was planned for the Hyannisport area.



Is now making noise about the large lakes (Which are also great boating
places) created for hydro-electic plants, due to changes to the natural
habitat. There are some who want to drain lakes like Mead and Powell.

Do you feel this type of opposition is the rule? In other words, for every
100 hydro facilities, how many are being picked on?

It all starts with one. If that one falls, a precidence is created, and
it becomes easier for the rest to follow.



Meanwhile, we are facing an energy crisis. The latest blackout, and the
crisis in California a few yeasr back, should serve as a warning and a
wake up call. Do we want energy or not? What will we be willing to give
up to get it?

I'm not willing to give up clean air & water to appease the shareholders of
utilities in Ohio.

But what about affordable electricity for the poor folks in NYC?


That's what it means to you doesn't it? You seem to think that behind
every utility or corporation there's an "Ebeneezer Scrooge" type of CEO,
who's making a gazillion dollars, and any finacial problems are their
own fault, and could be solved if the CEO took a smaller bonus. Life is
not that easy Doug. You seem to live in some sort of utopian world where
we can have everything, if only the few greedy CEO types would share.
The true costs of infrastructure and upgrading to EPA standards, is more
than a CEO's bonus.


Every company gets beat up sometimes. The well managed
ones recover just fine, especially when they have a virtual monopoly.

Sure they'll recover, it'll just cost you more to power your computers
and other appliances.

Dave

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:



The point, if you still don't get it, is that if we want to play
the
good guy, and respect the sovereignty of all nations, then we have
no
right to cross the borders of any country which hides terrorist
camps,
without their cooperation. Last time I looked, most are not
cooperating. So what's the difference if we send in covert
assasins or
a
full blown military garrison?

Dave

The word "covert" answers your last question. By sending troops into
a
sovereign nation, we did exactly what terrorists have been pointing
at,
as
an excuse for their actions. By using covert assassins, it's a bit
harder to
pin the blame on us, at least in the eyes of the world.


Then we become, in essence, the same sort of terrorist that we're
fighting against.

Dave


Exactly. Take your pick. We can throw our weight around like we've been
doing since the beginning of our imperialist days (Cuba, Phillippines,
1898-ish), or we can be quiet about our adventures. If art is any
indication
of popular opinion, I think people prefer the James Bond approach.

I would tend to disagree. The covert approach implies a certain "cloak
and dagger" mystique about it, and would tend to also imply a "sneaky"
and underhanded methodology.

An overt military operation makes no bones about who we are after and
why.

Dave


But Dave, you've implied that the cloak & dagger routine is a lousy option
because we have to illegally enter a sovereign nation. How did we LEGALLY
enter a sovereign nation when he entered into Iraq? I assume you realize
that the only difference was the name of the operation, not the principle at
work.

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:


Every public company's shareholders face risk, even in a relatively
bulletproof industry like mine (grocery). Utility shareholders have
known
for at least 20 years that this day was coming. Tough ****.

A non-answer. We're not talking about decreased shareholder value here.
We're talking about bankruptcy. Are you, as a consumer, willing to have
your electric bill double, or more, so that the electric companies can
be brought into EPA standards, and increase their capacity?

Where did you get your theory about bankruptcy, Dave? There are few, if any
bankruptcy rumors floating around for Midwest utilitity companies.

The biggest one coming from the same company that's been at the focal
point of the "blackout".


The equipment necessary to produce cleaner power is more expensive than NOT
buying it, but not so dear that it breaks companies.


So now you're in the electricity business eh? You know their overhead
costs?

I'll let you in on a little secret; since the electric uutilies are so
heavily regulated by government, they are not allowed to raise their
rates without "permission". The result is that they often run with such
a small profit margin, that they do not have the extra capital to spend
on upgrades.

So you want them to spend money on infrastructure, in order to pollute
less? The SOMEONE is going to have to pay for it. Three guesses who
that someone will ultimately be?


Doubled electric bills? Where did THAT idea come from?

The exact figure is speculative. But if you don't acknowlege that the
rate will grow disproportionately to the level of inflation, you're
living in a vacuum. There's no such thing as a free lunch. You want
modern technology, you're going to pay for it.


If it weren't so pathetic, it would be funny. Everyone complains about
the cost of energy yet the environmental faction of the left:

Opposes the creation of additional nuclear (nookular) plants, due to
the
waste disposal issues.

Would YOU like to live within 100 miles of a nuclear waste dump built
near
an earthquake fault?

Of course not.

Let's round you up and keep you focused:

"..the environmental faction of the left opposes the creation of additional
nuclear (nookular) plants, due to the
waste disposal issues."

First, a minor point: The environmental "faction" as you call it contains
quite a few NRA members who'd prefer not to see their hunting grounds turned
into wastelands. Are NRA members part of the "left", in your simple picture?

Irrelevant. It is the left who promotes these "causes".


Now, to the important point: Your phrase, above, suggests that you look down
on people who'd like to see nuclear waste handled correctly.

Your comprehensive abilities are as flawed as ever.


But then you
say that you would not want to live within 100 miles of the stuff. Since
NOBODY has figured out how to securely handle nuclear waste, please explain
the dichotomy of your statements.

There are places where we could send the waste, such as into space.
There are other technologies which could be applied as well. The other
issue is the Chernobyl factor. People don't want that to happen here.
The U.S. standards are light years ahead of the soviets (Communism will
do that), and it is doubtful that it could happen here to the same
degree (Three Mile Island not withstanding). But other than the nuclear
waste, nuke plants are clean and efficient, and help remove the need to
depend on fossil fuel.




Opposes the expansion of coal burning plants due to pollution issues.

So, you think the "pollution issues" are acceptable as they are? How
about
if they increase by 25%, and either kill the fish in your favorite
waters,
or make those fish inedible? Do you consider that just incidental to our
way
of life?

Personally, I could care less about fish. But to your point, how much
pollution are you willing to accept? How much are you willing to pay to
see it happen?

I'm willing to pay more. I already pay more than my parents did in 1970, and
our kids will pay more than we do. Who says that the rates of 30 years ago
were realistic for the future?

No Doug, you can't weasel out of it that easily. Everyone expects that
things will cost more as inflation increases the overhead and cost of
manufacture. But there is a point where the rate jumps up
disproportionately (like the recent rise in gasoline) to the going
inflation rate. If I'm paying $65 a month for electric one year, and the
next it jumps to $120, that's not a normal increase. By that's what you
can expect if the utility companies are forced to "modernize". Money
doen't grow on trees, it has to come from somewhere. Even a government
subsity, would come out of your tax money. So you're paying more one way
or the other. Since there are people who live from paycheck to paycheck,
how do you explain that to them?

Opposes the drilling for oil on our own shores to reduce the
dependancy
on foreign oil, due to perceived environmental impacts.

I guess you've forgotten the Exxon Valdez incident, and the fact that
they
bitched and moaned about taking responsibility for it. Or, the fact that
GE
still won't own up to its part in poisoning the Hudson River, and claims
they shouldn't have to help pay for it. These are NOT exceptions, Dave.

Accidents happen. That's reality. The threat of an accident should not
keep us from technological progress. Otherwise, we should go back to
living in log cabins, growing our own food, and reading by lamps fuels
with animal fat.

Exxon Valdez: Right. Accidents happen. But, that doesn't change the fact
that companies should take responsibility for the RESULTS of accidents with
or on their property.

It should also not be an excuse to not take advantage of our own
resources, to lessen our dependancy on foreign oil.

General Electric/Hudson: That was NOT an accident. Read, Dave. It happened
quite a few years ago, but it's in the news at least monthly, even now,
because the company continues to stall on cleanup efforts.

But they have nothing to do with the generation of power. The "G.E.
Story" is another subject entirely.



Is now making noise about the large lakes (Which are also great
boating
places) created for hydro-electic plants, due to changes to the
natural
habitat. There are some who want to drain lakes like Mead and Powell.

Do you feel this type of opposition is the rule? In other words, for
every
100 hydro facilities, how many are being picked on?

It all starts with one. If that one falls, a precidence is created, and
it becomes easier for the rest to follow.

That's "precedent", George. A precedent is created.

Typical. When one cannot refute the issue, they pick on grammar or
spelling errors.



Meanwhile, we are facing an energy crisis. The latest blackout, and
the
crisis in California a few yeasr back, should serve as a warning and a
wake up call. Do we want energy or not? What will we be willing to
give
up to get it?

I'm not willing to give up clean air & water to appease the shareholders
of
utilities in Ohio.

But what about affordable electricity for the poor folks in NYC?

Don't even try that trick with me, Dave.

Trick? What trick. You have been a champion of the poor and their
"right" to live a decent lifestyle in America. You have weighed in on
how unfair it is for them to receive such low wages for menial
unskilled jobs. So now the issue comes back to you. Are your pollution
controls so important that they trump the "right" of the poor to have
affordable electricity?

That's the problem when you try to burn the candle from both ends Doug.
Sometimes you get burned in the middle.




Every company gets beat up sometimes. The well managed
ones recover just fine, especially when they have a virtual monopoly.

Sure they'll recover, it'll just cost you more to power your computers
and other appliances.


Please provide a list of companies which have NOT had to adjust their
selling prices in the past 100 years, due to changes in costs of raw
materials, employee benefits, legal environment, taxes, etc.


Smokescreen Doug. We're talking about two different things and you know
it. If your electric rate goes up 2 or 3 dollars a month, you dig a
little deeper and don't sweat it all that much. Ask someone living in
California if their sudden rate increases, of a couple of years ago,
were in line with "cost of materials" and inflation. I wonder how many
poor people had their electric cut off, because they couldn't afford
it.....

Dave

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:


Every public company's shareholders face risk, even in a relatively
bulletproof industry like mine (grocery). Utility shareholders have
known
for at least 20 years that this day was coming. Tough ****.

A non-answer. We're not talking about decreased shareholder value
here.
We're talking about bankruptcy. Are you, as a consumer, willing to
have
your electric bill double, or more, so that the electric companies can
be brought into EPA standards, and increase their capacity?

Care to back up the "double" figure?

Where did you get your theory about bankruptcy, Dave? There are few, if
any
bankruptcy rumors floating around for Midwest utilitity companies.

The biggest one coming from the same company that's been at the focal
point of the "blackout".


The equipment necessary to produce cleaner power is more expensive than
NOT
buying it, but not so dear that it breaks companies.


So now you're in the electricity business eh? You know their overhead
costs?

And you? You *do* know this stuff?

I'll let you in on a little secret; since the electric uutilies are so
heavily regulated by government, they are not allowed to raise their
rates without "permission". The result is that they often run with such
a small profit margin, that they do not have the extra capital to spend
on upgrades.

Such are the problems of being a monopoly.

So you want them to spend money on infrastructure, in order to pollute
less? The SOMEONE is going to have to pay for it. Three guesses who
that someone will ultimately be?

Well duh! This does not add or subtract from the basic argument.

Doubled electric bills? Where did THAT idea come from?

The exact figure is speculative. But if you don't acknowlege that the
rate will grow disproportionately to the level of inflation, you're
living in a vacuum. There's no such thing as a free lunch. You want
modern technology, you're going to pay for it.

If we had power for half the price and you could not drink the water is that
a bargain?

Is it just OK if we can't eat the fish we catch? Or does it not matter to
you because *you* don't eat fish? Has it dawned on you that most life in the
Midwest depends on this water. So, using the free market solution, how much
is keeping mercury out of the food and water worth?

If it weren't so pathetic, it would be funny. Everyone complains
about
the cost of energy yet the environmental faction of the left:

Opposes the creation of additional nuclear (nookular) plants, due
to
the
waste disposal issues.

Would YOU like to live within 100 miles of a nuclear waste dump
built
near
an earthquake fault?

Of course not.

Let's round you up and keep you focused:

"..the environmental faction of the left opposes the creation of
additional
nuclear (nookular) plants, due to the
waste disposal issues."

First, a minor point: The environmental "faction" as you call it
contains
quite a few NRA members who'd prefer not to see their hunting grounds
turned
into wastelands. Are NRA members part of the "left", in your simple
picture?

Irrelevant. It is the left who promotes these "causes".

And how is it the right does not care if what they eat is not good for you?
Do they have some special power to resist the ill effects of toxic waste?
My best guess is that the only reason the conservative side does not care
about the issue is because the tools of the left happen to be the best
(government control) for tackling the problem, and the right can't swallow
their pride long enough to do the right thing themselves.

Or more cynically: Lets play chicken - let the left burn their political
capitol doing the right thing while we raid the piggy bank.

Now, to the important point: Your phrase, above, suggests that you look
down
on people who'd like to see nuclear waste handled correctly.

Your comprehensive abilities are as flawed as ever.

So, when generating toxic waste that will be dangerous longer than all of
recorded history to date, how much debate should there be on the issue?

Should we at least one workable solution before proceeding forward?

But then you
say that you would not want to live within 100 miles of the stuff. Since
NOBODY has figured out how to securely handle nuclear waste, please
explain
the dichotomy of your statements.

There are places where we could send the waste, such as into space.

Launch explosion - bad idea.

There are other technologies which could be applied as well.

They are?

The other
issue is the Chernobyl factor. People don't want that to happen here.

You do?

The U.S. standards are light years ahead of the soviets (Communism will
do that), and it is doubtful that it could happen here to the same
degree (Three Mile Island not withstanding).

Thanks; I was just going to mention that.

But other than the nuclear
waste, nuke plants are clean and efficient, and help remove the need to
depend on fossil fuel.

Except for that one nagging little problem ...

Opposes the expansion of coal burning plants due to pollution
issues.

So, you think the "pollution issues" are acceptable as they are? How
about
if they increase by 25%, and either kill the fish in your favorite
waters,
or make those fish inedible? Do you consider that just incidental to
our
way
of life?

Personally, I could care less about fish. But to your point, how much
pollution are you willing to accept? How much are you willing to pay
to
see it happen?

I'm willing to pay more. I already pay more than my parents did in 1970,
and
our kids will pay more than we do. Who says that the rates of 30 years
ago
were realistic for the future?

No Doug, you can't weasel out of it that easily. Everyone expects that
things will cost more as inflation increases the overhead and cost of
manufacture. But there is a point where the rate jumps up
disproportionately (like the recent rise in gasoline) to the going
inflation rate. If I'm paying $65 a month for electric one year, and the
next it jumps to $120, that's not a normal increase. By that's what you
can expect if the utility companies are forced to "modernize". Money
doen't grow on trees, it has to come from somewhere. Even a government
subsity, would come out of your tax money. So you're paying more one way
or the other. Since there are people who live from paycheck to paycheck,
how do you explain that to them?

Dave, now that is a bit of a reach; now YOU care about the poor?

In any case, part of the cost of production is the cost of pollution
reduction.
End of story.

Opposes the drilling for oil on our own shores to reduce the
dependancy
on foreign oil, due to perceived environmental impacts.

I guess you've forgotten the Exxon Valdez incident, and the fact
that
they
bitched and moaned about taking responsibility for it. Or, the fact
that
GE
still won't own up to its part in poisoning the Hudson River, and
claims
they shouldn't have to help pay for it. These are NOT exceptions,
Dave.

Accidents happen. That's reality. The threat of an accident should not
keep us from technological progress. Otherwise, we should go back to
living in log cabins, growing our own food, and reading by lamps fuels
with animal fat.

Exxon Valdez: Right. Accidents happen. But, that doesn't change the fact
that companies should take responsibility for the RESULTS of accidents
with
or on their property.

It should also not be an excuse to not take advantage of our own
resources, to lessen our dependancy on foreign oil.

General Electric/Hudson: That was NOT an accident. Read, Dave. It
happened
quite a few years ago, but it's in the news at least monthly, even now,
because the company continues to stall on cleanup efforts.

But they have nothing to do with the generation of power. The "G.E.
Story" is another subject entirely.

In any case, our domestic sources are mostly inadequate for domestic needs.
Adding six months of production is a sort term solution at best.
whether it 10 years or 100, we are going to run out of oil. The best plan it
to start working towards rational solutions now.

Is now making noise about the large lakes (Which are also great
boating
places) created for hydro-electic plants, due to changes to the
natural
habitat. There are some who want to drain lakes like Mead and
Powell.

Do you feel this type of opposition is the rule? In other words, for
every
100 hydro facilities, how many are being picked on?

Most aluminum is already produced by electrical extraction driven by hydro
dams. We are already producing about as much hydro power as is practical.
Even this clean power source does have its problems, the chief among them
being siltification and resulting self destruction and the disruption of
natural flood plain restoration of prime farm land. These are not
insignificant problems.

It all starts with one. If that one falls, a precidence is created,
and
it becomes easier for the rest to follow.

That's "precedent", George. A precedent is created.

Typical. When one cannot refute the issue, they pick on grammar or
spelling errors.

I assume that you read well enough to work through the spelling error to
understand the point raised? Personally, I would like to see an effort to
address the point issued.


Meanwhile, we are facing an energy crisis. The latest blackout,
and
the
crisis in California a few yeasr back, should serve as a warning
and a
wake up call. Do we want energy or not? What will we be willing to
give
up to get it?

I'm not willing to give up clean air & water to appease the
shareholders
of
utilities in Ohio.

But what about affordable electricity for the poor folks in NYC?

Don't even try that trick with me, Dave.

Trick? What trick. You have been a champion of the poor and their
"right" to live a decent lifestyle in America. You have weighed in on
how unfair it is for them to receive such low wages for menial
unskilled jobs. So now the issue comes back to you. Are your pollution
controls so important that they trump the "right" of the poor to have
affordable electricity?

That's the problem when you try to burn the candle from both ends Doug.
Sometimes you get burned in the middle.


So, Dave, since you raised the question; Are pollution controls so important
that they trump the "right" of the poor to have affordable electricity?
When my dad was a kid, the day after a new snowfall the snow turned black
because of the coal burning pollution. Would this be OK for a 30% rate cut?



Every company gets beat up sometimes. The well managed
ones recover just fine, especially when they have a virtual
monopoly.

Sure they'll recover, it'll just cost you more to power your computers
and other appliances.


Please provide a list of companies which have NOT had to adjust their
selling prices in the past 100 years, due to changes in costs of raw
materials, employee benefits, legal environment, taxes, etc.


Smokescreen Doug. We're talking about two different things and you know
it. If your electric rate goes up 2 or 3 dollars a month, you dig a
little deeper and don't sweat it all that much. Ask someone living in
California if their sudden rate increases, of a couple of years ago,
were in line with "cost of materials" and inflation. I wonder how many
poor people had their electric cut off, because they couldn't afford
it.....

Strawman.

You can do better.

Mark Browne


Dave

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

Or there arn't any.

Also see:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/skeptic-faq/

Search for "invisible snorg"

Mark Browne

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

Mark Browne wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Gould 0738 wrote:

I did not know Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11, but since you
believe he was, shouldn't we go after his top 50 henchmen?

You introduced the "top 50 Iraqis" into the discussion about responding
to
9-11.
Even though our government implied that SH conspired with his sworn,
mortal
enemy, OBL, to pull of 9-11, the case seems weak at best.

I thought we were discussing 9-11, but to answer your question anyway,
if I
was a betting man, I would guess they are over in Syria or buried out
in the
middle of the desert. Do you honestly believe that SH was not
stockpiling
weapons of MD?

If he had any, they were manufactured outside of Iraq and brought in.

Not necessarily.


The last
time we were able to detect any trace of WMD manufacture in Iraq was
1998.

By what means?


Inspectors last year not only did not find any weapons, they were unable
to
detect even the slightest chemical or biological trace of any recent
manufacturing activity. The ordinance has a 3- 5year shelf life.

Key phrase: "were unable to find". That does not mean that they were not
there, only that the inspectors failed to find them. You seem to imply
that the Iraqi's were "up front" and honest when it came time to show
the inspectors around. Like I said before, it's a BIG desert.

Or there arn't any.
See:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/skeptic-faq/
Look at point 0.6: mundane, unusual and bull**** claims.


I like this one, and in many cases it applies. Deciding whether a
seemingly outlandish claim is credible or not, has much to do with the
circumstances surrounding the claim. For instance, if I were to say that
I had a garage full of chemical weapons, it would probably fall under
the "BS" claim. But knowing what we know about Saddam Hussein, his
personality, his paranoia, his aspirations, and his ruthlessness, it's
much more believable that HE has them stashed somewhere.

It's certainly possible that there aren't any WMD. It's also equally
possible that there are hidden caches. The real point is that we should
not automatically jump to either conclusion, based solely on flawed
analysis and conjecture.

Dave

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

Mark Browne wrote:

So now you're in the electricity business eh? You know their overhead
costs?

And you? You *do* know this stuff?

I know how most businesses operate. This one is not much different.

I'll let you in on a little secret; since the electric uutilies are so
heavily regulated by government, they are not allowed to raise their
rates without "permission". The result is that they often run with such
a small profit margin, that they do not have the extra capital to spend
on upgrades.

Such are the problems of being a monopoly.

It is impractical for a utility to be anything but. At least from a
distribution standpoint.



So you want them to spend money on infrastructure, in order to pollute
less? The SOMEONE is going to have to pay for it. Three guesses who
that someone will ultimately be?

Well duh! This does not add or subtract from the basic argument.

And that basic argument has always been that the left wants:

Clean air, minimal pollution, and right now. While they also want
unskilled working poor to be paid a wage that is disproportionate to
their skill level, and the government to provide all sorts of social
services.

Now, all of these things cost money. Money that does not grow on trees.
How do we have cleaner electric plants, yet maintain current rates? If
increased rates are ok, then how high can we go, before we put a
"hurting" on the poor? While digging deeper into our pockets to pay for
these increases, how much less buying power will it take before the
economy goes into a tailspin? How can we afford to pay the poor a "fair"
wage, when our economy is in the tank?


Doubled electric bills? Where did THAT idea come from?

The exact figure is speculative. But if you don't acknowlege that the
rate will grow disproportionately to the level of inflation, you're
living in a vacuum. There's no such thing as a free lunch. You want
modern technology, you're going to pay for it.

If we had power for half the price and you could not drink the water is that
a bargain?

Probably not. But the truth is that we've made major steps toward
pollution reduction in the last 20 years. We are not going in the wrong
direction, in most cases.


Is it just OK if we can't eat the fish we catch? Or does it not matter to
you because *you* don't eat fish? Has it dawned on you that most life in the
Midwest depends on this water. So, using the free market solution, how much
is keeping mercury out of the food and water worth?

So are you essentially asking whether the people would choose to live a
life where they can have common modern necesities, as well as some
luxuries and deal with some level of pollution, or to live a life of
poverty, where the cost of living has risen sharply due to increased
pollution regulations? I can't answer that for anyone other than me.



"..the environmental faction of the left opposes the creation of
additional
nuclear (nookular) plants, due to the
waste disposal issues."

First, a minor point: The environmental "faction" as you call it
contains
quite a few NRA members who'd prefer not to see their hunting grounds
turned
into wastelands. Are NRA members part of the "left", in your simple
picture?

Irrelevant. It is the left who promotes these "causes".

And how is it the right does not care if what they eat is not good for you?
Do they have some special power to resist the ill effects of toxic waste?

Ever hear of the phrase "Cents wise and dollar foolish"? Conservatives
recognize the need to limit pollution. However, they are more practical
in that if the cost to go from a 75% reduction in pollutants to a 90%
reduction, rise exponentially, that the 75% figure is more workable and
viable, all other factors considered.


My best guess is that the only reason the conservative side does not care
about the issue is because the tools of the left happen to be the best
(government control) for tackling the problem, and the right can't swallow
their pride long enough to do the right thing themselves.

Government interference is never the "best" method to do control
business. All that does is encourage people to "cheat". The "best"
solution is technology. Unfortunately, technology costs money to
develop, and takes time to perfect.

All that government is good at is taking money from those who make it,
and giving it to those who don't, whether that's in business or personal
budgets.



So, when generating toxic waste that will be dangerous longer than all of
recorded history to date, how much debate should there be on the issue?

Should we at least one workable solution before proceeding forward?

Probably. Meanwhile don't complain about the smoke from coal plants.


But then you
say that you would not want to live within 100 miles of the stuff. Since
NOBODY has figured out how to securely handle nuclear waste, please
explain
the dichotomy of your statements.

There are places where we could send the waste, such as into space.

Launch explosion - bad idea.

Another potential accident standing in the way of progress?

There are other technologies which could be applied as well.

They are?

I read somewhere once about a sort of "recycling" for spent uranium,
where it could be reused. More research was pending (Laking funds, most
likely).

The other
issue is the Chernobyl factor. People don't want that to happen here.

You do?

Am I not a person? Of course I don't want that either. I'm just
addressing the fear factor.


The U.S. standards are light years ahead of the soviets (Communism will
do that), and it is doubtful that it could happen here to the same
degree (Three Mile Island not withstanding).

Thanks; I was just going to mention that.

TMI was nowhere near the catstrophy that Chernobyl was.

No Doug, you can't weasel out of it that easily. Everyone expects that
things will cost more as inflation increases the overhead and cost of
manufacture. But there is a point where the rate jumps up
disproportionately (like the recent rise in gasoline) to the going
inflation rate. If I'm paying $65 a month for electric one year, and the
next it jumps to $120, that's not a normal increase. By that's what you
can expect if the utility companies are forced to "modernize". Money
doen't grow on trees, it has to come from somewhere. Even a government
subsity, would come out of your tax money. So you're paying more one way
or the other. Since there are people who live from paycheck to paycheck,
how do you explain that to them?

Dave, now that is a bit of a reach; now YOU care about the poor?

Mark, I care about all people who are willing to help themselves. But
reality is that it will cost more money for electric to bring these
plants into line. Who will it hurt the most?



In any case, part of the cost of production is the cost of pollution
reduction.
End of story.

Then I don't want to hear you cry about the horribly high cost of
electric, and about how much further the poor are being pulled under the
poverty line as a result. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


But they have nothing to do with the generation of power. The "G.E.
Story" is another subject entirely.

In any case, our domestic sources are mostly inadequate for domestic needs.
Adding six months of production is a sort term solution at best.
whether it 10 years or 100, we are going to run out of oil. The best plan it
to start working towards rational solutions now.

I wholehardedly agree! We have a finite reserve of fossil fuel. So we'd
better get cracking at a technological solution. Solar power? Fusion?
Matter-Antimatter? (Hey it worked for Scotty!) Hydrogen? Geothermal?

The point is that we need to apply serious resources (people and money)
to this issue.



Is now making noise about the large lakes (Which are also great
boating
places) created for hydro-electic plants, due to changes to the
natural
habitat. There are some who want to drain lakes like Mead and
Powell.

Do you feel this type of opposition is the rule? In other words, for
every
100 hydro facilities, how many are being picked on?

Most aluminum is already produced by electrical extraction driven by hydro
dams. We are already producing about as much hydro power as is practical.

Anywhere there is a large river, it becomes practical to make hydo
power. It also creates wonderful boating lakes!


Even this clean power source does have its problems, the chief among them
being siltification and resulting self destruction and the disruption of
natural flood plain restoration of prime farm land. These are not
insignificant problems.

Accumulation of silt can be dredged away, and is a part of normal
maintenance in some plants. The other issues are a matter of
speculation, and logisical planning. Nothing insurmountable.


It all starts with one. If that one falls, a precidence is created,
and
it becomes easier for the rest to follow.

That's "precedent", George. A precedent is created.

Typical. When one cannot refute the issue, they pick on grammar or
spelling errors.

I assume that you read well enough to work through the spelling error to
understand the point raised? Personally, I would like to see an effort to
address the point issued.

Tell that to Doug. He's the one critical of spelling, and strangely
silent on the point.


That's the problem when you try to burn the candle from both ends Doug.
Sometimes you get burned in the middle.


So, Dave, since you raised the question; Are pollution controls so important
that they trump the "right" of the poor to have affordable electricity?
When my dad was a kid, the day after a new snowfall the snow turned black
because of the coal burning pollution. Would this be OK for a 30% rate cut?

Ask a poor person, who might not be able to stay warm this winter.

Yea, I know, in typical leftist fashion, someone in congress will come
up with a way for government to subsidize the poor's electric bills,
thereby placing the burden on the rest of us.....



Smokescreen Doug. We're talking about two different things and you know
it. If your electric rate goes up 2 or 3 dollars a month, you dig a
little deeper and don't sweat it all that much. Ask someone living in
California if their sudden rate increases, of a couple of years ago,
were in line with "cost of materials" and inflation. I wonder how many
poor people had their electric cut off, because they couldn't afford
it.....

Strawman.

Every good plan starts with a strawman. It does not invalidate the
point..

Dave

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Every public company's shareholders face risk, even in a relatively
bulletproof industry like mine (grocery). Utility shareholders have
known
for at least 20 years that this day was coming. Tough ****.

A non-answer. We're not talking about decreased shareholder value
here.
We're talking about bankruptcy. Are you, as a consumer, willing to
have
your electric bill double, or more, so that the electric companies can
be brought into EPA standards, and increase their capacity?

Where did you get your theory about bankruptcy, Dave? There are few, if
any
bankruptcy rumors floating around for Midwest utilitity companies.

The biggest one coming from the same company that's been at the focal
point of the "blackout".

Plenty of utilities have faced bankruptcy over the past 30 years, Dave. Most
have been totally unrelated to the left wing plot to destroy them. Most also
came back stronger, with better management and better accounting methods.
All businesses adjust, or they cease to exist, and that's how it should be.
================================================== ====================


The equipment necessary to produce cleaner power is more expensive than
NOT
buying it, but not so dear that it breaks companies.


So now you're in the electricity business eh? You know their overhead
costs?

I'll let you in on a little secret; since the electric uutilies are so
heavily regulated by government, they are not allowed to raise their
rates without "permission". The result is that they often run with such
a small profit margin, that they do not have the extra capital to spend
on upgrades.

Here's how corporations, in general, raise money for capital projects, Dave:
CLEVELAND ELEC ILLUM CO 8.375% of 12/01/11
Do you know what it is?
================================================== ====================


So you want them to spend money on infrastructure, in order to pollute
less? The SOMEONE is going to have to pay for it. Three guesses who
that someone will ultimately be?


Doubled electric bills? Where did THAT idea come from?

The exact figure is speculative. But if you don't acknowlege that the
rate will grow disproportionately to the level of inflation, you're
living in a vacuum. There's no such thing as a free lunch. You want
modern technology, you're going to pay for it.

Dave, have you read the specifics of what's being called the "20% clause"
for utilities which want to refurbish existing power plants?
================================================== =====================



"..the environmental faction of the left opposes the creation of
additional
nuclear (nookular) plants, due to the
waste disposal issues."

First, a minor point: The environmental "faction" as you call it
contains
quite a few NRA members who'd prefer not to see their hunting grounds
turned
into wastelands. Are NRA members part of the "left", in your simple
picture?

Irrelevant. It is the left who promotes these "causes".

Is is certainly NOT irrelevant. Your generalization is absurd. There's a
huge contingent of citizens who are flag wavers just like you. But secretly,
they contribute money to groups which protect their ability to hunt, fish
and camp on clean, undisturbed land. About 5 years ago, Time magazine ran an
article about this issue. They showed survey results which indicated that
membership in various organizations came as a total surprise to the people
who ran those organizations. For instance, many respondents who said they
were NRA members also contributed heavily to Greenpeace and the Nature
Conservancy. Go figure, eh? Or not, depending on your ability to do so.
================================================== ====================


Now, to the important point: Your phrase, above, suggests that you look
down
on people who'd like to see nuclear waste handled correctly.

Your comprehensive abilities are as flawed as ever.


But then you
say that you would not want to live within 100 miles of the stuff. Since
NOBODY has figured out how to securely handle nuclear waste, please
explain
the dichotomy of your statements.

There are places where we could send the waste, such as into space.

"SAO LUIS, Brazil, Aug. 25 - Brazil's space program will have difficulty
replacing the scientists and technicians killed in the explosion that
destroyed a rocket at its launch base, the project coordinator said Monday.
Friday's accident killed 21 people, including top scientists and engineers,
days before the unmanned rocket was due to blast off from the jungle launch
site on a mission to place two satellites into orbit."

Fortunately, this never happens here in America. Right???? Let me get this
straight: If a rocket full of nuclear waste explodes, it would harm nobody
because the intentions of its designers were noble ones. But, if a suitcase
full of nuclear waste explodes in a major city, it's a dirty bomb, because
the intentions of its designers were evil. I think I understand the
difference.
================================================== ===================

There are other technologies which could be applied as well. The other
issue is the Chernobyl factor. People don't want that to happen here.

Reactor safety is not the same issue as proper handling of waste. It doesn't
seem to be a problem for you because at the moment, we're sticking the stuff
in some mountain in Nevada, far from YOUR house.

As far as "other technologies", many sane people think we should actually
POSSESS those technologies before we plan on using them. At the moment,
though, they do not exist.
================================================== ===================



Personally, I could care less about fish. But to your point, how much
pollution are you willing to accept? How much are you willing to pay
to
see it happen?

I'm willing to pay more. I already pay more than my parents did in 1970,
and
our kids will pay more than we do. Who says that the rates of 30 years
ago
were realistic for the future?

No Doug, you can't weasel out of it that easily. Everyone expects that
things will cost more as inflation increases the overhead and cost of
manufacture. But there is a point where the rate jumps up
disproportionately (like the recent rise in gasoline) to the going
inflation rate. If I'm paying $65 a month for electric one year, and the
next it jumps to $120, that's not a normal increase. By that's what you
can expect if the utility companies are forced to "modernize". Money
doen't grow on trees, it has to come from somewhere. Even a government
subsity, would come out of your tax money. So you're paying more one way
or the other. Since there are people who live from paycheck to paycheck,
how do you explain that to them?

Let's try this: Toyota and Honda saw the writing on the wall and they've
developed models which get gas mileage ranging from "Amazing" to "Holy
**** - that's outrageous". They are now reaping the rewards for spending on
research and development. This is how it should be, right? Do something
good - get paid for it.

The utilities have a better deal: The technology already exists for cleaning
smokestack emissions. It can be installed on existing plants or designed
into new facilities. The utilities don't have to worry about R&D - they just
need to buy the stuff. Then, they can make more electricity and get paid for
it.

There's only one reason they complain about the extra cost: There's a board
of directors which is more concerned with shareholder value. Unfortunately,
this is a short-term view.
================================================== ===================


General Electric/Hudson: That was NOT an accident. Read, Dave. It
happened
quite a few years ago, but it's in the news at least monthly, even now,
because the company continues to stall on cleanup efforts.

But they have nothing to do with the generation of power. The "G.E.
Story" is another subject entirely.

No, it's not another story. It's a very important example of a
high-visibility company which refuses to take responsibility for the damage
it's done. It's not limited to utilities - it's common to many industries.
The problem is more insidious with SMALLER companies because they tend to
escape national news coverage.
================================================== ===================



Is now making noise about the large lakes (Which are also great
boating
places) created for hydro-electic plants, due to changes to the
natural
habitat. There are some who want to drain lakes like Mead and
Powell.

Do you feel this type of opposition is the rule? In other words, for
every
100 hydro facilities, how many are being picked on?

It all starts with one. If that one falls, a precidence is created,
and
it becomes easier for the rest to follow.

That's "precedent", George. A precedent is created.

Typical. When one cannot refute the issue, they pick on grammar or
spelling errors.

Was it you who, in another thread, whined about how conservation districts
were going to be the downfall of America? This is the same thing. It doesn't
deserve any further discussion. You either heard about this on a hysterical
radio talk show, or read a blurb in the newspaper while in the bathroom, and
you think it's an evil plot all across the nation. Yawn......
================================================== ===================



Every company gets beat up sometimes. The well managed
ones recover just fine, especially when they have a virtual
monopoly.

Sure they'll recover, it'll just cost you more to power your computers
and other appliances.


Please provide a list of companies which have NOT had to adjust their
selling prices in the past 100 years, due to changes in costs of raw
materials, employee benefits, legal environment, taxes, etc.


Smokescreen Doug. We're talking about two different things and you know
it. If your electric rate goes up 2 or 3 dollars a month, you dig a
little deeper and don't sweat it all that much. Ask someone living in
California if their sudden rate increases, of a couple of years ago,
were in line with "cost of materials" and inflation. I wonder how many
poor people had their electric cut off, because they couldn't afford
it.....

I keep asking if you read, and you continually prove that you don't.
Investigators now know that the rate increases in California were not
connected to any kind of physical reality which demanded price hikes. In the
past week, the DOE spokespersons have used the word "gouging" repeatedly.
Read, Dave. The California mess has nothing to do with the pollution
problems caused by coal-burning plants in the Midwest. Zero. Zip. Crush the
thought and don't mention it again.

The End

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Mark Browne wrote:

So now you're in the electricity business eh? You know their overhead
costs?

And you? You *do* know this stuff?

I know how most businesses operate. This one is not much different.

Really?
================================================== ===================


OK, Dave. You don't eat fish. How about water. Do you like water? What about
your kids? Here are some bodies of water which supply cities in New York
(all except Tupper Lake, the last in the list below). Lake Ontario's another
one. It provides drinking water to a few million people in NY and Canada.

But, if you don't care about mercury in NY's waters, perhaps you'll enjoy
this link:
http://www.potomacriver.org/about_ICPRB/faqs.htm
It's headed to YOUR neighborhood, Dave! Fortunately, the mercury which
drifts from the Midwest to your neighborhood is highly responsive to prayer.
If you pray real good, it doesn't fall out of the sky into YOUR water
sources.

Mercury is harmless in Pennsylvania, but in other places, it's funny stuff:
http://www.american.edu/TED/MINAMATA.HTM


Amawalk Reservoir (Westchester County) - EAT NO MORE THAN ONE MEAL PER MONTH
of both largemouth and smallmouth bass larger than 16 inches, based on
elevated mercury levels.

Bog Brook Reservoir (Putnam County) - EAT NO MORE THAN ONE MEAL PER MONTH of
walleye larger than 21 inches, based on elevated mercury levels.

Cannonsville Reservoir (Delaware County) - EAT NO MORE THAN ONE MEAL PER
MONTH of yellow perch (all sizes), based on elevated mercury levels in
yellow perch.

Diverting Reservoir (Putnam County) - EAT NO MORE THAN ONE MEAL PER MONTH of
walleye (all sizes), based on elevated mercury levels.

East Branch Reservoir (Putnam County) - EAT NO MORE THAN ONE MEAL PER MONTH
of walleye (all sizes), based on elevated mercury levels.

Titicus Reservoir (Westchester County) - EAT NO MORE THAN ONE MEAL PER MONTH
of white perch (all sizes) from the Titicus Reservoir, based on elevated
mercury levels.

West Branch Reservoir (Putnam County) - EAT NO MORE THAN ONE MEAL PER MONTH
of walleye (all sizes), based on elevated mercury levels.

New Advisory for Tupper Lake

Tupper Lake (Franklin and St. Lawrence Counties) - EAT NO MORE THAN ONE MEAL
PER MONTH of walleye (all sizes), based on elevated mercury levels.

OT- Power outage in NY. Coincidence?
 

Doug Kanter wrote:



Plenty of utilities have faced bankruptcy over the past 30 years, Dave. Most
have been totally unrelated to the left wing plot to destroy them.

There is no left wing plot. But it does seem funny, that the people who
generally fail at business, and cry foul against those who succeed, are
now attempting to write the regulations for businesses to follow.


Most also
came back stronger, with better management and better accounting methods.
All businesses adjust, or they cease to exist, and that's how it should be.
================================================== ====================

The equipment necessary to produce cleaner power is more expensive than
NOT
buying it, but not so dear that it breaks companies.


So now you're in the electricity business eh? You know their overhead
costs?

I'll let you in on a little secret; since the electric uutilies are so
heavily regulated by government, they are not allowed to raise their
rates without "permission". The result is that they often run with such
a small profit margin, that they do not have the extra capital to spend
on upgrades.

Here's how corporations, in general, raise money for capital projects, Dave:
CLEVELAND ELEC ILLUM CO 8.375% of 12/01/11
Do you know what it is?

My best guess would have to be some sort of bond. Maybe a FIPS? If
that's the case, then you have to understand that many companies have
already accounted for income growth from bonds into their operating
income. What should be set aside for improvements, is often used for
operating capital.


Dave, have you read the specifics of what's being called the "20% clause"
for utilities which want to refurbish existing power plants?
================================================== =====================

I have not read the specifics. There's only so much time in any given
day.


Irrelevant. It is the left who promotes these "causes".

Is is certainly NOT irrelevant. Your generalization is absurd.

So you're saying that environmental causes are not championed mostly by
the left? Who's being absurd now?


There's a
huge contingent of citizens who are flag wavers just like you. But secretly,
they contribute money to groups which protect their ability to hunt, fish
and camp on clean, undisturbed land.

And I do the same to organizations who attempt to block radical enviro
wacko ideas that stand to limit usage of waterways, and other
recreational areas based, on pie-in-the-sky science. Like bans on 2
strokes, the draining of man-made lakes, manatee madness, snowmobile
bans, etc.

About 5 years ago, Time magazine ran an
article about this issue. They showed survey results which indicated that
membership in various organizations came as a total surprise to the people
who ran those organizations. For instance, many respondents who said they
were NRA members also contributed heavily to Greenpeace and the Nature
Conservancy. Go figure, eh? Or not, depending on your ability to do so.

I see nothing wrong with RESPONSIBLE approaches to environmental
awareness and reduction of pollution. I have a problem with radical
approaches, which call for drastic lifestyle changes, in order to
comply. Many of these costs will not be able to be withstood by the
people with the least ability to pay for them.

And therein lies the conundrum for the left. Do we embrace radical
lifestyle changes in the name of the environment, and forsake our
obligation to the poor?


There are places where we could send the waste, such as into space.

"SAO LUIS, Brazil, Aug. 25 - Brazil's space program will have difficulty
replacing the scientists and technicians killed in the explosion that
destroyed a rocket at its launch base, the project coordinator said Monday.
Friday's accident killed 21 people, including top scientists and engineers,
days before the unmanned rocket was due to blast off from the jungle launch
site on a mission to place two satellites into orbit."

Fortunately, this never happens here in America. Right????

You'd better sell your car then. Every time you drive it, you have the
potential to be involved in a fatal accident. NASA had better close its
doors too since we'll likely never 100% prevent another shuttle
accident. We'd better stop shipping oil by tanker, since they can hit a
stray iceberg, or founder in a storm. God forbid we take a few risks.

Let me get this
straight: If a rocket full of nuclear waste explodes, it would harm nobody
because the intentions of its designers were noble ones. But, if a suitcase
full of nuclear waste explodes in a major city, it's a dirty bomb, because
the intentions of its designers were evil. I think I understand the
difference.

You really have a flair for the dramatic in order to convolute a point.

There are other technologies which could be applied as well. The other
issue is the Chernobyl factor. People don't want that to happen here.

Reactor safety is not the same issue as proper handling of waste.

No, but it's equally important, and does address some of the mindset of
people who oppose nuke plants.

It doesn't
seem to be a problem for you because at the moment, we're sticking the stuff
in some mountain in Nevada, far from YOUR house.

Typical leftist. Make this an issue about me. It's not near your house
either, so the point is irrelevant.


As far as "other technologies", many sane people think we should actually
POSSESS those technologies before we plan on using them. At the moment,
though, they do not exist.

Try looking into nuclear waste reclaimation. I read something on the
subject a while back.


No Doug, you can't weasel out of it that easily. Everyone expects that
things will cost more as inflation increases the overhead and cost of
manufacture. But there is a point where the rate jumps up
disproportionately (like the recent rise in gasoline) to the going
inflation rate. If I'm paying $65 a month for electric one year, and the
next it jumps to $120, that's not a normal increase. By that's what you
can expect if the utility companies are forced to "modernize". Money
doen't grow on trees, it has to come from somewhere. Even a government
subsity, would come out of your tax money. So you're paying more one way
or the other. Since there are people who live from paycheck to paycheck,
how do you explain that to them?

Let's try this: Toyota and Honda saw the writing on the wall and they've
developed models which get gas mileage ranging from "Amazing" to "Holy
**** - that's outrageous".

How about "ho-hum"? The Honda hybrid gets about 12 MPG more than my
conventional 3 cylinder Geo Metro. Not exactly something to write home
about. Not surprising, these hybrids are somewhat wimpy in performance,
and are built light to facilitate better fuel efficiency. And try
pulling a 6000 LB boat with one of those hybrid cars, and then come back
and tell me about it.

You come up with a technology that allows 50+ MPG, develops 300 HP AND
can pull 6000 Lbs, and then I'll sit up and say "wow!".


They are now reaping the rewards for spending on
research and development. This is how it should be, right? Do something
good - get paid for it.

Reaping what rewards? I see maybe one or two Hondas on the road during a
given 6 month period. Usually they're being driven way under the speed
limit, in the right lane, and I get a quick glimpse as I wiz by. I don't
know if they're unable to hold 65 MPH, or if the owners are just a bit
kooky. On the other hand, practically every other car I see is either a
Ford Explorer, or a Dodge mini-van.


The utilities have a better deal: The technology already exists for cleaning
smokestack emissions. It can be installed on existing plants or designed
into new facilities. The utilities don't have to worry about R&D - they just
need to buy the stuff. Then, they can make more electricity and get paid for
it.

Yep, they just have to "buy the stuff". With what money?


There's only one reason they complain about the extra cost: There's a board
of directors which is more concerned with shareholder value. Unfortunately,
this is a short-term view.

Your view is way too cynical. Why would a utility who is a monopoly by
nature, have to be overly concerned with shareholder value? It's not
like they have to trim expenses and move jobs offshore to compete with a
foreign company.


But they have nothing to do with the generation of power. The "G.E.
Story" is another subject entirely.

No, it's not another story. It's a very important example of a
high-visibility company which refuses to take responsibility for the damage
it's done.

But nothing to do with electric generation.


It's not limited to utilities - it's common to many industries.

But we're talking about electric plants. Stay focussed.


Is now making noise about the large lakes (Which are also great
boating
places) created for hydro-electic plants, due to changes to the
natural
habitat. There are some who want to drain lakes like Mead and
Powell.

Do you feel this type of opposition is the rule? In other words, for
every
100 hydro facilities, how many are being picked on?

It all starts with one. If that one falls, a precidence is created,
and
it becomes easier for the rest to follow.

That's "precedent", George. A precedent is created.

Typical. When one cannot refute the issue, they pick on grammar or
spelling errors.

Was it you who, in another thread, whined about how conservation districts
were going to be the downfall of America?

I don't think so.


This is the same thing. It doesn't deserve any further discussion.

Of course not, because it threatens to topple your house of cards.
Deny it all you want, it's a very real threat. You, as a boater, should
be up on the efforts of loonie-tunes who are out to ruin your fun.

You either heard about this on a hysterical
radio talk show, or read a blurb in the newspaper while in the bathroom, and
you think it's an evil plot all across the nation.

Try this newsgroup. And the Sierra Club is as close to a national evil
plot as anything else.

Smokescreen Doug. We're talking about two different things and you know
it. If your electric rate goes up 2 or 3 dollars a month, you dig a
little deeper and don't sweat it all that much. Ask someone living in
California if their sudden rate increases, of a couple of years ago,
were in line with "cost of materials" and inflation. I wonder how many
poor people had their electric cut off, because they couldn't afford
it.....

I keep asking if you read, and you continually prove that you don't.

I don't read the same leftist biased tripe that you do. I read sensible
reports.


Investigators now know that the rate increases in California were not
connected to any kind of physical reality which demanded price hikes. In the
past week, the DOE spokespersons have used the word "gouging" repeatedly.

It was also the result of mismanagement, and of allowing their
generation facilites to be sold (Thereby removing their responsibility
to pay for upgrades), which left them at the mercy of outside electric
suppliers. Those outside suppliers were free to gouge them on price, as
they had a real demand, and there was no competition for the supply.

The point is, why did Cal-Ed sell off their generating plants in the
first place, thus allowing the situation to develop?


Read, Dave. The California mess has nothing to do with the pollution
problems caused by coal-burning plants in the Midwest.

No, but it's a very real example of what happens when the cost of
electric goes up. And it WILL go up if plants are forced to comply with
stricter pollution standards.

Dave