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

"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.

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