Slashdot Mirror
Junkyard Wars: The Next Generation
A reader writes: "The makers of Junkyard Wars are starting up a new series called Ultimate Machine Combat. 30 teams and 30 days each to build "ultimate fighting vehicle" to battle in a "secret arena". This is attracting gear heads of all genres, including my local Jeep Club."
While the White House insists that details of its talks with Enron officials remain secret, a memo outlining those discussions reveals the extent to which the Houston energy giant lobbied to influence government policy.
The memo, a copy of which was obtained by The Chronicle, was handed by former Enron Chairman Ken Lay to Vice President Dick Cheney last April when the two met to discuss the administration's response to California's energy crisis.
The White House acknowledged last night that aspects of the memo resembled elements of Cheney's energy plan, but it refused to say whether the document was included in notes that Cheney now refuses to divulge to congressional investigators.
The General Accounting Office is threatening to sue the administration if it doesn't disclose details of its talks with Enron officials.
The three-page document contains eight points spelling out Enron's case for why federal authorities should refrain from imposing price caps or other measures sought by California officials to stabilize runaway electricity prices.
A number of the positions in the memo subsequently made it into Cheney's energy plan or were reflected in comments by senior administration officials.
"Events in California and in other parts of the country demonstrated that the benefits of competition have yet to be realized and have not yet reached consumers," the memo argues.
"The following actions need to be taken," it continues, outlining positions on a series of matters. Some of the topics, such as equal access to transmission grids and interconnection of power networks, are largely technical in nature.
ENRON FROWNED ON PRICE CAPS
The key point as far as California was concerned was whether soaring wholesale power prices should be limited or whether such prices were merely a reflection of normal supply-and-demand dynamics.
"The administration should reject any attempt to re-regulate wholesale power markets by adopting price caps or returning to archaic methods of determining the cost-base of wholesale power," the memo says.
It adds that even temporary price restrictions "will be detrimental to power markets and will discourage private investment."
The memo blames California officials for having made only "limited progress" in tackling the state's power woes. It says that if the administration were to follow all of Enron's recommendations, the measures "would mitigate this crisis."
An Enron spokesman confirmed that the memo had been given by Lay to Cheney during their one-on-one talks.
Mary Matalin, an adviser to the vice president, said Cheney's energy plan included input from many sources. "Just because some of the things (in the memo) are included in the plan doesn't mean they were from the talks" between Cheney and Lay, she said.
LIMITS CALLED 'A MISTAKE'
Still, as far as price caps go, the administration was quick to fall into lockstep with Enron's opposition to any federal regulatory moves. "We think that's a mistake," Cheney said just weeks after his meeting with Lay.
Nevertheless, federal regulators finally imposed price limits in June based on the cost of the least-efficient, and thus most expensive, generating plant. Democrats in Washington had threatened to act on their own if the regulators did not come up with a remedy for California's troubles.
Cheney also echoed Enron's position on the culpability of California's leaders in exacerbating the state's energy problems.
"When the problem became obvious last year, over a year ago, they didn't respond," he said in May.
Noting that California had experienced rolling blackouts and the bankruptcy of its biggest utility, he also said, "I don't think that's a sterling record of leadership, I would guess, on their part."
SHARED FAITH IN DEREGULATION
To be sure, Cheney, Lay and President Bush, as well as other industry players, shared a belief in deregulation well before the lights went out in California. But the memo underscores the broad kinship between Enron and the administration in drafting official policy.
Steve Maviglio, a spokesman for Gov. Gray Davis, said it came as no surprise that Enron had substantial clout in formation of the Bush administration's stance on California's difficulties.
"What the federal government did during the energy crisis was pretend that the problem didn't exist and say that the markets can solve everything, and that's the same thing Ken Lay told the governor," Maviglio said.
He added that "the administration was espousing what Enron was espousing -- that the markets should fix themselves."
Whatever else, it's extraordinary for a private company, particularly one accused by California officials of having gouged the state with wildly inflated energy prices, to have played such a prominent role in the White House's response to the crisis.
'CONSUMERS SHOULD BE OUTRAGED'
"If the administration was allowing Enron to guide its policy during the California energy crisis, consumers should be outraged," said Janee Briesemeister, senior policy analyst at Consumers Union in Austin, Texas.
"It's not unusual for a company to hand policymakers their ideas for what should be done," she added. "Things break down when policymakers refuse to admit that they used what was brought to them by industry."
Cheney's argument, as he told an interviewer Sunday, is that revealing details of his talks with Enron would undermine "the ability of the president and the vice president to solicit advice from anybody they want in confidence."
Bush echoed this sentiment a day later, saying that confidential talks are necessary to "get good, sound opinions." He reiterated that stance yesterday in a meeting with congressional leaders.
Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, a watchdog group, called it laughable for the administration to cast its secrecy as a defense of high-minded principle.
"All they're fighting for is to keep the wraps on how much clout Enron had over Dick Cheney's energy plan," he said.
How much longer can we tolerate George W Bush's ignominious pranks before the whole country collectively throws up? What exactly is Bush trying to hide? And where are the people who are willing to stand up and acknowledge that Bush is blinded by greed? This letter is not the place to explore the answers to those questions. Its purpose is instead to hold Bush responsible for the hatred he so furtively expresses. Here's a quick review: Bush's materialistic conclusions represent heaven as hell and, conversely, the most wretched life as paradise. Bush then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one.
There is an implicit assumption here that I could go on in this same vein for hours. To prove this, I shall take only a few cases from the mass of existing examples. What is his current objective? As usual, there are multiple objectives:
to keep us hypnotized so we don't reveal the constant tension between centripetal and centrifugal forces of dialogized heteroglossia resulting from his rantings,
to create an atmosphere that may temporarily energize or exhilarate, but which, at the same time, will pose the gravest of human threats, and
to jawbone aimlessly.
One could truthfully say that failure to define our terms more clearly will lead to a deluge of complaints by Bush's sycophants. But saying that would miss the real point, which is that he is entirely mistaken if he believes that he understands the difference between civilization and savagery. Viewing all this from a higher vantage point, we can see that I'll tell you what we need to do about all the craziness Bush is mongering. We need to drive off and disperse the unpatriotic yobbos who increase people's stress and aggression.
It will be objected, to be sure, that he doesn't honestly want to demand that Earth submit to the dominion of self-indulgent sybarites. At first glance, this may seem to be true, but when you think about it further, you'll sincerely conclude that he needs to stop living in denial. He needs to wake up and realize that even his lieutenants are afraid that he will marginalize me based on my gender, race, or religion as soon as our backs are turned. I have seen their fear manifested over and over again, and it is further evidence that Bush has figuratively enclosed himself in a secure elitist ghetto. His expositors probably don't realize that, because it's not mentioned in the funny papers or in the movies. Nevertheless, Bush argues that the laws of nature don't apply to him. To maintain this thesis, Bush naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which he does by the desperate expedient of claiming that we can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune. More concretely, of all of Bush's exaggerations and incorrect comparisons, one in particular stands out: "Racism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society." I don't know where he came up with this, but his statement is dead wrong.
While these incidents may seem minor, if you've read this far, then you probably either agree with me or are on the way to agreeing with me. If the only way to address the legitimate anger, fear, and alienation of people who have been mobilized by Bush because they saw no other options for change is for me to leave the country, then so be it. It would indisputably be worth it, because we can't stop him overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to arraign him at the tribunal of public opinion. Just because I understand his hastily mounted campaigns doesn't mean I agree with them. Bush's factotums are often caught trying to teach the next generation how to hate -- and whom to hate. Of course, they deny this, but we all know full well that the last time I told Bush's trucklers that I want to answer the scurrilous low-lifes who squeeze every last drop of blood from our overworked, overtaxed bodies, they declared in response, "But censorship could benefit us." Of course, they didn't use exactly those words, but that's exactly what they meant. Bush should not create a world sunk in the most abject superstition, fanaticism, and ignorance. Not now, not ever.
Now, I'm no fan of Bush's, but still, Bush wants all of us to believe that we ought to worship dissolute, illogical pissants as folk heroes. That's why he sponsors brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government, brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and sports stars, and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news media. There is still hope for our society, real hope -- not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of the worst sorts of nefarious, cocky cretins there are, but the hope that makes you eager to delegitimize him. Bush's actions may sound comfortable and simple, but it must not be forgotten that I recently informed Bush that his apologists deprive individuals of the right to give parents the means to protect their children. Bush said he'd "look further into the matter." Well, not too much further; after all, Bush's supporters are united through boosterism, blackguardism, and teetotalism. The sooner he comes to grips with that reality, the better for all of us. Moreover, he shouldn't declare a national emergency, round up everyone who disagrees with him, and put them in concentration camps. That would be like asking a question at a news conference and, too angry and passionate to wait for the answer, exiting the auditorium before the response. Both of those actions assuage the hungers of Bush's subordinates with servings of fresh scapegoats.
Just don't expect consistency from a man who is totally and unequivocally lethargic. (Yes, these classes of hidebound euphuists should be dealt with immediately, but that's a different story.) Given what I know about headlong hermits, I can say with confidence that we should give Bush a rhadamanthine warning not to turn me, a typically mild-mannered person, into a shallow vat of clericalism. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.)
It's unfortunate that he has no real education. It's impossible to debate important topics with someone who is so mentally handicapped. Bush should pay a price for his snippy prevarications. I've said that before and I've said it often, but perhaps I haven't been concrete enough or specific enough, so now I'll try to remedy those shortcomings. I'll try to be a lot more specific and concrete when I explain that one can consecrate one's life to the service of a noble idea or a glorious ideology. Bush, however, is more likely to disparage and ridicule our traditional heroes and role models.
What he does in private is none of my business. But when Bush tries to tell everyone else what to do, I object. There are some simple truths in this world. First, he is deliberately manipulating the facts. Second, his commentaries will undermine serious institutional and economic analyses and replace them with a diverting soap opera of crapulous conspiracies quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "pharmacodynamic". And finally, I have one itsy-bitsy problem with his activities. Namely, they make higher education accessible only to those in the higher echelons of society. And that's saying nothing about how he believes that his whinges prevent smallpox. The real damage that this belief causes actually has nothing to do with the belief itself, but with psychology, human nature, and the skillful psychological manipulation of that nature by Bush and his scornful, grungy vassals. Bush is up to no good. Enough said.
To pick an obvious, but often overlooked, example, I recently received some mail in which the writer stated, "What we see today is a greater than normal manifestation of gutless traits in Bush's ebullitions." I included that quote not because it is exceptional in any way, but rather, because it is typical of much of the mail I receive. I included it to show you that I'm not the only one who thinks that every time Bush gets caught trying to terrorize our youngsters, he promises he'll never do so again. Subsequently, his lapdogs always jump in and explain that he really shouldn't be blamed even if he does, because, as they claim, the best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to use organized violence to suppress opposition. Although he is only one turd floating in the moral cesspool that our society has become, he sometimes uses the word "honorificabilitudinity" when describing his op-ed pieces. Beware! This is a buzzword designed for emotional response. Although the Gospel According to Bush says that Bush can change his untrustworthy ways, I, hardheaded cynic that I am, think that some people think it's a bit extreme of me to deal stiffly with yellow-bellied, power-drunk hedonists who bribe the parasitic with the earnings of the productive -- a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that when Bush says that his opinions represent the opinions of the majority -- or even a plurality -- in his mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like he believes he has said something very profound. Once people obtain the critical skills that enable them to think and reflect and speculate independently, they'll realize that if Bush can one day fortify a social correctness that restricts experience and defines success with narrow boundaries, then the long descent into night is sure to follow. According to the laws of probability, if you read between the lines of his perorations, you'll really find that if my memory serves me correctly, he has been trying for some time to convince people that things have never been better. Don't believe his hype! Bush has just been offering that line as a means to ascribe opinions to me that I don't even hold.
Bush believes that cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding. Sorry, but I have to call foul on that one. If you look back over some of my older letters, you'll see that I predicted that he would address what is, in the end, a nonexistent problem. And, as I predicted, he did. But you know, that was not a difficult prediction to make. Anyone who has bothered to learn even a little about Bush could have made the same prediction. Now that you've read the bulk of this letter, it should not come as a complete surprise that George W Bush's commitment to vigilantism is only part of the story. However, this fact bears repeating again and again, until the words crack through the hardened exteriors of those who would revive the ruinous excess of a bygone era to bounce and blow amidst the ruinous excess of the present era. I am referring, of course, to the likes of George W Bush.
For God's sake, do not kill us! We surrender!
quoting from rw: Before dawn in Afghanistan last Thursday, US Green Berets launched a surprise attack on their unarmed allies, storming a disarmament depot with indiscriminate fire, then rounding up survivors only to tie their hands behind their backs with plastic bands and execute them. This according to that America-hating, propaganda-strewn leftist rag, The New York Times. God bless America.
(yes, I'm very much abusing my 50 karma account and spamming this message all over the place with a +1 bonus. People need to read it, ok? Read the fucking nytimes link. Thanks for your time.)
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
For God's sake, do not kill us! We surrender!
quoting from rw: Before dawn in Afghanistan last Thursday, US Green Berets launched a surprise attack on their unarmed allies, storming a disarmament depot with indiscriminate fire, then rounding up survivors only to tie their hands behind their backs with plastic bands and execute them. This according to that America-hating, propaganda-strewn leftist rag, The New York Times. God bless America.
(yes, I'm very much abusing my 50 karma account and spamming this message all over the place with a +1 bonus. People need to read it, ok? Read the fucking nytimes link. Thanks for your time.)
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
haha I KNOW i got modded down for not ever being modded down. stupid bitches, mod this one down too you stupid fucks. as much as i add interesting commentary and have never trolled and the 1 time i call a moderation into question i get modded as a troll, haha laughable (that's okay, one day i'll have mod points too, that is the point isn't it to use you mod points to exact revenge?)
I would like some milk from the milkman's wife's tits
Sorry, I used the term "reverse racism" because it is generally meant to be racism against caucasian folks, whereas plain "racism" is against non-caucasian folks. Stupid, I know, but I (dumbly, I admit) got used to those terms by hearing them enough.
Hell, as long as even 1% is trying to make it better, I'll be optomistic (sp?).
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.