From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Tue Jun 05 2001 - 00:26:47 MDT
Anne Marie Tobias wrote:
>
> Howdy all,
>
> Spike Jones wrote:
>
> > Anne Marie Tobias wrote:
> >
> > > Why did the energy crisis suddenly blossom, when
> > > fossil fuels strongest advocate entered the white house?
> >
> > Because the population of Taxifornia continued to rise and
> > no new power generation capacity was being built. This
> > "crisis" was foreseen at least four years ago by people who
> > concern themselves with this sort of thing. I refer you to
> > Ideas Futures, where memes to that effect were offered
> > for sale some time ago.
>
> The businesses that provide us with power and fossil fuel have
> a long history of manipulation, and social engineering on their
> own behalf, bending or breaking the laws to fit their need or
> desire, and doing whatever it took throughout the third world
> to get what they wanted (up to and including, murder, control
> of local govenments, and insiting revolutions.)
Can you name any major business that doesn't have a "long
history of manipulation"? Any system of politics? Laws are
made to be bend to the needs of real entities, they are servants
of the interests of people. This includes the interests of
businesses as well as other groups.
This is not to excuse really shady and terrible things of course
but it is to point out that you are painting with an overly
broad brush.
>
> As these companies have become autonomous multinational
> organizations, their loyalty to America has eroded, and they
> have begun to treating us just like any other junky is treated by
> their dealer.
>
Loyalty to one nation would be considered "nationalism" and even
corporate fascism or so-called "state capitalism". America,
as a political entity did more than a little throughout the last
century and especially during the depression years to jolly well
earn the disloyalty and distrust of businesses. It is not
exactly one-sided.
The junky analogy is utterly unjustified.
> I never argued that the bed that California finds itself was not
> for the most part of it's own making. There is plenty of blame
> to go around for everybody to take a good healthy slice.
>
Business did not force California to ignore its future energy
projections and population and energy use increased.
> What I am saying is that, it must be obvious to anybody with
> funtioning retinas, that the collapse of California's energy
> balancing act came precisely with the exchange of keys to the
> administrative branch of the Fedreal government. That the
Correlation is not causation.
> prior administration had at some piont made it very clear that
> it wasn't going to kill the goose that layed the golden eggs,
> and that high tech was the engine that drove the national
> economy.Were Californians, arrogant? You betcha. Were
Irrelevant.
> Californians stupid not to manage their infrastructure more
> wisely? Duh! Were Californians set for a fall? OF Course!
> AND it was possible to exist in that vacuum, as long as it was
> clear that the FED would do whatever it took to protect it's
But that is worse than the illness! The FED does not exist to
bail out every moronic entity, individual, corporate or state
that cannot project its own budget and will not plan and build
appropriately. Attempting to do so is a large part of why our
government is one of the largest debtor nations.
That was no vacuum, it was cynical and childish irresponsibility
and something much worse.
> golden asset. Change hands, and suddenly we have a FED
> that just don't don't care if California eats it... in fact the new
> FED loves the energy guys, and if fossil fuel guys feel like
> pumping dozens of billions of dollars out of the California
> economy... well it's just teach those tight ass envirowackos in
> LALA land who really has them by the short and curlies...
Your picturesque language has very little semantic content. Go
take out your ire on gross human stupidity instead of seemingly
whining that the FED doesn't like us anymore and doesn't
care. Caring and doing something stupid that fundamentally
does not help the problem are not related.
> It's all a matter of priorities... California was a hot house
> garden... and artificial nirvana, and when GW had all that
> internet crap ripped out of the whitehouse it didn't that the
> power of the Amazing Carnack to figure California's sweet
> days were real numbered.
>
Where on earth do you get this stuff? Do you think California
is only about internet or that California only exists at the
sufference of the Imperial Fed and its current Soveign
Highness? Give me a break.
> I mean when that Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
> acknowledges that what the Western Utilies have engaged in
> amounts to highjacking, and extortion... it's pretty fair to say
> that things have gotten a wee bit extreme.
>
So what would you recommend? Have some federal commission
determine what is whose fair share and who is going to make what
if any profit and toss the market and free-enterprise out the
window for the duration of the "crises"?
> > > Why is that man unwilling to give California representatives more
> > > than 20 minutes of his time...
> >
> > The current Taxifornia representatives are not *worth* 20
> > minutes of his time. Or mine for that matter.
>
> Hhhhmmmm, interesting... The primary center of America's
> strongest economic engine, the breeding place of biotech,
> electronics, software, and critical technologies that will allow
> America to compete through the next century... isn't worth
> 20 minutes... actually GW gave the governor 40 minutes
> finally, but the first 25 of that was ass chewing, and the last
> 10 was laughing and letting him know how screwed he was.
>
This is not the primary center... blah, blah, blah. The primary
center of the computer industry is intellectual (business and
technical). If this state continues to be an utter ass then
those assets will increasingly move elsewhere. As they
should. I would very much hesitate to say that most of those
assets are here anyway. Whether they are or are not is
immaterial to what is the appropriate response of the Fed to the
problem.
> > > The largest economic engine in
> > > the country, and the president won't talk to the governor...
> > > What's wrong with this picture.
> >
> > Because this governor seems to be confused on the concept
> > of ownership for starters. Yesterday's SF Chron, which I
> > totally admit is not a trustworthy news source, quoted Red
> > Davis threatening to seize the assets of municipal power
> > generation facilities, invoking the emergency powers act.
> > This act was designed to allow the governor to seize assets
> > in true emergencies, such as natural disasters and war, where
> > lives are at stake. I fail to see how it can be applied to a
> > manmade disaster which cluey ideas-futurists have seen
> > coming for years. Now Davis whines because the fed
> > refuses to invoke price caps, after the failure of Taxifornia
> > to build capacity caused the price to skyrocket in
> > the first place.
>
> Hey this disaster was years in the making. The two idiots in the
> State Capitol, both Republicans, had been playing footsies with
> Eastern energy interests for nearly a decade and a half before
> Gray was handed to dung burger... If you were that elected
> leader of this state what would you do? Tell the folks, OK
> you twit's you screwed up... you made your bed, now sleep in
> it! Shortly after your assasination, and the local community had
> converted your grave site into a sewage treatment plant...
>
This is an interesting mythology. Both parties created the mess
along with a lot of very foolish voters, environmentalists,
lawyers and so on. But the mess began with the idea that the
State should control Energy production and distribution at least
in part "for our own good". We are now seeing the results of
that fundamentally flawed idea. It has been building for a few
decades. The question is how to avoid such debacles in the
future and how to defuse this one without creating worse
problems than we have already.
> The Governor is screwed. He has a job. To advocate California
> and make this problem go away by any means he see's fit. You
> may not agree with him, or like him, and find anything he's done
> to meet wit you philosophic ideals. Ask him if he cares. He's
> looking square down the barrel at 1,000,000+ people in the state
> who won't be able to afford power and gas, and many of them
> are elderly, and children... you think he isn't managing a bleeding
> ulcer? Think again.
>
Means that suspend the constitution are NOT in his charter.
Period.
Or don't you believe in government officials upholding their
oaths of office? These are not merely "philosophical ideals".
They are the political and ethical principles we are supposed to
be governed by. It is precisely in emergencies that such
fundamental guiding principles are most important.
> > So, to answer your question of what is wrong with this
> > picture, I say: failure to allow free markets to set prices.
> > Let the prices rise. That enables alternate energy sources
> > to come online, supply rises, price drops. Trying to legislate
> > the price of anything is chasing the wind. As for Bush not
> > wanting to talk to Davis, I can't blame him. I wouldnt
> > want to talk to him either. Davis doesnt seem to understand
> > the concept of ownership. If I *own* something then by
> > god its MINE and I will use it as I see fit.
>
> Spike... there's this wierd place... where economic reality
> crashed headlong into economic theory. It's the job of our State
> and Federal government to say... OK children... here's a reality
> call. It's also their job to make sure that the hienas don't rape the
No, it is not. It is not the job of the government to abrogate
the rights of the people but to uphold them. They have been
getting away with raping all of us across the board for over a
century by waving the needs of the people and ripping away the
wealth and rights of the people as a cure. It was their
abrogration of our rightful decision making ability (free market
without regulation in energy) that largely allowed this mess to
flower in the first place. To call now for more of the same
poison as has so sickened us is a fatal mistake.
> state into rigamortis. We have to survive to learn a lesson. We
> are valuable to the nation and the world at large. It is one of the
> key responsibilities of the government to make this adjustment
> clean, and sane over a workable time frame. To give California
> the working chance to get to energy self sufficiency without
> killing off it's porrest third, or bankrupting it's businesses.
>
We may or may not need some emergency measures but they MUST NOT
increase the power of government to fuck us up like this or much
worse in the future. That is crucial and far more of a danger.
We must see clearly the HUGE and primary role of runaway
government power in our current troubles instead of blaming
everyone and anyone who is not as poor or in as bad a shape as
we. We can't fix this by claiming the Great Lie that our
problem is the fault of Big Business or the machinations of GW.
That would be hopelessly inept and disasterous.
WHATEVER YOU DO DO NOT GIVE THE GOVERNMENT MORE POWER AND
AUTHORITY. Your life and all you hold dear depends on it.
> As far as ownership... there is a thing called public domain, a
> critical concept that says yuo may own something, but if your
Which has been a hole for government goons to suck away our
substance and our lives from the beginning. It is utterly
reprehensible.
> singular benefit, harms the greater public, then you have to be
It is not a "benefit", singular or otherwise, but my very life
and property. BIG DIFFERENCE. Property is not some boon handed
out by the omnipotent rulers and subject to their recall. Not
in a free country. If my having my rights to my own person and
property is considered a harm to the greater public then the
"greater public" can go hang. What makes them "greater"?
> a little less selfish, and we'll work out REASONABLE terms
Selfish? Selfish to have rights? Selfish to say that what I
have earned I have earned and should be able to dispose of as I
see fit? "Reasonable"? Is it reasonable when government
proposes holding a gun pointed at me why they "reason" with me,
which they can legally do and which is their distinquishing
characteristic? What is "reasonable" about their mandate that I
will lose everything and be imprisoned if I disagree with with
them? That is tyranny.
> to make sure your benefit is weighed fairly against the social
> harm it may impose. Just like the ranch boss, who dammed the
What benefit? My property is not a "benefit". Have you been
conditioned my Mother Jones or what?
> stream to wipe out those down the valley, so he could destroy
> them and take their property... there are certain acts that may
> be a function of ownership, that still qualify perfectly as unlawful
> and immoral acts.
>
Sure, sure. But claiming my property and wealth is in fact
mine, is not at all immoral. It is essential to any morality
that deserves the name. Misuse of property to harm others
directly is criminal and has nothing to do with government
seizure in general as you seem to be proposing. Do not conflate
these two. You cannot do so if you are honest and think it
through carefully.
> Using a critical resource to extort people has always been
> considered an immoral and illegal act under most jurisdictions.
>
Anything can be claimed to be a "critical resource" and any
price that those who wish that resource cannot pay can be
claimed to be "extortion". But this does not make it so or
justify the seizure of these goods by others.
Any hoodlum can claim the state extorts his labor to earn the
money to experience his pleasures and feed and clothe himself
and that he has the right to forcefully seize what he needs
and/or wants from these "extortionists". We quite properly
throw such creatures in jail. What makes it different when the
hoodlum is a Governor and calls for the wholesale seizure of
entire industries to be run by the state? Is this to be
considered moral and the way of righteousness just because it is
government?
> > Davis wants to order cities that have their own municipal
> > power generation facilities to participate in the rolling
> > blackouts while running their generators full bore and selling
> > their power at cost to the state. I hope those cities have the
> > intestinal fortitude to tell that commie so-called governor to
> > go to hell without an air conditioner.
>
> Again what would you have him do... turn the state of. Destroy
> the state's economy? All to appease the greed and power
> hungry? If you were governor what would you do?
>
Greed and power hunger? Try those who are living off of their
own prudent preparation for just such emergencies. Or doesn't
foresight have any other rewards except being labeled a foe of
all that is right and having your careful preprations undone and
seized by the all-mighty State?
Mark my words. If this state does any such thing I am out of
here. I will not live or work in or for such a regime. I will
vote with my feet.
> > > As long as there is more profit in being stupid, why would'nt
> > > you ever expect the people in power to do all they can to kill
> > > the smart. It's just good business.
> >
> > Thats right, and they are free to spend their resources to try
> > to kill the smart. Of course if it is *really* smart, all the oil
> > money in the world cannot keep it dead, and their spending
> > money on trying to kill alternatives only makes the oil more
> > expensive and less competitive.
>
> Depends how you play the game... Nobody talks about the
> Carthaginians any more... tell me who the oil companies are
> currentl competing with... Each other? That's a laugh. So many
> promising technologies, so many intesting ideas, and yet real
> significant promise in converting over to renewable or virtually
> unlimited energy sources in 40 years. Why is that?
>
Because they are not as renewable or unlimited or as economical
as you believe. If you think they are then do yourself and the
world a great service and get fabulously rich in the process by
starting your own company to exploit this supposed suppressed
cornucopia. Otherwise this sounds like crank-talk.
> > On a lighter note, I have been tracking the payback time for
> > solar panels on the roof. If it doesnt pay back in less than about
> > 10 years or so, it is not an attractive investment. But if power
> > prices rise only a modest amount, solar panels become a good
> > investment, even without tax incentives, consequently the
> > industry will blossom like a field of Taxifornia poppies after
> > a spring rain. Stand by Anne Marie, we shall see capitalism
> > in action. {8-] spike
>
> Sadly, I think you're right... I think we'll see dirty tricks, and a
> host of manipulations that delay or prevent alternative energy
> sources for decades yet to come. I think that the fossil fuel
> folks are so powerful, so intrenched, that it's going to take at
> least the remainder of this century to break them, and get them
> out of our way. Unless people of real vision, take them on
> sooner. That will prove initially very ugly. We will see.
Huh? You totally missed the point in order to cling to your
own. You know better.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:58 MST