Saturday, February 18, 2006

When Liberal Notions are Lashed to Conservative Ideas

The W, Rove and Co are experts at propaganda. You have got to hand it to them there. They have built a stellar catapult for that. Another of their strengths is their ability to use the bully pulpit to paint wide swaths of good individuals as bad, or even more slanderously, as traitorous, treasonous, non-patriots. But beyond the lies, the mismanagement (otherwise known as presidential malpractice), the shoddy responses to numerous national and personal disasters, the W, Rove and Co's slippery, and I would suggest sleazy, political strategy really works to trick people into supporting things that they ordinarily wouldn't.

Take for example, today's presidential radio address. Here we see the president spending more money on another new initiative - and they say they are for small, not big government. Really, let's be honest here. What the W, Rove and Co is really all about is small government that helps ordinary people and big government that benefits them and their pals in whatever industry they are trying to prop up. Which leads to another question aside: Why can't repulicans hold their own to their tirelessly espoused and documented standards, ethics and morals?

All that aside, what the W, Rove and Co works to do is lift up an otherwise very bad idea (supposedly conservative) by lashing it to several high minded, and fairly - dare I type it - liberal notions. But if you look at where the president is saying he will appropriate the funds, you see that one is part of the real agenda. The rest is fluff to make that expense look good.

When you read through the slice below, ask yourself why nuclear power? Why not 120 million of solar power advancements and another 120 million for wholly green vehicles leaving another 10 million for research on new technologies that don't leave toxic residue? Or for that matter, why is W not forcing legislation that pushes a higher MPG in the CAFE standards - which doesn't take any additional taxpayer dollars at all?
To meet these challenges, my Administration has announced a bold new proposal called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. Under this partnership, America will work with nations that have advanced civilian nuclear energy programs, such as France, Japan, and Russia. Together, we will develop and deploy innovative, advanced reactors and new methods to recycle spent nuclear fuel. This will allow us to produce more energy, while dramatically reducing the amount of nuclear waste and eliminating the nuclear byproducts that unstable regimes or terrorists could use to make weapons.

As these technologies are developed, we will work with our partners to help developing countries meet their growing energy needs by providing them with small-scale reactors that will be secure and cost-effective. We will also ensure that these developing nations have a reliable nuclear fuel supply. In exchange, these countries would agree to use nuclear power only for civilian purposes and forego uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities that can be used to develop nuclear weapons. My new budget includes $250 million to launch this initiative. By working with other nations under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, we can provide the cheap, safe, and clean energy that growing economies need, while reducing the risk of nuclear proliferation.

As we expand our use of nuclear power, we're also pursuing a broader strategy to meet our energy needs. We're investing in technologies like solar and wind power and clean coal to power our homes and businesses. We're also investing in new car technologies like plug-in hybrid cars and in alternative fuels for automobiles like ethanol and biodiesel.
If you are really going to "invest" in solar, wind and other clean/green energies, it wouldn't be on the same list as coal and it would have a dollar figure attached as an appropriation, no? But, I guess that is what happens when liberal notions are lashed to conservative ideas: Follow the money, not the rhetoric. It tells the whole story.


Neil Shakespeare said...

Their enduring strategy is, of course, to say one thing and do exactly the opposite. But I have to laugh at this new 'nuclear power' initiative. There's talk about it all over the place now and NOT ONCE have I seen anyone talk about Chernobyl or Three Mile Island or any of the safety concerns that has put nuclear power in hiatus for an entire generation. Maybe that's it. Maybe they figure it's a new generation now, and this generation doesn't give a shit. Oh, yes! What a great anti-terrorist tactic this is! Let's make more potential bomb making material! It's like that story of putting the U.A.R. in charge of our ports!

pissed off patricia said...

I doubt very seriously if george bush has a clue about how a nuclear plant actually works and why it's a real bad idea.

This whole new energy talk is nothing but that, talk. He only mentioned it because gas prices were high and he was supposed to be "working on a solution" LOL, he couldn't care less about finding new sources of energy.

isabelita said...

They don't enforce against their own because they're at the top of the Amway pyramid called the "free market." Free, my sweet ass. Free is the corporate welfare they're sucking out of the tit. Throw them all in a volcano. Let them learn about geothermic power sources.

Anonymous said...

It's not going to happen

The electric utilities are still waiting for the government to open a permanent repository for fuel rods.

Photovoltaics are too expensive to make and deploy. Users annoyingly prefer a faster return on investment than the life of the installation.

The free lunch is in an increase in the CAFE standard, applied universally to cars, SUVs and light trucks. There's more energy in savings, in economy, than anywhere else. There's no reason why a 6000# SUV has to be able to do 0-60 in 6 seconds, there's no reason it has to weigh 6000#.

There's a free lunch in raising the price of gasoline by increasing the tax on it. Taxes are essentially a zero-sum game. The government needs a certain amount of money for its operation. Raising the tax on gasoline means that taxes can be lowered somewhere else. Reduce sales taxes, or increase the standard deduction. Raising the tax on gasoline is easy to do, and it will change behavior rapidly.

What's lacking in Washington is political will, as is demonstrated daily by the current Administration.

windspike said...

Anon, again - spot on:

"What's lacking in Washington is political will, as is demonstrated daily by the current Administration."

All the capital saved up by the W, Rove and Co is spent. They don't have a means to push anything that would actually make a difference past congresss that doesn't leg up those who need no leg up.

That Damned Jezebel said...

Absolutely agree on the CAFE standards and efficiency as the way to go.

enigma4ever said...

Bush wouldn't know spent fuel if it was served to him on ice, much less what a fuel rod was even if it was shoved up his ass....these assholes can't even monitor or control the inventory in this country....( and of course Abraham, and Bushie Buddy who made the original decisions is a convicted felon, and the new "expert"- Burton is even more dangerous- used to be in charge of the Liquor board in Wyoming, and then he was put in charhge of Mining and Minerals- that is how the Mining safety board got dismantled)..okay I am done ranting...

Paul Watson said...

Have to disagree with Anonymous about taxing fuel for two reasons.

1) While it CAN be used to reduce taxes eslewhere, it probably won't be. Why would the government turn down extra revnue while pretending to give a damn about the environment (so as to deflect all the protests)?

2) It doesn't change behaviour, let alone quickly. Over here in the UK, 75% of the price of fuel is tax and we still make a huge number of journeys by car, paying the tax. It's getting tough to raise the price now, but it's still a lot.