?

Log in

No account? Create an account
[MeFi] Just in time for the mid-term elections... Bush is an environmentalist! - Adventures in Engineering — LiveJournal
The wanderings of a modern ronin.

Ben Cantrick
  Date: 2006-09-17 23:30
  Subject:   [MeFi] Just in time for the mid-term elections... Bush is an environmentalist!
Public
  Mood:Yeah, right...
  Music:DJ Rove and the NeoCon Choir - Show Me A Green Dog

President Bush is preparing an astonishing U-turn on global warming, senior Washington sources say. After years of trying to sabotage agreements to tackle climate change he is drawing up plans to control emissions of carbon dioxide and rapidly boost the use of renewable energy sources.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1604092.ece

I would hope that this move would simple make nobody happy. Because liberals find it impossible to take Bush seriously on anything, and conservatives who do believe that he's (all of a sudden) become interested in environmentalism will just be pissed off.

But don't count on that. There are a LOT of people who feverently want to believe everything Bush says, no matter how illogical and divorced from reality the things he says are, or how many times he's blatantly lied to us all in the past.
Post A Comment | 15 Comments | | Link






Ben Cantrick
  User: mackys
  Date: 2006-09-17 23:59 (UTC)
  Subject:   Not that I generally try to be objective, or nice...
But this is some "truth hurts" shit, right here...

Bush admitted that Bin Laden and Saddam were not in cahoots.
It didn't matter. His base believes it anyway.

Bush admitted that Saddam did not have WMD.
It didn't matter. His base believes it anyway.

Bush admits the withdrawing troops and command structure from Afghanistan cost us the capture of Bin Laden.
It didn't matter. His base believes Iraq was "the next front on terror" anyway.

Bush admitted that Pakistan was illegally selling nukes to our enemies WITH out knowledge.
It didn't matter. His base believes Musharif is a "democratically elected leader of a free country".

Ok, you know how for a while it became hip at parties to scold other liberals about "treating the right like they were stupid" and so it was "no wonder that we, the left, lose elections treating half the country like they are idiots." Remember that?

Your first instinct was right. The Right IS a bunch of fucking retards and Bush KNOWS the Right are a bunch of mouth-breathing idiots. That is WHY they win. They openly HATE their own constituency. For fuck sake he is busy getting their faithful but dim-witted children killed in Iraq. He despises the "common" man far more than the supposed "intellectual elite left" does.

Bush could come out tomorrow, fucking a goat and eating a baby on live TV and wouldn't matter as long as he mumbled something about 9/11 and "fags get'n married."

We are doomed. We simply cannot fight the tide of stupidity arrayed against us with out stooping to the same shit. Doomed.


I came to this conclusion long ago. The only thing that seems to make me different is that I decided I was going to actually do something about it, instead of just hating life. You can fault me for what I chose to do. Feel free. But at least I won't have to say "Bush is my president" any more when my plans are complete.
Reply | Thread | Link



(no subject) - (Anonymous)
Ben Cantrick
  User: mackys
  Date: 2006-09-25 02:11 (UTC)
  Subject:   Re: Not that I generally try to be objective, or nice...
I love how you speak for the base.

I speak for no one besides myself, and have never done otherwise. I don't know of any politicians who would care to represent a gun-toting liberal anyway, so I don't even have "a base".

In reality, go check out redstate, and the corner some time.

Why would I want to read your neo-con echo chambers? They're not going to tell me anything I haven't read already, and I'm tired of shouting down the morons who still support this administration - hence the whole reason I'm leaving the country.

If you believe these places have proposed any new arguments that actually hold water, feel free to post them right here and I'll tell you why they're full of BS. But correcting every Dubya-loving idiot in the USA is a task far beyond the capabilities of any mortal. I could dedicate my life from this moment forward to just finding them and shooting down their stupidity, and even if I lived to a hundred I STILL wouldn't have time to smack them all down.

As for the name calling, I will leave it alone. I expect so see more of it after the next election anways.

Generally, when the only argument that someone can come up with is, "I don't like your tone", then I've usually won. When they can't factually refute me, or give a reason why I'm wrong... when they're so intellectually and factually bankrupt that they have to resort to saying things like: "You're just not nice!"... that says to me: "I have no actual counter-argument."

Which the NeoCons don't, at this point.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



osmium_ocelot
  User: osmium_ocelot
  Date: 2006-09-18 00:42 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
Oh, I see you missed the one a month or so ago where he signed off on legislation that founded the largest wildlife sanctuary in the ocean... you know the one the size of fucking Montana... in the middle of nowhere... without any oversight or protection... But it's a wildlife sanctuary! He Cares! He really really does!

And I have a bridge in New York to sell...
Reply | Thread | Link



Ben Cantrick
  User: mackys
  Date: 2006-09-18 01:16 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
I'm inclined to praise that decision as a good one, and so I will.

But I also temper my praise with the knowledge that Bush just basically bowed to the inevitable there. The process to turn that territory into a protected marine sanctuary was already well underway. As the NY Times story on it notes, what Bush did was he made it happen today, instead of a year from today. It would have happened regardless.

Getting something good done a little faster is still a small good. And I am happy he did it. But as a sign of any kind of significant political or personal belief in protecting the environment, his mountain of other environmental misdeeds far outweigh the small good done here.

If Bush is an Environmentalist because of this Hawaii thing, then I'm a Conservative because I dislike PC on college campuses. (Hint: I'm not a conservative. ;])
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



osmium_ocelot
  User: osmium_ocelot
  Date: 2006-09-19 01:36 (UTC)
  Subject:   I bed to differ...
But first, I'll agree, that yes, it is a tiny good, and any good is still good. However...

It would be a good decision if it was made for the right reasons.

It was not made for the right reasons. It was made in an effort to make our ludicrously environmentally destructive president look good. It's in the same vein as his signing the anti-torture bill and publicly supporting it at the time, and then under the radar adding a Presidential Signing Statement that says "I'm gonna ignore this, kiss my ass" and continuing to torture POW's. Why do I call them POW's? Why, because it's a WAR on Terror. They are prisoners taken in a WAR. So they MUST be POW's. I'd love to see somebody fucking call his ass on that one.

Oh, but wait, Congress never actually declared any wars in the last five years...

And speaking of Congress, go check my latest entry. You're gonna love it, you're gonna be even more sure that getting the fuck out of this country is what you want to do. And frankly, if that legislation passes, and there isn't a complete uproar and revolution over it, I'm outta here too. That'll be the fucking straw to break this camel's back. If it's shot down, I'll hold out some hope. A tiny speck of it, but I'll hold out.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



  User: nickhalfasleep
  Date: 2006-09-18 05:29 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
Nuklear energy my friend. Guess how much Nuklear energy we're going to be putting money in. Big, fat, decade long construction projects my friend.

But hey, if I can fuel my electric car up on domestic electrons, the terrorists lose. And the world wins, because we'll no longer go mucking around looking for our oil fix by knocking over third world dictators.
Reply | Thread | Link



Ben Cantrick
  User: mackys
  Date: 2006-09-18 07:29 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
Someone at MrCranky.com had a pretty good idea:

1) Solar the roof of your house with the newer, cheaper solar cells and use the electricity to electrolyze hydrogen.
2) Store hydrogen, use as necessary.
3) Never be energy dependent on the middle east ever again!
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Jon
  User: j_b
  Date: 2006-09-18 07:44 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
I don't know much about the subject, but are fossil fuels used in solar cell creation?
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Ben Cantrick
  User: mackys
  Date: 2006-09-18 07:57 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
At present, yes definitely. I mean, most power plants run on coal, so the electricity to run the machines that make the solar cells is fossil-powered. And they're delivered by trucks running on petroleum. And etc.

But there's no reason we have to use fossil fuels for our energy. Tile the factory roof with enough solar cells, and maybe it won't need electricity from the grid any more. Run the trucks on biodiesel or cellulose ethanol. And so on.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Willow: Cartoon Willow
  User: willow_red
  Date: 2006-09-18 17:34 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
Keyword:Cartoon Willow
Solio makes solar-powered cell phone/gameboy/etc. chargers that are considered "carbon neutral" in that they offset the use of coal energy in their construction by planting trees and things like that. At this point, they only have nifty gadgets, but I've heard that they are working on bigger things, so maybe someday...
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



  User: nickhalfasleep
  Date: 2006-09-18 14:24 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
Currently they are, but a solar cell produces much more energy than is put into it, the "energy offset" of a pro installation is somewhere near six months. So you could produce enough solar cells at the start to produce all the remaining cells.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



(no subject) - (Anonymous)
Ben Cantrick
  User: mackys
  Date: 2006-09-25 02:01 (UTC)
  Subject:   Re: Have you ever looked?
the electric power required to electrolyze the hydrogen equivalent to 1 gallon of gasoline is equal to (500 moles) x (0.06587 kWh/mole) = 32.935 kWh, and the approximate cost of that power = (32.935 kWh) (@ 13.5¢/kWh) = $4.45 per 'gallon equivalent' (or "gge"), using our power bill's cost / kWh

- http://www.stardrivedevice.com/electrolysis.html

In other words, we can toss middle east oil ENTIRELY if we're willing to spend $4.50/gal on hydrogen instead of $3.00/gal on gas.

(Of course, the cost could be even less if we get some of that electricity for free from solar panels, instead of pulling it off the grid.)

Solar ain't going to do it.

I'd very much like to see some factual evidence for that claim... if you actually have any.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Ashfae
  User: ashfae
  Date: 2006-09-18 13:23 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
God, he drives me crazy. I love living in a country where everyone can't stand him. It's just taken for granted.
Reply | Thread | Link



  User: (Anonymous)
  Date: 2006-09-23 23:25 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
England has hated every strong president in the US since the start of the Republic. Go look up what they said about FDR, Jackson and Lincoln some time.

GWB is in good company if you judge only by the hatred of Europeans.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Ashfae
  User: ashfae
  Date: 2006-09-24 10:58 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
That wasn't my point; I certainly don't form my opinion on him by how those around me think, much less so now that I'm an ex-pat.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



browse
May 2015