Re: [pf] Why do people believe these guys? US President & Vice-Presiden

David,

This Big Lie is as frustrating to many of us Americans as to you, I think.  

The Big Lie seems to be "working" because the folks who do think this way now 
have the guns -- Bush and Cheney in support of the energy companies.

More and more means more profits.  Moving to hybrid cars and solar means less 
profits (at least for the traditional suppliers of energy).  So those who 
support these corporate interests will automatically support the More scenario. 
And that makes sense to a corporate culture which seems to function in the 
false belief that there will always /be/ More.

Regarding solar, it's ironic that the place where rolling blackouts are 
becoming a real issue is the very place where solar production of energy would 
be ideal -- the Southwest.  Yet it's nuclear energy that is being highly tauted 
there. 

Of course, Bush isn't pushing just nuclear.  He is particularly pushing breeder 
reactors -- which create plutonium.  Once upon a time, the facts came out that 
the government was promoting breeder reactors mainly in order to provide 
plutonium for its nuclear warheads.  Could it be that Bush has the same agenda 
-- in light of his desire to recreate a Cold War?  

Because I think everything these guys do has a hidden agenda leading in some 
way to corporate profits.  

And of course, the media becomes the major propaganda vehicle for the corporate 
Big Lies.

Feeling like a Stranger in a Strange Land sometimes,

Gary Barrett 


Quoting David MacClement <davd@ihug.co.nz>:

> · I've finally been able to get onto this computer again, to start my
> May
> environmental news compilation (previous one:
> http://davd.tripod.com/GrRR-010430_titles.html#top ).
> 
> {· And by the way, one of our two hard-drives is screaming this (cold)
> morning, and since the computer isn't mine, I'll mention the "about to
> fail" symptom to wife and son, once, and leave it to them to do
> something
> about. I may be off-line for some days if it actually fails before they
> replace it.}
> 
> 
> · This e-mail is about a couple of paragraphs at the end of one of
> those
> early-May news reports:
> http://ens.lycos.com/ens/may2001/2001L-05-03-04.html .
> 
> · The article says:
>   “Vice President Dick Cheney, a former oil company executive who heads
> the
> energy team, said earlier this week that the country cannot rely on
> conservation and renewable energy to feed its energy needs. 
>   "What the Vice President and I understand," Bush said today, "is that
> you
> cannot conserve your way to energy independence. We can do a better job
> in
> conservation, but we darn sure have to do a better job of finding more
> supply. It is naive for the American people and its - and those who
> purport
> to speak for the American people, some of those - to say that we can be
> okay from an energy perspective by only focusing on conservation. We've
> got
> to find additional supplies of energy."”
> 
> · Many of you reading this (and I include those who don't post) will
> believe that those are the only two options.
> 
> · If it wasn't that I guess Bush actually believes what I quote him as
> saying, I would call this another example of:
> 
>  . . . . . . The Big Lie.
> 
> · That is, influential people repeating a statement often enough that
> "everyone" accepts its truth.
> 
> · It simply _isn't_true_.
> 
> · _Constant_ energy supply (_no_ "additional supplies of energy") is
> certainly an option, while the population changes little.
>   And IMO, the obvious option, given how much interference with the
> world
> energy supply creates currently.
> 
> · Further, _I_ have the "radical" belief that the US _reducing_ its
> energy
> supply from its current highly excessive amount is necessary for an
> approach to a sustainable future. (I gave the URL of a graph
> illustrating
> how excessive it is, e.g. in comparison with Europe, some time ago.)
> 
> 
> · Where do Americans get the idea that their way of life has to
> continue;
> using more and more of just about everything?
> 
> · We all, Americans as well, live on a round globe; we know most of
> what
> there is here on earth. It's obvious to _everyone_ that there are
> limits,
> and if the US wants more and more, it means (later if not right now),
> that
> other people and other living things are trying to make do with less and
> less.
> 
> · There are only a few cases, mainly energy, where more and more is
> possible, but that's _only_ by using the huge amount of _solar_ energy
> arriving free at the earth's surface. There are limits to that, but
> they
> are a very long way off compared with almost everything else that
> Americans, like babies, want more and more of.
> 
> · Too bad if you're offended - it has to be said.
> 
> David.
> (David MacClement) davd@ihug.co.nz 
> http://www.geocities.com/davd.geo/index.html#top
> ************************************************
> 
> 
> 

==^================================================================
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxifP.aVx3Cb
Or send an email To: positive-futures-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com
This email was sent to: archive+pfvs@csf.colorado.edu

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================