I was shocked and amazed months ago reading an issue of Wired lamely describing nuclear power as 'the new Green power'.
What's most amazing about people arguing nuclear power is a green power is they rarely seem to understand that when green power sources break down or have problems, nothing is destroyed. Also, I'm not sure where nuclear power enthusiasts want to place the nuclear waste, but IMO it should be on their property. Bush just bought thousands of acres of land, let's put all that waste on his land! HA
We are a democracy, yes? When do we get to vote on whether we use earth-friendly power sources or earth-unfriendly power? Oh, that's all passed to our democracy representatives, the rich people who clearly share our interests and desires on where to lead our country and our planet. Bush is clearly 'just another US citizen' with the good heart who wants to help out... or not.
NOT.
Bush is really 'just another rich US white Aryan racist' who is doing his best to accumulate and maintain a power division between rich and poor, while pulling out as much revenue as he can (for family, cronies, friends) before they can push for Armageddon and the earth will blow up and they'll be judged for how much successful capitalism and exploitation they achieved.
I think the whole 'red state/ blue state' boxes we lump US states into are so poor b/c the USA is largely PURPLE. Some groups have more influence in some areas, but many elections are decided by so few votes... and tampered voting machines.
Personally, I want to see Cindy Sheehan elected as a rep for SF because her main goal is to get Bush's Impeachment on the table, which Nancy Pelosi (IMO a traitor to the USA and also impeachable) has blocked, an act which violates the US Constitution.
I've already heard Obama speak about his desires to make conciliatory gestures to the Right Wing to get some things he wanted passed. (Listened to his speech yet in Berlin, Germany? Give it a listen!) Did anyone ever hear Bush or Reagan make pleas to reconcile with the Left Wing, or them express willingness to negotiate??? It's always Left that appeases, and the Right that demands less partisanship while getting their way in most areas and robbing the poor people blind.Has anyone in US media called the latest scandal, the USA home loan scandal, anything like fraud or crime or even a disgusting mismanagement of funds by corporate leadership? Is there any accountability? Have any of these 'free market' advocates suggested that the banks which mismanaged loan practices be forced to suffer for their bad management?
I find it amazing how fast it all gets pushed back to the public and tax revenues to bail out another American banking fiasco. (Does everyone remember that Bush Sr's brother was the head of an S&L during that scandal? Do you think he paid even one cent for his own accountability? Or did that entire scandal get paid by the US public in the form of taxes.)
I was just in Venezuela for the month of June filming a documentary. From what I was able to see, I guarantee you that 90%+ of what the US media covers about that country is falsehood. The 'horrible and dictatorial' revolution taking place in Venezuela is called SOCIALISM. The people who are benefiting are POOR PEOPLE who now have free medical, subsidized food prices, subsidized gas prices, and incentives to purchase their homes.
The revolution in Venezuela is their government is taking oil revenue (which is enormous), nationalizing it, and re-distributing that wealth to the people suffering ath the lowest levels.
Can anyone imagine the USA doing that with our 'record billions in profits' that are going right into the hands of corporate executives with no accountability for the gas price hikes which are destabilizing the US economy... imagine if those record profits were taxed at a higher rate, and that money instead went into:
a) free medical for all
b) schools
c) food subsidies
d) gas subsidies
e) free college educations
The reason Bush gave everyone a '$600 spending incentive' is because his presidency has stolen more public money than they expected (via illegal warfare, contracting private mercenary firms, Haliburton, allowing 9/11 to happen w/o taking any action -- despite being informed prior to the (supposed) attack, and more), so maybe it was guilt money...?
Bush went after Social Security, b/c the wealthy are not comfortable with poor elderly people living comfortably after slaving their whole lives for wealthy executives, and while he was trying to privatize that money they were arguing it was because the social security fund was unstable -- and then he advocated spending trillions to kill Iraqi people in a country that never attacked the USA. Priorities? Oil over people, military before public, guns before butter. Did you really have any confusion here anyway?
Nah -- Bush doesn't suffer an ounce of guilt. He feels he's chosen by God. That money is to help you all spend happily while the USA splits into a society of wealthy landed aristocracy and poor serfs, with a middle class getting shattered by govt corruption.
Whew! Long rant!
