Energy Enigma

Bush and His Billionaires Caused It. Let Them Pay ©

All the talk of seems silly to me; the reasoning is apt. I think there are better sources for these subsidies than the government.

In my mind, our efforts are misplaced. It is true; we as a nation and as a world have seen an increase in the number and intensity of cataclysmic storms. Tornados, droughts, hurricanes and other recent disasters have caused great calamity.

We are mired in misfortune. However, we are working to pay for what we caused. We are closing the barn door behind us; our prides and joys are all long gone.

We now, belatedly, prepare for what was our own ignorance. We elected George W. Bush, twice.

Well actually,
. . .

in 2000, Former appointed or anointed this sly desperado. It was 36 days after his first Presidential run that
See what the true winner, by many counts, is now doing. Al Gore presents his concern.

• By Richard Cohen. Washington Post. Tuesday, April 18, 2006; Page A19
Nevertheless, four years later, we as a people essentially elected this twit.

What were we thinking, or more accurately, what were those that voted for him thinking? Many admittedly envisioned GW as the great protector. However, no radical fanatic did more damage than he.

He did so under the guise of a compassionate conservative. I myself prefer a caring individual, one that conserves.
However, supporters of this scoundrel did not.

They knew that this unethical Emperor had worked to Immediately after his initial inauguration, King George II changed our environmental standards. that had been previously placed on the books. The Blundering Bush allowed for more arsenic in water.

Then and now, Gas Guzzling GW refuses to admit that burning is a problem. He encourages it. Bush belies the belief that have served to increase temperatures worldwide.

He says that he wants to reduce this nations Why, if it does not Perhaps, he, his family, and familiars are planning to invest in renewable energy. It is possible, though I find the theory questionable. Actions do speak louder than words.

If we consider the emission regulations Bush supports, we know his true desires. owners receive tax breaks under Bush. A Republican Congress and the King allow these “small trucks” to emit toxic gases.

Recent changes in the laws that govern these monstrosities do little to better our surroundings.
Baby George Bush believes or pretends to that natural causes are the reason we have had 19 of the 20 hottest years since 1980. This man or monster takes However, those of us that care and have watched the climate change wonder.

We Americans, those that for this buffoon, note the irrefutable connections. We acknowledge that this administration is not only friendly toward oil interests. They are these.

George W. Bush and his majestic They still do, as do their friends.
Moguls and magnates from these flourishing fuel-pumping conglomerates were America’s energy commission.

Scientists were banned. These industrialists and entrepreneurs created what now is policy. They have generated storms of infinite proportion.

Global warming is their legacy; yet, they are unwilling to pay for it and we, the people, do not ask them to. We again, chose to mistakenly let this administration be.
State governments are struggling to break even.

companies are refusing to issue policies for weather-related tragedies. ah the people. Those that are directly affected by decisions of the Bush Band are barely Still, we speak of The public is relying on its own taxes to pay for the damage that nature and we did not create.

Why are we not asking those that caused this ruin to pay? They have Billions. The price of their pleasure increases as the common folks suffer.

Is this the “justice” George W. speaks of?
If we are to authentically spread democracy, might we not begin at home?

Here in the USA, let us adopt laws that protect and provide for all equally. Let us no longer supplement the suffering imposed by a self-serving administration. If we were to pass and enforce regulations that ended global warming, if we demanded repayment for the damage caused by a corrupt Cabinet, imagine what a world this would be.

Each and every week, the Bush administration offers inconsistencies. This week a contradiction seems so strikingly absurd, I cannot ignore it. I feel compelled to comment on the recent change in the Bush energy policy.

In , the President of the United States spoke emphatically of energy concerns. He spoke of consumption and the importance of this. At the time Baby Bush said, “Congress also must understand they've got to pass an energy bill.

You see, an energy bill will be good for jobs. An energy bill will be good for national security. We need an energy bill that encourages consumption [sic].

”
Now, he , or so it seems.
In recent days, the President has been out on the stump. He is encouraging Americans to use mass transit.

The King told citizenry to get out of their cars, their Sports Utility Vehicles, their light trucks, and Hummers. Junior asked the public to take the bus, the subway, or possibly, car pool. He even suggested staying at home.

The Bush Boy is pleading with an anxious public; please Imagine that.
Under Bush, one was able to from their tax returns. Now, the same man that proposed giving tax cuts to those that buy the greatest of gas-guzzlers is asking very same consumers to leave their vehicles behind.

Leave the idyllic image of consumerism? Was it not Bush that preached buy, buy, buy, even after the 9/11 catastrophe? It was.

He and his subordinate, or is it his superior, had said, in the United States consumption for the sake of consumption is the only palatable way of life!
Years earlier, in 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney expressed his belief, The President agreed wholeheartedly.
In that same year, former White House Press Secretary Air Fleisher was asked of the President’s perspective on energy.

The press wanted to know was reducing energy consumption the plan. They asked and The president believes that it's [consuming is] an American way of life." Yet, now it is not?

Why not?
I will leave that question stand. Feel free to cogitate aloud and in writing.

Please share your thoughts. Mine may be too cynical to express.
Might I just offer these thoughts for your consideration?

Petroleum has long been the source of Bush prosperity. One might wonder would the Baby truly want its use to decline.
The , from the first, exploited the American desire to consume.

Fulfilling whims advances profits for each of these [former] business moguls. Their friends benefit as well. Are these magnets really ready, willing, or able to curb their greed?

I think not.
The axiom states, “Necessity is the mother of invention.” Perhaps, we are witnessing that need is the parent of re-invention?

The President seems to be re-formulating his policy when he asks us not to use fuel. However, he is not. Mr.

Bush actually postulates that a lack of power is only a temporary setback. He portends Katrina and Rita caused for the current crisis; however, once the Yet, I wonder. Did the Bush energy policy contribute to global warming, and thus create Katrina and Rita.

Might there be a truer calamity coming?
Possibly, for Bush and the Band, power is not the problem; it is the solution. They will feel fulfilled when they have it; therefore, they seek it.

Gas gauges may not be a consideration at all; may be the authentic indicator. When we reflect upon the President’s use of fuel, and the reason for it, we know this to be true.
I wish to share an incongruity to this recent paradox.

While Bush is bolstering conservation, he is expending ample energy. He is devoting his time and the nation’s fuel to his own personal cause. King George II is using an enormous amount of petroleum as he promotes his numbers in the polls.

Reuters Alternet writes on this, .
• , By David Leonhardt, Jad Mouawad and David E. Sanger, New York Times.