bork, sealed for your protection
- news
 - archives
 - search

- pics
 - people
 - events
 - cars

- who are you?
- enchefernize
- mini-chat
- sixx mixx
- dopewars

News run-down
posted Wednesday April 4, 2007 @ 08:43 by bigass Rants

Thought I'd post a few thoughts I had reading my google news feed this morning....

Ontario 'attaching value' to its water with conservation charge aimed at business:

"There's an important principle that we want to put in place that recognizes water is a public commodity. It's owned by all of us together and it's time to attach a real value to that," Premier Dalton Mcguinty said."

Woah, and conveniently enough, the 'real value' attached to that resource goes directly into the provincial piggy bank from your bank accounts. Along those lines, I also have an environmental proposal for conservation. Sure while water is a precious resource, you would die in oh about 2-4 minutes without air. Help me protect our greatest public resource by attaching a real value to the air we breathe. You can pay me that real value, say 1 cent per inhale/exhale. Now that supports an 'important principle'. Please send cheques payable to 'deez nuts'.

Mayor David Miller slams proposal for transmission line

"Province should focus on conservation before building new plants, mayor says. "Our whole electricity system at the province level needs to start with conservation-demand management and distributed generation and then look at new power plants and new transmission plants," he said."

And added by another bureaucrat who has no clue: "Councillor Paula Fletcher (Toronto-Danforth) opposes the project as an old-fashioned solution."

Yeah, I think she is right. Having cheap, abundant, available power is so old fashioned. This would be the reason these assholes are politicians and not engineers heading this project to keep the lights on. We started with conservation 3 years ago and how many new businesses and subdivisions have been approved and built in the same timeframe? And by conservation, I refer to the efforts to spend immense amounts of money deferred to the taxpayer, while sitting with your thumb up your ass when it comes to planning future energy supply. People are finally noticing the emperor has no clothes. Is it a coincidence that it's politically advantageous to take no risk proposing real solutions, while simultaneously stroking off your constituents in what can only appear as a 'green reach-around'?

The best analogy I can conjure up would be a comparison to the refinary and subsequent gas shortage last month. It's akin to the Mayor stating, "people, we don't need to repair the refinary, or put plans in place to address the shortage and increased cost, we just need to use less and pay through the nose! And by use less I mean staying home from work and sacrificing stability and essential services."

*cough* bullshit *cough*

posted by smeetz on Wednesday April 4, 2007 @ 10:04:

So, the long and short of it....

"green reach around" and "deez nuts."

Sure sounds like the govmn't still has us by the short and curlies.

posted by smeetz on Wednesday April 4, 2007 @ 10:05:

At least they are giving us the reach around right?

posted by biig on Thursday April 5, 2007 @ 10:28:

It's a green reach around, you don't want that. It costs 3-4 times as much as the going market rate, is performed by a nun and doesn't accomplish anything.

Add a Comment:
(please add 10 and 5)

spam trap