Sunday, October 29, 2006

Con us? No way!

HIGH-TENSION wires allow smooth flow of high-voltage electricity. Wires of low tensile strength cannot. Let surge high-voltage current in low-tension wire—that would trigger a power trip. The insulator sizzles, the wire melts, there’s power outage. The sparks fly starting a blaze that may raze an entire squatters’ colony—faulty house wiring is the usual culprit in fires of that sort.

High-tension wire for high-voltage current. Low-tension wire for low-voltage juice. A lesson in appropriate wiring can wisen us.

Maybe we can better appreciate such precious lessons in wiring. Haul ‘em Charter change proponents, trussing all like turkeys and hanging ‘em up there in power transmission lines as baseload power is beefed up by a few thousand more kilowatts. See those stack of steaks sizzle but we’d like ‘em well done.

That’ll be a sight too enlightening to behold—but don’t hold ‘em, huh?

Liken the 1987 Charter to the wiring schemata of a house in which we dwell. It took a gathering topnotch brains to come up with that back in 1987, we remember. No, we’d rather not compare their competence to the recent bunch who want the Charter worked over.

They’ve been carping that the wiring is all faulty and is the cause of all the inconveniences and malfunctions of the household appliances plugged into power outlets. The appliances are working fine, we can see that.

The wiring in place ain’t broke as we can sense, so why fix it?

That failed try at the Supreme Court to effect repairs via a signature campaign—that was costly. Countless advertisements in various media ate up a lot of money. We’re more interested in a full accounting of that money.

How much was spent, we can’t tell. They’re also not telling.

More money would soon be flowing like electrical conduits pouring juice. Guess how the House would light up soon as Charter change adherents shift to a new tack. Something that sounds like “con us.”

We’re still curious how much money would be burned in the new attempt.

That money might be ours, who can say?

No comments: