Liveblogging the State of the Union

And so commences liveblogging. I'll probably focus mostly on the energy points (right, that didn't happen), but if history is made (e.g. "internets"), I'll try to immortalize that too.

9:15 Right now we're fighting terrrrism. Gotta make 'em all democratic. (Ed note: please take my tone to reflect only my own opinion.)

9:20 "America rejects the false comfort of isolationism." (now there's something to chew on in a relocalized world...)

9:22 "In less than three years, that nation [Iraq] has gone from dictatorship, to liberation, to sovereignty, to a constitution, to national elections." ('kay, so why isn't the oil flowing?)

9:24 "With so much in the balance, those of us in public office have a duty to speak with candor." (the irony drips, on today, the start of the Enron trials, the furor over FISA, Rove's role in Plamegate, etc...Again, I remind you that my opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the editors and participants of TOD)

9:30 "Saudi Arabia has taken the first steps of reform - now it can offer its people a better future by pressing forward with those efforts. Democracies in the Middle East will not look like our own, because they will reflect the traditions of their own citizens." (what, exactly, does that mean? Universal health care? Education for everyone? Maybe we Americans should reflect on our own "traditions". Sorry, that was a cheap one. We have no idea what a "democratic" Saudi Arabia would look like.)

9:35 "Previous presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have - and Federal courts have approved the use of that authority." (That's exactly the point! It's absolutely essential to our right to privacy that Federal courts approve the wiretap requests every time.)

9:37 "Our economy is healthy, and vigorous" (Really? 'Cuz that's not exactly what we reported the other day.)

9:39 "In a dynamic world economy, we are seeing new competitors like China and India." and "We hear claims that immigrants are somehow bad for the economy - even though this economy could not function without them." (True enough. I like to hear some reality interspersed in the SotU from time to time.)

9:41 "Every year of my presidency, we have reduced the growth of non-security discretionary spending" (who wants to get on how much security spending has exploded in the past 6 years? And how security spending has way overtaken the cuts in so-called discretionary spending?)

9:42 "This year, the first of about 78 million Baby Boomers turn 60, including two of my Dad's favorite people - me, and President Bill Clinton." (Hey guys! The joke! Did you laugh?)

9:44 "Keeping America competitive requires us to open more markets for all that Americans make and grow. One out of every five factory jobs in America is related to global trade, and we want people everywhere to buy American." (Oh my. Or is he including all of those factories that Dell and Nike open in other countries as "American factory jobs"?)

9:48 Here we go! Wheeee! "So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative - a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants; revolutionary solar and wind technologies; and clean, safe nuclear energy." (And another chance to say "nucular"! No, but seriously. Solar and wind = good. Nuclear, maybe. Are zero-emission coal-fired plants really possible? Zero emission?)

9:50 "We will also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn but from wood chips, stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years. Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025." (Sweet! Biofuels with a 25:1 EROEI by 2025! Peak oil schmeak oil! Ok, he didn't say that. But as I've said so many times before, I'll believe it when I see it.)

9:52 "Tonight I propose to train 70,000 high school teachers, to lead advanced-placement courses in math and science ... bring 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in classrooms" (Hey, Super G was just talking about this kind of idea this morning. SG wants to see a program that gives unemployed PhDs [in science and all other fields] research time in trade for teaching in high schools. Maybe Bush will listen to his proposal!)

9:55 "They are concerned about unethical conduct by public officials, and discouraged by activist courts that try to redefine marriage." (Yeah, I'm discouraged by activist courts that try to take away my right to choose--again, my own opinion here)

9:57 "creating human-animal hybrids" (Seriously?!? Is someone trying to do that? I'm glad to see that Kevin Drum is just as incredulous.)

10:00 "As we recover from a disaster, let us also work for the day when all Americans are protected by justice, equal in hope, and rich in opportunity." (Yeah, seriously. I just hope that New Orleans residents get the good news.)

10:02 "We have entered a great ideological conflict we did nothing to invite." (OK, let's be serious for a moment here. Just as all other Americans, I was horrified by 9/11, but this statement is rather disingenuous. He means to say that we did nothing to invite violent attack, but what he actually says is that America the great superpower did nothing to cause a worldwide ideological gulf. I am profoundly uncomfortable by this type of simplification.)

Thanks to Raw Story for the advance copy that allowed for very quick liveblogging. And now for the Democratic Response.

10:20 Wow. I'm not even motivated to snark about this. It's so dry.

10:22 Blah blah Virginia blah blah. Is it really so good? Any VA residents among our readers?

10:24 "Democrats at both the state and national levels are leading the way on energy reforms, calling for greater public investments for alternative, advanced energy technologies." (Well, it seems we're all on the same page here. So when are we going to see real change on the energy front?!)

10:25 "The Administration is falling behind in other critical areas; preserving our environment, keeping our workplaces safe, protecting family farms, keeping jobs in America." (Indeed. Too bad the minority party response is necessarily so vacuous.)

I've been thinking about Jimmy Carter lately, kinda being in his head before giving this speech. It would not be the happy clappy crap of this one, it would be a sober and reasonable assessment, no scope for gratuitous applause in the body. When concluded it might be a stoney silence or a standing ovation, that would depend on the wisdom of the audience.

Oil bit starting, timing...

Official text of speech is here

Number of times mentioned:
"oil" =     3 times (3x)
"energy" =  8x
"ethanol"  = 2x

"terror" = 20x
"must" = 20x
"enem[y]"=  8x
"intelligence" = 1x ... hmm
"only" = 11x
"course" [stay the] = 0
"course" [math and that other fuzzy stuff] = 2x

Democracy fights terror? So how bout when HAMAS gets elected?
While I agree with your scepticism on Hamas etc I counsel we wait and see how that political reality plays out.
Bush uttered Iran and Palestine(hamas) in the same breath. Will this get ramped up in the future? Drawing weak connections between future war-hawk dream targets?!?
When terror becomes legitimized it wears a new military like. Ok, try again, maybe this is better...its like blowing up a train station from 20,000 feet. Now those guys flying bombers aren't terrorists, no way, no way...
When terror becomes legitimized it wears a new uniform...

Speaking of uniforms, the TV cameras flashed at plenty of soldiers garbed in their pro-war and pro-killing costumes last night. Unfortunately for Cinderella Sheehan, she was out of fashion and out of luck at the Petro Prince's Ball. Probably the slippers didn't match with the message. Story with photos here.
I don't believe democracy is either a blanket cure for the world's ills nor even suitable for all. It was supposedly invented in Athens and has been traveling westward ever since, except for rather rare diversions from time to time. My opinion is that it is not well known nor well understood worldwide. If it were, there would be a hell of a lot less countries with the devision of rich and poor is so prominate. Evidence that democracy is not applied equally, or the poor would obviously vote themselves money. The concept is not clearly understood by millions that have had "democracy" imposed on them, democracy "given" to them, democracy taken away from them and democracy misapplied on them for centuries. Usually democracy means the strongest or richest tribe survives, as America well knows. Democracy requires discipline, education, idealizm and tradition to be successful. Be careful what you wish for, as it may come true.
all this freedom bullshit pisses me off when he arrested sandy sheehan so she couldn't go to the speech... yea, we're real free...
light 299,

We try to keep profanity off this blog.

Sheehan will be able to run against my senator, Feinstein, this June, so yes there is a lot of freedom here.

We are not perfect. But I recall when writing BLACK PRINCE that East Germany had 17,000,000 files on their own people and the democratic nation of Italy, in NATO, illegally, had 17,000 files on people in Italy.

Both were wrong, but there is an element of balance and perspective.

sorry, that was a quote quickly taken from an IM conversation I was having... will be more mindful in the future
Evidently, you have not had them use private information about you to try and screw with someone's life. Trust me, our snoops have plenty of files too.

Is being able to get your name on a ballot really very substantial evidence for the existence of freedom? Heck, the Caesars had a Senate. If Cindy had FREEDOM, she could probably get an audience with the Dear Leader. Even the much maligned (but as Dave would remind us, beloved and esteemed) Saudi Kings sometimes give subjects an audience.

I tend to fallback on the definition of freedom once put forth, on a 4th of July, by radio personality Travis T. Hipp. "If you have to ask permission, you ain't free."

So, we are not feudal serfs, yet. But, we are on our way.

Who did you have to ask for permission to post that comment?

I considered posting an appropriate response to your comment, but it might have annoyed you. Therefore, in consideration of a recently adopted law, I decided just to acknowledge that I had read it.

Thank you very much.

That should be 6,000,000 files on a nations population of 17,000,000 - quite a record for any nation, but says it all about East Germany.
Why do they need the hundreds of millions files from Google? And who's we???
Huffington does a "freedom" count here.

Personally, I appree-she-ate-it that the President did not pronounciate "appreciate" even once. He did, as others note here, go the "nuke-you-Lear" route a couple of times. Obviously it was a subtle paying of homage to Shakespeare and his love for ambiguous messages.

Before I thought that if you were outside the US border, ie. Guantanamo and the rest of the world, it was obvious that the principles of the US Constitution were not applicable to any of us. Now I see that it doesn't matter where you are.
did you know, Iraq has become more radicalized since we invaded.
and your evidence to support this assertion is . . . .?
Saddam was a SECULAR leader. And, btw, Iraq was a REPUBLIC (just like America), not a dictatorship.
But the real mission was to destroy Iraq, hobble it, put it back in the dark ages and install a radical regime, Just like Kosovo....Mission Accomplised. I used to be a republican until I gave up voting because I felt ill going to the polls
"...Iraq was a REPUBLIC (just like America),..."

San Francisco was not given the same treatment as Dujail after an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate a president occurred there.  And while Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have occasionally (and rightly) disapproved of US practices, they were positively scathing toward the indemic torture and mass murder that occurred under the Saddam regime. (From the AI horse's mouth:

More to the point, there were five US presidents between 1979 and 2003, but only one Iraqi president.  Those five US presidents had to contend with a Congress which often opposed their initiatives.  The sole Iraqi president did not.  Iraq may have been technically a republic, but it was far from democratic, and it was decidedly not "just like America".

Higher number of suicide bombings... maybe????
Here's what the text of the speech, given to the press ahead of time, says about energy:

Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. Here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.

The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly 10 billion dollars to develop cleaner, cheaper, more reliable alternative energy sources - and we are on the threshold of incredible advances. So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative - a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants; revolutionary solar and wind technologies; and clean, safe nuclear energy.

We must also change how we power our automobiles. We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen. We will also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn but from wood chips, stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years. Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment ... move beyond a petroleum-based economy ... and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past.

Well, I guess that answers the "conservation" question ... no mention.
As the Veep famously sneered: 'Conservation may be a personal virtue" or something to that effect.  After this must be how Bush has resolved all of his addictions.
There has been much pre-spin  on that, if it is the best he comes up with then I call him Nero.
It's about as much as can be expected, I think.  At least he's talking about being independent of the Middle East, instead of the "energy dividend" we could get by "liberating" them.  

What I wonder is how serious he is.  Remember the big new project from last year (or was it the year before)?  The manned mission to Mars.  NASA got all excited, but no one else did, and he pretty much dropped it.

LOL!  Talk certainly is cheap.

But hey, making our dependence on the Middle East a thing of the past seems like a quantum leap above merely being "less dependent."

Not that I think it's actually happening any time soon...

Does this sound to anyone like a cigarette company exec. admitting that cigarettes are addictive? "Now pay close attention to my right hand while my left sells cancer to children."  Please! I think he's sipping light sweet crude in that glass of his. Nothing wets an oilman's whistle like some "addictive" oil.
Completely, sneakpeak, well summarised
Were you perhaps referring to this?

No Peaksqueek is into the pure ethanol again.
In fairness, as I scan the old SOTUs I can see that this is greatly expanded.  I suppose the next thing will be to see how the message "sticks" in the media.
Like with hydrogen cars two years ago it's all "more research".  It's just a way to do nothing without looking like it.  To become energy independent in twenty years someone would actually have to go out and spend some actual money right now.
I hope they'll take IOU's The checkbook's empty.

Bush: ". . .increased funding for alternative fuel. . ."

Cheney: " actually, George, it'll be cheaper to just invade Iran"

Remember that $10 billion spent on energy R&D since 2001 is about equal to the profit Exxon Mobil made in four months last year.
YES!!  it's alot of "do as I say, not as I do." If the oil companies put very VERY little money back into R&D and basic maintenance of existing equipment (as posted in earlier threads) shouldnt we scream FOUL!!!???  Rhetoric, anyone?
We should scream WINDFALL PROFITS TAX!
I'm impressed that GW has spoken coherently for 30 minutes, he's gone up one notch for me for that.
You mean he actually read a prepared statement coherently for 30 minutes.  Speak extemporaneously is another something else. Yes, that does put him up a notch.  
From the press release;

"... move beyond a petroleum-based economy ..."

What is the above statement about?

Ethanol, solar, wind, hydrogen, and of course, "nucular."
Say, just what percentage of oil imports does the U.S. get from the Middle East anyway? That is way different than 75 percent reduction of all oil imports.
9:30 I just heard "nucular" again :)
I've seen that as a drinking game. In fact, there have been a number of wildly popular and successful drinking games based on King George's SOTU speeches to date.  
I guess it helps to do a little imbibing when sitting and listening to Bush's speeches.
sound5960: then u'r program hasn't worked
sound5960: how long till he mentions 9-11
zgiles: already did
sound5960: again
sound5960: here it comes
zgiles: patriot act!
sound5960: 9-11
sound5960: 9-11
sound5960: 9-11
sound5960: BINGO
zgiles: hahahaa
k, at most 2 mins on energy, all vacuous, probably better than i expected but certainly worse than required :-((
A profoundly pathetic heap of tosh is my considered opinion. But delivered better than expected. 4/10 is my verdict, and most of that for competent delivery.
I'd give him 8/10 for delivery, 3/10 for content and 0/10 for consistency with his administration's previous direction and actions (and probable future direction, his probably empty words tonight notwithstanding).
the fact that he has to speak against the people who feel culture is crashing shows there's a problem
That culture crashing comment caught my attention.
Yeah, but no mention of Inflation-Wizard Greenspan. The deficit is goin' up up UP!!!!!!!! Make the birth-tax permanent.
I, for one, welcome our human/animal hybrid overlords.
Here! Here!
Looks like they were showing The Fly at the White House last night.
I heard it was Spiderman.
Nice guesses, but it could only have been The Island of Doctor Moreau. Spiderman and The Fly are about human-insect hybrids.
Yeah, but Moreau is French and Dubya would never ever watch anything French.
Hey! I like the birds, lizards, snakes I know and talk to often. (best I not tell you about the spiders...)
I must admit, when he mentioned animal/human hybrids, I thought of those "Bush or Chimp" graphics that circulate around the net...
Hyena-Swine: There is no pain, there is no law!
I guess the bit about valuing and protecting human life doesn't apply to the prisoners in Gitmo......
Limited to "unborn human life," after that you're on your own.
How much switch grass does it take to equal the energy in a barrel of oil? How much land does it take to grow that much grass (or the equivalent amount of corn)? How much land does America have?
If anyone answers these 3 questions I think they will quickly loose faith in ethanol.
-Stop the Iran war-
You can google it, but I think switchgrass for ethanol requires that the "cellulosic" methods come on-line.  I think they are all in the research stage.

On the other hand, switchgrass for home heating (in pellet stoves) is just starting commercially.

Maybe the plan is to get every American so drunk we don't care when gas hits $5/gal.
How much switch grass does it take?

Who cares?
Bush has already signed Uncle Sam up to buy Crawford Brand Switch Grass (tm) for the next 10 years at a fair and balanced price.

Word is that there Kerry Flip Flop Grass (tm) don't burn so good in 'yer basic Halliburton Brand Grass-fed Boiler (tm). So I would stick with Crawford Brand if I was you. Good question cowboy!

With five minutes of Google you can get solid answers to each of these questions. Instead of snearing, why don't you get some facts and learn to do the math? Or if you are innumerate, at least check the numbers that others have done and posted and have been checked by competent engineers and scientists.
I have, and there seems to be much discord, I agree, the U.S. has billions of acres of arable land, and 1 acre of corn could produce around 300 gallons of ethanol, however, we DO consume 24mbpd, and from what I've heard the EROEI for ethanol is nowhere near as good as that for LSC. However, I suppose we could cover half the country with corn if in the end it has an EROEI of 1.2....
Nonetheless, that much corn would require alot of water...
Plus, burning ethanol still puts massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Though some 'experts' contend that global warming is not a serious issue.
Thank you
  1. Roughly 4 tons.
  2. On the order of 1/2 acre currently, perhaps .25-.3 acre if projected yields pan out.
  3. America planted about 80.7 million acres of corn in 2004.

isn't that only a few days of US consumption for a seasons effort?
Quite right.
Pardon, I erred.  A barrel of crude oil is 6.1 GJ according to my reference, while a ton of biomass is ~16 GJ.  This makes a barrel roughly .4 ton of biomass.  (Better, but still not good enough with current technology.)
no problemo, an error factor of 10 doesn't bother me. Two weeks or so is still a piss in the bucket.
Is that ~16GJ after conversion to ethanol? There must be some serious caloric losses in the conversion process.
Is that ~16GJ after conversion to ethanol?
No, that's direct yield for e.g. boiler fuel.
There must be some serious caloric losses in the conversion process.
If Iogen's figures are typical (330 liters ethanol per ton of biomass), losses run about 52-54%.
2004 Corn production :11.8 billion bushels, or 146Bu/acre, Seems High.
It was a record harvest.
Very believable bummer.

Now, WTF does that surprise you, FFS? (if FFS hasn't made it to the acronym list: For F*x Sake)

Our dependence on imported oil increased under Bush.  It also increased under Clinton.  Democrats may use the issue to criticize Bush when they are in opposition, but what would they actually do when in power?  The problem of U.S. dependence on imported oil is profound and structural.  Jimmy Carter offerred us a different path ( and the American people rejected it.  So, he changed course and announced the Carter doctrine: we will use force to maintain our 25 percent of the world's annual production of oil.  What we see in Iraq today is not the Bush Doctrine, it's the Carter doctrine (sorry, Jimmy!)  
No.  The Carter Doctrine was that we would maintain stability.

The later (and foolish) Bush Doctrine was that we would try to create an alternate reality.

Clinton had a Republican congress and senate. Bush Jr. has a Republican congress and senate. Bush Jr. does not have an excuse like Clinton did.
Well, maybe after November he can start blaming Democratic control of congress and the senate.
Can you cite evidence to support your last three assertions? If not, I suggest you retract them and apologize.
This is a blog, not a scholarly journal. Assertions without evidence are acceptable, and members of the community need not apologize for them or retract them. Individual members of the community can decide for themselves how valuable a statement is.
Besides, the Democrats should take a lesson from the Neocons and just lie through their teeth. Evidence!? Where was the Evidence for Iraq's WMD's!?! If the president does not need to support his claims before starting a war....
America is currently controlled by a 'faith' based party. Unfortunately there is a big mean real world out there and it's about to smack society around a bit.
I agree with this, but do this that assertions that are backed by evidence are better than those that are not.

So while I agree that assertions without evidence are acceptable, I think falsehoods are not. How can we tell the difference? Calls for evidence have to be acceptable too.

It is very hard to have a productive debate and move forward, if the dialogue becomes a contest of unsupported assertions. TOD has developed a strong reputation by being analytical and factbased. Let's keep it that way.

This comment refers to assertions and evidence in general, not the specific comments being discussed.

Well said.
The assertions were linked to documents that supported the assertions and themselves seemed well researched and included still further links.  You can take issue with the assertions by attempting to debunk the linked evidence, but you can't fault Super G for not supporting his assertions.
If W were actually an intelligent and well-informed person--which he is not--I might actually give a shit about what he says. In fact, he is a mouthpiece for the neo-cons that he aligned himself to get elected in 2000 (????) and 2004 (????).

We used to have all sorts of yellow or orange or red terrorism alerts all the time before the 2004 election. Have we had one since November of 2004? W couldn't possibly have an original and innovative thought about our financial, energy, etc. woes in any circumstances that I can think of. The reason for this is simple--he is a tool and a moron controlled by people who have ongoing self-serving and greedy agendas.

Screw it.

Fallacy of questionable interpretation: A strong argument can be made that it is because of the Bush administration's effective antiterrorism efforts that there has been no repetition of 9-11.

Have you even considered this interpretation?

Or is your ad hominem bias too strong to consider that possibility?

Don, would you say that this administration has been ineffective in it's attempts to capture bin Laden? I heard  alot of Democratic rhetoric in the SotU tonight ("Let the Eagle Soar. . .") but very little of real substance. What gives??
to be clear read "democratic" as in the sense of Democracy, not as it pretains to the democratis party
Listen, the US couldn't (still can't) deal with capturing Sadaam, somebody supposedly hated by millions. How the hell are they going to deal with Osama, supposedly adored by millions? Make him a marter? The absoute last thing anybody in the US administration needs is to capture Osama alive. He will be killed by a "bomb that he himself was working on when it happened to explode". Until then, nobody will find him.
You mistake an untestable hypothesis for a strong argument. I can rattle off 4 simple ways to devastate the U.S., which could easily be done, yet for fear of the NSA watching I must be careful. Know this, you are no safer today than you were on September 10th 2001.
any high school student could think of a dozen ways to disrupt  the power grid, water supply or interstate highways, good god, these thing collapse on themselves regularly without anyone trying. So good night agent 007.. and good night to all the boogey man terrorists out there as well.
good night to all the boogey man terrorists out there

Here. Hear.
Everytime Bushie Boy gets in trouble for spying 'n lying, Osama Man dons his terror robe and conveniently comes out for a showing.
Kind of reminds you of that movie, The Village, don't it?
I've considered it, but dismissed it.  Al-Qaeda is a loosely organized network, which means it's as hard to kill as a hydra.  Even if we do get bin Laden, al-Qaeda will go on.  OTOH, that loose organization means they cannot attack us very often.  It took them years to prepare for 9/11, and will doubtless take them years to prepare for the next attack.  It was eight years between the first World Trade Center attack and the second.  And the second was a lot more expensive than the first.  (Their shoestring budget was evident in the first attack: they were caught because one of them tried to get the deposit back on the exploded rental van.)

So even if we did nothing, I would not expect another attack during Bush's time in office.

I would not argue with you about Bush's intellectual ability. However I have a little different take on it.

People in the public eye can often be better thought of as parts of teams than as lone individuals. The person the public sees is the public image. He or she is surrounded by a team of experts in the various fields necessary for success. You see this not only in politics but also with actors and even sometimes athletes. Success requires not only the individual with the talent that the public sees (communication skills, for politicians), but also a team backing him up that comes up with ideas, policies, analyses, and performs the political negotiations necessary for the public persona to be seen as successful.

In this sense, it doesn't matter of George W. Bush is the greatest genius the world has ever seen, or a trained chimpanzee. What matters is his policies and his skill at implementing them (that is, his team's policies and his team's skill at implementing them). And of course, there is much to criticize there as well, although frankly I don't see many political teams that do all that much better - governing at this level is inherently difficult.

Unfortunately, as long as we cling to the myth of the president as an individual rather than as part of a team, we won't evaluate presidental candidates in the proper terms. People mostly judge them on communication skills, as long as the team doesn't come up with any excessively outrageous ideas. If we thought of the president as basically a glorified PR guy for his administration, we would be more likely to evaluate them on the basis of their ideas and policies, rather than their smiles and hair.

Halfin, this is a very important point. We're not electing an individual contributor, we're electing a team leader.
Who's with me?
Ladies, Gentlemen,

Can I suggest that this is indeed the "same ol' same ol'" but at least, for an oil man, from an oil family and a very Red state (how fitting) that seems to be getting climately hotter, what more can you expect? - but at least he calls it an addiction.

The return to some of the pursuits that Carter had are going to happen because both parties can agree on that. SYNM is a good investment right now.

But a fundamental change in political leadership is needed in 2006 and in 2008. And even than it may not be right, err, correct.

P.S. don't move to Texas.

talking head on TV just claimed that we're gonna sell 1.1 million hybrid cars IN 2025. . .anyone know how to manufacture a car without lots and lots of oil??
1.1 million on 2025? Gee, the numbers I've seen suggest it'll be closer to 1.19 million. Anyone predicting car sales 19 years out is...something less than a talking head.
I remember a few years ago when the marketing guys at a company I worked for gave a presentation on future sales of a product that had at that time only been given away. "First year $2 million , second year $4.5 million, third year $14.8 million." At the time I was questioning the 14.8, maybe they should round it up to 15 or make it 14 to be conservative. hmmm.... After all who could see that far out in the future? In the end the product did move, but BFI (a waste management company) was the only one who picked it up.
quick, somebody put her in touch with an AP science teacher. and for God's sake, teach the president how to pronounce nu-cle-ar and terror-ist
teach the president how to pronounce nu-cle-ar and terror-ist

I suspect Rove has calculated that the President endears more people than he annoys with his folksy mis-pronunciations.

It's not really a mispronunciation.  That is how they pronounce it down south.  Jimmy Carter said it that way, too, and he was a nucular engineer.
In an Edwin O'Connor novel, All in the Family, I think, the old pol notes that the difference between a (diocesan) priest and a Jesuit is that the diocesan says 'nucular.'

I think of that every time I hear nucular.

Yes, Henry Ford manufactured cars with little energy from oil. Incidentally, the Model A Ford was designed to run on ethanol as well as gasoloine; Ford envisioned farmers producing their own fuel for cars and tractors. He was also a great advocate of the soybean and making things out of and doing things with soybeans.

Not all good ideas are recent.

Don, Can you suggest a way that an american auto company could produce, market, and sell 1.1 MILLION hybrid vehicles in one year(2025) with complete independence from foreign oil? Miracles by the hand of God excluded.
anyone know how to manufacture a car without lots and lots of oil??
Lots of people did, and still do.  Henry Ford used a lot more coal than oil.

Not the answer you wanted, I'm sure.  If we're going to keep making cars with less fossil stuff, we're going to have to learn to make polymers and such from biomaterials and shape them without lots of wasted energy.  This looks doable, but it's going to take a lot more cleverness than today's brute-force methods.

I think it was Monbiot who retracted his
previous support for ethanol/biofuels in the
light of evidence that energy equivalent of
current levels of oil consumption amounts to
around seven times the entire vegetative growth
on this planet. ie it would take around seven
Earth's to supply the world with enough biofuel
to maintian current levels of consumption.

Bearing in mind that the US uses one quarter of
the world's oil, to supply it with biofuels would
require only 1 3/4 planets. But if George's plan is
to make the US 75% self-sufficient, that will
only require 1 1/4 or 1 1/2 Earths. (assuming
complete annihilation of all animal life and all
non-American life). So if he can fund a scheme to
convert the entire surface of the Moon into a
productive colony, he could just be in with a
chance of success.....

Of course we all know the rort of the hydrogen
economy would have to get a mention. What
better way to billions of dollars of tax-payer
money down the drain, or into the pockets of the
scam artists who are working that particular

A return on energy investment of around 0.7
using horrendously expensive technology
-what a great way to 'solve' an energy crisis!

I've thought of a brilliant way to solve the Peak Oil problem that we face. Install driveshafts to all of the graves of the founding fathers of the US connected to electric generators. Keep GW speaking, (keep him going, maybe give him some more liquor, or maybe play a tape loop of this latest horror show over a loudspeaker) The constant spinning of the graves will create enough energy for all of us.
NIMBY!!!   heheheh
<sarcasm>Wow, I was really impressed right at the start with this statement from Bush: "On September 11th, 2001, we found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state seven thousand miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country. Dictatorships shelter terrorists, feed resentment and radicalism,...".    I never would have expected GW to come down so hard on those Saudis. Who needs their stinking oil, it's getting all heavy and sour anyway? </sarcasm>  
New SOTU thread started up above gang...with a link to the White House press release (with a few details) and a link to the Apollo legislation that was proposed a while back...
Since no one has answered Bigelow's comment yet:

"Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025."

"make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."

I thought we didn't get much oil from the Middle East? Is this weasel-wording to set a very easy target, or is it rhetoric to make people buy his plan by tying it to terrorism?


Correct, only about 1/5th of total US oil imports come from the Middle East.
Oops, make that about 1/4th.

"This is illusory to me. I don't think this means anything," said Frank Verrastro, an energy expert at the Center for Strategic International Studies, a conservative think tank in Washington.

Only about a quarter of the oil that the United States imports today comes directly from the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait together accounted for 2.1 million barrels per day of the 9.2 million barrels a day that the United States imported during the first 11 months of 2005.

Thus the United States would still crave foreign oil even if it somehow managed to stop importing any oil directly from the Middle East, Verrastro noted.

Besides, oil is a commodity freely traded on global markets. Bush offered no explanation for how oil importers would selectively stop buying Middle East oil.

"How do you get large-scale importers to preferentially focus on non-Middle East sources?" asked Ken Stern, an energy analyst for FTI Consulting in New York. "It seems to me that without an economic driving force, it's much more words than action."

I think that we only get about a fifth of our oil from the ME, so a 75% reduction would only be about 3 mbd.

I think that this goal will be easily achieved, but oil production will be down by 75% by 2025.  If it doesn't exist, you can't import it.

ROFL!  That's hilarious!