Liveblogging the State of the Union
Posted by Yankee on January 31, 2006 - 11:27pm
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...)
9:24 "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.)
is one place to watch online...
Oil bit starting, timing...
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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: http://tinyurl.com/3abxh)
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".
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.
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.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/1/31/16738/2636
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...
http://www.exxposeexxon.com/movie
Bush: ". . .increased funding for alternative fuel. . ."
Cheney: " actually, George, it'll be cheaper to just invade Iran"
"... move beyond a petroleum-based economy ..."
What is the above statement about?
I guess it helps to do a little imbibing when sitting and listening to Bush's speeches.
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
If anyone answers these 3 questions I think they will quickly loose faith in ethanol.
-Stop the Iran war-
On the other hand, switchgrass for home heating (in pellet stoves) is just starting commercially.
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!
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.
If Iogen's figures are typical (330 liters ethanol per ton of biomass), losses run about 52-54%.
Now, WTF does that surprise you, FFS? (if FFS hasn't made it to the acronym list: For F*x Sake)
http://theslide.blogspot.com/2006/01/who-killed-american-dream.html
The later (and foolish) Bush Doctrine was that we would try to create an alternate reality.
Well, maybe after November he can start blaming Democratic control of congress and the senate.
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.
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.
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.
Have you even considered this interpretation?
Or is your ad hominem bias too strong to consider that possibility?
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?
So even if we did nothing, I would not expect another attack during Bush's time in office.
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.
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.
I suspect Rove has calculated that the President endears more people than he annoys with his folksy mis-pronunciations.
I think of that every time I hear nucular.
Not all good ideas are recent.
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.
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
rort.
A return on energy investment of around 0.7
using horrendously expensive technology
-what a great way to 'solve' an energy crisis!
"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?
Chris
"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."
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13759223.htm
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.