SOTU Follow-Up
Warning: Political Soapbox Ahead
Mr. President, it is lovely that you are taking such an interest in our nation's energy policy, particularly those objectives of weaning us off of our oil addiction (Catchy, by the way. I think the NRDC has been talking about an addiction for several years now. Like since the 1980s.) and promoting renewable energy sources. But, it's unfortunate that you've just now come to this position. I mean, it's the sixth year of your presidency and your approval ratings are almost at their historical low. Your political clout is limited, as is the time you have to start a new initiative. Where was this sentiment back in 2000, as your administration was crafting its National Energy Policy? Where was this sentiment in 2005, as Congress passed - and you signed - the most sweeping legislative changes to energy policy in more than a decade? Where was this sentiment last fall, as Congress wrangled with the budget bill you sent them? And why, why do you continue to let the American people think the majority of our oil comes from the Middle East? Why didn't you mention that our petroleum imports come from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and Nigeria, in that order? Because you don't want them to know, that's why. Yes, I think that paragraph or two in the State of the Union was nothing more than window dressing. Because if you cared deeply about these issues, you had ample opportunity to do something about it. And you did not.
I have a lot more to say on the subject, but I've got to catch a plane. Talk amongst yourselves.
.jpg){kind=link}
7 Comments:
Preach it, sister! My sentiments exactly. Hey, you want to buy a good oil and gas mutual fund?
I should have added, "Disclaimer, Disclaimer, Disclaimer, Just Kidding, I'm not serious, ask for a prospectus, etc, etc."
Without even reading it, I have this to say: Leave it to a government employee to acronymize (put the stress on the "cron") the words "State of the Union." Beltway insider nerd alert in effect.
Now I didn't have a chance to watch the Ess-Oh-Tee-You myself (my apologies for being a hard-working blue-collar American), but I'm sure that if Bush didn't delve into the "specifics" of these trivial policy issues that California liberals such as yourself keep harping on in an attempt distract freedom-lovers from his successes at home and abroad, it was merely because he saw an important opportunity to use his prime-time platform to call together the nations of the world in a stand against the genocidal atrocities being committed today in Darfur. I mean, hello, if there's anything a compassionate America is not about, it's genocide, and I'm pretty sure our straight-talking president wouldn't mince words about it.
He did mention Darfur, right?
So Miss Queen when you say that Canada is the leading exporter of oil to this country are you suggesting that we invade Canada? Cuz I think the Cannucks have had it coming for awhile now.
Amen, amen, amen! I'm up late, unleashing a fury of venting myself, so it was nice to follow up my own purging by reading yours. I couldn't bear to watch him myself. His midnight redemption attempts have been rather amusing, particularly since they're failing so miserably. I once told a friend that I felt guilty for wanting to see the man fail, especially since it usually affects the people around him more than it affects him, but as he wisely responded, "There's nothing wrong with expecting consequences to attend the stupid decisions that people make, so stop feeling guilty and schadenfraude away!"
Of all times for the president to discover metaphor, he does it when talking about reliance on oil.
'Yeah, that thing I said about reducing consumption? ... well, that was kind of like, you know, an example. You know, like when Teddy Kennedy's brother said we should land a man on the moon. He didn't really mean it. Put a man on the moon? That's just crazy! Now watch this drive.'
Post a Comment
<< Home