On Friday, January 27th, Thomas Friedman wrote the following:
"Here's the speech I'll be listening for:
I am here to tell you that if we don't move away from our dependence on oil and shift to renewable fuels, it will change our way of life for the worse — and soon — much, much more than communism ever could have. Making this transition is the calling of our era...
But to lead, we must impose the highest energy-efficiency standards on our own automakers and other industries so we force them to be the most innovative. I want to inspire girls and boys across America to study math, science and engineering to help our nation achieve green energy independence."
After reading Friedman's column and, as usual, agreeing with it, I worried that perhaps Friedman and I had become hopelessly idealist. But the U.S.'s energy dependence so clearly props up the very violent regimes and forces that this country is simultaneously trying to eradicate, that I knew Friedman's ongoing argument would gain traction before long.
Finally, in tonight's State of the Union address, President Bush acknowledged our energy problem, and began the discussion with a poignant declaration: "America is addicted to oil."
Friedman has often equated America's need for oil with a drug addict's need for his drugs. Clearly, Bush heard this message, either directly or indirectly.
It was also nice to hear Bush speak about breaking this addiction to oil and its benefits to both world security as well as the environment. As I've said, this will be a leading issue in the 2008 presidential elections.
Before the speech, analysts said that Bush would try to cast the state of the union in a hopeful tone. Most of the speech was somewhat boring and predictable. But if Bush is right when he says that we can reduce our dependence on Middle East oil by 75% come 2025, this is certainly something to be hopeful for.
Be wary, my friend, be wary. After programs like "No Child Left Behind," and the "Clear Skies," it would seem to me that what the President proclaims is often very different from what he does.
Yes, President Bush mentioned the energy crises last night in his State of the Union Address; he even said that America is addicted to oil. But Bush has made other bold and dramatic proclomations in State of the Union speeches before. He's promised $10 Billion for AIDS in Africa. He's launched a campaign to send an astronaut to Mars.
What President Bush said last night struck me as entirely polictical. Let's go back over a sentence from the Friedman column you quote:
"We must impose the highest energy-efficiency standards on our own automakers and other industries so we force them to be the most innovative."
Did Bush say anything like that at all? No. All he did he promised increased funding for research. Just like he promised funding for AIDS in Africa, just like he promised to send an astronaut to Mars, just like he promised there were Weapons of Mass destruction.
I'll believe it when it'ss in the budget.
Why? Because the one thing I do believe that the President said last night was his earnest hope that Congress will make the tax cuts permanent.
Posted by: Nicholas | Wednesday, February 01, 2006 at 11:30 AM
Last night in listening to the second part of Bush's speech (after he finished all his typcial national security stuff) I was almost feeling a little Republican. I mean, Bush was suggesting just about everything I think the government should be doing such as investing in alternative energy sources and nuclear power, increasing our commitment to math and science in schools, and increasing investments in technological research.
However, upon further reflextion I have to say I am inclined to agree with Nich, at least for now. Given the feeling among many Americans that the U.S. is too reliant on foreign oil, it is a smart move for Bush to say we will reduce our reliance on foreign oil. However, the plans he laid out were so vague as to give me pause that he will actually carry them out fully. Nich is right that Bush did not promise to increase fuel economy standards which could be a significant step in the right direction. Furthermore, upon closer inspection, his pledge to reduce our dependence on mid-east oil by 75% by 2025 may not be as great as it sounds given that the U.S. only gets 20% of its oil from the middle east. Are we actually going to reduce our consumption or just get more oil from Mexico or Venezuela?
Despite these reservations, I am still hopeful that Bush will follow through on at least some of these proposals, but I am highly doubtful that this speech represents any changes in Bush's overall philosphy.
Unfortunatly, the Democrats are so pathetic that it might not matter much what Bush says or does. Unless the Democrats can get off their whiny asses and actually get some ideas out they will continue to be the helpless minority.
Posted by: Dave | Wednesday, February 01, 2006 at 12:36 PM
haha, the blunion. will you please read some more fiction? i should take over your book review section. oh, and your music section too.
Posted by: ferdaline | Wednesday, February 01, 2006 at 09:26 PM
since when is a trite platitude like "we're addicted to oil" poignant? any moron knows that oil is a problem. what is he going to DO about it? probably nothing. getting off of oil is the solution; not just getting off of Middle East oil.
Posted by: Allen | Friday, February 03, 2006 at 08:58 PM
dave has the right idea.
Posted by: Allen | Friday, February 03, 2006 at 08:59 PM
Yes Dave/Nich.
Posted by: Travis | Saturday, February 04, 2006 at 03:18 PM