Thursday, February 02, 2006

more SOTU

oh yeah remember that whole "the u.s. is addicted to oil" part of the state of the union address? just kididng

3 comments:

Little Gordie said...

Asked why the president used the words "the Middle East" when he didn't really mean them, one administration official said Bush wanted to dramatize the issue in a way that "every American sitting out there listening to the speech understands."

God, the media are such literalists! Have they no regard for the value of dramatic effect? Hyperbole? Showmanship?

I remember a day when former actors became president, and the eyes of every American sitting out there listening to his speeches would glaze over in the sort of revery reserved for the idolatrous worship of "celebrity". What happened to the good old days...

stridewideman said...

Cap'n: I was giving an information session to Stanford students about how they can do my job and run political campaigns. I missed the speech.

I did hear the press conference during which time he cued the press on what he was waiting on his speech writers to draft him.

I was struck by the fact that he's a lot of fun to listen to. So long as you're not looking for any sort of content, he's absolutely hilarious. The way he'll just talk for a while, and then move on to another question as though he's not just avoided answering a direct question. It's positively beautiful.

The addiction to oil will definitely be broken by his plan for ethanol and hydrogen, both of which are decocted by burning petrol. Fantastic.

Meanwhile, nuclear is great, except we can't even decide where to put the waste we've got now. It sure is fun watching the environmentalist crowd suck each other's dicks over nuclear, begging Big Poppa Cheney for a seat at the table.

Awesome. We need more poorly secured dangerous or toxic materials for terrorists to target. God knows we're not vulnerable enough already.

Incidentally, did you note the Condi appeared to have on the helmet from Spaceballs?

the cold cowboy said...

i too would be okay with nuclear were it not for that whole toxic refuse bummer. but my position has been the same since 4th grade: can't we let nasa dispose of our waste? you know, shoot it off into the sun like in superman 4?

i recently got to ride in a hydrogen powered van with some scientists from GM and Ford - they said it's perfectly feasible that in the future we'd have hydrogen fuel stations powered by solar panels where one can fill up a car with hydrogen fuel that makes water. sounds pretty tight except the car we were riding in cost $1 million to make (not to mention the fuel).

like most great technological advances, the energy problem will have to be solved by massive government investment (the oft-mentioned energy version of the "manhattan project") in infrastructure and science before the private sector can do anything.

but remember: the income tax is a slave tax.