State of the UnionFollow

Was it just me, or did the second half of the State of the Union Address seem more like a platform for Dubya to push his new troop deployment and re-instill fear and patriotism into the American public? There also seemed to be a lot more clapping than actual addressing.

He also talked about alternative fuel sources, domestic welfare, etc, but I imagine that was just an effort to get on the good side of a Democratic Senate.

Thoughts?

And yet I see neither "positive solutions" nor any semblence of independent thought from you. Try thinking objectively for once, but make sure not to break anything.

Given the situation, more troops makes a heck of alot of sense to me. People keep thinking of it as more troops = more poor defensless targets, but whatever else you want to say about the military and the recruits it tends to attract, they do get the best military training and equipment in the world. Having enough of them in place to minimize insurgent aid from iran is going to really help with the overall security picture. Strength in numbers. If we just arbitrarily pull out of Iraq, will the US be affected? Probably not. Sure some oil fluctuation, maybe a some more terrorism attempts in the short term, but long term we end up with Afghanistan II.

Cheney looked bored and annoyed during Bush's bit on immigration. You could practically see him rolling his eyes.

Pelosi looked as if she was eating something the entire time. Flea thought she was playing with her dentures.

Both Cheney & Pelosi looked ready to check their watches during the "Great Americans" segment. As a final note about C&P, they both (and Bush) looked as if they were dressed for Easter brunch. What was with all the pastels?

Bush's segment on insurance tax deductability probably didn't resonate with anyone. Don't get me wrong, it might be a fine hum-dinger of a plan. But the mind wanders when you have Bush trying to read off numbers.

As Bush was going on about his "Lower Gasoline Consumption by 20%" plan, I asked Flea "Hey, does this mean he'll stop trying to drill in ANWR?" Then Bush chimed in about "environmentally sensitive drilling." Oh well.

"We must stay until victory is achieved" is pretty much diametrically opposed to "Our committment to the Iraqi government is not open-ended".

I could write a book about No Child Left Behind. Well, a pamphlet, anyway.

I support the idea of increasing our armed forces. I'm a little lost on what the civil volunteer whatever team is supposed to be for.

Maybe it was just the camera angle, but I'm almost certain that McCain fell asleep during part of the speech.

I was impressed that he brought up how ridiculously over paid some of the CEos in this country are. Thought he lost people around the numbers, and dragging out the heroes at the end seemed cheesy and somehow pathetic. Like the pres was begging for folks to like him.

Oh, and just to give equal time in embarassing camera shots, Ted Kennedy looked to be on Death's door with a bottle of whiskey.

NPR's take on the facts of his speech.
Few things make me as angry as No Child Left Behind. Like the war, it's a soundbyte that was used as a campaign tactic, and ultimately, it didn't address anything it was supposed to and may have actually worsened things. If it gets reauthorized at all, it should be with significant edits.

Though I'll doubt the current administration (or any other for that matter)would buy into it, this issue could be resolved with huge buildings that act as hydroponic farms. One massive building or several smaller buildings that provide artificial sunlight, controlled enviroment, reduced maintenance costs per bushel, and nutrient solution all stacked several stories high.

Edited, Jan 24th 2007 8:44am by Rimesume

Damn, i nearly choked on my coke when i read that. The US military would struggle to train a dog to sit still.

You do however have the best equipment.

Fixed for maximum accuracy.

Ethanol lol. There's so much over mal-investment out there in ethanol plants and new ethanol IPOs pop up all the time. Too bad it takes more energy to produce ethanol than is gained from the use of ethanol. The government mandates it, subsidizes it, that's why it exists. But that's big government and liberals for ya, waste a buck to save a dime, create more pollution burning coal to produce ethanol, than is saved from using ethanol instead of gasoline.

That's right, ethanol is economically inefficient. If it was economically efficient it would have evolved on its own in the free market as an alternative fuel. Grow corn. Turn it into ethanol. You don't even have to drill for it. Typical S-A-P-S. And increase the price of corn, make starving people in world less able to afford food. Good job libs. Now I can't even get corn with my Burbon Chicken and potatos at the Cajun Cafe at the mall.

I've seen more than a couple studies which disagree with this.

According to this chart, the industry average (in 1995) for producing ethanol created a 38% gain in energy. I'd assume the technology has gotten better since then on both the agricultural and production ends but a 38% increase is still an increase.

I'm not big into Wiki articles but this one touches on the basics in fairly clear language. Even the most critical report against corn ethanol admitted that using other materials could result in a net energy gain.

So, to clarify, you have no scientific data to back up your claims but you figure that if you make some generalist economic claims gleaned from a couple listenings to Suze Orman, that'll count as proof.

Ok. So long as we're clear.