Almost Making the Connection
The Emperor's State of the Union Speech wasn't the history making stem-winder his minions touted. In fact, I thought it quite dull for the most part. He didn't tell us peasants anything new, anything we hadn't predicted, given what he's been nattering on and on about this past month. In effect, Mr. Bush signalled his intent to keep on keeping on in Iraq, Iran, the economy, healthcare, and energy dependence. Given his sublime perfectness, we shouldn't have expected anything new.
The NY Times apparently did expect something new, something bold, something that would signal the regime's intention to lead the country out of the moral, economic, and political morass it which it currently resides. In an editorial this morning, the Times actually made a few of the connections as to what underpins the current state of the Union.
President Bush devoted two minutes and 15 seconds of his State of the Union speech to energy independence. It was hardly the bold signal we've been waiting for through years of global warming and deadly struggles in the Middle East, where everything takes place in the context of what Mr. Bush rightly called our "addiction" to imported oil.
Last night's remarks were woefully insufficient. The country's future economic and national security will depend on whether Americans can control their enormous appetite for fossil fuels. This is not a matter to be lumped in a laundry list of other initiatives during a once-a-year speech to Congress. It is the key to everything else. [Emphasis added]
It is no accident that Americans are getting hammered at the pump, regardless of how fuel efficient their cars are, at the same time that ExxonMobil posted the highest annual earnings of any American corporation in history. It is no accident that the area of the world from which we get 75% of our petroleum is also ruled by corrupt and vicious leaders this country has propped up as long as they are friendly to US interests. (It is also no accident that we invade those countries when their leaders stop being so friendly.) It is no accident that most of the 9/11 terrorists come from a nation that has the largest oil reserves.
To be fair, Mr. Bush II cannot be blamed entirely for this state of affairs. It's been decades in coming. He is, however,responsible for a great deal of the deadly intensifying of the problem. The Times' editorialist suggests that the President could and should have proposed bold initiatives in this area: an increase in CAFE standards; a massive infusion of cash into research for alternative sources of energy paid for by a repeal of tax cuts for the wealthiest; an increase in the gas tax to force consumers to conserve. Such bold moves would do a great deal towards lessening our dependence on foreign oil and might also result in a lessening of our dependence on corrupt foreign princes and on our home-grown corporations.
This president is not likely to be so bold. His friends, those who sent him to Washington and who gain most from the status quo would never permit it. Still, it is nice to see the Times actually make a few of those connections.
The NY Times apparently did expect something new, something bold, something that would signal the regime's intention to lead the country out of the moral, economic, and political morass it which it currently resides. In an editorial this morning, the Times actually made a few of the connections as to what underpins the current state of the Union.
President Bush devoted two minutes and 15 seconds of his State of the Union speech to energy independence. It was hardly the bold signal we've been waiting for through years of global warming and deadly struggles in the Middle East, where everything takes place in the context of what Mr. Bush rightly called our "addiction" to imported oil.
Last night's remarks were woefully insufficient. The country's future economic and national security will depend on whether Americans can control their enormous appetite for fossil fuels. This is not a matter to be lumped in a laundry list of other initiatives during a once-a-year speech to Congress. It is the key to everything else. [Emphasis added]
It is no accident that Americans are getting hammered at the pump, regardless of how fuel efficient their cars are, at the same time that ExxonMobil posted the highest annual earnings of any American corporation in history. It is no accident that the area of the world from which we get 75% of our petroleum is also ruled by corrupt and vicious leaders this country has propped up as long as they are friendly to US interests. (It is also no accident that we invade those countries when their leaders stop being so friendly.) It is no accident that most of the 9/11 terrorists come from a nation that has the largest oil reserves.
To be fair, Mr. Bush II cannot be blamed entirely for this state of affairs. It's been decades in coming. He is, however,responsible for a great deal of the deadly intensifying of the problem. The Times' editorialist suggests that the President could and should have proposed bold initiatives in this area: an increase in CAFE standards; a massive infusion of cash into research for alternative sources of energy paid for by a repeal of tax cuts for the wealthiest; an increase in the gas tax to force consumers to conserve. Such bold moves would do a great deal towards lessening our dependence on foreign oil and might also result in a lessening of our dependence on corrupt foreign princes and on our home-grown corporations.
This president is not likely to be so bold. His friends, those who sent him to Washington and who gain most from the status quo would never permit it. Still, it is nice to see the Times actually make a few of those connections.
posted by Diane at 3:49 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home