A Political Rant
Surprise, surprise, I didn't watch the State of the Union address last night. I didn't expect much of out of it and from what I've read I would have gotten exactly that.
I just want to go on a brief rant here about leadership and the environment. Last night, Bush proposed that the nation cut its dependence on foreign oil. He set a goal of replacing 75% of the U.S.'s Mideast oil imports by 2025 with ethanol and other energy sources. On the surface, this sounds great. There is no doubt that our dependence on foreign oil is environmentally damning and politically dangerous. If it weren't for the foreign money flowing into the Middle East, those nations wouldn't have the economic means to wage war on each other or us; it's very hard to throw sand thousands of miles.
But the simple fact is that in 20 years, we will, one way or another, reduce our dependence on oil anyway. It will become too expensive and capitalism, not Bush's feeble call, will drive technological advances. This, of course, presumes that the earth is still inhabitable in 20 years (it may be for us; it's doubtful it will be for polar bears).
John F. Kennedy called for the United States to put a man in the moon in less than 10 years, which was thought to be virtually impossible and yet it happened, even if JFK didn't live to see it. That's leadership, demanding the impossible and yet making it happen. Had Bush said 100% in 10 years, that would have been more impressive.
Bush is too in league with Big Oil to demand such sweeping changes. Further, the speech is just political theater, and whether he follows through on even his feeble goal is doubtful.
Okay, I'll get off the soapbox now. Thanks for listening.
I just want to go on a brief rant here about leadership and the environment. Last night, Bush proposed that the nation cut its dependence on foreign oil. He set a goal of replacing 75% of the U.S.'s Mideast oil imports by 2025 with ethanol and other energy sources. On the surface, this sounds great. There is no doubt that our dependence on foreign oil is environmentally damning and politically dangerous. If it weren't for the foreign money flowing into the Middle East, those nations wouldn't have the economic means to wage war on each other or us; it's very hard to throw sand thousands of miles.
But the simple fact is that in 20 years, we will, one way or another, reduce our dependence on oil anyway. It will become too expensive and capitalism, not Bush's feeble call, will drive technological advances. This, of course, presumes that the earth is still inhabitable in 20 years (it may be for us; it's doubtful it will be for polar bears).
John F. Kennedy called for the United States to put a man in the moon in less than 10 years, which was thought to be virtually impossible and yet it happened, even if JFK didn't live to see it. That's leadership, demanding the impossible and yet making it happen. Had Bush said 100% in 10 years, that would have been more impressive.
Bush is too in league with Big Oil to demand such sweeping changes. Further, the speech is just political theater, and whether he follows through on even his feeble goal is doubtful.
Okay, I'll get off the soapbox now. Thanks for listening.