2006 State of the Union: Analysis, Reaction, and Discussion

Mr44 makes good points about energy conservation vs. convenience.

There has to be a fundamental and radical change - akin to the invention of the automobile itself - to institute true severance of our dependency of foreign oil.

It's a shame that both parties don't give it all they have to look out for the best interests of this nation rather than playing their usual political games with the issue.

I am hopeful that this is one issue that something can be done.

American business would tremendously profit from getting off their proverbial asses and getting back into the entrepreneurial spirit with the drive for invention that individuals like Edison had.

 

Excellent, two examples in one post.

1) C-span does not get a free pass. C-span, as I said in response to KK, in a language you can't read, is no different from a library. I contains propaganda, but presents it as part of a larger picture; as information and not as a means of a given conclusion. The larger picture is the history of broadcasting government proceedings, uncut, that C-span can claim. If C-span offered only the 9/11 hearings, or the Clinton impeachment, then you could ask "C-span has a free pass?"

2) Not a spelling error, a typo. My catching it should suggest that I can spell the word; however, you still called it a spelling error. How do you know it wasn't a joke? (Huk't 'n fonikc werct 4 mi!)

Now lets go back to school. The above was information. I used it for an argument and a conclusion, which makes it propaganda. Fox News, and any other news channel that saw fit to broadcast the uncut SOTU as a means of pertinacious emphasis or inflexible argument cannot be correctly called fair, objective, balanced, or even worth air-time. Anyone that doesn't acknowledge this, and the difference between information and conclusion needs to work on their inductive reasoning. The same kind of reasoning that would have screamed "TYPO!" instead of "Oh snap! I got him now!"

Bubba, I'm not sure if any evidence would convince you that there is a deep connection, even if only philosophical, between misinformation, industrial-news outlets, and politicians.

Use...ellipses.......all you want........we...see through.....your facade. Improper use of punctuation is not an argument. Stick to Java.

 

I thought that this was pretty funny. Just thought I'd share it with Ya'll.

 

Tre, I'm glad we're having this discussion through the written word; the shrill tone is almost unbearable as it is, so I'm grateful I don't have to hear it.

Your assertion was probably due a bit more courtesy than I gave it, so I apologize for that, but I still don't find the assertion credible.

You write, "Fox News, and any other news channel that saw fit to broadcast the uncut SOTU as a means of pertinacious emphasis or inflexible argument cannot be correctly called fair, objective, balanced, or even worth air-time."

Can you prove that the reason Fox News rebroadcast the speech uncut was "pertinacious emphasis or inflexible argument"? Or do you have a really good reason for believing that? If it's conjecture, and it almost certainly must be, then I believe you ought to reserve judgment for those who have other theories about why it was rebroadcast and those who do not have a definite theory.

Like it or not, the SOTU has been a major news event for years, and 24-hour news channels have a lot of airtime to fill. Fox News' decision to rebroadcast the speech uncut is not necessarily a reflection of idealogical spin. If Fox News, for instance, rebroadcast an uncut version of Bush's convention speech in the '04 campaign but did not do the same for Kerry, you'd have a credible claim of Fox's using the speech to advance an agenda. As it is, there is no Democratic analogue to the Republican president, and there are no real analogues to the President's SOTU address. So proof of an agenda on Fox News' part is naturally hard to come by.

 

Mr. 44, the insinuation was not that you spout propoganda, but that you wholeheartedly support everything Bush does. And again, since when is such name calling allowed in the Senate?

Again, my allegedly misspelling a mod's name on purpose constitutes a ban-worthy trespass, but Mr. 44 calling me Baghdad Bob doesn't even warrant an apology?

 

For anyone curious about Cindy Sheehan's arrest at the SotU (I was, and thought other folks might be too ):

Sheehan was arrested for wearing a t-shirt which read "2245 Dead. How many more?" And she wasn't alone: the wife of Republican Congressman Young was also removed for wearing a t-shirt which read "Support the Troops ? Defending Our Freedom"

Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer has since announced that "Neither guest should have been confronted about the expressive T-shirts."

From the press:

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan and the wife of a powerful GOP lawmaker are free women, with apologies from the Capitol Police chief for ejecting them from President Bush's State of the Union address because they wore T-shirts with war messages.

"The officers made a good faith but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol," Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said in a statement late Wednesday.

"The policy and procedures were too vague," he added. "The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine."

Read the rest here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060202/ap_on_go_co/state_of_union_sheehan_18

 

^^^^ Yeah, but the difference is that Sheehan was actually cuffed, arrested, and detained - while Young was just escorted out. I do actually find that a little disturbing, not to feed into any kind of soap opera.

 

Are you kidding? How anyone can watch that channel and not sense at least a conservative swing is beyond comprehension. I recall an election countdown in 2004. "Only 284 days until President Bush is re-elected." That is pertinacious emphasis or inflexible argument. That is a conslusion in place of journalism.

But I don't have to prove Fox is biased in almost everything they put on the air, or with what ideology they choose to endorse. Someone else already did.

What I have no evidence for, beyond a fallible human memory, is the following:

I'm not actually sure the speech was uncut. It may have been re-cut. There were a few shot sequences that were really well put together. Example: President Bush introducing the family of a fallen soldier -> First Lady turning and shaking thier hands -> President Bush winking (Just enough time in frame to get the wink and the smile) -> Sen. Kerry not standing and clapping, but bending at the waist apparently looking for something with his wife. If that was the way the original sequence was cut, then bravo for the director. Leni would be proud.

I'd like to compare side by side broadcasts, but finding quality high enough to get every frame is difficult.

 

One dirty little secret: Oil is priced high enough that shale and the oil sands of Alberta are now viable. There is also a lot of money available for research and development.

It's been reported that Shell has found a way to make oil shale viable at a price level of $30 a barrel. Colorado alone has at least a trillion barrels worth of the stuff. Utah and Wyoming have a lot, too.

 

One dirty little secret: Oil is priced high enough that shale and the oil sands of Alberta are now viable. There is also a lot of money available for research and development.

It's been reported that Shell has found a way to make oil shale viable at a price level of $30 a barrel. Colorado alone has at least a trillion barrels worth of the stuff. Utah and Wyoming have a lot, too.

What this kind of analysis ignores is the energy return on investment. In other words, accessing the Alberta oil sands is powered by a tremendous expenditure in natural gas, and there is speculation that more energy goes into the excavation and processing than comes out in usable oil. The Nazis made that choice in WW2 for example when they started processing coal into oil at enormous economic and energy cost to keep their war machine going. This is also an ongoing controversy with ethanol. And it's doubly true of shale oil. It may become economically attractive to pursue at a given oil price point, but it may always entail an energy loss. That's what makes oil so irreplacable, and harsh, Federally-mandated conservation an impending and urgent necessity.

It may well be that we need oil for transportation so desperately in the future that we'll accept a net energy loss to make oil availalbe for that purpose or as a feedstock for the petrochemical industry. However, that means that some other alternative energy source will have to be ramped up to make this possible and still let us keep a viable grid for powering businesses and homes with electricity.

Hydrogen is another example of an energy "source" that requires an intensive energy input to access. It either has to be stripped out of natural gas or produced with electricity. This is why the research end is so critical.

What Bush is proposing is not even a drop in an ocean. We've seen the cost of the Iraq war honing in on a third of a trillion dollars. Even spending at that level will not be nearly enough to retool the U.S. economy for energy independence.

 

Disturbing as always. I'll never quite understand the reverence Americans have for their president, he's supposed to be an elected official working for the people, not some monarch you have to cheer for. And this one happens to be a goofball too.

I can't believe he took the isolationist ball and ran with it several times. Why are Americans so gorram dualistic?

 

These are the classic rhetorical maneuvers that distinguish Bush's style as a speaker and why he is so much less popular than, say, Clinton, who did not engage in these kind of lowbrow tactics, e.g.

Either you're with us or against us
Either you're for the Iraq war, or you're an isolationist,
Either you're for an extension of my tax cuts, or you don't believe people have a right to their own money
Either you're for my domestic wiretapping program, or you're against national security.

Etc.