Sunday, February 05, 2006

On the State of the Union, etc.

Well, parts of this post have been percolating for less than a week, and others for several months...or maybe a couple of years. So bear with me.

Tuesday night was the State of the Union: that speech that, for me, is of such great constitutional moment that it is not to be missed--regardless of who the President is. This year's address, like the other twenty-odd SOTU's that I've seen (not that I remember the first few), was a mixed bag. I found myself oscillating between yelling "yes!" and "no!", between smiling and grimacing, at my computer screen as I watched the NBC webcast (definitely one of the "yes!" factors).

And now, as promised explicitly to Victoria, and probably implicitly to others, are some of the highlights, lowlights, and "ohnoyoudin'ts" of this years State of the Union:

"Thank you all. Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, members of the Supreme Court and diplomatic corps, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens: Today our nation lost a beloved, graceful, courageous woman who called America to its founding ideals and carried on a noble dream. Tonight we are comforted by the hope of a glad reunion with the husband who was taken so long ago, and we are grateful for the good life of Coretta Scott King." Of course the opening is always the same, but I do think it was both wise and fitting to remember Mrs. King at the top.

There was of course, much said about the war in Iraq. No real surprises here. A valuable, if begrudging, acknowledgment that criticism from Congress has affected the Administration's approach. Again, the President is pushing for reauthorization of the Patriot Act. At the very least, it needs to be seriously reworked, limited--certainly not made permanent. Delaying the vote for reauthorization past the new year to allow themselves time to alter it appropriately (or decide whether they want to reauthorize it at all) is one of the better things that Congress has done of late.

Then, annoyingly, the President tried to defend the domestic surveillance program: "So to prevent another attack –- based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute -- I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America. Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority." Here, President Bush clearly misses the point. This sort of surveillance, from what my reading tells me, must be done with a warrant in order to be constitutionally and statutorily acceptable. Warrants are issued by a federal judge in a special proceeding (not public). President Bush completely bypassed this requirement, authorizing warrantless spying. Warrantless. THAT is the main problem. [If any of you guys have a clearer understanding of this issue, please comment about it--this is just the best I can make of it at the moment.] But as we've discussed here earlier, President Bush is a big fan of expanding presidential powers. This is not limited to one party or the other, because President Clinton engaged in the same sort of activity. It might be inherent to holding the office, although it works best when the President is from the same party that holds the majority in at least one house of Congress.

Let's turn to some better things. Take the Advanced Energy Initiative. Alternative fuels are good, right? Of course, I do have concerns. For instance, why are a bunch of government researchers in this area being laid off? And among the "alternatives" were zero-emission coal-fired plants. Um...coal is a fossil fuel, and a non-renewable resource, just like natural gas, and just like oil. We can't ignore the larger problem here: coal is only a band-aid fix, and those can get ripped off. Let's remember how dangerous coal mining is. Solar, wind, and nuclear energy also have their down sides, but I feel like there is more potential for progress as a result of research in these areas. Because wouldn't it be great to figure out some safe way to use/dispose of nuclear waste? I'm also a fan of increasing research for hybrid and electric cars, hydrogen-fueled cars, and ethanol. At least in the case of ethanol, I don't think we've figured out how to make it efficiently (more energy output from the fuel than input in making it). We need sustainable methods, after all. Maybe this deal would be a start, though.

Calling for Hamas to "disarm, reject terrorism, and work for lasting peace" was a good thing. Remember the last time militant Islamic fundamentalists were democratically elected in a country's first elections? Yeah, technically I don't either, but I think maybe it was Algeria, and I feel like maybe we attacked them and they ended up with non-democratic, oppressive government that was nevertheless not as intent on hating the U.S. I feel like the whole "trying to get Hamas to set up a government that the international community might eventually accept as legitimate" thing could be a better plan than bombs. But that's me.

Okay, a couple more domestic highlights, and then I'll identify the number one moment in the SOTU (which I know you've been waiting for with bated breath):

First, the President asked for his tax cuts to be made permanent. With the amount of things that are constantly changing in our economy, the domestic disasters that come up (like hurricanes), and the uncertainty on the international scale, we just aren't very certain about how the government's monetary needs will change from one year to the next. I'm just not sure "permanent" tax cuts fit with fiscal responsibility any better than bridges to nowhere, besides the fact that I'm not sure how meaningful permanency is in this context.

Secondly, the President wants the line-item veto. Clinton wanted it too. It's unconstitutional. Get over it. I was actually speechless at this point: who in his right mind would announce his desire for Congress to engage in unconstitutional activity with the American people as the audience?! Makes you wonder if he knows something about the new Supremes that got lost in the confirmation circus...

Thirdly, the guest-worker program is a smoke and mirrors show. The President emphasizes this idea in election years when he knows Congress isn't going to do anything beyond the most essential bill-passing. He did mention it in last year's SOTU, but do you remember hearing about it since then? Me neither. "Serious legislative efforts" on this front last occurred two years ago: an election year.

Fourthly, there's the plan to save Social Security. Here, as you know if you tuned it, Democrats gave a sarcastic standing ovation when the President mentioned that Congress had failed to act on this plan last year. This made them look like idiots. My favorite part was the next day when a bunch of them jumped in front of TV cameras to complain about how the President hadn't taken enough action in the past five years. Take a look in the mirror, guys. If Bush's ideas are so bad, come up with something worthwhile and get it passed. Otherwise, do yourselves a favor and avoid advertising your gross incompetence. You are handing Bush the imperial presidency on a silver platter when you do this, and losing your own votes at the same time.

Finally, more education stuff: "Tonight I announce an American Competitiveness Initiative, to encourage innovation throughout our economy, and to give our nation's children a firm grounding in math and science....We've made a good start in the early grades with the No Child Left Behind Act, which is raising standards and lifting test scores across our country." Any of us familiar with a) schools and b) NCLB knows the second part of this statement is a bunch of huey. Also, as important as math and science are, I prefer well-rounded children, don't you? What about the humanities? What about the arts? Hmmm...

And I felt like the ending was a little weak. When you hear a statement that begins like this, "Before history is written down in books, it is written in...", you expect something profoud. The last word was "courage." Maybe I'm just overly picky about these things, but that just didn't quite do it for me.

And now, what we've all been waiting for: the number one moment in SOTU 2006:

"The same is true of Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon -- and that must come to an end. The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons. America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.
"Tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran."

Praise be, he called on the people. He should have been doing it for awhile now. This was a cheering at my computer screen moment. But I'm not going to explain it to you now, because you have already been reading this post for 1.7 years, and have perhaps missed SOTU 2007. And so I will end for now, but my next post will be on Iran.

6 Comments:

Blogger Victoria said...

How did I know that the Iran thing would be your #1 favourite part? I'm a mind reader! :-)

Also, I really like how you referred to the Supreme Court Justices as "the Supremes." I got this fabulous image of sequined robes and doo wop during oral arguments.

10:02 AM  
Blogger Joni said...

By the way, the Huntington University Conservatives apparently gathered to watch the speech and invited the whole campus--even "non-conservatives"--to join them. Too bad we missed that...

Victoria-just picture Justice Ginsburg with big hair and I think it'll be even better! :)

9:57 PM  
Blogger Jay Michaud said...

OK, so I didn't actually watch the state of the union address for two reasons. Well, OK, one really. (1) I forgot that it was on. I have been sick, and I think I was curled up under a blanket watching a rented movie ("Flight Plan" - great movie, if slow at the beginning) during the SOTU. If there were a reason #2, it would be (2) Reading Joni's commentary on the SOTU is better than watching the real thing because (a) the SOTU is a 15-minute speech that takes 2 hours (yawn) and (b) it is usually much more slogan the substance, and Joni has the substance background to make it make sense.

My response to her post is five-fold.

(1) Joni mentioned ethanol and its negative energy return on investment ([input energy to make ethanol]>[output energy from burning ethanol]). I have heard this many times before, mostly as an afterthought in an article about how good ethanol is for the environment and farmers. For those who don't know, ethanol is an additive, made from corn, that is in much of the gasoline sold today. It is supposed to be cheaper than actual gasoline, so that the price of gasoline goes down when the two are blended. All Citgo gasoline has it, and Shell began adding it in the last six to eight months.

Does anyone out there actually understand how something that takes more energy to make than it produces is fiscally possible? Are we burning something really cheap (coal as a made up example--I don't even know if coal is cheap) in order to provide the energy to make the ethanol, which in turn gives off less energy than the coal did? I can understand this if it is the case, but there is certainly no environmental argument in ethanol's favor if this is the case. This is my call for comments. If anyone out there knows the answer to this, please comment and let us all know. Thanks.

(2) NBC Nightly News briefly covered Mrs. King's funeral this evening. Apparently, the funeral was a six-hour long national media event in which numerous speakers, including former presidents, took the stage to criticize President Bush--while he was present to pay his respects. Singing hymns and grieving together for six hours straight is fine (too long for me, but to each his own), but turning her funeral into a Bush-bashing session was one of the most disrespectful things the guest speakers could have done.

(3) Calling for Hamas to "disarm, reject terrorism, and work for lasting peace" was a good thing. I laughed when I read this. Maybe I'm mistaken, but my understanding is that Hamas is a terrorist organization. It's like the story of the fox and the scorpion. Calling for them to reject terrorism and work for peace is silly, because it's against their nature--that is, terrorism is their identity. Joni, please clarify.

(4) First, the President asked for his tax cuts to be made permanent. This is also funny to me. "Permanent" tax cuts don't exist, and neither do "permanent" tax increases, although I understand what he wants. Congress changes the tax code based on the needs of the government, the economy, the special interest groups, and its whim. Making tax cuts with an expiration date (which is what I think is meant by "temporary tax cuts")in the first place seems a little silly to me. Taxes can always change with the next session of Congress. So I have an idea for Congress: Always make "permanent" tax changes, rather than changes with an expiration date, and then just change them back if you need to. Joni, I think you agree with me: I'm not sure how meaningful permanency is in this context.

(5) I sort of skimmed over the "Supremes" reference without too much thought. Thank you, Victoria, for that "fabulous image". :)

Finally, I have thought of a third reason why I didn't watch the SOTU address. (Not really, but if reason one hadn't happened, and then if reason two were false, this would have been the reason.) I like President Bush. He is remarkably consistent in his messages to Congress, the citizens of the USA, the world--everyone, really. He sticks to his guns, so to speak, and I respect that. After five years of his presidency, though, one pretty much knows what he is going to say: evil terrorists, economy getting better, democracy good, nuclear weapons bad, No Child Left Behind, etc. So, the third reason why I did not watch the SOTU is (3) the state of the union address is boring. Been there, done that, nothing to see here. But Joni, if I had been with you, I totally would have watched it with you, because THAT would have been entertaining. :)

9:50 PM  
Blogger Victoria said...

Ok, since I am the resident chemist, I'm going to weigh in on this whole ethanol thing. Since there's really no one around to argue with me, I may assert blatantly false data just for the sake of sounding cool. Or not. :-)

First, Ethanol production has become much more effient in recent years and will likely continue to do so with further research and production. Currently, there is debate about whether it's energetically favourable or not and I really haven't been able to find any clear cut answers on that. Generally, I think people people argue for whatever side gets them the grant money. But that's just me being cynical.

Second, more research is needed in this area. Specifically in the area of using cellulose etc. to produce ethanol. If this was a viable production method, practically all crop waste could be converted into ethanol without having to grow more crops.

Third, the holy grail of the ethanol economy is a catalyst that would allow for conversion of methanol that is currently flared off of natural gas and oil wells. An ideal catalyst would do something like this:

CH4 + H2O + catalyst ---> CH3OH + H2 + catalyst

If you could get this process to work, you'd be a billionaire, plus solve the world's energy problems for the next 1000 years or so.

12:09 PM  
Blogger Joni said...

See, Victoria, this is what you need to be studying in chemistry grad school! How cool would it be for you to be a billionaire chemist and have other chemists begging YOU for grant money? :)

3:45 PM  
Blogger Victoria said...

Yes, well, that would involve me using flasks, beakers and such. I don't do chemicals. I play with the toys; the sweet laser and optics toys. :-) Plus, I'm just not brilliant enough to do that.

Also, I just noticed that I couldn't even get my chemical formulas and names right in my previous post. Chalk it up to tiredness, but I'd say that's a pretty good sign I should stay far away from wet chemistry.

7:48 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home