The State of the Union-1/28/2008

Let me go on record in saying: "I don't like PRESIDENT Bush." I can't say that with conviction about George W. Bush the man since I don't know him (he hasn't returned a call one). I got a glimpse of him tonight as cnn.com continued to follow the procession he left the chambers. He cracked a joke here, made a comment about having dinner with a "fella" night before last and so wanted to talk about baseball at length with the man with the white MLB hat of which the President signed the bill (must have been free of earmarks). Now that's a guy I'd have a beer with, which seems to be the reason he made it into the White House in the first place. That and the support from low places (see below).

Then there is the PRESIDENT'S stance on the environment and Global Warming. Sorry those are my words. His stance on ENERGY: Increasing Our Energy Security And Confronting Climate Change. I couldn't believe it. Based on the words in his speech (how much of that do you believe), he is taking the problem seriously. Which is funny because during his time in office, he has pulled away from multinational talks on reducing carbon dioxide emissions. He has supported/perpetrated Big Coal and Big Oil's approach to the problem: flatly deny Global Warming, call the science into question and posit a pie in the sky solution like the "Hydrogen Economy." He has changed the moniker to the less threatening "Climate Change." And he has framed "Energy Independence" as an environmental issue. Now he says maybe we aught to reduce green house gas emissions or something (that's real leadership with conviction).

My opinion (and that's all we really have isn't it?) is President Bush has set our country and the world back a decade (or more) on this issue, has showed the world how greedy and wasteful we can be and has made teaching mainstream science an exercise in partisan politics. It's to bad the guy I heard tonight, at the very beginning of a transformation wasn't the guy that was sworn in 7 years ago. Then maybe we would be a little closer to where we should be. There again this guy and his party would not have garnered the financial support of the industries most threatened by serious talk of protecting the environment:

Energy/Natural Resources:
Long-Term Contribution Trends

-source : Center for Responsive Politics

(Look at all the red in 2000. They really didn't want Al Gore in the White House.)

It makes a person wonder if with out the threat of another election to win on the horizon, with past donors wishes granted and an extractive agenda put in place, President Bush is now looking at what is good for the Nation and the World...... huh..........wha..........never mind........What was I thinking. He's just trying to put a little spit and polish on the ol' legacy.

Nudge me when he's done.

"The Story of Stuff"

Follow the link above and Go watch it!!!

Annie Leonard has lots to say about our current system. We need to think through the issues brought up in this 20 video and make reasonable changes to our system of doing things.

Here's a short preview:

Who Is the Greenest Presidential Candidate?

The Presidential candidates' shades of green is an issue I've been pondering lately. It's an important question to ask. How serious are these people about their green campaign statements? It can make a world of difference when you think about it. I'm convinced that Bush "won" over Gore in 2000 because he had more money in the bank, much of which had the black dust of coal and the stench of oil all over it. (see the introduction of Jeff Goodell's Big Coal: The Dirty Secret Behind America's Energy Future for an explanation. NY Times Review)

No one in the fossil fuel business is going to look kindly on a candidate that takes environmental issues seriously. One need not look further than the contributions these industries make. It's there you will see which political party they see as most beneficial (read "least responsible to the environment")

Check out the numbers for yourself:

• Coal Mining
  
• Oil and Gas

Then look at the specific candidates:

• Who is coal giving to?
• And who is Oil and Gas giving to?

It's interesting to look at the poll numbers or listen to the pundits to know when and where the gloves came off in this or that debate. But the dollars are much more telling. Unfortunately this invaluable information is obscured by the TV drama that's passed off as "the democratic process at work." Lucky for us, we have this information and we're going to use it. For what? I don't know.

Happy Voting!!!!

-------------------------------
all links to the Center for Responsive Politics project:

www.opensecrets.org