So, the question is: was the omission of the topic intended to draw attention away from the president's tepid support of alternative energy, or his rabid support of fracking and off-shore drilling? I am so sick of his campaign speech language... saying whatever shuts people up. Unfortunately, I think it works. The subtleties in the energy section of his speech did not go unnoticed by anyone who actually cares. Instead of coming up with a fierce plan for solar panels"¦ true independence"¦ we got a brief one-sentence comment about wind/solar.

We also got assurances that he was fast-tracking oil and gas"¦ i.e. fracking and off-shore drilling! Oh, he mentioned clean air and water"¦ those are just "feel good" words to soothe us. Did he say he would make sure that the Cheney/Halliburton loophole that allows the 600 toxic chemicals in fracking fluid to be EXEMPT from the Clean Water regulation would be overturned? NO! Did he say he would prevent fracking on public AND private land until it is made safe? NO!

In the past he patted himself on the back as he stated that he would make sure that fracking on public lands would require disclosure. Seriously??? Disclosure"¦ that's it. So"¦ it doesn't matter if they use 600 carcinogens with unknown interactions"¦ as long as they tell us what they are? You can kill us, just make sure to tell us how you are doing it? Why the hell are we allowing ANY fracking on public lands? The administration obviously doesn't understand the impact on limited fresh water supplies, much less the impact on humans and nature. Oh, did I forget to mention the impact is irreversible? So, the question then becomes: do they not understand or do they not care? It's not difficult to see why "energy" was absent from the media highlights. The incestuous relationship between government/corporations/media does not want certain questions to be asked, much less answered.