January 21, 2009 - January 23, 2009

Analysis of Inaugural Address

I had the unexpected opportunity to listen to Pres. Obama's inaugural address. As I expected, it was well-delivered, but had several points that I disagreed with.

First of all, he said that we have failed to make hard choices. That's hard to argue with. However, during most of his speech, he was referring to choices that are easy to make, for someone holding views on the left of the political spectrum as he does.

For example, he was recommending more reliance on solar, wind, and biofuel sources of energy. Yet I noted that two of the most economical, efficient, and proven non-petrochemical technologies were left off the list: hydro and nuclear. The reason is simple: even today, for someone on the left to advocate either of those technologies is difficult. So apparently the president is already unwilling to make the hard choice of going against the incorrect notions of his peers and pursuing the most practical path to his stated objectives.

I can't claim omniscience and say that solar and wind and biofuel will never become efficient and competitive with hydro, nuclear, oil, and coal. However, at the moment, they simply are not - that's why only government subsidies make them economically feasible.

If Pres. Obama really believes in "the specter of global warming" as he said in his address, and if those who share his views on global warming really believe in it, then they would push for an immediate change to what we know best at the moment - hydro and nuclear. Solar and wind should be left to research and development and hobbyists and specialty applications until it is ready for mass energy generation, if it ever is. Biofuels, I think, are almost immoral, as our initial dabbling appears to have denied food to poor countries, the same poor countries Pres. Obama pledge to aid.

Secondly, I was glad that Pres. Obama took a stand against terrorism, but I can only hope that his words on foreign policy have now been thought out much better than his odd foreign policy ideas on the campaign trail, as I commented in my posting on November 2, 2008. In any case, only time will tell whether or not Pres. Obama will back up his words with deeds, instead of muffing the hard choices like Pres. Clinton did. It's easy to say that we will stand against terrorism, but when many other nations are willing to appease it, or even fund it, will Pres. Obama chase after an unreachable ideal of global consensus before attacking? People who share his political beliefs think that we can only act against terrorists if every single nation that is condoning or supporting terrorism agrees that we should. (Recall how nations like France and Russia that interfered in U. N. deliberations to act against Iraq were funding that murderous regime? http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2004/10/007976.php)

Pres. Obama has indicated already on the campaign trail that he is in awe of the global consensus. I take this as an indication that when comes the hard choice between action that is right and will save lives, and inaction in favor of appeasing his political base and trying to get people who hate us to love us, Pres. Obama will take the easy way out.

Here's hoping I'm wrong!