Obama's first Oval Office speech: Much Ado about Nothing
When an US President is performing a speech from the Oval Office, the message must be something important. As it was the case with the Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, who each had given five Oval Office addresses to the nation, mostly about economy. George W. Bush and his father each had given two Oval Office addresses. Mr. Bush used the Oval Office to address the nation on Sept. 11, 2001, and felt it should be reserved for only the most solemn of speeches, said Dan Bartlett, his former senior adviser.
The whole Oval Office speech of Mr. Obama was lacking vision and guidance, two decisive elements which brought him into the White House with his "Yes, we can" campaign. He told the audience, that he: "...assembled a team of our nation's best scientist and engineers to tackle this challenge..." That`s good to know, but what else was to expect in "...the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced..."? He then mentioned that BP has to pay for the cleanup of the damage done to the coastlines and its wildlife. Also BP has to compensate for the losses of workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of BP`s recklessness.
Mr. Obama then came to the point, which he announced already in the beginning of his Oval Office speech, the call to action on clean energy. Here you may have expected something substantial for the edification of future generations. After the statement: "...for decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we've talked and talked about the need to end America's century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires. Time and again, the path forward has been blocked -- not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor...", Mr. Obama continued:
"...The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight. Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be right here in America. Each day, we send nearly $1 billion of our wealth to foreign countries for their oil. And today, as we look to the Gulf, we see an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude."
"We cannot consign our children to this future. The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America's innovation and seize control of our own destiny."
"This is not some distant vision for America. The transition away from fossil fuels is going to take some time, but over the last year and a half, we've already taken unprecedented action to jumpstart the clean energy industry. As we speak, old factories are reopening to produce wind turbines, people are going back to work installing energy-efficient windows, and small businesses are making solar panels. Consumers are buying more efficient cars and trucks, and families are making their homes more energy-efficient. Scientists and researchers are discovering clean energy technologies that someday will lead to entire new industries..."
So far, so good. But also, these facts are by far not new news, neither came they by surprise. Nor are they really motivating to start to change something. The dependability of the US on fossil fuels is still going stronger every day. To my taste, in the speech, only limited possibilities regarding new energy approaches are mentioned. At this time, here are far too small future energy activities noteworthy in a country, which is "consuming more than 20 percent of the world`s oil, but have less than 2 percent of the world`s oil reserve..." (Obama).
The question which may be allowed at this point: Why is the President of the United State not using his first Oval Office speech to draw up and distribute his vision(s) for the nation towards distant targets in the energy system? The chance was there, but he failed in this respect. He could have mentioned at least some ideas how to eliminate not only the dependence on oil, but also on the other fossil fuels like coal and so called "natural" gas. He could have told something about the bright future of a disrupted decentralized energy system, based on all sorts of renewable energies. He could even have told us something about the implementation of hydrogen as an energy carrier. If produced directly from the sun, hydrogen can take up his decisive role, as it was intended to be originally in the seventies. There are proven methods and ways to achieve all this. If only Mr. President and his aides knew.
Comments
As for comparing President Obama with President Reagan, did you hear the speech of President Reagan in which he described how, during the war, he and his troops freed persons incarcerated in concentration camps. In reality, Reagan never left Hollywood during that war. The closest he came to the war was a Hollywood sound set.
Yes, I'm a Democrat, although on occasion I have voted for Republicans, and I do NOT like Obama's energy efforts, but let's try to get our facts straight.
"Each day, we send nearly $1 billion of our wealth to foreign countries for their oil." Sorry Mr. president what you send those people is a big pile if IOU's - not wealth. Since oil is priced in US dollars all the US needs to do is make more dollars. Now if oil was priced in something OTHER than US dollars he would be telling the truth. But it isn't and he's not being honest.
The US gets its oil for free and he knows it.
Malcolm
I wonder how many tens of hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil Mr. Obama himself has personally burned up flying here there and every where giving speech after useless speech. But they are all tarred with the same brush it is simply that Mr. Obama is the epitomy of don't do as I do - do as I tell you.
Moving off of fossil fuels will have nothing to do with oval office speeches and following the example of our politicians way of life will cause billions more dollars (paper) to go elsewhere.
Malcolm
As for his honesty, I believe that he is more honest than George W. and his gang, but he doesn't understand the kind of energy economics taught the freshman class at Boston Public, and his energy department isn't much help either. In fact his energy department is the problem. You install those people, and they come to you later with ______ nonsense, but you cant do like Joseph Stalin and tell them to take it back and clean it up, or else.
Where the present US government and energy is concerned, the problem is mostly ignorance. The kind of ignorance that starts your head spinning.
I do believe the price will drive the solution but unfortunately it will probably get painful before it happens.
This is the date and time that the last drop of oil on earth will be used up if you take the known reserves and divide by the current usage rate.(as of 1/1/2010) As calculated by EEU.
Of coarse, this date makes a few assumptions.
It assumes that there is no new drilling or increases in production from existing capacity----this would simply increase depletion moving the date sooner.
It also assumes, there is no increase in consumption rate. DOE and USGS tell us that on average, oil consumption has increased 2.6% per year over the last 20 years. Deduct one year for each 1% increase in oil consumption over 2009 levels.
It doesn't matter in the least what President Obama, or anyone else says.
It doesn't matter what the politics are, whether you are republican or democrat.
It won't matter if you are trying to buy it with greenback dollars or gold bullion.
When it is gone, it is gone. This is the Going Out Of Business Sale.
What do you know about that? We actually agree on something.
I just happen to think that when it happens with no solutions being implemented, it will be sudden and catastrophic.
Well, only catastrophic for people who depend on oil. For much of the world's population----the event may pass completely unnoticed.
It was common knowledge that Reagan made training films during WWII. He wanted to serve and the Army said great, you're in the Army now, and we have a job waiting for you. I recognized him in a couple of training films still being used during the Korean War.
The idea that he would seriously claim that "during the war, he and his troops freed persons incarcerated in concentration camps" is absolutely absurd.
It is somewhat ironic that during WWII it was a standing joke that the Army would take a truck driver and train him to be a baker while taking a baker and train him to be a truck driver. (Actually the Army generally picked the brightest and fittest for Infantry, artillery and tankers, occupations not found in civilian life) Anyway, why not pick an actor to be an actor?
That is exactly what Reagan did, and as for the army choosing the best and brightest for the infantry, I don't see how a veteran could make that statement. Maybe you should read Paul Fussel's book 'Doing Battle'. Fussel was an infantry lieutenant who was wounded close to the German border, and he provides some information on where infantrymen were on the Army Classification Test.
Of course, it doesn't make any difference to me what anybody says about the US army. I consider myself an expert on this topic, and unlike most other experts I spent 6 years with Uncle Sam, seeing and thinking about everything I saw.. Given their backgrounds, American infantrymen should have been the best in the world, but they were badly - i.e. unimaginatively - trained and often badly led. What you think of as "The best and the brightest" were in the rear - e.g. a black parachute infantry battalion was kept in the US during the entire war. In fact, when they were running out of white males, they allowed black truckdrivers and pick and shovel men to volunteer for the infantry.
By the way, when it comes to knowing how things work in the Big PX. It is a matter of fact and record that the highly intelligent John Kerry left a safe job to be a Swift Boat officer, while when George W. was asked if he would like to go to Vietnam, he replied in the negative. And yet Bush was reelected. Think about that.
As a lad I had access to a wealth of data. My father was chairman of the largest Selective Service (draft board) in Illinois (Cook County 4) for all of WWII. We rarely saw him those years. It's been a long time but I still remember facts from those books: Iowa registrants had the highest literacy rate, ethnic Russians made the highest test scores but not statistically significant because of the small sample, Northern whites tested best, southern Blacks lowest. The most common reason registrants were not drafted was low mental scores, not flat feet or perforated ear drums as often claimed. The services of course only wanted perfect specimens and at times had to take some quite imperfects. The minimum standards changed depending on demand.
The combat services, Infantry, Artillery, Armor, standards were always higher than the standards to be drafted. Now many who didn't get into the combat services because of bad teeth, less than perfect eyesight or hearing, even bedwetting. I have very small feet and it is a strain for me to do the standard 30" stride. A guy in my basic company washed out for this deficiency. I worried.
Of course the highest standards were for OCS, pilot training, and Signal Corps. My brother had very bad myopia but the Signal Corps wanted him anyway - as it turned out his "cover" was Signal Corps insignia. We only knew after the war he was OSS (which became the CIA.)
During the Korean War I graduated with a Ch.E. (I had been a deferred 1A for some time, by the school's initiative.) Before graduation I went to a military post for testing to pre-qualify for OCS on completion of EM training. I went through infantry basic, advanced basic and heavy weapons training, Then to OCS. Because of my Ch.E, I was commissioned in the Chemical Corps, sent to Officer ABC (Atomic, Biological, Chemical Warfare) School - there was fear the Chinese might use some of these weapons on us. It was a little disconcerting that the enemy considered Chemical Corps officers war criminals ergo to summarily be shot.
I was assigned to a Chemical Corps Battlefield smoke generator company and thence to a separate platoon. It was more like a company than a platoon. We had an attached group of artillery men who used search lights at night to illuminate draws up which enemy patrols might venture. We also had KATUSA (Korean Augmentation to US Army) and also fed many strays.
I became aware that many of my men were illiterate. All through my EM training I had not run into an illiterate soldier. How come? Because I was with infantry trainees. Turns out the guys who did not qualify or washed out went to the Quartermasters or Chemical Corps, became cooks and bakers and truck drivers, worked in laundries and shower facilities. My attached red legs (artillerymen) were brighter and the KATUSA were very bright - it was an honor to be assigned to a US unit.
Truck drivers and Chemical Corps troops were mostly Black. Infantrymen, tankers and artillery men were over whelmingly white in my experience. There is a great body of evidence that Backs test 1.0 standard deviations below whites on all kinds of cognitive tests, including the AFQT. Sadly this means on average a Black soldier had a 15 point IQ handicap.
.
I took basic and advanced infantry training at Fort Ord, and went to infantry leadership school there where I was first in my class. I was expelled on the last day of the course and put to work on a garbage truck. Why, I didn't know nor did I care, but when I arrived in Germany my infantry MOS was forgotten and I was put in the artillery. Among other things, in the most comprehensive manouvre held in Germany during the cold war, I made a calculation in the 35th FA Group dealing with tactical nuclear weapons. Somebody leaked that to the Germans, who came to the conclusion that a Third World War might not be advisable. Ten or twenty years later I came to the conclusion that they thought that the leaker was yours truly, and I spent the rest of my time in Germany studying German, writing mostly on sports for Stars and Stripes, traveling whenever and wherever I wanted, with the army picking up the bill, listening to jazz, and seeking female companionship.
I also read an enormous amount and studied some calculus.
The soldiers behind the lines in WW2 were more often than not black. If it hadn't been for the atom bomb, many of those men would have been riflemen in the Pacific. IQ didn't have anything to do with it. Illiterates - I dont remember any, and the subject never came up, but as far as I could tell, most American soldiers were not interested. I gave the orders in the fire direction center of a 4.2 mortar company at Fort Lewis in the 2nd Infantry Division, and I made it clear to the gentlemen taking those orders that if they forgot how to add and subtract, they could joint the mortar crews. That's how I got to Germany - the referees in an exercise said theat they had never need a more efficient FDC.
For the record: MY SIX YEARS IN THE AMERICAN ARMY WERE WONDERFUL.Incidentally, if you are interested in IQs, you should study what pornography and dope and ignorant television shows are doing to the IQs of white boys in the US.
FRED
You wrote: "... the highly intelligent John Kerry left a safe job to be a Swift Boat officer, while when George W. was asked if he would like to go to Vietnam, he replied in the negative." While I don't want to be snookered into being a George W apologist I think it is rather amusing that when both were at Yale George W beat out the "highly intelligent " John academically, albeit by a small margin. Neither had outstanding grades -(I'm glad mine are not public.). And were you there to hear George W's reply?
As to the present situation in the military I have to plead ignorance. I don't even know current TO&Es (table of organization and equipment).
I do however know the popular idea that the poor are fodder in battle is, and has been, absolutely false. Our highest casualty rates have been to the best of us, not the disadvantaged. All military pilots have had a very high mortality rate, as have platoon leaders, the lieutenants in the Army and Marine Corps. Those who lead the patrols and assaults. These are the people who scored in Category I on the mental tests, who had demonstrated high moral character and survived rigorous training.
Would it be improperlyfor me as the author of this article
to focus the discusson a little mor to the topic?
My humble request:
Let us please discuss the possibilities,
the US President has to change the existing energy system.
That was/is the intention of this article.
Thank you very much.
Arno A. Evers
Starnberg, Germany.
http://www.hydrogenambassadors.com
Professor Banks, Just to avoid any confusion I believed my post was before yours. Obviously it wasn't.
When I was in Korea my interest was in defeating the enemy and the welfare of my troops for whom I felt a great responsibility and for whom I cared deeply. Being the "old man" as a 2nd Lt. was an awesome experience. With the advantages of good luck and very good training I did not screw up.
My interest was not in finding fault by "sharp-shooting" the Army as if a game. Right now I am pondering what I would have done with Ferdinand E. Banks had he been in my platoon during the Korean War.. .
The elite 173rd Airborne Brigade had about 25% black infantrymen. As for the mortalities among infantry platoon leaders, they were roughly one in thirty of total mortalities. What you need to do is to read the work of the military historian S.L.A.M. Marshall on the ratial and class composition of American infantry units in Vietnam. According to him half of the average infantry squad was black or hispanic or indian or something other than white.
Of course, I don't need to read General Marshall or anyone else where this topic is concerned. The average infantry company in Korea and Vietnam was a working class company. I dont see anything wrong with that, but when you claim that there were only four blacks in you basic training company, that sounds very wrong to me. But not as wrong as trying to claim that dumb George W. was the intellectual equal of John Kerry. More important, KERRY HAS A COMBAT RECORD, WHILE GEORGE MADE SURE THAT HE STAYED AWAY FROM COMBAT. THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE. That is also OK with me, because I know the situation where military service is concerned, BUT NO AMERICAN HAS DONE MORE DAMAGE TO THE UNITED STATES AND EUROPE THAN GEORGE BUSH, AND HIS IGNORANT COLLEAGUES - Condoleeza, Chaney and Rumsfeld.
As for apologizing to Mr Evers, forget it. Obama is a disappointment to me, because is has started acting like a Chicago machine politician instead of a leader. but since we have to vote for republicans or democrats, I would never vote for Ms Palin. And finally, as for what you would have done with Fred Banks, you wouldn't have done anything. It was in the army that I found out how smart I am. When I left the army I knew everything that I needed to win.
As for Hispanics, I cannot recall hearing a word of Spanish spoken either in training or in Korea. In fact at that time Hispanic had a different meaning than today. It referred to the land (as in Europe's Hispanic Peninsula) and people and culture of Iberia, i. e. Spain and Portugal.
Americans with Spanish names were generally Caucasians and were no more expected to speak Spanish than someone named Larsen is expected to know Danish. What a difference about 60 years makes.
Toward the end of the US commitment there was an attempt to get a large number of volunteers via something called project 100,000. Racially that meant blacks, a majority of whom ended up in the infantry. Where quality is concerned though, the American lieutenants I encountered during my 6 years in the army generally didn't have much to offer. Captains and sergeants however were often tops, because the lousy lieutenants had been weeded out.
I encountered plenty of latinos, but not much speaking of Spanish. Now of course the army and marines are full of latinos, as anyone who watches TV must know. It's only a matter of time until women are admitted to the combat branches, in which case latinos who want US citizenship will fill the ranks of the army, because blacks and southern whites are too smart to accept that arrangement. The marines, I'm glad to say, should be able to remain comfortably macho.
Play golf. Teach one of his granddaughters to play golf. Post trenchant comments on Master Resource. :-)
Ed
Imagining the Administration and the Congress as "agitated pissants" floating uncontrolled downstream has made my day. Thanks.
I fear that even Confusius would have been confused. :-)
Your comment caused me to imagine Confusius atempting to "live blog" the Copenhagen Climate Summit. (I will stop laughing eventually.)
Ed
"Much Ado about Nothing"
Hopefully our commenters, Mr. Fred, Mr. Ed and Mr. Don,
will be busy over the weekend, looking after their grandchildren.
Let us wait and see, what Monday next will have in store...
Thanks for all your patience, dear Energy Pulse followers...
But I prefer his speech to your contribution to this forum. We - meaning me - don't want the situation in Germany, where the price of electricity was the highest in Europe, until the dumb Swedish government (and probably others) opened their grids to the Germans. We also dont want their wind installations, nor the crazy CCS plans of Vattenfall.
I don't know how I got on the subject of Ronald Reagan, but if you see the documentary about that ignoramus with Barbara Streisand's husband, you will hear him describing his activities in the war - by which I do not mean his activities in Hollywood, which is where he was stationed. (At least I think that was the documentary.) Reagan was one of those officers that Mr Don has such a high opinion of.
I really have not addressed your topic. Obama and the people who surround him are Harvard people. And many like Obama are lawyers who don't know the difference between heat and temperature or between power and energy. And never will. They are also political creatures. Obama never had a job, unless you can call being a "community organizer" for the Chicago political machine a job.
I have known engineers who later acquired a law degree but they never really became lawyers - they still thought like engineers. In contrast I've never known anyone in the White House to think like an engineer - and I'm old and have written many letters over many decades. Never once did a response from the WH sound as if the writer knew what I was talking about.
Those who go to Harvard are already assured successes and seem to almost take a certain snobby satisfaction in their ignorance of such gritty things such as energy. I suppose the same happens in Germany about Heidelberg and in England about Oxford. An affected accent and dueling scars shouldn't have much value today.
As to substance, while the president has glib speech writers and is remarkably adept at using a TelePrompTer I frankly don't know how he could have presented an energy program. I know more about it than he does and I cannot present a sustainable energy program.
The sad thing is that eventually we will get a president that gets things right, but why not now.
In fact he has achieved incredible heights academically for one who's primary interest was running in congressional and senatorial races, often loosing at first, and for his age. If he also did any community organizing then I have no idea when he could have gotten any sleep.
That of course is why the US has no energy policy and will be overtaken by the Chinese who do - and are aggressively implementing it. Right now the Chinese have 24 nuclear reactors under construction. The US has none. The Chinese have 90 reactors on the drawing board. The US has four.
The Chinese have just started their first fast breeder reactor whose technology will free them from imports of Uranium permanently.The US shut theirs down.
When you have an energy policy that is guided by physics and engineering you will be successful. If you have an energy policy guided by good oratory and a tele-prompter the lights will eventually go out.
The public always get the politicians they deserve. Since the public gives a hoot where their electricity comes from then Obama and all his predecessors and the US public are a match made in heaven.
Malcolm
I will spare any who might still be around from a dissertation:. With only this one point. There would be no issue whatsoever if Obama himself did not claimed to be a law professor. Words count - particularily coming from a senior lecturer or a law professor. He knew he was a senior lecturer, not any grade of professor, assistant, associate, or full. He could just as well have said he taught law at the U. of Chicago.and let anyone who wanted to call him a professor.
I think FactCheck missed the point. And I don't agree that FactCheck's argument and the university's weasel words supported his (their boy) position. (Wow, I just agreed with Hillary. )
Much ado about nothing.
The University could have made him an Adjunct Professor which seems to fit this circumstance very well?: It means a non-professor professor, or it used to.
Democracy and 'freedom' as defined by, e.g. George W., and his team meant that lies had to be given the same respect as the truth. He started a war on the basis of a lie, and then allowed the spinning of a web of lies about John Kerry's military service. What is happening in Washington now is that a man who knows, Dr Chu, is not allowed to tell his subordinates that they dont know what the ____ they are talking about. I assume of course that the good doctor understands that he did not obtain his present position in a popularity contest. and therefore - unlike Miss America - does not need to talk the politically correct talk. Here I might be wrong, because there is definitely something odd about a man with his background walking aroung with a grin on his face instead of making it clear to the president and his own subordinates what energy course needs to be taken if the US economy is to function the way that it should function, and if they don't like it they can lump it.
About President Obama's professorship. I don't see anything wrong with a man of his intelligence misrepresenting himself to a law faculty, if that is what he did. I certainly did that on occasion, and would do it again if I felt like it. I've taught in about fourteen universities, and the thing I remember most about them is the incompetence of fellow teachers and researchers. I've taught all over the world, but never in the US, because they have filled the economics faculties with incompetents, hypocrits, liars, neurotics and the like. That's why it was possible for a Professor in the US to recently claimed that solar voltaic had caught up with nuclear where the price of electricity was concerned, and this nonsense was published in the New York Times. The average economics teacher/professor can't calculate the kWh cost of electricity in a make-believe economy, much less the real world.
No one says good morning to a Lt. Col. by saying good morning Lt. Col. Smith. (or good morning Major General smith, or good morning associate professor Jones etc.) That would be snotty and snide. We say colonel, general and professor.
On the other hand a Lt. Col. would not say "I am a Colonel in the US Army" - that would be the same as a captain saying he was a major. This is analogous to Obama's mistake, not a huge mistake , but a mistake and in my opinion by failure to clarify it is a blemish on his character.
Len, just because many consider everyone who teaches at a university to be a professor and because some people cannot discriminate between a cow and a steer tells me that many people are wrong and/or don't care about such things - something I already knew. These mistakes have nothing at all to do with deception or the appearance of deception. Why in the world lie when the truth doesn't hurt a bit?
Professor, you wrote above: "About President Obama's professorship. I don't see anything wrong with a man of his intelligence misrepresenting himself to a law faculty, if that is what he did." Oh, so the rules don't apply to the intelligent, a class where you clearly place yourself?
It was a small and completely unnecessary mistake, in a campaign easy to forgive.. The larger crime is taking the offensive and making villains of those who exposed it.
What about pretending to be an economics professor. Well, I know a university in Sweden where the command decisions seem to be made by an ignorant professor and a mousy American girl. It's up to their students to deal with that situation, and maybe the best way is to let a talented imposter handle the professoring; and I know a university in New York with a foreign economics professor or something like that, who thinks that marriage is prostitution, etc, etc.
I don't think much of imposters teaching surgery or dentistry or structural design.
Most of them dont anyway because they are too busy impostering to learn anything. You seem to have a great respect for army officers -- as far as I could tell from my time in the army, at least half of them were hopeless. I worked for the US Navy in engineering and I didn't notice any incompetents in the room where I worked, and the same was true in the consulting company I worked for in Chicago. Things are different now of course, because every engineer and 'consultant' knows that if he or she does not produce, their place will be taken by an immigrant from Pago-Pago or Guadacanal. I say that I wonder how it is having to deal with that prospect, although in truth I know. .
Considering all your entries so far...hopefully there is much more to come..,
I must admit that Malcom put it all together nicely here:
Quote Malcom: "(...)...When you have an energy policy that is guided by physics and engineering you will be successful. If you have an energy policy guided by good oratory and a tele-prompter the lights will eventually go out... (..) Unquote.
That`s the way, I see it, too. However, these "rules of thumbs", or call it common sense, are not only applying to the US. They are the very same in Germany, my home country. And when you look closely, they apply to many other countries, too.
Keep following the discussion and all the very best to all of you!
Arno A. Evers
Starnberg, Germany
www.hydrogenambassadors.com
It could make one of those hilarious short outtakes on the Daily show, where Jon Stewart stares in astonishment at the contortions of the republican spokespeople endlessly repeating a single line on their "sponsored" tv shows. The largest crime is those who endlessly perpetuate the myth that a man who taught 3 courses in constitutional law at U Chicago for 12 years lied when his campaign people called him a professor. Give us a tiny break and go find something real to complain about, ok?
I think either line of thought is entirely plausible.
Malcolm
There was a great opportunity for the US to steer in a direction away from the use of fossil fuels that would have provided the moral clout to move the entire world in a different direction.
That opportunity has been lost. The USA is still going to burn fossil fuels for decades yet until there really is none left. It will just burn vast amounts of natural gas. The opportunity to conserve and make energy systems more efficient was lost and the US will continue on its profligate and wasteful ways of using fossil fuels until there is none left. The opportunity to harness the technological expertise of the US has been lost and that unfortunately will result in there being nothing left of the USA.
In my view this Oval office speech will not go down in the history books alongside the Kennedy "Moon" speech that galvanised an entire nation and captivated the mind of many a young scientist and engineer - including a young Malcolm. It will, unfortunately go down alongside the "Nero fiddled while Rome burned"
The looming energy crisis could have been averted with this one single speech. It wasn't.
Malcolm
Malcolm
Even had the "one single speech" been all that you might have hoped, the aversion of the looming energy crisis would still require the investment of roughly $30 trillion, some of it in technologies we don't yet have commercially available.
Ed
This may well be the most extreme example of a nonsequiter in history. Shortly after Galileo and Newton people have been able to do the orbital calculations and the energy requirements for a trip to the moon.
I certainly don't want to denigrate the scientists and engineers who accomplished our trip(s) to the moon (and more importantly, the trip back to the earth) As a curious engineer I had calculated orbits of the USSR Sputniks on a slide rule I will be forever in awe of how well such a complicated program went. (You only need to use the expression (formula) for the period of the pendulum and understand acceleration of gravity is inverse to the square of the separation distance. to calculate a circular orbit)
JFK made a reckless statement that he was unqualified to either understand or defend. He and we lucked out.
Since our incrediblle moon shot triumphums the population of the earth has doubled to 7 billion. Global warning, oil depletion, water depletion, and wars have proliferated.
Perhaps the closest man has ever come to cooperating was in WWII. But in retrospect what a horrible cooperation that was. Stalin's USSR faced and destroyed more of the Germany Army than we did. Stalin (yet our ally killed more people politically than did Hitler's holocaust.)
Just where does anyone get the least snif that man has changed and can be influneced by a speech?
The Obama campaign. :-)
Ed
I share the same view you are havng on your President and his role. I never forget the election night, at that time a was staying overnight at the Gran Canyon, at an old hotel right at the southern rim, watching the US televison coverigae of Obama`s victory. How exciting it was for all of us. And how hopefully we looked into the future! However, the outcome is rather disappointing. But who are we to blame the US Preseident? When you go the White House`s official Website you can soon find Obama`s daily schedule and the speeches he has to deliver in a rather short time. Always heading from one location to the other, always under power not too make a mistake (as grabbing the wrong sppech, as this sometimes happens to German Chanchellors).
Anyway, back at the election night, I was so impressed with the great "winners speech" on November 4 2008,
I wrote one of Arno`s Energy Ideas about it, which you can read here:
http://www.hydrogenambassadors.com/background/arnos-energy-idea25.php
Of course, dumb George Bush put us in the position we are in with his lies, and the lies of his team, but so what. Everybody in every country in the world has to face living with the lies of the high and mighty, regardless of who or what they are, but what the hell happened to the US that I grew up in. When the US went to war, Winston Churchill said (the same or next day), "so we've won after all". Nobody would ever say that now. The speeches that Obama gave in the run-up to the election were necessary: Americans want entertainment, and it was best to give them that than to take a chance that Sarah Palin would find herself in the Oval Office.
But why is that infotainment necessary now. Why was it necessary to make talking head of two of the smartest economists in the world, Bernanke and Summers, in addition to a Nobel laureate energy minister. And those people he brought in to police Wall Street - has he lost his mind? Wall Street doesn't need poliicing And his new commander in Afghanistan. I remember when I used to laugh at Russian generals with their collection of medals - not at the medals of course, but at the aesthetics involved. Now we have a top American general with ribbons going up to his epaulets, none of which is for combat. As a veteran, what do you think about that, Don H.?
You severely underestimate the power of human ingenuity - especially when it is galvanized into action with politicians who know how to lead. The purpose of the Man in the Moon example was selected to show you that ALL things are possible and people CAN work together. Sure there are lots of examples where they don't. But lots of examples where they do...and the results are spectacular.If you have ever read any of the works of Sir WInston Churchill please do. If there ever was a man who succeeded against all odds it was him. He too took a defeated nation and said NO we will NOT be defeated. Were it not for him - and a good deal of luck- you'd be working for Adolf.
Here is another example - I have thousands I can bore you with. A lady I know had knees riddled with arthritis. She could not walk - in constant pain and headed for a lifetime in a wheel chair. Two operations and two titanium knees later and the pain is gone and she can now RUN. It didn't happen by accident. Lots of dedicated people who thought that joint replacement was possible thirty odd years ago is the reason why she can walk today. Don't tell me problems cannot be solved. They are solved every day all the time by people who think I CAN - not I CAN NOT.
JFK simply told all the worlds engineers and scientists that putting a man on the moon was possible. They did the rest. As he very well knew they could. He did not need to understand the technology - he understood PEOPLE and that is a VERY rare skill indeed.
Right now there are two robots driving around Mars controlled from Earth. Only supposed to last 6 months - been there for years now. A staggering feat of human ingenuity. Why don't such things don't excite you any more Don? There is nothing stopping humans from going to Mars or anywhere else for that matter. There is no energy "crisis" just people who bury their head in the sand waiting for others to fix it for them.
Which brings me back to Obama. He had the golden opportunity to focus the US (and the world) on solving our energy issues. He blew it. A good speaker but he didn't speak the right words. Sadly he does have the capability to galvanize a nation but I think he sold out to someone and that is a shame for the US.
Whatever your politics the US needs good leadership and direction and purpose. It has none of these. A great great disappointment.
Malcolm
Unfortunately for the US when the best news program on air is Jon Stewart we really are getting infotainment. - which of course is why I watch none of it. Public radio is not bad though Len if you want some reasonably factual and honest reporting.
Sad thing is people don't want to hear what is really going on in the world - as long as they can order pizza and beer, watch Bimbos "catch their man" on "reality" TV and play video games all day who cares about the millions starving to death. NOt their problem - yet.
Malcolm
I make no apologies for calling JFK reckless. As I understand it he was reckless in WWII and lost his boat and a crewman. He was incredibly reckless as president having dozens of sex partners. Many people knew but not only did they not tell, they helped procure women in advance of his visits. If that does not rank as reckless tell me what does. His biggest project was the reckless Cuban invasion, but he backed away quickly when it turned into a fiasco