Video and Transcript: Obama on the "Clean Energy Economy" (27 June)

Last Saturday, President Obama devoted his Weekly Address to the clean energy economy programme, setting out how it will give Americans pride in leading the world while creating new job opportunities.



OBAMA: Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed a historic piece of legislation that will open the door to a clean energy economy and a better future for America.

For more than three decades, we have talked about our dependence on foreign oil. And for more than three decades, we have seen that dependence grow. We have seen our reliance on fossil fuels jeopardize our national security. We have seen it pollute the air we breathe and endanger our planet. And most of all, we have seen other countries realize a critical truth: the nation that leads in the creation of a clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the 21st century global economy.

Now is the time for the United States of America to realize this too. Now is the time for us to lead.

The energy bill that passed the House will finally create a set of incentives that will spark a clean energy transformation in our economy. It will spur the development of low carbon sources of energy – everything from wind, solar, and geothermal power to safer nuclear energy and cleaner coal. It will spur new energy savings, like the efficient windows and other materials that reduce heating costs in the winter and cooling costs in the summer. And most importantly, it will make possible the creation of millions of new jobs.

Make no mistake: this is a jobs bill. We’re already seeing why this is true in the clean energy investments we’re making through the Recovery Act. In California, 3000 people will be employed to build a new solar plant that will create 1000 permanent jobs. In Michigan, investment in wind turbines and wind technology is expected to create over 2,600 jobs. In Florida, three new solar projects are expected to employ 1400 people.

The list goes on and on, but the point is this: this legislation will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy. That will lead to the creation of new businesses and entire new industries. And that will lead to American jobs that pay well and cannot be outsourced. I have often talked about the need to build a new foundation for economic growth so that we do not return to the endless cycle of bubble and bust that led us to this recession. Clean energy and the jobs it creates will be absolutely critical to this new foundation.

This legislation has also been written carefully to address the concerns that many have expressed in the past. Instead of increasing the deficit, it is paid for by the polluters who currently emit dangerous carbon emissions. It provides assistance to businesses and families as they make the gradual transition to clean energy technologies. It gives rural communities and farmers the opportunity to participate in climate solutions and generate new income. And above all, it will protect consumers from the costs of this transition, so that in a decade, the price to the average American will be just about a postage stamp a day.

Because this legislation is so balanced and sensible, it has already attracted a remarkable coalition of consumer and environmental groups; labor and business leaders; Democrats and Republicans. And I want to thank every Member of Congress who put politics aside to support this bill on Friday.

Now my call to every Senator, as well as to every American, is this: We cannot be afraid of the future. And we must not be prisoners of the past. Don’t believe the misinformation out there that suggests there is somehow a contradiction between investing in clean energy and economic growth. It’s just not true.

We have been talking about energy for decades. But there is no longer a disagreement over whether our dependence on foreign oil is endangering our security. It is. There is no longer a debate about whether carbon pollution is placing our planet in jeopardy. It’s happening. And there is no longer a question about whether the jobs and industries of the 21st century will be centered around clean, renewable energy. The question is, which country will create these jobs and these industries? I want that answer to be the United States of America. And I believe that the American people and the men and women they sent to Congress share that view. So I want to congratulate the House for passing this bill, and I want to urge the Senate to take this opportunity to come together and meet our obligations – to our constituents, to our children, to God’s creation, and to future generations.

Thanks for listening.

Sex and Politics: Putting "Monkey Business" in the Right Perspective

So Mark Sanford (pictured), Governor of South Carolina and a Republican Presidential hopeful for 2012, has fallen, if not by the wayside, for the wiles of a shady lady from Argentina.

It seems like no time at all since New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, another Republican presidential contender, got stung, this time trading cash for lady’s favours in the time-honoured way of "the oldest profession". Even though Tony Blair’s Ministers, even “Lord Cashpoint” (Lord Levy) of cash-for-honours infamy, was never accused of this, the Sanford case leads me to question our fascination, both in America and Britain, with the ability of our political leaders to remain faithful to their wives and partners.

On this side of the pond, the corridors of Parliament could be lined with names of famous and infamous men caught with “something in the cookie jar”: Profumo, Lambton, Parkinson, Mellor, Amos, Yeo, and Brown, to name only a few Tories, lead a long cast. And in case you think I’m anti-Conservative, let us not forget Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown and Labour's Welshman, Ron Davies.

The Profumo scandal was treated very seriously by the press and the establishment. Questions in the House and the Denning Enquiry followed, but what people remember more than anything was the remark by call girl Mandy Rice-Davies, “Well he would, wouldn’t he?” By the time we reached the 1990s antics of Conservative minister David Mellor, pithy sayings had been replaced by Chelsea football shirts and ridicule.

Sadly, adultery can result in tragedy. During Prime Minister John Major’s time, the Earl of Caithness’s affair resulted in the suicide of his wife. However, most of the time, my fellow-citizens can’t wait to read The News of the World on Sunday mornings to see what the politicians have been up to. When the news of Major’s extra-marital affair with Edwina Currie broke, it was met with, “How could he do it with her?” Having met the lady in question, who remains both attractive and vivacious, I am tempted to ask, “How could she do it with him?” But then I met “him” a few months ago and now fully understand the attraction. He is tall, fit and retains huge magnetism. He is not a grey man at all.

I remember well the morning that Margaret Thatcher's key advisor and Minister, Cecil Parkinson, was outed by Sarah Keays. That day, I had to attend a meeting with the Minister of Tourism of a small African country. During lunch, Parkinson’s name was mentioned. The minister asked what had happened. When given the facts, his attitude was most refreshing: “This man sires a child and he is expected to resign? In my country, everyone would congratulate him!”

Over here, the English Channel separates us from the likes of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who conducted an affair with his present wife during an election campaign. As for the antics of the current Italian leader, Silvio Berlusconi, with numerous ladies of the night, it brings a whole new meaning to “when in Rome”. Clearly continentals view the actions of their politicians differently to us in Britain. Their private lives are irrelevant...well, unless they are women.

As for our American friends, the most infamous infidelity of recent years is Bill Clinton’s. Even at this distance of time, I am still flabbergasted that a little bit of unwise and improper behaviour became the subject of an impeachment trial. However, the infidelity that I admired, yes, admired, for its sheer brazenness was that of Gary Hart. Remember him, the Colorado Senator better known as “Where’s the Beef?” He allowed himself to be photographed in flagrante with his lady friend on board a yacht whose name was clearly visible: “Monkey Business.” End of political career.

At the risk of being flattened by my wife’s frying pan or by any of the fairer sex when next I walk through the University of Birmingham campus, I regard the sex lives of politicians as private and no business of the voter. Yes, I’m sure it is preferable for a politico to be faithful and a good family man (or woman) but, in terms of conduct, it is not on the Richter Scale compared with MPs treatment of expenses or, heaven forefend, the ability to do the job. Surely it is the latter that is important.

I would have forgiven almost anything done by George W. Bush had he been a good leader. It seems that since he became born-again, Mr Bush has behaved impeccably in his private life; pity the same can’t be said for his stewardship of the States. Warren Harding gave the American voter the worst of both worlds. He got a woman pregnant in a cupboard in the White House whilst he failed the country in the Teapot Dome scandal and most other matters of state. For me, Franklin Roosevelt got it the right way round, unless you were part of his family. What a leader he was, even as he was unfaithful to Eleanor for years.

Maybe I’m too old and jaded, maybe I’ve reached the age of pure cynicism but give me a politician any time who can get the investment banks to behave properly and lawfully, who can reduce loutish behaviour so we can walk city centres at night, who can find ways to reduce teenage pregnancies and who, if an American, can get guns off the streets. Find him or her and he or she can have as many affairs as he or she wants.

Making Links: Extract from Martin Luther King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"

The Latest from Iran (27 June): Situation Normal. Move Along.

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED

Just thought this might be of interest --- WSL (native of Birmingham, Alabama; Adjunct Professor, University of Tehran, Iran)

16 April 1963

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?"

You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood....

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

Read full letter....

Video and Transcript: Obama Press Conference (23 June)

The Latest from Iran (23 June): Preparing for Thursday

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED

Two Iran-related clips from today's Presidential press conference, which we live-blogged earlier --- 1) Obama's opening statement and, on the jump page, 2) Obama's response to a set-up question from Nico Putney of The Huffington Post --- followed by the full transcript of the conference.:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h07wl7Kn1HM[/youtube]



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLCZZucxLeM[/youtube]

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Hello, everybody.

Good afternoon, everybody. Today I want to start by addressing three issues, and then I'll take your questions.

First, I'd like to say a few words about the situation in Iran. The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.

I've made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran and is not interfering with Iran's affairs. But we must also bear witness to the courage and the dignity of the Iranian people and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore the violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place.

The Iranian people are trying to have a debate about their future. Some in Iran -- some in the Iranian government, in particular -- are trying to avoid that debate by accusing the United States and others in the West of instigating protests over the election.

These accusations are patently false. They're an obvious attempt to distract people from what is truly taking place within Iran's borders. This tired strategy of using old tensions to scapegoat other countries won't work anymore in Iran. This is not about the United States or the West; this is about the people of Iran, and the future that they -- and only they -- will choose.

The Iranian people can speak for themselves. That's precisely what's happened in the last few days. In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to peaceful protests of justice. Despite the Iranian government's efforts to expel journalists and isolate itself, powerful images and poignant words have made their way to us through cell phones and computers, and so we've watched what the Iranian people are doing.

This is what we've witnessed. We've seen the timeless dignity of tens of thousands Iranians marching in silence. We've seen people of all ages risk everything to insist that their votes are counted and that their voices heard. Above all, we've seen courageous women stand up to brutality and threats, and we've experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets. While this loss is raw and extraordinarily painful, we also know this: those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people have a universal right to assembly and free speech. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect those rights and heed the will of its own people. It must govern through consent, and not coercion. That's what Iran's own people are calling for, and the Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government.

Now the second issue I want to address is our ongoing effort to build a clean energy economy. This week, the House of Representatives is moving ahead on historic legislation that will transform the way we produce and use energy in America. This legislation will spark a clean energy transformation that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and confront the carbon pollution that threatens our planet.

This energy bill will create a set of incentives that will spur the development of new sources of energy, including wind, solar and geothermal power. It will also spur new energy savings, like efficient windows and other materials that reduce heating costs in the winter and cooling costs in the summer.

These incentives will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy.

And that will lead to the development of new technologies that lead to new industries that could create millions of new jobs in America -- jobs that can't be shipped overseas.

At a time of great fiscal challenges, this legislation is paid for by the polluters who currently emit the dangerous carbon emissions that contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air that we breathe. It also provides assistance to businesses and communities as they make the gradual transition to clean-energy technologies.

So I believe that this legislation is extraordinarily important for our country. It's taken great effort on the part of many over the course of the past several months. And I want to thank the chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Henry Waxman; his colleagues on that committee, including Congressmen Dingell, Ed Markey and Rick Boucher. I also want to thank Charlie Rangel, the chair of the Ways and Means Committee, and Collin Peterson, the chair of the Agricultural Committee, for their many and ongoing contributions to this process. And I want to express my appreciation to Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer for their leadership.

We all know why this is so important. The nation that leads in the creation of a clean-energy economy will be the nation that leads the 21st century's global economy. That's what this legislation seeks to achieve. It's a bill that will open the door to a better future for this nation, and that's why I urge members of Congress to come together and pass it.

The last issue I'd like to address is health care. Right now, Congress is debating various health-care reform proposals. This is obviously a complicated issue, but I am very optimistic about the progress that they're making.

Like energy, this is legislation that must and will be paid for. It will not add to our deficits over the next decade. We will find the money through savings and efficiencies within the health-care system -- some of which we've already announced. We will also ensure that the reform we pass brings down the crushing cost of health care. We simply can't have a system where we throw good money after bad habits.

We need to control the skyrocketing costs that are driving families, businesses and our government into greater and greater debt.

There's no doubt that we must preserve what's best about our health care system, and that means allowing Americans who like their doctors and their health-care plans to keep them. But unless we fix what's broken in our current system, everyone's health care will be in jeopardy.

Unless we act, premiums will climb higher, benefits will erode further, and the rolls of the uninsured will swell to include millions more Americans. Unless we act, one out of every five dollars that we earn will be spent on health care within a decade, and the amount our government spends on Medicare and Medicaid will eventually grow larger than what our government spends on everything else today.

When it comes to health care, the status quo is unsustainable and unacceptable. So reform's not a luxury, it's a necessity. And I hope the Congress will continue to make significant progress on this issue in the weeks ahead.

So let me open it up for questions. And I'll start with you, Jennifer.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Your administration has said that the offer to talk to Iran's leaders remains open. Can you say if that's still so, even with all the violence that has been committed by the government against the people, protesters. And if it is, is there any red line that your administration won't cross, where that offer will be shut off?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, obviously, what's happened in Iran is profound. And we're still waiting to see how it plays itself out. My position coming into this office has been that the United States has core national security interests in making sure that Iran doesn't possess a nuclear weapon and it stops exporting terrorism outside of its borders.

We have provided a path whereby Iran can reach out to the international community, engage, and become a part of international norms. It is up to them to make a decision as to whether they choose that path.

What we've been seeing over the last several days, the last couple of weeks, obviously is not encouraging in terms of the path that this regime may choose to take. And the fact that they are now in the midst of an extraordinary debate taking place in Iran, you know, may end up coloring how they respond to the international community as a whole.

We are going to monitor and see how this plays itself out before we make any judgments about how we proceed. But just to reiterate, there is a path available to Iran in which their sovereignty is respected, their traditions, their culture, their faith is respected, but one in which they are part of a larger community that has responsibilities and operates according to norms and international rules that are universal. We don't know how they're going to respond yet, and that's what we're waiting to see.

Q So should there be consequences for what's happened so far?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think that the international community is, as I said before, bearing witness to what's taking place. And the Iranian government should understand that how they handle the dissent within their own country generated indigenously, internally from the Iranian people, will help shape the tone not only for Iran's future but also its relationship to other countries.

Since we're on Iran, I know Nico Pitney is here from Huffington Post.

Q Thank you, Mr. President.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Nico, I know that you, and all across the Internet, we've been seeing a lot of reports coming directly out of Iran. I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. What -- do you have a question?

Q Yeah, I did, but I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian. We solicited questions last night from people who are still courageous enough to be communicating online, and one of them wanted to ask you this: Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad? And if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn't that a betrayal of what the demonstrators there are working towards?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, look, we didn't have international observers on the ground. We can't say definitively what exactly happened at polling places throughout the country. What we know is that a sizable percentage of the Iranian people themselves, spanning Iranian society, consider this election illegitimate. It's not an isolated instance, a little grumbling here or there. There is significant questions about the legitimacy of the election.

And so, ultimately, the most important thing for the Iranian government to consider is legitimacy in the eyes of its own people, not in the eyes of the United States. And that's why I've been very clear, ultimately this is up to the Iranian people to decide who their leadership is going to be and the structure of their government.

What we can do is to say unequivocally that there are sets of international norms and principles about violence, about dealing with the -- peaceful dissent, that -- that spans cultures, spans borders.

And what we've been seeing over the Internet and what we've been seeing in news reports violates those norms and violates those principles. I think it is not too late for the Iranian government to recognize that there is a peaceful path that will lead to stability and legitimacy and prosperity for the Iranian people. We hope they take it.

Read rest of transcript....

The US and Britain: The Attack of the Nanny State?

Two weeks ago, the US Senate approved legislation empowering the federal government with sweeping powers to oversee tobacco products. In essence, Uncle Sam will regulate matters such as the amount of nicotine in a cigarette, not to mention how the cigarette is packaged, signed, and marketed. After 50 years of warnings from the surgeon general, Big Tobacco has finally succumbed to a smoking President. Now, if only the National Rifle Association would fall at the feet of a President with a smoking gun, maybe we would get some sanity over the interpretation of the Second Amendment's "right to bear arms".

I have to declare an interest. Not only am I a reformed smoker – I was a 60-a-day man back in the 1970s, but I am also a trustee of a cancer charity. Therefore, you will not find me defending the rights of the tobacco industry or cigarette smokers. In fact, on a trip to Australia some ten years ago, I welcomed the typical Aussie frankness. The message on a packet of their cigs was to the point: “Smoking Kills”.

However, will Americans be asking a bigger question? Do they want a nanny state, where risk taking is minimized to cover obtuseness, as the government seeks to protect the citizen from everything that they, not the citizen, considers potentially dangerous? Will tobacco regulation be the thin end of the wedge?

In Britain, The Nanny State by Robert Huntington examined the almost obsessive nannying of the Tony Blair and, briefly, Gordon Brown Governments. Huntington writes scathingly about the chief proponents of the movement and argues that bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive, with its army of "five-a-day [fruit and vegetable] coordinators" and "smoking cessation officers", are merely a bunch of conmen who have seized a slice of the Treasury's cash reserves without doing anything productive in return. Huntington argues that nannying is ultimately dangerous, as freedoms are continually eroded while funds and resources are increasingly wasted.

One wonders whether the freedom issue over tobacco legislation might reach the Supreme Court and, if so, if the legislation be rejected towards the end of Obama’s first term. In the economic sphere, I have been astonished at the acceptance by mainstream America of the Federal Government’s takeover of the banking system, a move that is socialist from any viewpoint and attacks the norms of American business freedom and ideology. In the social sphere, will the Obama administration be tempted to make further inroads into American life on the basis of safety?

The proposed healthcare legislation will get a much harder ride in Congress than the new tobacco laws, where I am sure Republican objections to charges of nannying will find support in some Democrat ranks. And, fortunately for the US, separation of powers prevents the executive from ramming through unwelcome legislation. Nevertheless, Congressmen might look at the British experience before they decide to get carried away with petty regulations, passed in the fervour of “we know better than you.”