Obama's Inauguration Speech  

Some of you may have already noticed that Obama has been sworn in as US President, but for those who don't read or watch anything other than Peak Energy I'll post some of his speech just so you aren't left behind.

I liked some of the passages, both those repudiating the actions of the previous administration and his call to harness the sun and wind, expand the grid, deal with global warming and restore science to its rightful place (We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories).

We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act — not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. All this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions — who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. Those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers ... our found fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort — even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

Imagine that back in 1999 you were a Hollywood studio executive and a movie producer brought you the following pitch:

A bumbling, incurious child of privilege wastes his youth on Oedipal rebellion. After stumbling through a series of failed business ventures and an undistinguished stint as governor of a state in which the governor has no power, he finds himself on the brink of the presidency. He is intercepted there by a bitter old veteran of Washington infighting, a man eager to repay old slights by radically remaking the federal government. Under the guise of helping the bumbler find a vice president, the veteran installs himself in that role.

Upon taking office, the bumbler and his shadowy consigliere immediately begin dismantling environmental protections and reversing campaign promises to regulate pollution. Consigliere develops a new energy policy by convening secret meetings with representatives of the nation's dirtiest industries, while refusing to release any information about who participated or what was said. The federal bureaucracy, newly stocked with industry lobbyists, drives through measures that allowed increased toxics in drinking water, massive mine waste dumps in streams and rivers, and an explosion of energy exploration and drilling on public lands. Environmental enforcement drops off sharply; government scientists and scientific reports are censored.

Would you make that movie? Probably not. It's over the top. Lacks depth. The characters are two-dimensional. No real-world politician is so uniformly hostile to environmental protection and social justice, so committed to partisanship over science, so single-mindedly dedicated to looting the public trust for the benefit of large corporations.

To be fair, Oliver Stone got such a movie made, but only after the Bush years were almost over. It's hard to see how anyone from the pre-Sept. 11 years could have envisioned how W.'s time in office would unfold.

Therein lies the unique challenge that the administration of George W. Bush posed to journalists, particularly environmental journalists. People are drawn to journalism by curiosity about the rich textures and complexities of the real world. By temperament and training they're inclined to see every issue as multi-faceted, a clash of competing perspectives. So what do reporters do in the face of a real-world leader who for all intents and purposes might as well be Snidely McEvil, twirling his mustache and tying damsels to the railroad tracks? What do they do when there's barely a patina of policy or ideological rationale behind the sheer will to crush political opponents and elevate political allies? When the most interesting question about any given act is whether it's better explained by ignorance or malice?

Turns out they blow it. Mainstream journalists' fear of two-dimensionality -- perhaps more importantly, the fear of being branded as "biased" -- turned out to be stronger than their will to tell the truth as it unfolds. The result has been a kind of normalizing filter around officialdom, whereby every act, no matter how mendacious or destructive to the public interest, is a reasonable, good-faith position that "environmentalists" object to (down in paragraph five).

Grist tried to tell the truth about the Bush administration as we see it. Frankly, it wasn't always a picnic. Monochromatic hostility toward the environment, reported honestly, is, well, monochromatic, no matter how clever your headlines. Not only that, but it gets you labeled as "activist," the worst epithet available in media circles. It's a price worth paying -- not like mainstream media outlets are reveling in their success -- but let's face it, it's dispiriting and eventually, boring.

As we look back over the astonishingly and almost uniformly dismal Bush record on the environment, we are above all relieved and excited, if only for selfish reasons. Despite the pressing challenges facing humanity and the planet, and however events end up playing out, the next few years promise a richness and drama that we as journalists have sorely missed.