Obama's Copenhagen Speech

Obama’s Copenhagen Speech

EnvironmentDecember 2009 • Views: 2,785

If the Guardian is upset with President Obama’s speech in Copenhagen, he must have done something right: Barack Obama’s speech disappoints and fuels frustration at Copenhagen.

The “frustration” they feel comes from the fact that Obama didn’t cave in, didn’t give away the store, refused to compromise US sovereignty, and is sticking to his guns about other nations doing their part to stop climate change.

In other words, the Guardian is frustrated and angry because Obama is the President of the United States, not President of the World.

Here’s the full text of Obama’s speech.

Youtube Video

Jump to bottom

110 comments

S'latch Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:17:21am

May he continue to disappoint everyone equally.

Gus Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:17:42am

Video of speech.

Youtube Video

MrSilverDragon Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:18:32am

This sounds like a Jeopary “answer”. What does a good portion of the U.S. population have in common with The Guardian?

brookly red Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:20:23am

I am no Obama fan, but he did OK here.

Blueheron Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:20:28am

Trust but verify Mr. President before sending our tax dollars overseas. Otherwise we will be enriching dictators and potentates.

Mostly sane, most of the time. Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:20:45am

Only free countries practice environmentalism, because when the people are, collectively, the bosses, we demand not to live in toxic crap.

China will continue to pollute until the Chinese people have the power to demand clean air and water, and get it.

I appreciate Obama’s willingness to stick up for the American people.

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:21:20am

re: #1 Lawrence Schmerel

May he continue to disappoint everyone equally.

Sign of a president doing his job, that.

Sharmuta Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:21:29am

We know the fault lines because we’ve been imprisoned by them for years. These international discussions have essentially taken place now for almost two decades, and we have very little to show for it other than an increased acceleration of the climate change phenomenon. The time for talk is over. This is the bottom line: We can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, continue to refine it and build upon its foundation. We can do that, and everyone who is in this room will be part of a historic endeavor — one that makes life better for our children and our grandchildren.
Or we can choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year, perhaps decade after decade, all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is no time to waste. America has made our choice. We have charted our course. We have made our commitments. We will do what we say. Now I believe it’s the time for the nations and the people of the world to come together behind a common purpose.

This was a good speech, and the President did a good job stressing that America is now ready to step up and be a leader on this issue. I certainly hope other nations will consider his words, but I fear the international politics is already set. *sigh*

MrSilverDragon Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:22:50am

re: #3 MrSilverDragon

Jeopardy. Jeopardy.

As god is my witness, I’ll never forget to use SpellCheck again!

(we all know that’s not true)

Shiplord Kirel Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:24:05am

The British Hate-America cult shows its true colors yet again. They loved Obama when they thought he was an America-hating leftist like themselves (Oddly, the same idea the Palinite right has about him).
Now, though, he has turned out to be a loyal American after all, and quite strong to boot, and they suddenly loathe him.

Mark Pennington Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:24:29am

If the Guardian is upset with President Obama’s speech in Copenhagen, he must have done something right:

Hear-hear

brookly red Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:25:12am

re: #5 Blueheron

Trust but verify Mr. President before sending our tax dollars overseas. Otherwise we will be enriching dictators and potentates.

I am a bit concerned though about Clinton’s earlier pledge…

lawhawk Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:25:29am

The NYT lede: Obama wanted China to be more transparent on the cuts they’re to make, but also wanted an agreement - no matter how imperfect - to be done before work wraps up.

Sometimes the only thing worse than no deal is a bad deal, and I think that most countries think that this is a bad deal. Of course, Obama can agree to whatever he wants, but if Congress doesn’t approve, the US wont be bound by the Copenhagen protocol just as surely as President Clinton didn’t even bother submitting Kyoto to Congress because they would never have accepted it.

Obama can make all the demands he wants, but if something is accepted, he can turn around and blame Congress for not getting it adopted; he’s still the President and has to play politics with Congress over this.

A profile of the competing interests is here (the various national/transnational groups).

Blueheron Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:25:47am

Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela, described Obama’s speech as “ridiculous” and the US’s initial offer of a $10bn fund for poor countries in the draft text as “a joke”.

Hey Chavez stick your opinion where the sun don’t shine.
I can’t wait until American scientists develop the technology which gets us off your gas and you out of our pockets.

lawhawk Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:26:17am

re: #10 Shiplord Kirel

Obama went cowboy on ‘em? Fancy that.

Haole Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:26:18am

Chavez smells sulfur again…..Good.

Obdicut Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:26:33am

Stressing the global aspects of climate change is entirely the best way to go about it.

If severe climate change does occur, the US and the rest of the developed world will bear it far better than the 3rd world. The brinksmanship that China is playing is very dangerous for themselves, and I think they know it. They seem scared. But not scared enough.

Killgore Trout Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:26:35am

Looks like Ed Morrisey is pushing another bogus story…..

Video: Mother kills newborn, can’t be charged with crime

Investigators tell WSLS the baby’s airway was still blocked. They say the baby was under bedding and had been suffocated by her mother. Investigators say because the mother and baby were still connected by the umbilical cord and placenta, state law does not consider the baby to be a separate life. Therefore, the mother cannot be charged.

“In the state of Virginia as long as the umbilical cord is attached and the placenta is still in the mother, if the baby comes out alive the mother can do whatever she wants to with that baby to kill it.“, says Investigator Tracy Emerson. “She could shoot the baby, stab the baby. As long as it’s still attached to her in some form by umbilical cord or something it’s no crime in the state of Virginia.“

It seems plausible at first, based on a real news report and an interview with an investigator until he makes the bizarre statement that a mother can stab or shoot her baby. I seriously doubt that. If a late term abortion is illegal in VA then shooting or stabbing a baby after birth is almost certainly illegal.

Blueheron Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:26:52am

re: #12 brookly red

I am a bit concerned though about Clinton’s earlier pledge…

Sure. We can use 10 billion here developing alternative energy sources.

Lidane Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:28:04am

re: #14 Blueheron

Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela, described Obama’s speech as “ridiculous” and the US’s initial offer of a $10bn fund for poor countries in the draft text as “a joke”.

Good. That means that President Obama is on the right track. If what he says annoys Chavez, I’m all for it.

Blueheron Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:28:10am

re: #7 SanFranciscoZionist

Sign of a president doing his job, that.

Cool isn’t it? They thought since we didn’t reelect a ‘George Bush’ he would have to be a push over :))))

Mostly sane, most of the time. Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:28:49am

re: #19 Blueheron

Sure. We can use 10 billion here developing alternative energy sources.

10 billion worth of merry-go-rounds!

[Link: news.byu.edu…]

(First posted by DaddyG)

(I always said I believed in child labor.)

Gus Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:29:47am

Excellent speech. President Obama lays down the law at Copenhagen.

John Neverbend Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:30:46am

The Copenhagen participants (and the Grauniad) have either forgotten or chosen to ignore the fact that the US refusal to ratify the agreement occurred during Clinton’s time as President (although Gore did sign it) and that the Byrd-Hagel resolution was passed by the Senate 95-0.

Blueheron Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:33:37am

re: #22 EmmmieG

10 billion worth of merry-go-rounds!

[Link: news.byu.edu…]

(First posted by DaddyG)

(I always said I believed in child labor.)

Hmmmm isn’t that child abuse? And if I get hamsters won’t PETA come after me? Oh the problems are enormous.

sattv4u2 Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:33:55am

Thank you President Obama

Mostly sane, most of the time. Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:35:11am

re: #25 Blueheron

Hmmm isn’t that child abuse? And if I get hamsters won’t PETA come after me? Oh the problems are enormous.

Only if you deliberately jack your kids up on sugar and chocolate to get more power out of them.

(I have four boys. We could light this entire block.)

freetoken Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:35:36am

Watching it live, it struck me that the President was intent to not give up his bargaining position (about transparency) not only for the sake of domestic US politics but also to be part of the larger coalition of countries wanting it also.

Obama was followed by the leader of Lesotho who offered some praise for President Obama and for the US.

It was a strange mix of speeches, and unlike what might be characterized in the right-o-sphere, was not anti-American. What was conveyed by watching the lot of them is that there was still some distance between the bargaining position.

I also noted that while the other leaders were giving speeches in the main room, the leader of Iran was giving a rather lengthy press conference. It seemed like a desperate attempt to get attention (since he had spoken on the previous day and wasn’t going to be able to speak again at the main “informal” speeches.)

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:37:00am

re: #10 Shiplord Kirel

The British Hate-America cult shows its true colors yet again. They loved Obama when they thought he was an America-hating leftist like themselves (Oddly, the same idea the Palinite right has about him).
Now, though, he has turned out to be a loyal American after all, and quite strong to boot, and they suddenly loathe him.

David Abromowitz predicted exactly that back during the election.

John Neverbend Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:39:38am

Oh dear, Obama seems to have upset the Chinese.

Obama urges action in Copenhagen

Blueheron Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:39:42am

re: #29 SanFranciscoZionist

David Abromowitz predicted exactly that back during the election.

It doesn’t take them long to hate American Presidents no matter who the president is folks.

freetoken Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:41:08am

re: #13 lawhawk

The likelihood that they could complete a legally binding treaty at Copenhagen was always small… remember that originally Obama was not planning on being there (except at the very start, on his way to the Nobel ceremony.)

There was hope that when the President decided to show up at the end that would be enough stimulus to get the different parties to come together and make some sort of progress.

Ultimately there are so many conflicting interests that coming to any world-wide agreed upon mitigation measures is remote, especially when there are interests actively working against any chance of agreement.

sattv4u2 Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:44:06am

Protesters in Copenhagen!

Haven’t I seen this movie somewhere before!?!?

Youtube Video

Killgore Trout Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:46:58am

re: #18 Killgore Trout

Yup, it’s completely bogus. Here’s the law….

A. Any person who knowingly performs partial birth infanticide and thereby kills a human infant is guilty of a Class 4 felony.
B. For the purposes of this section, “partial birth infanticide” means any deliberate act that (i) is intended to kill a human infant who has been born alive, but who has not been completely extracted or expelled from its mother, and that (ii) does kill such infant, regardless of whether death occurs before or after extraction or expulsion from its mother has been completed.

Ed Morrisey is happy to lie for Jesus.

lawhawk Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:47:31am

re: #32 freetoken

I agree completely that the chances were remote. Obama figures he has nothing to lose by spending more political capital trying to cajole something out of the Copenhagen talks by attending a second time (and btw, has he yet come under fire for a second transatlantic trip on AF1 for that purpose instead of teleconferencing?).

I appreciate his requests for transparency from countries like China on their emissions controls, but as you correctly note, with so many competing interests, the chances of any deal were remote at best.

freetoken Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:48:30am

Dr. Alley’s lecture from Tuesday (at the annual AGU meeting) is now available online:

[Link: www.agu.org…]

Recommend make it mandatory watching for all the deniers!

Gearhead Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:48:52am

re: #27 EmmmieG

(I have four boys. We could light this entire block.)

God bless you. We have two boys, and I tell people we’re outnumbered.

lawhawk Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:49:20am

re: #34 Killgore Trout

Fact check on aisle one. A simple google search would have revealed that this “report” didn’t add up.

Good job.

RogueOne Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:49:28am

Testing standard blackberry browser. Can anybody hear me?//

vxbush Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:49:52am

re: #39 RogueOne

Testing standard blackberry browser. Can anybody hear me?//

Loud and clear.

RogueOne Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:51:10am

re: #39 RogueOne
Oops, wrong thread. but I can reply! woot! wonder why it won’t let me reply when I use OperaMini?

Mad Al-Jaffee Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:51:21am

re: #39 RogueOne

Testing standard blackberry browser. Can anybody hear me?//

I can’t hear you, there’s a banana in my ear.

vxbush Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:51:52am

re: #42 Mad Al-Jaffee

I can’t hear you, there’s a banana in my ear.

Here, let me add the whipped cream, while we’re at it…..

Killgore Trout Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:52:42am

re: #38 lawhawk

Fact check on aisle one. A simple google search would have revealed that this “report” didn’t add up.

Good job.

It’s so frustrating to see the right wing blogs give up on fact checking. It’s so easy to do these days that there’s just no excuse.

RogueOne Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:53:08am

I generally use my Opera browser because it loads the long comments threads fine, the blackberry browser just craps out on you when there’s too many posts.

BTW, Bing just added an app to my blackberry without even asking. WTF is up with that?

Jeff In Ohio Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:53:52am

re: #10 Shiplord Kirel

The British Hate-America cult shows its true colors yet again. They loved Obama when they thought he was an America-hating leftist like themselves (Oddly, the same idea the Palinite right has about him).
Now, though, he has turned out to be a loyal American after all, and quite strong to boot, and they suddenly loathe him.

The bolded part confuses me.

vxbush Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:53:54am

re: #45 RogueOne

I generally use my Opera browser because it loads the long comments threads fine, the blackberry browser just craps out on you when there’s too many posts.

BTW, Bing just added an app to my blackberry without even asking. WTF is up with that?

First sign of the one-world government: installing apps on your smartphone.

Mad Al-Jaffee Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:54:03am

They’re now predicting 10-20 inches of snow this weekend, starting tonight. I’m extra glad that I made a big pot of chili a couple of days ago - no grocery shopping for me tonight. I do have to get my dog’s med refilled and I should be able to do that tonight. I think the only thing I’ll be buying tonight besides that is more beer and wine.

bubba zanetti Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:54:50am

re: #42 Mad Al-Jaffee

I can’t hear you, there’s a banana in my ear.

I guess it doesn’t work for lizards, then?

Killgore Trout Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:55:17am

re: #48 Mad Al-Jaffee

Stock up and enjoy being snowbound. I like it.

MandyManners Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:55:31am

re: #35 lawhawk

I agree completely that the chances were remote. Obama figures he has nothing to lose by spending more political capital trying to cajole something out of the Copenhagen talks by attending a second time (and btw, has he yet come under fire for a second transatlantic trip on AF1 for that purpose instead of teleconferencing?).

I appreciate his requests for transparency from countries like China on their emissions controls, but as you correctly note, with so many competing interests, the chances of any deal were remote at best.

Who’s gonna’ say anything? If someone does, he’s said to have a bad case of BDS. And, he’s probably a denier to boot!

sattv4u2 Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:57:11am

re: #50 Killgore Trout

Stock up and enjoy being snowbound. I like it.

I KINDA miss it

Survived The Blizzard of ‘78 in Boston.

Live in Georgia now, and every so often we get a dusting, and of course they close everything down

Mostly sane, most of the time. Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:58:42am

Did anybody notice that after Prince Charles came under attack for taking a private jet to Copenhagen, the Queen actually took the regular train today. Seriously. The regular train. She and her um, posse, had the whole first-class carriage to themselves (there were other first-class carriages available), but it cost taxpayers 44 pounds, rather than 57,000 pounds for her private train.

freetoken Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:58:58am

I really, really , Really, recommend that people watch Dr. Alley’s lecture, linked above.

Mad Al-Jaffee Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:59:20am

re: #50 Killgore Trout

Stock up and enjoy being snowbound. I like it.

Me too! I was planning to go to a local blues jam/holiday party tomorrow afternoon, but it looks like that won’t be happening.

Sharmuta Fri, Dec 18, 2009 10:59:41am

re: #54 freetoken

OK- I’ll watch it.

Mostly sane, most of the time. Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:00:05am

re: #53 EmmmieG

Nancy Pelosi, are you paying attention?

lawhawk Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:01:14am

re: #51 MandyManners

Oh wait. I just did. But at least I’m consistent on it (my mantra has long been for people like Gore and other environmentalists who are preaching the global warming gospel to take it to the teleconferencing instead of jetsetting around the world to spread the message because it looks like nothing more than pandering for their own pocketbooks.

The President could have set a tone by getting to teleconference in and get his message across, although he (and people like Gore) would still claim that personal interaction in person can help get the message out even if it means going and jetsetting.

Slap Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:01:52am

re: #55 Mad Al-Jaffee

“Blues jam/holiday party”.

Now THERE’S an ultimate classic combination! I can think of few better ways to celebrate anything, to be honest….

Locker Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:03:02am

Does someone have a link to a more objective, even generic analysis of the speech. The Guardian is making me feel like we just kicked the planet it the nuts and I need another perspective.

Spare O'Lake Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:05:00am

So what’s the carbon footprint of a real Christmas tree?
a) Snow joking matter;
b) Fir cryin’ out loud;
c) Trees don’t have feet;
d) Pine the sky question;
e) Nun of the above

Mad Al-Jaffee Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:05:07am

re: #59 Slap

“Blues jam/holiday party”.

Now THERE’S an ultimate classic combination! I can think of few better ways to celebrate anything, to be honest…

It’s an acoustic jam this organization has every pretty much every Saturday. Tomorrow they’re combining it with a holiday party, with food, drink raffles and a silent auction.

I was going to bring homemade pulled pork barbecue, but there’s no way I’m cooking all night in a snow storm. The Big Green Egg can handle that, but I don’t want to deal with it.

Locker Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:06:49am

Outtakes from Stephen Colbert’s SI photoshoot

Jaerik Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:07:07am

I really don’t see how these international agreements are gunna work. It’s just not in most of the world’s best interests to alter their current fossil fuel-driven growth plans.

America’s gunna have to lead on this, even if nobody else comes with us. We have to prove, with our technology and our ingenuity, that renewable energy can’t just substitute for fossil fuels, but actually be better. And figure out how to make it happen as an economic net Win for ourselves.

We’ve done it before. Industrial revolution, etc. I have faith that America can still do it. But as long as we have a sizable group of anti-science self-interested douchebags holding the debate back at whether or not there even is a problem, our ingenuity and creativity as a country can’t be turned towards what to do about it.

sattv4u2 Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:07:45am

re: #57 EmmmieG

Nancy Pelosi, are you paying attention?

Lets see

One IS a queen, one thinks she is

One IS gracious, one doesn’t know the term

Does that answer your question!?!?

darthstar Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:08:10am

re: #14 Blueheron

Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela, described Obama’s speech as “ridiculous” and the US’s initial offer of a $10bn fund for poor countries in the draft text as “a joke”.

Hey Chavez stick your opinion where the sun don’t shine.
I can’t wait until American scientists develop the technology which gets us off your gas and you out of our pockets.

How long until the likes of Inhofe, Boehner, Bachmann, and McConnell going to Chávez’s defense?

LotharBot Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:10:04am

re: #34 Killgore Trout

Yup, it’s completely bogus. Here’s the law…

Of particular interest, this law was overturned by a 2-1 decision of a lower court in May of 2008 and then reinstated by a 6-5 decision of the 4th USCCA in June of this year. So the guy’s scaremongering might be plausible to people with outdated information — those who heard of the ban being overturned, but not reinstated.

Now, I don’t know if the placenta/umbilical cord attachment thing in the original story is true or not, but either way, it would be considered a felony — either under the law you linked above if the child is viewed as “partially delivered”, or as a plain ol’ murder if the child is viewed as separate. There’s no gap between the two to sneak an infanticide in.

Mostly sane, most of the time. Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:10:11am

re: #65 sattv4u2

Lets see

One IS a queen, one thinks she is

One IS gracious, one doesn’t know the term

Does that answer your question!?!?

//

I was thinking that her point (the Queen’s) is that if the Queen of England can take mass transportation, it isn’t beneath anybody. The woman knows leadership.

sattv4u2 Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:11:30am

re: #66 darthstar

How long until the likes of Inhofe, Boehner, Bachmann, and McConnell going to Chávez’s defense?

Not likely

Image: ahmadinejad_chavez.jpg

Image: chavez.jpg

Slap Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:11:41am

re: #62 Mad Al-Jaffee

What a great organization. They’ve been duly added to my “if I ever win the lotto list”.

Mad Al-Jaffee Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:13:44am

re: #70 Slap

What a great organization. They’ve been duly added to my “if I ever win the lotto list”.

Upding for that!

They could have used a lotto winner a couple of years ago. That way they could have bought and kept the original barbershop. But where it is now is much more convenient for me, so I can’t complain.

Spare O'Lake Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:14:04am

The speech was very good…unfortunately, that and two bucks will get you a cup of coffee.

Gus Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:15:03am

re: #60 Locker

Does someone have a link to a more objective, even generic analysis of the speech. The Guardian is making me feel like we just kicked the planet it the nuts and I need another perspective.

We’ll have to wait a couple of hours. The far-left is immediately unhappy and this includes rumblings from Greenpeace. The far-right will be unhappy regardless.

Mostly sane, most of the time. Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:15:40am

re: #72 Spare O’Lake

The speech was very good…unfortunately, that and two bucks will get you a cup of coffee.

Actually, his ability to make speeches got him a presidency.

vxbush Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:16:10am

re: #66 darthstar

How long until the likes of Inhofe, Boehner, Bachmann, and McConnell going to Chávez’s defense?

Wasn’t that $100 billion, not $10 billion? I thought I recalled Clinton’s offer being 10x higher.

MandyManners Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:17:18am

re: #58 lawhawk

Oh wait. I just did. But at least I’m consistent on it (my mantra has long been for people like Gore and other environmentalists who are preaching the global warming gospel to take it to the teleconferencing instead of jetsetting around the world to spread the message because it looks like nothing more than pandering for their own pocketbooks.

The President could have set a tone by getting to teleconference in and get his message across, although he (and people like Gore) would still claim that personal interaction in person can help get the message out even if it means going and jetsetting.

And, teleconferencing would deny others the maginificence of his presence.

Spare O'Lake Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:18:07am

re: #74 EmmmieG

Actually, his ability to make speeches got him a presidency.

Now don’t you be suggesting he’s all talk…

Locker Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:18:09am

re: #73 Gus 802

We’ll have to wait a couple of hours. The far-left is immediately unhappy and this includes rumblings from Greenpeace. The far-right will be unhappy regardless.

I should just wait and watch The News Hour on PBS. They normally make me feel like I’m being informed as opposed to being persuaded.

sattv4u2 Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:18:42am

re: #74 EmmmieG

Actually, his ability to make speeches got him a presidency.

“Perception” and appearance have been conerstones of winning since the televised Nixon/ Kennedy debate. Most observers agree that Nixon won on the issues and answers, but the sweat on his upper lip added to Kennedys photogenic looks made Kennedy the winner by all accounts

Mostly sane, most of the time. Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:19:25am

re: #79 sattv4u2

“Perception” and appearance have been conerstones of winning since the televised Nixon/ Kennedy debate. Most observers agree that Nixon won on the issues and answers, but the sweat on his upper lip added to Kennedys photogenic looks made Kennedy the winner by all accounts

Maybe we should go back to having them by radio only.

LotharBot Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:22:44am

Obama’s Copenhagen speech, along with his Nobel speech, show the man has balls. One of my biggest pre-election fears was that he’d essentially be a puppet for the world’s leftists and dictators to manipulate, but he’s managed to piss off pretty much all of them with the way he’s stood up to them and put forth solid American ideals. “Dear hippie Nobel guys, peace is underwritten by American blood, and don’t you forget it. And China, we’re not gonna nerf our economy to protect the environment just so you can destroy it twice as bad.”

I loved the way Bush angered all the right people, and I love the way Obama angers many of the very same people.

sattv4u2 Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:22:45am

re: #80 EmmmieG

Maybe we should go back to having them by radio only.

Probably would have helped this past election. The meme was how “old” McCain is, and would he even be able to endure one term. Seeing him on TV next to a youthful Obama only cemented that thought. McCain doesn’t come across on TV well due to his numerous injuries while a captive, NOT because of age

Blueheron Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:24:04am

re: #50 Killgore Trout

Stock up and enjoy being snowbound. I like it.

I used to until I moved to Florida. heh.

MandyManners Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:26:35am

re: #79 sattv4u2

“Perception” and appearance have been conerstones of winning since the televised Nixon/ Kennedy debate. Most observers agree that Nixon won on the issues and answers, but the sweat on his upper lip added to Kennedys photogenic looks made Kennedy the winner by all accounts

And his five-o’clock shadow.

SixDegrees Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:26:48am

re: #64 Jaerik

I really don’t see how these international agreements are gunna work. It’s just not in most of the world’s best interests to alter their current fossil fuel-driven growth plans.

America’s gunna have to lead on this, even if nobody else comes with us. We have to prove, with our technology and our ingenuity, that renewable energy can’t just substitute for fossil fuels, but actually be better. And figure out how to make it happen as an economic net Win for ourselves.

We’ve done it before. Industrial revolution, etc. I have faith that America can still do it. But as long as we have a sizable group of anti-science self-interested douchebags holding the debate back at whether or not there even is a problem, our ingenuity and creativity as a country can’t be turned towards what to do about it.

A couple of points:

You can’t legislate innovation. It happens at it’s own pace. As someone pointed out earlier this morning, cars didn’t displace horses because horses were taxed and regulated out of existence; cars came along on their own, and were simply better than horses in many ways. In general, good ideas take root and prosper all by themselves. Government can, perhaps, help things along by nudging what’s already happened by itself in the right direction, but it can’t whip up anything new out of thin air.

Also, as a practical matter you need the douchebags to buy in and lend their support. This may involve education. Or it may involve abandoning one framework in which the problem is cast and redefining it in another way that’s more acceptable to the opposition. National energy independence, for example, isn’t going to go over well when it’s pitched as a way to make hippy dreams of wind power and the collapse of Evil Corporate America come true, at least not when the pitch is directed at a substantial portion of the nation. Frame it as a security issue, however, or as a way to stick it to despots like the Saudis or Venezuela, and it suddenly becomes palatable.

Obdicut Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:28:57am

re: #85 SixDegrees

You certainly can legislate conditions that spur innovation, especially for areas and industries that are not currently market-practical. The US government has a long history of driving innovative research in many, many areas.

Would you say the Manhatten project was innovative?

Blueheron Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:29:06am

re: #66 darthstar

How long until the likes of Inhofe, Boehner, Bachmann, and McConnell going to Chávez’s defense?

Now that diss is sensless. NO ONE likes Chavez.

sattv4u2 Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:30:20am

re: #84 MandyManners

And his five-o’clock shadow.

At noon!

Locker Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:32:02am

re: #85 SixDegrees

A couple of points:

You can’t legislate innovation. It happens at it’s own pace. As someone pointed out earlier this morning, cars didn’t displace horses because horses were taxed and regulated out of existence; cars came along on their own, and were simply better than horses in many ways. In general, good ideas take root and prosper all by themselves. Government can, perhaps, help things along by nudging what’s already happened by itself in the right direction, but it can’t whip up anything new out of thin air.

I don’t think I agree with this statement. The first thing that came to mind is the X Prize Foundation. Innovation can be spurred and encouraged. I think making statements of goal like the moon shot and offering rewards for innovation can focus and encourage people as well as create an atmosphere of progress, which we sorely need.

I know fiscal conservatives don’t like to spend public money on anything but this seems to be something that would contributed directly to the business community.

Just some thoughts.

Blueheron Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:32:14am

re: #75 vxbush

Wasn’t that $100 billion, not $10 billion? I thought I recalled Clinton’s offer being 10x higher.

Well which Clinton are you talking about? I took it to be Hillary Clinton a few days ago?

SixDegrees Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:32:50am

It must have been at least a moderately good speech. NPR’s programs are generally grumbling about it.

Jaerik Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:34:37am

re: #85 SixDegrees

Totally agreed on all points. I think the only way this is going to practically happen is by leveraging self-interest. We’re going to have to figure out how to drive the innovation by making it absurdly profitable to do so. We need to figure out how to create a cascading capitalist surge in the direction of green technology - a second industrial revolution, if you will.

I don’t think taxing corporations out of existence is a good idea. That’s just a net negative. I think government can nudge people in a few directions, but it needs to be through incentives, not punishments.

I also think that government funding for research is a good idea. Not every invention that spurned the technological and industrial surge of the last few centuries came from the private sector. Hell, the transcontinental railroad was publicly funded. Look at how the internet has gone from a kernel of a publicly-funded idea to one of the greatest private sector gold rushes in human history.

But just like those technological / industrial revolutions, it had to come from within. We didn’t sit around bloviating in Copenhagen, waiting for other countries to follow suit. We made the change ourselves, and we made it work for us. And once we proved it, everyone else followed along out of their own self-interests.

vxbush Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:36:51am

re: #90 Blueheron

Well which Clinton are you talking about? I took it to be Hillary Clinton a few days ago?

Sorry. Yes, I was referring to the Secretary of State’s proposal that she presented on behalf of the US contingent.

Blueheron Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:40:32am

re: #93 vxbush

Sorry. Yes, I was referring to the Secretary of State’s proposal that she presented on behalf of the US contingent.

Yep well I thought it was 10b but I am always ready to be corrected :)

sattv4u2 Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:41:47am

re: #94 Blueheron

Yep well I thought it was 10b but I am always ready to be corrected :)

You must be married!

Jaerik Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:43:08am

re: #85 SixDegrees

However, as a follow-up:

My point was more that… as long as all our country’s smartest and most scientifically/technologically inventive people are all occupied fighting a bogus ideological battle with our country’s dumbest people over whether or not there even is a problem, we’re screwed either way.

SixDegrees Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:44:43am

re: #89 Locker

I don’t think I agree with this statement. The first thing that came to mind is the X Prize Foundation. Innovation can be spurred and encouraged. I think making statements of goal like the moon shot and offering rewards for innovation can focus and encourage people as well as create an atmosphere of progress, which we sorely need.

I know fiscal conservatives don’t like to spend public money on anything but this seems to be something that would contributed directly to the business community.

Just some thoughts.

We already know how to build rockets; there’s nothing particularly new involved in the X Prize entries. The X Prize is simply doing the nudging I spoke of; the really new thing - space flight - has already been figured out. This is similar to automobiles; the IC engine came about on it’s own, without grants or subsidies, and basically sucked for quite a while. At that point, perhaps some government dough might have pushed the improvements along a bit, but they couldn’t have made the idea itself appear simply with wishful thinking. There has to be something there first for such incentives to…incentivize.

I think the government can play a role, for example, in streamlining the approval process for nuclear power plants. Just yesterday I heard a report that Europe is about to begin deploying third generation design nuke plants sometime next year that will be two generations ahead of anything in the US, because it’s been so long since we’ve played in that sandbox. I suspect that our engineering talent could do even better than the Europeans if given the opportunity. But again, this is just nudging along what’s already there.

I suppose one could make a case for wind and solar being incipient power sources needing such nudging. Maybe so, and I’m not opposed to looking into them. But I’ve been following solar for about thirty years now, and there seem to be insuperable problems with it, although it could become a niche power source in specialized applications. Wind, I’m not as familiar with, but it suffers from some of the same problems solar does (it is, in fact, just another form of indirect solar energy) - a large one being relatively low energy density that requires collection over a large area.

So yes, the government or private industry can shove along what’s already out there. To me, though, this doesn’t qualify as innovation, which I see as the discover/development of radically new energy sources, or means of conservation, or recycling and so forth.

Obdicut Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:47:46am

re: #97 SixDegrees

And how did space flight get figured out?

sattv4u2 Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:49:52am

re: #98 Obdicut

And how did space flight get figured out?

A collaborative effort between the ACME Corporation and this guy

Image: coyote-5.jpg

100

vxbush Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:50:28am

re: #94 Blueheron

Yep well I thought it was 10b but I am always ready to be corrected :)

Google news search

…confirms that it was $100 billion that was to be gathered jointly by the nations. Annually. I see nowhere a story that says that the US itself will donate $10 billion.

101

LotharBot Fri, Dec 18, 2009 11:50:32am

re: #86 Obdicut

You certainly can legislate conditions that spur innovation

Absolutely. Not just by funding research, but by providing an appropriate tax and business climate to allow small and large projects to get off the ground.

I just mentioned some things I like about Obama, so I guess this is a fair time to counter with one thing I don’t: his tax proposals (particularly the ones I read in detail during the election) don’t seem to be at all geared toward that.

re: #96 Jaerik

as long as all our country’s smartest and most scientifically/technologically inventive people are all occupied fighting a bogus ideological battle with our country’s dumbest people….

While, at the same time, many of our country’s most productive people and organizations are all occupied fighting a bogus class warfare and entitlement battle with our country’s laziest people…

The end result is that we’re hamstrung, partly by “deniers” and partly by the “business is evil” types. Obama is doing a pretty good job working over the deniers. I’d love for him to turn around and create a better business/tax environment to help spur innovation.

102

koedo Fri, Dec 18, 2009 12:30:18pm

I’m pleasantly surprised with Pres. Obama’s speech and his steadfast position on US sovereignty. Good job and atta boy.

103

suchislife Fri, Dec 18, 2009 12:42:32pm

Just a general comment: I’m always baffled by the people who judge things (laws, speeches, politicians) by who they piss off. Wtf? Who cares? If you think someone is wrong about some things, why would that make you replace your own opinion with simply opposition to their point of view? I can see why a teenager might to this, but how can anyone think this is a serious political concern?

104

pokeefe Fri, Dec 18, 2009 1:07:22pm

I suppose that there are people who believe that the world’s climate is something that can be managed by deliberate alterations in human behavior.

Good luck with that.

The pretentiousness is breathtaking.

As far as the speech was concerned: it was yet another speech - no more, no less.

Sounds great, but doesn’t irrevocably commit anybody to anything.

The on-the-job training has recently made some progress, but there’s still a very long way to go.

105

webevintage Fri, Dec 18, 2009 1:15:00pm

re: #57 EmmmieG

Nancy Pelosi, are you paying attention?

You know, it is awesome that Queen Elizabeth lives in a country that actually has a train system that connects to where you want to go (I would love to travel just by train, it is my favorite way to get somewhere) within her country and other near by countries.

Unfortunately Pelosi lives in America and getting from DC to San Fran by train can take a bit of doing.
Plus she is required by law as the Speaker of the House to travel the way she does because of 9/11.
There are a lot of ways to snark on Nancy for the way she spends money (like say the amount of $$ spent on bottled water) but the way she travels is not one of them.

106

andres Fri, Dec 18, 2009 1:34:18pm

re: #14 Blueheron

Hey Chavez stick your opinion where the sun don’t shine.

Where do you think his opinion came from?

re: #20 Lidane

Good. That means that President Obama is on the right track. If what he says annoys Chavez, I’m all for it.

This is never a good attitude to have, regardless if you are right. The “What They Are In Favor, We Are Against” mentality is extremely dangerous (see Republican Senators).

107

andres Fri, Dec 18, 2009 1:41:24pm

re: #103 suchislife

What can I say? Such is life.

108

Lidane Fri, Dec 18, 2009 3:18:37pm

re: #106 andres

This is never a good attitude to have, regardless if you are right. The “What They Are In Favor, We Are Against” mentality is extremely dangerous (see Republican Senators).

It’s not even about that. I just can’t stand Chavez personally. It’s been a constant thorn in my side the way some of my fellow folks on the left have embraced him. I know that he’s done a fair bit of anti-poverty and literacy stuff in Venezuela, but none of that changes the fact that I think he’s an idiot who should be held in contempt. The King of Spain had it right when he told Chavez to STFU. I wish more people would do it, quite frankly, but as long as we’re beholden to all the oil in Venezuela, that’s not going to happen. More’s the pity. =/

Still, if Obama annoys Chavez, I consider it a good thing. It’s not about embracing every Obama policy decision— I can’t do that despite the fact that I voted for the man, since that would involve putting my brain in stasis for the next 4-8 years. It’s about the fact that pissing off a dictator (because that’s what Chavez is, really) isn’t a bad thing. Sometimes, it’s the right thing to do.

109

Surabaya Stew Fri, Dec 18, 2009 4:19:10pm

re: #84 MandyManners

And his five-o’clock shadow.

re: #88 sattv4u2

At noon!

Nixon was notorious for needing to shave at least twice daily in order to avoid stubble. Were he in a profession that didn’t require human interaction, IMHO the man would have sprouted a full beard instead of dealing with the morning and midday razor sessions.

110

daliarose Sat, Dec 19, 2009 6:25:29pm

Very good speech. Bold, straightforward, confident without being overbearing. Very presidential. I did not vote for Obama, but I am slowly warming to him, and this was a major step in the right direction.
Thank you, Charles, for being a light in the darkness of our current political landscape, and thanks for not bending even a millimeter to the wack-jobs on the right.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Obama’s Copenhagen Speech

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud