What to Expect for the State of the Union Address

President Obama's State of the Union address is scheduled for Tuesday of next week, and it is intended to not only address the country's primary issues, but to also create some political momentum for the presidential race. In his presidential preview, President Obama states that the "central mission we have as a country" is to "rebuild the economy."  This issue was mentioned before in the last State of the Union address and the main focus was on creating jobs.  In this address, President Obama seems to be stressing equality, and making equal opportunities for individuals to succeed in the current economy, "not just the wealthy few".  The address is stated to discuss President Obama's "blueprint" for creating such opportunities, which will consist of more "made in America" jobs, "homegrown" and "alternative" energy, "skills for American workers," and a "return to American values".  Expect these topics to be mentioned for the better part of the address, especially the "return to American values," which President Obama cites as the most important topic.

An Update on Nuclear Power

I know there was already a post on President Obama's endorsement of nuclear power, but there have since been developments in budgeting for new nuclear power plants. On Tuesday, the President is expected to announce a loan guarantee for the construction of two nuclear reactors in Georgia. According to the article linked to above, the "loan guarantee was authorized by the 2005 Energy Policy Act. If the reactors are built and operate profitably, the borrowers will repay the banks and pay a fee to the federal government in exchange for the guarantee; if the borrowers default, the federal government will repay the banks." This post at Mother Jones says, "The chances of default on the government-backed loans are 'very high–well above 50 percent,' according to the Congressional Budget Office. 'If they go belly-up, taxpayers get to pay it,' said Kevin Kamps, radioactive waste specialist at Beyond Nuclear." The increased budget allocation for nuclear power plants–essentially a sign of a major shift to nuclear power–is clearly risky for the federal government and thus a potential burden for taxpayers.

Aside from the initial costs of building nuclear reactors, there are safety costs to be considered as well. This article mentions tritium (Hydrogen-3, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen) leaks at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. The leaks have not been shown to have had any effect on public health, but, says one of President Obama's nominees to join the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the leaks show that the plant does not "'have [its] act together.'" There is clearly potential for more dangerous accidents in connection with a plant that failed to prevent tritium leaks into the groundwater.

Problems like the tritium leak at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant might support arguments for the construction of new power plants; new plants could promise solutions to the problems that threaten public safety and the reputations of old plants. However, there's still the question of how to safely dispose of nuclear waste. The Obama administration's plan to close Yucca Mountain, a repository for radioactive waste, makes this question especially troubling; with a shrinking number of places to store nuclear waste and no clear method for disposing of it, nuclear power cannot currently be considered a sustainable practice.

Thoughts on the economic effects, safety, or sustainability of nuclear power?

Time Magazine's 5 Ways to Judge Obama's State of the Union

According to a Time magazine article, these are 5 questions to ask in judging the success of President Obama's State of the Union Address.

1. How big is the audience? If fewer Americans than usual watch the address on TV, it will suggest that they have tuned out the President.

2. Does the press focus exclusively on process? Obama must get the post-speech coverage to focus on his ideas and proposals rather than his poll ratings or the loss of the MA Senate seat.

3. Did the Republicans clap? Obama has to find some areas of common ground to renew his campaign pledge to reduce the partisan bitterness and lack of cooperation that has come to dominate Washington and the nation's politics.

4. Can he find the right tone? Obama needs to come off: optimistic, confident, resolute, gracious. What he has to avoid seeming: defensive, negative, churlish, sarcastic.

5. Can he balance continuity vs. change? Presidential aides have been talking about going back to the basic themes and programs that helped Obama get elected in the first place. At the same time, the press and many voters expect Obama to demonstrate an awareness that his presidency is somewhat off course.

Item 1 cannot be determined until the numbers come out, and Item 2 will be ongoing tonight and tomorrow. The Republicans definitely clapped on some matters along with the Democrats, but as expected they were silent and seated during others times while Democrats clapped and cheered. I think that Obama accomplished item 4 and 5. He had the right tone going throughout his speech, and also incorporated some humor inducing some laughs from the Republicans on health care reform and having monthly meetings with Republican leaders. Obama said that jobs will be his #1 focus this year, asking for a new jobs bill ASAP from Congress, something that he had touched upon a lot in his speech last year, but spent most of 2009 on health care and he did admit to being at fault for misunderstandings among the public on health care.


What are your guys' reactions to the State of the Union? What aspects of the speech were you impressed by and which did you disagree with?

Nobel Peace Prize awarded to President Obama

President Obama's reaction to receiving the Nobel Peace Prize today somehow made me think about Beyonce's reaction at the VMAs in September. As Kanye West launched into his now-infamous speech, the camera flashed to Beyonce, who was clearly flattered but taken completely off-guard. In a speech today, Obama said that he was honored but felt like he didn't belong amongst the many who have been revolutionary in order to garner the award (visit this article from the WSJ)... a fair analogy to Beyonce's utter confusion at the unsolicited compliment from West.

And indeed, the Nobel Peace Prize has over time gotten such acclaim because of its connection to those who are evoking change in remarkable ways. Though Obama is very much an emblem of change for America right now, his presidency is still early and was just beginning when he was nominated (New York Times summary article here).

Though not every year highlights a revolutionary, recent winners include former pres Jimmy Carter (2002), the group Doctors Without Borders (1999), Nelson Mandela (1993), Elie Wiesel (1986), Mother Teresa (1979) and Norman Borlaug (1970--if you don't know who Borlaug is, you should. A man credited with saving a billion lives through his agricultural pioneering research. Yes, billion with a "B." A personal hero of mine, who just passed away this past month). A full list here of winners.

What's going on here is that the Nobel Committee is diluting its credibility by allowing its actions to become politically motivated. The confused and even upset reactions are because for an award as esteemed as the Nobel Peace Prize, "a call to action" doesn't cut it. An admirable message, but one that detracts from the legitimacy of the cause.

Yo yo Nobel Peace Prize Committee, I like you, Ima let you finish, but I just gotta say that some of the other recent winners had the best accomplishments of all time. OF ALL TIME. Get it together, old dudes.

PS to Mr. Silton: Apparently Teddy Roosevelt's award was unrelated to the Spanish-American War; he got it for making a treaty between Russia and Japan. Guess his "Big Stick" diplomacy didn't hurt him there.

Developments in Iran nuclear talks

It feels like Iran, the United States and its allies are again playing a game of bluffing and testing each other. Iran is advancing a militaristic agenda, to what extent is a little murky, while America is trying to hold onto diplomatic pretenses while becoming increasingly vocal against Iranian nuclear development. Both entities move back and forth without relinquishing the key objectives.

Compounding this, too, is President Obama’s declaration of wanting to heal and make progress with our international relationship with Iran, which is obviously being pushed aside in not wanting to back down from demands.

My impression is that Iran is stalling for time and that the October 25 deadline for inspection is intended to appear as more of a concession than it is. It has certainly been that way in the past—Iran has done it and so has North Korea. Iran’s modus operandi is to seemingly meet certain United States demands while actually buying time. Meanwhile, the countries using whatever means of diplomatic pressure lose their common footing, allowing Iran to regroup and strengthen its position.

Some recent articles on the issue: Mideast: Iran Inspections (from the Council on Foreign Relations, the second post on that page)

And Congress poised to act swiftly on Iran if needed.

This article is only marginally related, but it struck me as pretty bizarre. Found it during some fact-checking research for this post: Iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is secretly ... Jewish?.

Thanks for reading--What do you think about the United States stance on Iran's nuclear program? Do you think that as a country we should more aggressively pursue our goal? Or do you think we should back off at this juncture?