I have long been honest about the fact that I am a skeptic as far as anything that politicians say goes. Some friends tell me that working in the media has made me cynical, though I am not sure of that. I do find it difficult, though, to believe in anything that a politician says and that brings me to the coming President of the USA, Barack Obama and his Energy nominee, the Nobel winner Stephen Chu. The legions of left-wing Obama drum beaters hailed Chu's appointment as the greatest thing that happened after Obama got elected and saw visions of gasoline getting phased out and of the world getting together to sing kumbayya. Guess what? The new Energy nominee has revised his anti fossil fuel views very, very fast as this piece in today's New York Times shows: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/politics/13web-chu.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink Yes, Dr Chu's job is a difficult one. No one denies that especially in a country that is deep in a recession. But it is the inherent contradiction between his two views about what fuel prices would have to be to make using gasoline a disincentive and encourage the development of alternative fuels that smacks of downright hypocrisy.
I hope he will change his mind again. If he did change it once, then there is hope - he could change it and go back to his earlier position again. If he does, I would be glad to change my opinion - which is shared by millions across the world in a fellowship that cuts across national boundaries, language barriers, ethnic and racial differences etc - which makes me spektical of politicians' pronouncements. Let's see how this goes.