frank rich's great piece on Obama

[goadam1]

I don't think it could be said any better than this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/op...rich.html?_r=1
My favorite part:

A tip-off to what was coming appeared in a Washington Post op-ed article that the administration’s two financial gurus, Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner, wrote to preview their plan. “Some people will say that this is not the time to debate the future of financial regulation, that this debate should wait until the crisis is fully behind us,” they wrote by way of congratulating themselves on taking charge.

Who exactly are these “some people” who want to delay debate on the future of regulation? Not anyone you or I know. Most Americans were desperate for action and wondered why it was taking so long. The only people who Summers and Geithner could possibly be talking about are the bankers in their cohort who helped usher us into this disaster in the first place. Both men are protégés of one of them, Robert Rubin, the former wise man of Citigroup.

There are some worthwhile protections in the Summers-Geithner legislation, especially for consumers, but there’s little that will disturb these unnamed “people” too much. I’ll leave it to financial analysts to detail why the small-bore tinkering in the administration blueprint won’t prevent another perfect storm of arcane derivatives, unchecked (and risk-rewarding) executive compensation and too-big-to-fail banks like Citi. Suffice it to say that the Obama team has not resuscitated the Glass-Steagall Act, the New Deal reform that Summers helped dismantle in the Clinton years and that would have prevented the creation of banking behemoths that held the economy hostage.

[Starving Steve]

Re: frank rich's great piece on Obama

I agree that Frank Rich's op-ed piece in the New York Times was excellent. I would also add that Obama's green energy policy based upon solar energy, windmills, and hope is for fools.

I am beginning to have big issues with the Democrats, especially now seeing the healthcare reform dying in the Senate. But the Republicans are totally out of touch with the reality of the economic depression and the changes needed immediately.... We need a new party now and definitely not the Green Party.

[aaron]

Re: frank rich's great piece on Obama

I agree that Frank Rich's op-ed piece in the New York Times was excellent. I would also add that Obama's green energy policy based upon solar energy, windmills, and hope is for fools.

I am beginning to have big issues with the Democrats, especially now seeing the healthcare reform dying in the Senate. But the Republicans are totally out of touch with the reality of the economic depression and the changes needed immediately.... We need a new party now and definitely not the Green Party.

We do not need a new political party. We need a new government. And, I do not see why a revolution is necessary to accomplish that. We can have one government that collects bonars, and one that... well heck, we could model it after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and use real money. One government will continue to f*** us daily, and one could be there to provide for the common good. Eventually, one will die from neglect.

We are all entitled to our fantasies.

[pwcmba]

Re: frank rich's great piece on Obama

I agree that Frank Rich's op-ed piece in the New York Times was excellent. I would also add that Obama's green energy policy based upon solar energy, windmills, and hope is for fools.

I am beginning to have big issues with the Democrats, especially now seeing the healthcare reform dying in the Senate. But the Republicans are totally out of touch with the reality of the economic depression and the changes needed immediately.... We need a new party now and definitely not the Green Party.

We already have it - Campaign for Liberty (CFL)

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

[btattoo]

Re: frank rich's great piece on Obama

Who exactly are these “some people” who want to delay debate on the future of regulation? Not anyone you or I know.

Good piece by Rich, and it reminded me of this incredible line from H. Paulson's statement from 11/18/08:
"And to adequately reform our system, we must make sure we fully understand the nature of the problem which will not be possible until we are confident it is behind us."

Paulson was obviously one of "those" who wanted to delay reform.

[Master Shake]

Re: frank rich's great piece on Obama

Frank Rich and "great" never belong in the same sentence together.

[goadam1]

Re: frank rich's great piece on Obama

Blunt response. Don't agree. You should do better than "me no likey." Did you read it?

[wayiwalk]

Re: frank rich's great piece on Obama

If you skip the first two paragraphs, it's a nice rehash of what everyone else is saying :p

I don't read Rich, he's as annoying as Coulter, but I'd bet he was pretty pro obama 6 months ago.

If anything, this is a pretty good indicator of the public mood as far as the public's approval of the president's moves so far. If one of his former champions is questioning him - how are the "middle of the road" independents doing?

[we_are_toast]

Re: frank rich's great piece on Obama

I would also add that Obama's green energy policy based upon solar energy, windmills, and hope is for fools.

You're darn right! You have to be a complete fool to think we need to switch our energy needs to renewable sources. It just isn't possible. No one in their right mind would think you could do it! Wait a minute; 98% of my electricity comes from photovoltaics and a wind generator, and 80% of my heat load, in one of the coldest climates in the U.S., comes from the sun. Nawww it just ain't possible! Renewables can never be a major contributor to our energy needs! We need to keep on doing what we've been doing! Having our economy more dependent on rapidly depleting resources is the type of Yankee ingenuity that made us great and got us to where we are today. :rolleyes:

[goadam1]

Re: frank rich's great piece on Obama

If you skip the first two paragraphs, it's a nice rehash of what everyone else is saying :p

I don't read Rich, he's as annoying as Coulter, but I'd bet he was pretty pro obama 6 months ago.

If anything, this is a pretty good indicator of the public mood as far as the public's approval of the president's moves so far. If one of his former champions is questioning him - how are the "middle of the road" independents doing?

I think you are breaking this down by teams. I never sensed Rich as some kind of cheerleader and find him to be liberal but not partisan. I thought this is a pretty good mainstream piece and agreed with the points. I don't watch t.v. news, so I don't know what is being said that is similar.

[Master Shake]

Re: frank rich's great piece on Obama

I never sensed Rich as some kind of cheerleader and find him to be liberal but not partisan.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Rich is your prototypical, sneering NYSlimes limousine liberal who's been wearing kneepads ever since Obama got the nomination. Guess he got tired of swallowing.

[Starving Steve]

Re: frank rich's great piece on Obama

You're darn right! You have to be a complete fool to think we need to switch our energy needs to renewable sources. It just isn't possible. No one in their right mind would think you could do it! Wait a minute; 98% of my electricity comes from photovoltaics and a wind generator, and 80% of my heat load, in one of the coldest climates in the U.S., comes from the sun. Nawww it just ain't possible! Renewables can never be a major contributor to our energy needs! We need to keep on doing what we've been doing! Having our economy more dependent on rapidly depleting resources is the type of Yankee ingenuity that made us great and got us to where we are today. :rolleyes:

''I'm from Missouri, show me."

I don't believe solar power and wind can heat a home in one of the coldest climates in America. So give me and the readers the details.

Nuclear power can work just fine in fullfilling (sp?) the energy needs of the world, and the world would greatly benefit by converting the uranium in atomic weapons to uranium in nuclear power plants. The world does NOT need atomic weapons.

But you posted that solar power and wind can provide for the energy needs of homes, even in a very cold climate. So, show me.

My neighbours in East Sooke, British Columbia have adventured into solar power, and they have froze. Their experiments and investments into solar power were all for naught.

Wind power can work on the Great Plains where the wind blows every day, every hour, at hurricane velocity. But in most places, wind power is worse than a joke. And windmills often break-down. Initial construction costs for windmills are also high, especially for windmills that seriously produce any power.

GE does produce turbines for serious windmills, and these turbines cost about a million dollars each--- or so I am told. But GE does do things right, so if you have a million, you can have a serious windmill, or at least the turbine.

But you posted that wind and solar work fine in a cold climate, so fill-in the details. I am definitely NOT into hope.

Solar power NEVER goes above 2 calaries per square centimetre per minute, anywhere on this planet. And most of the time, even in sub-tropical deserts, solar power is far below that figure. And wind usually does not blow reliably (sp?) in deserts, or anywhere on Earth, except on the Great Plains.

California has a few locations in the coastal hills that have reliable sea breeze, and these locations do have windmills. The energy from these windmills is quite low and usually only available in the late afternoon in summer when the sea breeze blows.

"But I'm from Missouri; show me." And don't get me started in talking about pot-heads and solar power because I have high blood pressure.

[MarkL]

Re: frank rich's great piece on Obama

Either you don't drive to work, or you conveniently happened to exclude the most energy consumptive activity of every American.

[we_are_toast]

Re: frank rich's great piece on Obama

''I'm from Missouri, show me."

I don't believe solar power and wind can heat a home in one of the coldest climates in America. So give me and the readers the details.

Nuclear power can work just fine in fullfilling (sp?) the energy needs of the world, and the world would greatly benefit by converting the uranium in atomic weapons to uranium in nuclear power plants. The world does NOT need atomic weapons.

But you posted that solar power and wind can provide for the energy needs of homes, even in a very cold climate. So, show me.

My neighbours in East Sooke, British Columbia have adventured into solar power, and they have froze. Their experiments and investments into solar power were all for naught.

Wind power can work on the Great Plains where the wind blows every day, every hour, at hurricane velocity. But in most places, wind power is worse than a joke. And windmills often break-down. Initial construction costs for windmills are also high, especially for windmills that seriously produce any power.

GE does produce turbines for serious windmills, and these turbines cost about a million dollars each--- or so I am told. But GE does do things right, so if you have a million, you can have a serious windmill, or at least the turbine.

But you posted that wind and solar work fine in a cold climate, so fill-in the details. I am definitely NOT into hope.

Solar power NEVER goes above 2 calaries per square centimetre per minute, anywhere on this planet. And most of the time, even in sub-tropical deserts, solar power is far below that figure. And wind usually does not blow reliably (sp?) in deserts, or anywhere on Earth, except on the Great Plains.

California has a few locations in the coastal hills that have reliable sea breeze, and these locations do have windmills. The energy from these windmills is quite low and usually only available in the late afternoon in summer when the sea breeze blows.

"But I'm from Missouri; show me." And don't get me started in talking about pot-heads and solar power because I have high blood pressure.

1st, kick back, relax, have a sip of red wine and let that blood pressure drop a bit.

Ok, this really isn't rocket science. It's pretty straight forward. Orient your house right, ie least amount of surface area to the cold (north, west), most area to the south. Much glass to the south, little on north. Much, much insulation, including insulated drapes on all glass. Thermal mass! As much as possible.

Here's a link to a house wich is very similar to mine, except mine is a simple ranch and I used ICF's (insulated concrete forms) for the walls instead of SIP's. I have more thermal mass because of the concrete in the walls.
http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/...t-home-vermont

I live at 8600' in the Mnts. Here's a link to what my temperatures are like, except you need to subtract about 5 degrees across all seasons.
http://www.wunderground.com/NORMS/Di...=none&IATA=LAR

My weather station only registers to -40F wind chills and then it displays ---. We probably get 25 days a winter where all I see is ---. We expect 50 mph winds almost every day in the winter, 70 mph winds at least once a week, 80 mph about every other week, and 90 mph once a month.

If you walked in my 1800'^2 house, the only thing you would notice that is different is the stained concrete floor, and the walls are a foot thick. The ceiling is R40, walls are R25. The floor is 4" concrete, resting on 12" sand, all resting on 2" of Styrofoam insulation with radiant heat hoses sandwiched between the sand and concrete and connected to 96' ^2 of thermal solar panels mounted on the roof. I also have 80' ^2 of passive solar on the south and 32'^2 on the east. I have a 24K BTU propane fireplace (about the equivalent of 2 gas burners on a range) we use for backup heat. I always turn the fireplace off at night before I go to bed.

There's absolutely nothing custom or exotic about the place and the energy features add maybe 5-10% to the cost. It's all off the shelf materials and construction techniques. Anyone can do something similar, anywhere in the country, and certainly get better performance than in my harsh conditions. All you need to do is, really think about energy and the local conditions before designing the place. A few minor changes in building codes, requiring orientation, insulation, glass placement, and thermal mass, and all new construction could quickly become 40% more efficient than existing construction.

As far as electrical, 1.2KW of photovoltaics and a 400W wind generator provide 98% of my electrical. Energy efficient appliances and CFL's and it's no problem.

As far as large scale wind, 70 miles to the northwest is a 150 MW wind farm, 40 miles to the southeast is another 100 MW, and starting next year, they're going to build another 150 MW farm 5 miles to the north. Somebody must be making some money!

When people say solar and wind aren't practical, I'm afraid I just have a hard time believing it.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: frank rich's great piece on Obama

When people say solar and wind aren't practical, I'm afraid I just have a hard time believing it.

There's a difference between being practical for a few and practical for most.

Are you suggesting we all throw out all our houses and build as you have done? That sure sounds energy efficient :rolleyes:. Heck, there's plenty of unemployed residential construction workers out there right now. I'm sure they'd like the business.