Hmmm...can we be all that sure this is really satire? Money quote in the video: "Obama Shutting Himself Off from People Who Remind Him What a Fraud He Is."
Sometimes President Obama is so brilliant that, er no one knows what hes talking about, and perhaps he doesnt either. Take this quote attributed to Obama in a Wall Street Journal profile of Harold Hamm:
When it was Mr. Hamms turn to talk briefly with President Obama, I told him of the revolution in the oil and gas industry and how we have the capacity to produce enough oil to enable America to replace OPEC. I wanted to make sure he knew about this.
The presidents reaction? He turned to me and said, Oil and gas will be important for the next few years. But we need to go on to green and alternative energy. [Energy] Secretary [Steven] Chu has assured me that within five years, we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon.
Mickey Kaus is a bit mystified by the mixing of measures:
What does 130 miles per gallon even mean in a car that doesnt use gallons at all? What size and price of car are we talking about? (Mitsubishi already sells a car that is somehow rated at 126 mpg in the city, but its tiny.) If this is the stat Obama throws in the face of a stranger who argues with him, the President probably thinks its important. But is it realistic? Larger implications: Obama is data-driven, his observant friends suggest. But how good is the data thats driving him? The possibilities here are a) hes well-informed; b) hes being fed wildly optimistic estimates of the sort he wants to hear; c) he doesnt really know what hes talking about at all; or d) hes BSing. Im guessing (b), at least when (as here) the issue is ideologically charged, patronage-driven and plays to Obamas self-image as a transformational figure.
Edward Niedermeyer at The Truth About Cars is even less impressed:
What makes this so strange is that the President expressed his optimism in an MPG format. Its one thing to say EV battery prices will drop by 70% between 2010 and 2015 (even when the CEO of LG Chem says his firm is targeting 50% improvement), or even to say that US battery manufacturing will go from 2% of the global total in 2010 to 40% in 2015 these, like the one million plug-ins on the road pledge are straightforward targets. But 130 MPG based on some mysterious battery? There are so many moving parts in that goal, its not even funny.
Presumably, President Obama was using a number from a briefing that used an average size, weight, range and price and projected the required battery size and power for a typical car, and found that by 2015 a 130 MPG-equivalent, average-sized EV would sell for not much more than an equivalent ICE or hybrid. But given that nearly every estimate about EVs ever given out by the administration looks wildly overoptimistic, its tough to take that estimate at face value. So Im wondering, do we know how Obama came up with this number? Is he referring to price drops on traditional lithium-ion cells, or a new chemistry that is expected to be on the road by 2015? FInally, is the president referring to a battery produced by the domestic industry or one of the dominant foreign firms and their transplant factories? This private 130 MPG revelation seems to underpin so much of the presidents optimism about EVs, I think its worth taking a much closer look at.
I actually think Mickey had it right in option D. Anyone who expresses battery strength in miles per gallon isnt arguing from a position of expertise.
I think he is so committed to his vision of green technology that any other fact or dissenting voice is immediately shoved out, ignored or ridiculed. The day this bum leaves office is the day our economy starts to improve.
#1
Anyone who expresses battery strength in miles per gallon isn't arguing from a position of expertise.
Sure, if you want to get all sciency and stuff, but can't you just divide the distance traveled in miles by the battery volume in gallons? That should be close enough for political talking points or Obama's Five Year Plan.
#3
Dollars/mile is the figure that counts the most. You don't know that until you count what you spent vs. what you get after selling or junking your old ride.
#4
A commitment to "green" energy is essentially a commitment to no energy. They want us all shivering in the dark, and "green" is just the current label for that goal.
#5
Don't forget to factor in temperature. A cold batter is a weak battery, as those living in the Frozen North know. I suspect those range estimates fall drastically in winter.
If memory serves (what are the chances!), reaction rates fall by a factor of 2 with every 10 degree C drop in temperature.
Anguper makes a good point about dollars/mile. What does it cost to replace one of those big honkin' batteries when it reaches its end-of-life?
The main advantage of electric vehicles is they are powered by clean, pollution-free electrons, rather than nasty, polluting hydrocarbons. And where do clean, pollution-free electrons come from, you might ask? Hell if I know. We never talked about that in our Deconstruction of Post-colonial Literature classes.
#6
Through "green" schemes and taxation, the government's endstate is to own or nationalize everything energy. They've been moving in that direction for decades.
a quick look at the company financials indicate it is not anywhere near as iffy as Solyndra; the company has had 1B or more in sales for a number of years
however, it the sales are, in effect, heavily subsidized and furthermore, it's cost/watt is higher than the industry leader (Firstsolar).
Posted by: Lord Garth ||
10/11/2011 10:52 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Just so we are tracking, there is now nine of these disasters on hand: SOLYNDRA LIGHTSQUARED Evergreen SpectraWatt BrightSource Tonopah Solar Abound Solar, Nevada Geothermal Power, sun power
(CNSNews.com) -- In an interview with CNSNews.com, one of the organizers of the D.C.-version of the Occupy Wall Street demonstration, Kevin Zeese, said Van Jones' Rebuild the Dream movement is "the wrong approach" because its main mission is to elect more Democrats. Well, duh...
Van Jones is the former green jobs czar for the Obama administration. He left the administration in September 2009 after a controversy erupted over his signing of a petition in 2004 by the group 911Truth.org.
"We want to be independent of the two parties and I think the Van Jones approach is exactly the wrong approach," said Zeese, a long-time political activist who advocates for medical marijuana and other drug policy causes.
He said Democrats could have a negative impact on the protests, which started in New York more than three weeks ago and have attracted small crowds in Washington, D.C.'s Freedom Plaza.
"We see [Democrats] as actually something that could corrupt this movement," Zeese said. "If they co-opted this movement that would be like what the Republicans did to the Tea Party."
"We don't want to see that happen," Zeese said.
Last week at the Center for American Progress, Van Jones praised the protesters.
"Help the Occupy Wall Street movement," Jones told the crowd at the CAP event on Friday.
"When people speak truth to power, that takes courage," Jones said. "I admire these young people so much."
"People say, 'What the heck, these young people, I can't understand their messaging,'" Jones said. "Look, they may not have message clarity yet. [But] they have moral clarity. And that's something. That's something in this world."
The 911Truth.org petition that Jones signed in 2004, according to The Washington Post, questioned whether Bush administration officials "may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war."
Zeese said protesters are against tax breaks for banks and corporations, calling the practice "corporate welfare." He also echoed Jones's idea of getting financial institutions and Wall Street to "pay their fair share" by charging a transaction fee for stock trades.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/11/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yeeuup - the KSA is repor also planning to start producing indigenous automobiles + aircraft for export = international competition.
#4
> Wall Street to "pay their fair share" by charging a transaction fee for stock trades.
Er? Apart from the extra jitteryness this would have on the stockmarket, inneficiency in pricing, and destruction on pension assets. What exactly did the Government DO to deserve that money?
Government should go back to Capitalism and charge for what it creates which are Land Rights, Patent protection and copyright protection.
For months, Democrats have been searching for a political villain who will rile up their base and scare centrist swing voters to their side. After a series of trial-balloon auditions during the spring and summer, they settled on House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) as the man they want to cast as the face of GOP intransigence. "He, more than anyone else, has tied himself to the tea party. And the tea party is exceedingly unpopular with Democrats and independents," said Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), Ain't nobody to scare folks like The One.
That's right, guys. Go for the "Blame the Joooooo" ploy.
Cantor walked out of debt-ceiling talks with Vice President Biden. He tried to link disaster funding in his own district, following the east-coast quake to spending cuts, even before the cleanup after Hurricane Irene began, and he has been the absolutist voice in leadership against any deal that involves new tax revenue. You clowns have enough of my money. Find a better way to spend what you got.
Democrats hope to use Cantor as a stand-in for the GOP nominee -- and it is not a role Cantor minds playing.
"They are cementing Leader Cantor's reputation as a defender of the free market, entrepreneurism and job creators, which is a clear contrast with President Obama's plans for more government-stimulus spending and tax hikes on working families and small businesses," said Laena Fallon, Cantor's spokeswoman. "The president has handed Leader Cantor a national megaphone." Beware of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Cantor is no Joe Biden. On the other hand ...
Cantor isn't a familiar enough figure to craft a national campaign around. Also, three of those four (examples of national figures, omitted for brevity)
-- Wright, Gingrich, DeLay -- had ethical issues that sullied their reputations and made them easier targets. Pelosi was the fourth example of a national campaign to demonize, but her ethical issues were never front-page news. Not even her private jumbo jet.
For those reasons, it could take years for Democrats to turn Cantor into the sort of political figure that can be featured in attack ads in battleground districts in the way that Democrats and Republicans used Gingrich and Pelosi. Anybody ever consider they might not have "years"?
Earlier this year, Democrats tried out Boehner and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) -- plain-spoken Midwesterners -- and had some success demonizing Ryan's Medicare proposals. Boehner has been an elusive target. In a speech last fall, Obama singled out the soon-to-be speaker nearly 10 times, but he neither electrifies conservatives nor incites rage among liberals. I don't think Cantor does either, either. Perhaps the Dims will also have a hard time making him the poster boy for the evil Tea Party goblins.
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/11/2011 05:57 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Ought to work well with the Democratic Party's money base. Maybe some more hook on the Cantor caricature's nose will help.
[Real Clear Politics] Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) tells MSNBC regulations create jobs because a business will have to hire people to help them comply with the new requirement.
"I think the answer is no," Ellison said when asked if he believes regulations kill jobs. "And here is why: When we talked about increasing fuel efficiency standards, the industry responded, and they need engineers and designers and manufacturers, and they need actually more people to help respond to the new requirement."
"I believe if the government says, look, we have got to reduce our carbon footprint, you will kick into gear a whole number of people that know how to do that or have ideas about that, and that will be a job engine. I understand what you mean, because if anything adds a cost to a business, you could assume that that will diminish that business's ability to hire. But I don't think that's actually right. I think what businesses want is customers and what -- if they are selling product, if they have a product to sell they will do well even if they have some new regulations to meet," the Congressman said.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/11/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Gee whilickers, Mr. Wilson, just like Communism + Socialism!?
#2
Yeah. You can get a great job as a government bureaucrat...if you have the right connections, er, that'd be Congressman Ellison. Better learn to play along.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
10/11/2011 9:39 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Sheesshh. Dimwit.
How many jobs do regulations destroy in order to create a regulatory job? Job creation comes at the expense of profits. This means more revenue must be generated to pay for this non-productive regulatory job. We are not talking about deadwood government jobs here Congressman. Regulatory jobs are not productive jobs. It means the company does not have the money to engage in research and product development. It means that regulatory jobs are created at the expense of production jobs. It means that production expansion is curtailed.
Better take a basic course in economics Keith and shut your pie hole for awhile.
#6
A lot of ordinary people (not just Congressmen) do not understand the concept of opportunity cost nor the concept of productivity.
Others understand but pretend not to for political reasons.
Posted by: Lord Garth ||
10/11/2011 10:54 Comments ||
Top||
#7
..and others who live and breathe the air of the Beltway have no concept other than that government makes everything happen. Sort of like, the earth is flat and the center of the universe. For someone who grows up, lives their full life and dies all within 20 miles of their place of birth, it pretty well satisfies any need of knowing how the universe actually operates. Just don't give them influence or power over others well beyond that 20 mile marker.
#8
regulations create jobs because a business will have to hire people to help them comply with the new requirement.
Of course, they will also have to reduce the number of line (i.e. productive) employees. The number of productive employees lost will be larger than the number of compliance specialists added.
That is what happened to the L.A. Unified School District when I lived in L.A. In respose to new regulations from Sacramento, they laid off a 12 teachers and added 3 complience analysts and 2 lobbyists.
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
10/11/2011 11:32 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Better take a basic course in economics Keith
He took the Koranic course, Raping and Pillaging 101.
[Fox News] The Democratic Party moved a step closer to embracing the Occupy Wall Street movement as its own with the top campaign arm for House Democrats sending around a petition urging people to "stand with" the movement.
In an email sent Monday morning, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Director Robby Mook appealed for signatures to an online petition in support of those who want "to let billionaires, big oil and big bankers know that we're not going to let the richest 1% force draconian economic policies and massive cuts to crucial programs on Main Street Americans."
The DCCC is trying to gather 100,000 names on the petition to "send a message straight to Eric Cantor, Speaker Boehner, and the rest of reckless Republican leadership in Congress."
The appeal comes after House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and other Republicans sharply criticized the protesters on Friday. At a Values Voter Summit in Washington, Cantor said he was "increasingly concerned about the growing mobs occupying Wall Street and the other cities across the country."
He described them as "the pitting of Americans against Americans," and scolded those who would condone them.
"Getting American back to work means fueling a culture of entrepreneurialism, a culture of competitiveness, a culture of inspiration and optimism," he said.
At the same summit, businessman and GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain called the demonstrations "anti-capitalism" and "anti-free market." On CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday, Cain said it is "anti-American" to protest bankers. He said Wall Street didn't write the "failed economic policies."
In response to Cantor, House Democratic Leader Nancy San Fran Nan Pelosi Congresswoman-for-Life from the San Francisco Bay Area, born into a family of politicians. Formerly Speaker of the House, but it's not her fault they lost. Really. Noted for her heavily botoxed grimace... said Cantor is being selective in his criticism of popular movements.
"I didn't hear him say anything when the Tea Party was out demonstrating, actually spitting on members of Congress right here in the Capitol, and he and his colleagues were putting signs in the windows encouraging them," she told ABC's "This Week."
Pelosi said she backs the protesters in their message.
"I support the message to the establishment, whether it's Wall Street or the political establishment and the rest, that change has to happen. We cannot continue in a way that does not -- that is not relevant to their lives. People are angry," she said.
While the protesters have hit on everything from war to the current crop of Hollywood films, demonstrators primarily criticize the nation's big banks for burdening average Americans with loan debt, squeezing out borrowers, slapping customers with new fees and withholding trillions in capital. They say the richest 1 percent of the nation are hanging onto the wealth to the destruction of the other 99 percent of the nation.
A document put out at the end of September attempts to sum up the initial grievances. The Declaration of the Occupation of New York City takes aim at corporations for using an "illegal foreclosure process" to take houses; taking "bailouts from taxpayers with impunity" while paying "exorbitant" executive bonuses; holding "students hostage" with education debt; influencing politicians with donations and about 20 other offenses.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/11/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Why is this news? The Stink up Wall Street effort has always been a Democratic astroturf organization led by the Labor Unions and other Socialist groups.
That's my personal favorite. I have two kids playing with college debt - one paying it down and the other piling it up. Both got their undergrad degress courtesy of Mom and Pop, mostly, but evil corporations and bankers put guns to their heads and made them go to law school, just to be held hostage.
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/11/2011 7:16 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Bolsheviks offer solidarity to the Anti-Czarist movement!
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Sometimes President Obama is so brilliant that, er
no one knows what hes talking about, and perhaps he doesnt either. Take this quote attributed to Obama in a Wall Street Journal profile of Harold Hamm:
(CNSNews.com) -- In an interview with CNSNews.com, one of the organizers of the D.C.-version of the Occupy Wall Street demonstration, Kevin Zeese, said Van Jones' 
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) tells MSNBC regulations create jobs because a business will have to hire people to help them comply with the new requirement.
The Democratic Party moved a step closer to embracing the Occupy Wall Street movement as its own with the top campaign arm for House Democrats sending around a petition urging people to "stand with" the movement.
Nancy 
