Interesting critique this morning from Mr. Friedman


Big Talk, Little Will

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/thomaslfriedman/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
The defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman by the upstart antiwar Democrat Ned Lamont has sparked a firestorm of debate about the direction of the Democratic Party. My own heart is with those Democrats who worry that just calling for a pullout from Iraq, while it may be necessary, is not a sufficient response to the biggest threat to open societies today — violent, radical Islam. Unless Democrats persuade voters — in the gut — that they understand this larger challenge, it’s going to be hard for them to win the presidency.

That said, though, the Democratic mainstream is nowhere near as dovish as critics depict. Truth be told, some of the most constructive, on-the-money criticism over the past three years about how to rescue Iraq or improve the broader “war on terrorism” has come from Democrats, like Joe Biden, Carl Levin, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Bill Clinton.

But whatever you think of the Democrats, the important point is this: They are not the party in power today.

What should really worry the country is not whether the Democrats are being dragged to the left by antiwar activists who haven’t thought a whit about the larger struggle we’re in. What should worry the country is that the Bush team and the Republican Party, which control all the levers of power and claim to have thought only about this larger struggle, are in total denial about where their strategy has led.

Besides a few mavericks like Chuck Hagel and John McCain on Iraq and Dick Lugar and George Shultz on energy, how many Republicans have stood up and questioned the decision-making that has turned the Iraq war into a fiasco? Had more of them done so, instead of just mindlessly applauding the administration, the White House might have changed course when it had a chance.

Not only is there no honest self-criticism among Republicans, but — and this is truly contemptible — you have Dick Cheney & Friends focusing their public remarks on why Mr. Lamont’s defeat of Mr. Lieberman only proves that Democrats do not understand that we are in a titanic struggle with “Islamic fascists” and are therefore unfit to lead.

Oh, really? Well, I just have one question for Mr. Cheney: If we’re in such a titanic struggle with radical Islam, and if getting Iraq right is at the center of that struggle, why did you “tough guys” fight the Iraq war with the Rumsfeld Doctrine — just enough troops to lose — and not the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force to create the necessary foundation of any democracy-building project, which is security? How could you send so few troops to fight such an important war when it was obvious that without security Iraqis would fall back on their tribal militias?

Mr. Cheney, if we’re in a titanic struggle with Islamic fascists, why have you and President Bush resisted any serious effort to get Americans to conserve energy? Why do you refuse to push higher mileage standards for U.S. automakers or a gasoline tax that would curb our imports of oil? Here we are in the biggest struggle of our lives and we are funding both sides — the U.S. military with our tax dollars and the radical Islamists and the governments and charities that support them with our gasoline purchases — and you won’t lift a finger to change that. Why? Because it might impose pain on the oil companies and auto lobbies that fund the G.O.P., or require some sacrifice by Americans.

Mr. Cheney, if we’re in a titanic struggle with Islamic fascists, why do you constantly use the “war on terrorism” as a wedge issue in domestic politics to frighten voters away from Democrats. How are we going to sustain such a large, long-term struggle if we are a divided country?

Please, Mr. Cheney, spare us your flag-waving rhetoric about the titanic struggle we are in and how Democrats just don’t understand it. It is just so phony — such a patent ploy to divert Americans from the fact that you have never risen to the challenge of this war. You will the ends, but you won’t will the means. What a fraud!

Friends, we are on a losing trajectory in Iraq, and, as the latest London plot underscores, the wider war with radical Islam is only getting wider. We need to reassess everything we are doing in this “war on terrorism” and figure out what is worth continuing, what needs changing and what sacrifice we need to demand from every American to match our means with our ends. Yes, the Democrats could help by presenting a serious alternative. But unless the party in power for the next two and half years shakes free of its denial, we are in really, really big trouble.

How come it's ok for L2 to post Mr Friedman's Critiques, but I get screamed at for posting Neal Boortz's stuff?

Im really just posting Friedman because it is a pay to read subscription thing, and alot of people here like his writing. Figured I was being nice.

Ahh, ok...I just wondered.
It is an interesting read.
Thanks for sharing.

I think it was more of an issue Sixee because what you were posting, you were in many cases attempting to post it as your idea whereas L2 is stating from the beginning it's someone else's opinion.

Oh yes we need a gas tax, thats a great IDEA.

That was the one part of the article that really bothered me too Ibudin. Like we don't already pay enough taxes on gasoline (I think it's .27 per gallon here), and gas prices aren't high enough.

Raising the price of gas 10-15cents a gallon (which is what I figure they'd push for if they were going to federally tax gasoline) wouldn't have a dramatic decrease on the consumption of gasoline in the US. Gas jumping from $1.25 a gallon to $3.00+ in 5ish years hasn't dramatically decreased consumption. Mandating more fuel efficient vehicles would do more to reduce consumption than taxing fuel. We DO need to research into fuel alternatives, and the only way a tax on gasoline would benefit consumers long term is if ALL the money collected through said tax was put into R & D into fuel alternatives.

The fact that gas prices are high is the point.

Look we are in the middle of a mass economic experiment. OPEC and the oil companies will continually push the price of oil to see what our level of comfort is. The fact that the enormous rise in gas prices over the last few years hasnt slowed down our consumption 1 iota is lost on nobody.

Back in the 70s when OPEC tried to flex its muscle and organized a gas crisis, prices shot through the roof. As a response Americans went very quickly away from the old school gas guzzlers into subcompacts. Fuel consumption went down, and americans started to look really hard at alternative sources of fuel.
As a response, OPEC open the pipes fullblast and we were treated to an era of amazing low gas prices. People stopped thinking about fuel efficency, because there was no reason to with gas so cheap.
We were lured back into our addiction, and slowly the prices have been raising again. Like weening a man back onto drugs.

Now, GWB likes to remind us we are at war. I call bullshit because if we were at war, why are we arming our enemies.

At oil $30 dollars a barrel, Iran was talking about reform, Russia was embracing democracy, the world was a pretty calm place.
At $70 dollars a barrel we have Iran on the verge of building a nuclear weapon, thumbing its nose at the rest of the world and arming Hezbollah with billions of dollars worth of the most sophisticated weapons they can buy from a oil rich and quickly turning authoritarian Russia.

What better way to defeat our enemies than to take away their funding. But we cant. We keep taking our money and putting it in the pockets of the Mullahs and the fanatics. It has been estimated that at our current rate of change and advancement we can look foward to being totally oil dependant for the next 20 years.
Can we really deal with this kind of world for that long?
In 1961 Kennedy challenged America with the space race, we need something like that, some catalyst to help break our deadly dependance as a society on oil.

Oil is killing us.

Have to agree here, we do need to put down the oil crackpipe.

If we can dream it , we can build it or make it comes true. There's absolutely no reason every home in the lower 48 shouldn't be partially solar nowdays.

There's absolutely no reason we shouldn't be tapping into Geothermal more than we are.

There's absolutely no reason we shouldn't be using more personal wind powered generators.

All these technologies are readily available, economicly feasible and hell tax writeoffs.

Oh, and yes I'm looking into going with all 3 of these options.

Fandros

If it seemed that I was trying to pass off Neal's Ideas as my own, I'm sorry. I didn't think that was evident from what I posted and how I posted it.
As far as the gas thing is concerned, the American Public needs to get off the "I need a monstrous SUV to impress the neighbors" kick that has been going on for the past 10 years.
I myself have a truck that I am seriously considering trading in for something a little more economical on gas.

Its not as simple for many as purchasing the latest and greatest hybrid car to save gas. I don't know of anyone around me at work or even family/friends who hasn't in the last 3-4 years, picked up a car that they use on a daily basis that has 35+mpg. I own a truck that sits parked in my drive way till I want to head to my cabin in the north and need to bring gear and tow a boat.

It used to be when you had a 4,000sq ft house, you were king. Thats the size of peoples garages, and these homes are EVERYWHERE. I have friends who drive the little non gas guzzling cars..you know those 25k Prius that the majority of the people cannot afford,,but hey they get 50 mpg on average, but these very same people are air conditioning their 8,000 sq foot home with a monthly Wisconsin Electric bill of $800 a month. I know a lot of people who buy into these houses who have usually themselves with a spouse, or possibly 2 kids. You need 5 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms for a family now days>?


Alternative fuel sources? They tried putting in 300 windmills about 40 miles north of me. If it wasn't the land owners complaining it was reducing their property values, it was the tree huggers complaing about the 1000's of birds they would kill, and to top it off there is a ground level radar unit that the government now recently stepped in to stop the wind mills so they wouldnt interfere with it.

How come it's ok for L2 to post Mr Friedman's Critiques, but I get screamed at for posting Neal Boortz's stuff?
Because generally speaking you have nothing worthwhile to add, while L2 adds quite a bit.
It used to be when you had a 4,000sq ft house, you were king. Thats the size of peoples garages, and these homes are EVERYWHERE.
That sort of home is gradually becoming less popular, I hear, particularly among empty nesters who don't need the extra 4 bedrooms anymore and find heating/cooling digging too far into their pockets.

That sort of home is gradually becoming less popular, I hear, particularly among empty nesters who don't need the extra 4 bedrooms anymore and find heating/cooling digging too far into their pockets.

Unless you where making a funny you may of miss understood my statement:

4,000 SQ Ft homes where the norm 10 years ago, in todays standards the garages are 4,000 SQ Ft, and the homes are double. I could take pictures of subdivisions going up with in 2 miles of me with such homes as I speak of. They are not becoming less popular, they are becomming the norm.

They talk about changing 5 bulbs to flouresants in every home and that would save a ton of energy...how about stop trying to out build your neighbor with homes that have 30' faulted ceilings and so forth.

I think you run in very different circles than I do. I wish we could buy an extra car just so I'd have something that got 35 MPG, but I need my truck for work a couple of times a week, and can't afford to just buy a third vehicle. Because of the economics where I live, the best we could afford was a 1600sq foot house that's almost a daily 45 min drive from where I work. That's hardly fuel efficient, but had I moved into the neighborhoods near my job I would have had to settle for a similarly priced 800sq foot condo.

Our dependency on oil stretches beyond just big cars. Hybrid vehicles are still stupidly priced, and my understanding is the maintenance on them is much more expensive as well. Looking around my working class neighborhood and the frantic subdivision building around me, I have a hard time picturing my neighbors buying new cars. What they'd save on gas wouldn't cover the cost of the new car.

That's Phoenix - my understanding is California is even worse on the commutes and choices of vehicles for many people. Our oil dependency isn't just luxury car choices but stretches into the entire economic design of some cities. Everything I've read suggests that hybrid vehicle and alternative fuel vehicle technology has stretched far enough to be affordable, but between oil company lobbies and whatnot, that end isn't reaching the average consumer.

Interesting critique this morning from Mr. Friedman


Because generally speaking you have nothing worthwhile to add, while L2 adds quite a bit.



Hypocracy abounds.

And "keeping up with the Jonses" mentality does have quite a bit to do with it. SUVs, Houses that are too big, ect.
But should we really be blaming people that are successful? Shouldn't we come up with smarter ways to conserve energy for the common man?
Hybrids are nice, but expensive. Viable 4 cylinder cars would be more appropriate.
Heat pumps are more efficient than air conditioners. Government and public buildings should have them installed instead.
The list goes on and on. Alternative energy sources should help supliment the energy we do use, so that the prices will eventually come back down.

Hypocracy abounds.
Retardation abounds. L2's occasional posts of Friedman's writing (otherwise unavailable without ~$50 annual fee) are minor compared to his extensive, often well-reasoned input on a variety of topics. You, OTOH, offer little aside from brief, idiotic ramblings that only boost your post count and earn well-deserved ridicule.

You might have looked up the word "generally" while trying to figure out how to spell hypocrisy.

You might have looked up the word "generally" while trying to figure out how to spell hypocrisy

Thanks for the spelling lesson. We are so lucky that someone like you is around to point out our errors and keep us on the right track.
I'm not worthy of your attention....no, really.

/derail off

Heat pumps are more efficient than air conditioners. Government and public buildings should have them installed instead.




An general Everyday Air conditioner that we are used to is a Heat pump for the most part. And heat pumps are more effecient at heating than a coil or gas heater. Sorry just didn't like that ref L2. But I agree there should be research into more efficient means. As for heating most government buildings use steam for heating at least in older buildings for one which is not very efficient. Current Air conditioners with variable speed fans and energy star programmable thermo stats are about as efficient you can get for the technology.

Only other options are just pure fans or swamp coolers(which don't work well at all in humid enviroments).

As for living in California due to the price of homes I know people who live 2 hours or more from work and commute to work. Yes they drive semi efficient 4 cylinder cars but buying a hybrid for them will be a joke since the best part of a hybrid(the battery) will be useless as they are at highway speeds most of the time. Hybrids really make thier money in constant stop and go traffic with short higher speed runs or city streets. In those conditions they are viable and a good idea. But current hybrids are useless if your drive has any amount of distance and highway driving.

Will be nice if we could switch to fuel cells or a hydrogen economoy. Only problem with hydrogen atm is the most efficient means of making hydrogen right now involve the use of non-renewable sources(Natural gas). Converting water to Hydrogen and oxygen is just so inefficient it would be cheaper and better for the enviroment atm to use oil, due to the power generation to convert the water.

Oh yes we need a gas tax, thats a great IDEA.

If you want to get really pissed, look into how much of your federal income taxes are oil industry subsidies.


while trying to figure out how to spell hypocrisy.

Come now Thor, he could have been making a literate pun!












And yes, I do have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale!

As for living in California due to the price of homes I know people who live 2 hours or more from work and commute to work. Yes they drive semi efficient 4 cylinder cars but buying a hybrid for them will be a joke since the best part of a hybrid(the battery) will be useless as they are at highway speeds most of the time. Hybrids really make thier money in constant stop and go traffic with short higher speed runs or city streets. In those conditions they are viable and a good idea. But current hybrids are useless if your drive has any amount of distance and highway driving.

.

Not totally true, at least with the Prius. A guy who sits next to me here at work owns one, and he recently drove to Kentucky with his family, and he boasted a 61 mpg average for the trip. He never gets below 50 mpg. However when he puchased the Pruis gas was in 2.25 per gallon range and we calculated how long it would take to pay back the absorbant cost he paid for the little car 25k when you could purchase a non hybrid similar sized 4 cylinder for 18-19. He would need to of owned the car for 200,000 miles, paying $4.00 a gallon before he would see a pay back. Not to mention its rumored to cost about $6,000 to replace the batterys, in about 6-7 years.