Sarah Palin Can't Comprehend the "Sputnik Moment"

[Dan T.]

N/m

........

[Baculus]

I asked in another post...what about green energy makes people think it'll be economically viable? Or, is he willing to just subsidize it forever? Serious question?

Because the US, along with other countries, already has a blooming green energy industry. On my iPhone I have pictures of all the wind turbines you can find in the middle of the state of OK. But you keep acting as if green energy is some theoretical topic. It isn't. It's a current reality, and there are tons of articles relating to it which you can find via Google.

BTW, isn't the Internet swell? I wonder if Spudnuts would have led to that development?

How is the interstate highway system comparable? We knew how to build roads when that project started. We don't know how to make clean energy viable...and either way, that's not the point. It's in the government's ability to do this.

Of course it's the point. Palin was suggesting that a large infrastructure project, such as a green energy grid, will ruin us.

Look at this article, which discusses the 2020 goal of European countries. If it were up to some folks, we'd never look that far in the future because "you just can't make green energy economically viable."

Again -- this stuff takes foresight and doesn't happen like magic.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/04/us-eu-energy-renewable-idUSTRE70325720110104

How are they doing it? Major subsidies or private tech innovations, or tech innovations from major subsidies? If other countries are aready funding it, why do we have to fund it too?

Because there is a physical infrastructure that needs to be built, and we can always improve upon current design (such as superconductors) to increase efficiency.

Perhaps. I bet you'd have sat there when Medicare was passed and said, yeah, I believe it'll only cost $30 billion in the year 2000. Does the government always deliver every time they say they'll accomplish something? How's that war on poverty going?

Programs like Medicare and the War on Poverty have had mixed results, but there are millions of Americans who've had medical care all the while avoiding complete poverty due to these programs.

Here's a fact...the president also invested huge in comparative effectiveness research and he's throwing billions down the drain.

Please be more specific.

There's always something to invest in. I remember watching the director of the NIH testifying during the Bush administration and lamenting his budget. When a Senator pointed out that his budget had already doubled under Bush, he was somewhat embarassed.

No one said we can't strive to be efficient in these efforts, and I see no reason why a fear of corruption to hold back our efforts. Maybe oversight would be good in order to avoid these possibilities? Oh wait, that is government intervention. Nevermind.

You're cute. Thanks for the nickname.

Thanks. I invented it myself. See? Innovation!

I'm defending a simple conservative view...I don't trust government to do much, and I don't trust them to do anything efficiently. There are some things that require government investment for sure...like electronic healthy records, but I'd like to know why we need to invest in this when a) many other governments already are and there's massive incentive for private companies to develop it themselves.

Skepticism is healthy, but the federal government has been involved with infrastructure building since the canal and railroad building projects which began in early 1800s. These projects were one of the prime reason why, by the 1850s, the United States was one of the most dynamic economies in the world. Before that, conservatives also argued against internal improvement funding, but thankfully they lost that philosophical battle.

Private companies are fine, but if you want one national system, then it takes a government effort to coordinate and to assist in funding it. That is how all of our major national programs throughout our history have been established.

Well, it's true that technology investment hasn't been what put us into debt. Again, you're misrepresenting her position and mine.

But that IS her position. Read her words, which I reposted. It is clear as a bell (even though she tried to mangle her own statement).

She's saying we need to spend less, and that debt is a huge threat to our long term greatness. Is this one program worth falling on my sword over? Probably not, though I'm not familiar with the specifics.

Fine. It is OK to spend less, and a large debt is a threat to our long-term longevity, but Palin has no problem with a half-trillion dollar military budget. She's a hypocrite.

But of course she's a hypocrite, because all she understands is oil. She has a backwards thinking mentality. Her only answer for anything energy related? "Drill, baby, drill."

Wonderful. When the rest of the world is kicking our ass in development we'll be eating spudnuts.

However, the principal is worth fighting for over and over and over. If the spending is worth it, the case should be made in depth, not just in a SOTU. I'm willing to cave as I learn more.

The SOTUS rarely has specifics; it is just the nature of those types of speeches.

Some people have been fighting to defend a principle for decades, back as the years when the Reagan administration was hostile to alternative energy.

I am, right now, and it's working much better than Obama's plan to do something very similar.

Specifics, please?

If this were about the energy crisis, there are many things the government could do for very cheap, or actually make money on through taxes and land sale.

Sometimes you want to avoid a crises before it arrives.

[chipwhich]

Because the US, along with other countries, already has a blooming green energy industry. On my iPhone I have pictures of all the wind turbines you can find in the middle of the state of OK. But you keep acting as if green energy is some theoretical topic. It isn't. It's a current reality, and there are tons of articles relating to it which you can find via Google

Glad you have that on your iphone.

You can't be naive enough to think the US can get any significant energy from wind.

Please tell me you are smarter than that. Please.

[Baculus]

Why ask me,I'm dumb.

Twa, why don't you actually try to defend your position? The question you were asked, "Would you qualify the race to the moon as an arms race?" is a straight forward one. You have a habit of retreating into sarcasm mode once someone tries to actually explain your position. If you are just trolling, then people are going to start to ignore you.

---------- Post added January-29th-2011 at 05:16 AM ----------

Glad you have that on your iphone.

You can't be naive enough to think the US can get any significant energy from wind.

Please tell me you are smarter than that. Please.

I was thinking the same thing as I was taking pictures.

"This is unpossible. It must be an Obama mirage."

Stupid Steve Jobs.

[elkabong82]

Why ask me,I'm dumb.

Very funny, but I know you're not.

Palin slams Russia for harmful spending which destroyed it, but she completely ignores that the US did the same thing and benefitted from it. Given Reagan's fed. spending on the US arms race during the Cold War, her comments are actually a slam against him, though I doubt she realized it. She could have used it as an opportunity to pump Reagan up, which would make her look good, by using him as an example of prosperous fed. spending for technological advancement and contrasted it against the failings of the USSR, assuming she knows that stuff and could do it.

Instead, she stuck with her "dumbed down" stance of saying that all spending by the opponent is bad. THAT is why she is dangerous, because she willingly villainizes things that could benefit this country, philosophies that even Reagan used to win the Cold War, all for sake of appealing to her constituents on the lowest possible level.

[Baculus]

I'm tired and going to bed. Good discussion. For the record, I'd take major subsidies for clean energy development in exchange for major cuts elseware. These cats do need to get serious about spending though.

Good debate, sleep well, and I don't necessarily disagree with you here. Hey! Progress has been made. :-)

---------- Post added January-29th-2011 at 05:23 AM ----------

Glad you have that on your iphone.

You can't be naive enough to think the US can get any significant energy from wind.

Please tell me you are smarter than that. Please.

By the way, to answer your question, the objective is to have a multi-tiered approach, using various resources. Wind would be just part of it.

If wind can be harnessed, then we are wasting kilowatt hours by not erecting turbines. There are municipalities that can take advantage of this, to help defray their energy costs, and I fail to see why we shouldn't pursue it. Why shouldn' we take advantage of these resources? I am just dumbfounded by the resistance, which, I believe, is partially based upon sheer ideological rigidity and an aversion to anything "tree hugger green."

It's stupid.

We shouldn't listen to the Sarah Palins of the world for our energy solution.

[elkabong82]

Glad you have that on your iphone.

You can't be naive enough to think the US can get any significant energy from wind.

Please tell me you are smarter than that. Please.

Well the Eagles' stadium is completely self-reliant thanks to wind turbines. So on small lcal levels in windy areas it could be coducive. There's no 1 energy source that will solve things. Some areas and places/buildings could benefit from solar, some from wind, heck down here in TN the TVA provides electricty to the area thanks to the dam system on the TN River.

I mean, you can't be naive enough to think that drilling in Alaska is a long-term solution. Oil is no longer a long term solution.

[chipwhich]

Well the Eagles' stadium is completely self-reliant thanks to wind turbines. So on small lcal levels in windy areas it could be coducive. There's no 1 energy source that will solve things. Some areas and places/buildings could benefit from solar, some from wind, heck down here in TN the TVA provides electricty to the area thanks to the dam system on the TN River.

I mean, you can't be naive enough to think that drilling in Alaska is a long-term solution. Oil is no longer a long term solution.

Great! It powers some hollywood homes too! It isn't even a 10 percent solution.

But it's a talking point.

---------- Post added January-29th-2011 at 12:31 AM ----------

If wind can be harnessed, then we are wasting kilowatt hours by not erecting turbines. There are municipalities that can take advantage of this, to help defray their energy costs, and I fail to see why we shouldn't pursue it. Why shouldn' we take advantage of these resources? I am just dumbfounded by the resistance, which, I believe, is partially based upon sheer ideological rigidity and an aversion to anything "tree hugger green."

OK, so give me a multi tiered solutions with some REAL solutions.

Wind wouldn't even power 10% of the US even if we were loaded with windmills.

It's silly.

[twa]

Twa, why don't you actually try to defend your position? The question you were asked, "Would you qualify the race to the moon as an arms race?" is a straight forward one. You have a habit of retreating into sarcasm mode once someone tries to actually explain your position. If you are just trolling, then people are going to start to ignore you.

I don't have a position on it to defend,I deferred to intellectuals opinion that it was indeed part of the arms race.

I do have a opinion on wind,it is more expensive and unreliable....strangely enough I support it (within limits)

Ya want to ignore me ?...there is a button for that(damn they did away with the button,but I'm sure you can figure it out)

[elkabong82]

Great! It powers some hollywood homes too! It isn't even a 10 percent solution.

But it's a talking point.

I clearly said in my post that it was a PART of the solution, and that we're going to need to employ mutiple energy sources. Please don't respond if you're not going to actually address the whole of my argument.

You care to tell me that the dam systems for energy don't work? I'm in TVA land, and the Hoover dam also has something to say about that. There are solar powered homes also, you telling me that wouldn;t be a big benefit for energy reductions in homes? Heck, solar, wind, water all at the very least reduce how much energy is used.

Do you think oil is a long-term solution still? If not then what do you propose we do to address the energy crisis that exists and will worsen as oil fades?

[twa]

The defray costs is a bit untrue though,perhaps as technology advances it will...as of now it is a money pit.

[Baculus]

I don't have a position on it to defend,I deferred to intellectuals opinion that it was indeed part of the arms race.

Even though there were obviously crossovers between the military and the space program, the Space Race, like the Arms Race, comes under the general "Cold War" heading. But NASA is a civilian program, so it wasn't formerly a part of the military effort against the Soviets.

I do have a opinion on wind,it is more expensive and unreliable....strangely enough I support it (within limits)

The idea is to bring down costs as these energy sources become more common. But we have been trying to do that for years . . . perhaps it would be even cheaper if the party you support wouldn't have been fighting this for decades, eh?

Conservatives can't complain about the cost of alternative energy if they have been doing everything possible to keep its costs high by opposing funding into it. That is why many of us think they are simply beholden to Big Oil.

Ya want to ignore me ?...there is a button for that(damn they did away with the button,but I'm sure you can figure it out)

I don't need to hit the ignore button to do that. If I think their post is rubbish, silly, whatever, I just don't reply. But you do have a tendency to do what I previously said -- you retreat into defensive snark.

---------- Post added January-29th-2011 at 06:52 AM ----------

Great! It powers some hollywood homes too! It isn't even a 10 percent solution.

But it's a talking point.

---------- Post added January-29th-2011 at 12:31 AM ----------

OK, so give me a multi tiered solutions with some REAL solutions.

Wind wouldn't even power 10% of the US even if we were loaded with windmills.

It's silly.

Even if it were only 10%, it is funny how a conservative such as you doesn't seem to understand the principle of accumulated advantages. Even if it were only 10% that is a lot of money and energy production.

But it isn't. Here is an article which discusses this:

"Current wind technology deployed in nonenvironmentally protected areas could generate 37,000,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity per year, according to the new analysis conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and consulting firm AWS Truewind. The last comprehensive estimate came out in 1993, when Pacific Northwest National Laboratory pegged the wind energy potential of the United States at 10,777,000 gigawatt-hours.

"Both numbers are greater than the 3,000,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity currently consumed by Americans each year. Wind turbines generated just 52,000 gigawatt-hours in 2008, the last year for which annual statistics are available."

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/better-wind-resource-maps/

Here is an article that talks about a potential wind farm in NC that can power 70,000 homes.

http://www.dailyadvance.com/opinion/our-views/proposed-wind-turbine-project-potential-turning-point-260705

There are all sorts of articles on the Internet about this stuff if you look for it. But I think you have your position and you ain't budging. James Watt would be proud of you.

[twa]

Even though there were obviously crossovers between the military and the space program, the Space Race, like the Arms Race, comes under the general "Cold War" heading. But NASA is a civilian program, so it wasn't formerly a part of the military effort against the Soviets.

But Sputnik was not

The idea is to bring down costs as these energy sources become more common. But we have been trying to do that for years . . . perhaps it would be even cheaper if the party you support wouldn't have been fighting this for decades, eh?

Funny W expanded funding greatly,and Texas is a leader in wind power (I am even contracted to a wind energy provider)

Conservatives can't complain about the cost of alternative energy if they have been doing everything possible to keep its costs high by opposing funding into it. That is why many of us think they are simply beholden to Big Oil.

Come down to Big Oil land and I'll show you the state of art alt energy programs and research

Perhaps you need to look elsewhere for opposition,like some hypocrites worried about their view or yachting? ....We do energy in all flavors

I don't need to hit the ignore button to do that. If I think their post is rubbish, silly, whatever, I just don't reply. But you do have a tendency to do what I previously said -- you retreat into defensive snark.

You don't want snark?...step up your game.

[Baculus]

You know what is ironic about the wind energy chart potential from the below link? Is that the red states in the south, southwest, and mid-west could generate the most wind energy in the entire country. But they elect people that oppose this energy from which they could greatly benefit.

http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/7446/potential-for-us-wind-energy-is-105-gw/

---------- Post added January-29th-2011 at 07:09 AM ----------

The fact that you are working for a wind energy provider and yet you are making arguments against shows the ideological pretzel that you have twisted yourself into.

You don't want snark?...step up your game.

And you have game? ROFL. Too funny.

[twa]

I don't work for wind or any other energy company,I voluntarily buy from a wind provider.

Ya know what they say about assumptions

[LEED3D]

Sarah Palin thought the "Sputnik Moment" referred to Obama's reaction to Russia's first satellite launch last week.

[Popeman38]

We are in 100% agreement on this.

[Veretax]

Okay, I'm a college educated adult male. But what exactly makes this a sputnik moment? Are we competing with someone? WHo are we competing with/against? Do you guys realize that Sputnik happened under Eisenhower, and his response wasn't to just start throwing money at the problem?

Those were my thoughts when I heard this Sputnik moment. Frankly, I think its a bad comparison to the times. You guys are welcome to disagree with me though.

[Metalhead]

Okay, I'm a college educated adult male. But what exactly makes this a sputnik moment? Are we competing with someone? WHo are we competing with/against? Do you guys realize that Sputnik happened under Eisenhower, and his response wasn't to just start throwing money at the problem?

Those were my thoughts when I heard this Sputnik moment. Frankly, I think its a bad comparison to the times. You guys are welcome to disagree with me though.

I agree with you, the comment/comparison makes no sense.

I had never heard of the term "Sputnik Moment" before this. At first, I understood his comment as praising Russia for being the first to put something in orbit and wanted America to be the first at something too. I find it awkward that the term actually represents America's response, like the true meaning is actually opposite of it's literal definition, such as "luck out" or the like.

[Burgold]

Okay, I'm a college educated adult male. But what exactly makes this a sputnik moment? Are we competing with someone? WHo are we competing with/against? Do you guys realize that Sputnik happened under Eisenhower, and his response wasn't to just start throwing money at the problem?

Those were my thoughts when I heard this Sputnik moment. Frankly, I think its a bad comparison to the times. You guys are welcome to disagree with me though.

Sure it was... in a way. They wanted to seriously upgrade our education. They wanted to get our space program moving hard and invested in science. They wanted America to catch up and surpass the Ruskies in everything that related to math and science. And so, they threw money at the problem... the best minds went took the resources went at it and eventually, a lot of technological advantage and our superiority over the last fifty years came from "throwing money at the project" think of the gains we made in computers, minaturization, propulsion, etc. because Eisenhauer, Kennedy, etc. recognized the need to need to create a Math and Science renaisance. They had a Sputnik moment and because of that the U.S. became the leader in technology and eventually the sole super power.

[TradeTheBeal!]

I agree with you, the comment/comparison makes no sense.

I had never heard of the term "Sputnik Moment" before this. At first, I understood his comment as praising Russia for being the first to put something in orbit and wanted America to be the first at something too. I find it awkward that the term actually represents America's response, like the true meaning is actually opposite of it's literal definition, such as "luck out" or the like.

How do you feel about the "Spudnut Moment"? Do you feel that the Fed Govt needs to invest a coffee shop or two as opposed to alternative energy and mass transit?

[Larry]

Actually, I'm not certain we want to be "investing" (meaning, having the government mandate spending on) mass transit.

Mass transit is not rocket science. It's existing technology.

The reason we don't have more mass transit in America isn't because we don't know how. It's because we don't want it.

[Burgold]

Actually, I'm not certain we want to be "investing" (meaning, having the government mandate spending on) mass transit.

Mass transit is not rocket science. It's existing technology.

The reason we don't have more mass transit in America isn't because we don't know how. It's because we don't want it.

I don't know if that's really the case. I think it depends how you define "we" Take the Washington DC area for example. For the past two winters storms have significantly impacted power. Multi-day blackouts for hundreds of thousands have happened including on this last storm which was a relative non-event. I suspect the reason for this is that the private utilities haven't been upgrading, replacing, or doing what needs to be done relative to the electrical infrastructure. They're much more content to jury rig and do patch jobs because in the short term its cheaper.

Do people want to have better more efficient electrical, refineries, roads, bridges? I'd argue yes. This is the downside to the free market. The businesses want to maximize short term profit and avoid any kind of spending they can. So, would high speed rail might be beneficial and wanted, but the no one wants to foot the costs. Would revamping the electrical grid be good for people, businesses, and the economy? I think that too often the idea that you have to spend a buck to make five bucks is forgotten. That's why this nation is no longer the great innovator and inventor it was and that's why things seem to be breaking down so often.

[Bang]

I agree with you, the comment/comparison makes no sense.

I had never heard of the term "Sputnik Moment" before this. At first, I understood his comment as praising Russia for being the first to put something in orbit and wanted America to be the first at something too. I find it awkward that the term actually represents America's response, like the true meaning is actually opposite of it's literal definition, such as "luck out" or the like.

It's not awkward at all.

What you have to do is realize that the Sputnik Moment was not anything Russian at all.

Once you realize that, it isn't awkward anymore.

The true meaning is the effect learning of Sputnik had on us. The "moment" wasnt when they launched it. It was when we realized they had, when we realized that they had achieved a possible strategic advantage that could shift global power.

The comparison does make sense.

If we don't get off our asses, economic power will shift, as if it has't already, and America can be left behind a new superpower.

Same as then, the "moment" was when we realized if we didn't get off our asses, Russia could achieve a strategic advantage we could not overcome.

~Bang

[twa]

Bur, I assume ya'll are still using suspended power lines.

Want to pay to go underground?