Post-Primary Weekend Open Thread

3 DINO traitors (0.00 / 0)

So, basically, what this means, is that in order to win control of the state senate, we need to pickup 5 seats, not 2.  These worthless DINOs should have been primaried years ago.

---

by: BluePoster @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 19:50:15 PM UTC

Espada had a primary (0.00 / 0)

he won.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 20:34:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yep - and Dem leadership supported Gonzalez (4.00 / 1)

From an earlier Times article:

In another upset in a State Senate race, Efrain González, a longtime Bronx incumbent facing federal corruption charges, was defeated by Pedro Espada Jr., a former city councilman, in the Democratic primary. Mr. Espada also served previously in the State Senate, but in a neighboring district.

Senator González, who has challenged Mr. Espada's residency, is charged with stealing more than $400,000 in state funds and using the money for personal expenses, including financing his private cigar company. The senator has denied the charges.

The losses by Mr. González and Mr. Connor are a blow to Senate Democratic leaders, who had backed both men.

Gonzalez was indicted (saith Wikipedia) back in August 2006, so it's not like the leadership didn't have time to think about, say, a reliable progressive who wasn't facing twenty years.

Maybe they just didn't find someone, or maybe they just couldn't get their heads around, say, primarying one of their own who was likely on the way out. (Yes, I know that the feds are kind of biased lately - but NYS lawmakers records of indictment and conviction are pretty ugly over the last few years.)

However that all played out, yeah - we need to get used to running a lot more primaries, and stop thinking that primaries are some kind of alien unpleasantness that polite Democrats would never stoop to.  They need to be a totally normal part of the political landscape if our party is going to find its health.

---

by: simonstl @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 20:52:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Part of the problem (0.00 / 0)

is that the Bronx Democratic "leadership" is a mess.  They not only lost this race, but also lost a judicial race.

There will certainly be an intramural fight among Bronx Democrats for leadership; once the dust settles we'll have a better idea of where to go.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:03:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Espada was the challenger (0.00 / 0)

Of course, it didn't help that Gonzalez is under indictment.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:44:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What a choice in that primary (4.00 / 1)

Corruption vs. republican- kind of a microcosm of Albany, huh?

---

by: Roatti @ Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 07:11:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A few random thoughts (4.00 / 1)

Rather than calling them "Benedict Arnolds," I prefer to think of them as latter-day Joe Liebermans, or perhaps Zell Millers.

The DMI blog on high-speed rail doesn't go far enough.  We need a nationwide, electrified, high-speed rail system not only for passengers but also for freight.  We could take hundreds of thousands of cars and trucks off our highways, resulting in a saving of (potentially) a million barrels of oil per day -- or more.  To pay for building this system, we should start by doubling the federal tax on gasoline and diesel fuel.  That's a tax that hasn't been raised in 15 years!  At today's prices, doubling the tax rate would hardly be felt, and could raise the money we need to build a rail system that is the envy of the world.

The solar energy grand plan is interesting to read, but not ready for prime time -- yet.  Some recent advances in solar energy are very interesting, but we're still a long way from solar power meeting more than a small portion of our energy demand.

Regarding term limits (which I oppose), my question, first asked over two years ago, still remains unanswered:  Under what moral authority does the City Council overrule, by legislative fiat, the twice-expressed will of the people?

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:52:10 AM UTC

Don't know what to say.... (0.00 / 0)

...when people insist that we are "still a long way from solar power meeting more than a small portion of our energy demand."  Not to be argumentative, but solar power has been meeting a significant part of our family's heating energy demand for, oh, almost three decades now.  And it-- solar energy-- has been touted as "a long way off" the whole time.  My house is not all that high-end, either-- we built it mostly from recycled and re-used materials.  A good part of the problem is that pundits seem to continually focus on high-tech photovoltaics.... which are perpetually "about to be affordable soon" rather than direct use of heat energy, which has been affordable since the times of the Anasazi.

Our technological capabilities have one heck of a lot to do with what we choose to invest in.  Lately, the way I understand it, we are choosing to invest in propping up Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and (did we do it yet?) Lehman Brothers.  I'm with you 100% on building some railroads (high-speed where feasible, regular speed where that is all the terrain will allow).  But, there is no reason on a warming earth that we should not be investing massively in heating our homes and hot water with solar energy.  It works, it's here, and it is FREE.  Oops.  That, it turns out, is the reason that the oligopoly has convinced us that solar energy is perpetually "in the future"--- sometime after somebody figures out how to own or patent it.

---

by: robinia @ Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:54:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A clarification (0.00 / 0)

In order for solar power to be widely used, it must be more economical.  Solar power is not free; it costs a lot of money to install solar cells, and they must be replaced shortly after, or some time before (depending on tax incentives) the energy cost savings make up for the purchase and installation costs.  For some people in some areas, certain savings can be realized, but for most people and most businesses, it's just not economically viable -- yet.

It's a good bet that your house cost a lot more than it would have cost if you had built an "ordinary" house.  I remember, about 30 years ago, some friends of mine (or rather, their parents) building a "solar house" in South Bend, IN; it cost them a bundle.

There are companies that make money on PV.  Companies that manufacture, distribute, sell and install solar cells and panels are often profitable.  What we need is for consumers to save money by using solar power -- and we may be on the verge of the very breakthroughs necessary to make that happen.

Two technological advances are very promising.  The first is the use of mirrors to focus sunlight, thus deriving more power from fewer (expensive) solar cells.  The second is a type of solar panel that not only doubles as a window, but is also more efficient at converting sunlight into electricity.  The first advance will be more useful for large-scale solar power generation, while the second will be geared toward individual consumers.

If these advances prove to be as good as the hype (and since the hype doesn't seem to be over the top, it's quite possible), then once these technologies are ready for mass production, we'll need to build factories, create distribution systems, revamp building codes, etc.  If all goes well, in 10 years we could see significant power generation through solar power.

If all goes well.

Meanwhile, we should focus far more of our press releases and other public information methods on energy efficiency.  When Barack Obama recommended that drivers keep their cars tuned up and their tires properly inflated, he wasn't whistling in the dark.  The reason he wasn't taken serioiusly (aside from the fact that Republicans are hopelessly wedded to Big Oil) is that he didn't have a longer list of energy efficiency measures on tap.  There are a lot of ways we can cut demand without "huddling in sweaters in the dark," as Ronald Reagan scoffed.

There is no reason we cannot expand our economy while decreasing demand for energy, simply by reducing waste.  And we can start reducing waste now, long before clean, renewable energy sources become a major (make that THE major) energy source.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:01:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This, Dan, is why I don't know what to say-- nothing works. (0.00 / 0)

People don't listen/read-- or don't believe-- me.  My house DID NOT cost "lots more than a comparable non-solar house".  It cost LOTS LESS.  That's because there are no PV elements (yes, they are expensive, and for 30 years people have been saying they are going to get less expensive), and we made it mostly from stuff other people were throwing away.  No tax credits. No need for any of the things that you are so sure need to happen before solar power can be widely used.

Sigh. It's a shame that I can't swim any harder upstream.  But, honest, I am not making it up.  Solar heat is available and inexpensive now, just like it was when we started building our house in the late seventies.  Just because your friend's parents did something "solar" that cost a lot 30 years ago, or you know people who did something "solar" last week that cost a lot, too, does not mean that there is no inexpensive solar heat available.  There is, it works, others can do it, too.  And bake ovens, and water heaters.  Low tech solar is a technology that can and should be promoted by progressives everywhere; unfortunately, you can't get them to stop talking about photovoltaics, usually.

---

by: robinia @ Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:07:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]