Will past personal issues affect Obama's 2012 campaign?

[Ivan Seeking]

I have to admit, you've convinced me over time of the potential from algae. I'll believe in wind and solar when President Obama convinces Iran they are a better choice than nuclear power.

Until we have adequate supply at competitively priced alternatives - drill baby drill, frac baby frac, and squeeze (or whatever they do to the) sands - IMO.

It seems to me that natural gas is a good interim solution. I have only seen this loosely cited [been meaning to do the math myself], but it is generally claimed that CH4 only emits about half the CO2 as does coal and other fossil fuels per unit of energy produced. Obviously it is the cleanest fossil-fuel option wrt pollution in general - this means less economic impact on car companies trying to meet emission standards. We in the US are now, in the words of the Wall Street Journal, "swimming in natural gas". And this can't be outsourced!

NG can also be cracked using passive solar power to produce hydrogen and carbon black.

 

[WhoWee]

It seems to me that natural gas is a good interim solution. I have only seen this loosely cited [been meaning to do the math myself], but it is generally claimed that CH4 only emits about half the CO2 as does coal and other fossil fuels per unit of energy produced. Obviously it is the cleanest fossil-fuel option wrt pollution in general - this means less economic impact on car companies trying to meet emission standards. We in the US are now, in the words of the Wall Street Journal, "swimming in natural gas". And this can't be outsourced!

NG can also be cracked using passive solar power to produce hydrogen and carbon black.

I like the idea of natural gas for semi trucks. The gas fields are typically located in the country - where the truck stops are typically located - and truck stops are typically better capitalized and have adequate space for new equipment. Further, the conversion is affordable and the trucks have adequate storage space. The trucks are also highly regulated and routinely inspected. IMO - it's a good fit.

 

[daveb]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Since when did Boondocks become an authority.

 

[Al68]

I like the idea of natural gas for semi trucks. The gas fields are typically located in the country - where the truck stops are typically located - and truck stops are typically better capitalized and have adequate space for new equipment. Further, the conversion is affordable and the trucks have adequate storage space. The trucks are also highly regulated and routinely inspected. IMO - it's a good fit.

I can't seem to find a source online about converting a diesel to use natural gas. I'm no expert, but isn't the power/torque/durability requirements to haul 80,000 pounds what precludes the use of gasoline/spark ignition engines? Wouldn't it similarly preclude the use of natural gas engines as a practical matter?

I'm just asking here, not making any claims. This isn't exactly my area of expertise.

 

[WhoWee]

I thought this might be worth mentioning as well.
http://www.cumminswestport.com/fuels/hcng.php

"HCNG is a blend of natural gas and hydrogen. Tests show that a blend of approximately 20% hydrogen and 80% CNG by volume can reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides by 30 to 50% without affecting the performance and efficiency of a natural gas engine."

 

[Ryumast3r]

I can't seem to find a source online about converting a diesel to use natural gas. I'm no expert, but isn't the power/torque/durability requirements to haul 80,000 pounds what precludes the use of gasoline/spark ignition engines? Wouldn't it similarly preclude the use of natural gas engines as a practical matter?

I'm just asking here, not making any claims. This isn't exactly my area of expertise.

Natural Gas doesn't give the "oomph" that diesel does (or even gasoline IIRC), however, this can be solved by getting a bit of a bigger piston, or more turbos. It results in a little more emission NG-wise, but still less than Diesel or Gasoline.

My local university (U. of Utah, which is a very mountainous campus and buses typically have a hard time going uphill) has started to convert to NG buses, and the only problem they run into is they need to fit them with a slightly bigger engine in order to carry passengers up the hills, but are still noticeably cleaner.

You are correct that NG doesn't give the power, but the sheer amount of natural gas in the U.S. (and the world, for that matter) means that using a little bit more per capita wouldn't be much of a problem (while we find other ways of powering vehicles/etc).

 

[Al68]

Natural Gas doesn't give the "oomph" that diesel does (or even gasoline IIRC), however, this can be solved by getting a bit of a bigger piston, or more turbos. It results in a little more emission NG-wise, but still less than Diesel or Gasoline.

My local university (U. of Utah, which is a very mountainous campus and buses typically have a hard time going uphill) has started to convert to NG buses, and the only problem they run into is they need to fit them with a slightly bigger engine in order to carry passengers up the hills, but are still noticeably cleaner.

You are correct that NG doesn't give the power, but the sheer amount of natural gas in the U.S. (and the world, for that matter) means that using a little bit more per capita wouldn't be much of a problem (while we find other ways of powering vehicles/etc).

I can see how it could work for buses, but I was referring to 80,000 lb tractor trailers that already must use large turbo diesel engines and have to creep up hills. Buses are lightweight in comparison.

It just seems like the dramatically lower power would be much harder to make up for in a heavy truck. Especially assuming that engine makers already struggle to get the greatest power and fuel mileage possible for given weight and size limitations.

Durability is the other issue. Heavy duty truck engines are expected to last millions of miles. Using a spark-fired engine and larger pistons and more turbos doesn't seem very compatible with durability either, all else being equal. Of course that, too, could be made up for by spending more money on materials and engine building.

It just seems like too much to have to make up for with heavy trucks, as a practical matter. I could easily be wrong, but getting a natural gas engine to come close to the power/size/weight/cost/durability requirements needed seems like a difficult task to me.

 

[BobG]

I can see how it could work for buses, but I was referring to 80,000 lb tractor trailers that already must use large turbo diesel engines and have to creep up hills. Buses are lightweight in comparison.

It just seems like the dramatically lower power would be much harder to make up for in a heavy truck. Especially assuming that engine makers already struggle to get the greatest power and fuel mileage possible for given weight and size limitations.

Durability is the other issue. Heavy duty truck engines are expected to last millions of miles. Using a spark-fired engine and larger pistons and more turbos doesn't seem very compatible with durability either, all else being equal. Of course that, too, could be made up for by spending more money on materials and engine building.

It just seems like too much to have to make up for with heavy trucks, as a practical matter. I could easily be wrong, but getting a natural gas engine to come close to the power/size/weight/cost/durability requirements needed seems like a difficult task to me.

It's not a linear relationship, since the lower energy density of a fuel can be compensated for with a higher compression ratio. And the high compression ratios increase the efficiency with higher temperatures and a greater expansion ratio.

But, you're getting down there with natural gas. Ethanol and methanol have lower energy densities, but natural gas is pretty low.

 

[Ryumast3r]

I can see how it could work for buses, but I was referring to 80,000 lb tractor trailers that already must use large turbo diesel engines and have to creep up hills. Buses are lightweight in comparison.

It just seems like the dramatically lower power would be much harder to make up for in a heavy truck. Especially assuming that engine makers already struggle to get the greatest power and fuel mileage possible for given weight and size limitations.

Durability is the other issue. Heavy duty truck engines are expected to last millions of miles. Using a spark-fired engine and larger pistons and more turbos doesn't seem very compatible with durability either, all else being equal. Of course that, too, could be made up for by spending more money on materials and engine building.

It just seems like too much to have to make up for with heavy trucks, as a practical matter. I could easily be wrong, but getting a natural gas engine to come close to the power/size/weight/cost/durability requirements needed seems like a difficult task to me.

Ah, I see what you mean now. I thought you meant the smaller ones. My bad.

I am not an expert by any means on the intricacies of diesel vs N.G., and considering the size limitations on the trucks themselves, I don't know how they'd solve that problem.

HOWEVER, getting almost every other gas-consuming car and bus off the road and only using diesel for trains and large tractor-trailers would go a long way in helping reduce oil usage. Other than that, I personally have no idea how you'd replace diesel with NG in those trucks (though I'm sure someone smarter than me could see a way to do it... though I imagine it'd be very difficult).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't know about using NG in heavy trucks, but the points made are the very reasons why biodiesel is the only viable option for some transportation needs. At about 118.3 KBTUs per gallon, biodiesel [B100] has only slightly less energy per gallon than diesel no 2 - 129.5 KBTU per gallon.
http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/BTU_Content_Final_Oct2005.pdf

Having superior lubricity, BD can yield nearly the same effective energy output as regular diesel.

However, solar cracking of NG for hydrogen may also provide a viable fuel option for trucking.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'll believe in wind and solar when President Obama convinces Iran they are a better choice than nuclear power.

Okay, I have to call you on that one. Your position on energy policies depends on Ahmadinejad's position?

Until we have adequate supply at competitively priced alternatives - drill baby drill, frac baby frac, and squeeze (or whatever they do to the) sands - IMO.

Some solar power companies expect to reach price equity very soon. It seems to be on a region by region basis now.

A cleantech Senior Research Analyst at Piper Jaffray & Co, Ahmar Zaman, has said that he believes solar power will reach grid parity at a retail level in some markets as early as next year.

These markets include Italy and Hawaii, where the price of electricity is fairly high, and there is a lot of sunshine.

Zaman explains that in 2007, the cost of residential solar power was around $8 to $10 a watt. In 2011, solar systems can be installed for $4 to $5 a watt...

In Southern California, for peak energy demand at peak electricity prices, solar is already at grid parity...

http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/...ected-to-compete-with-coal-soon-analyst-says/

Is Solar PV Power Becoming Cost Competitive with Coal-Fired Electricity?
by Roy Joseph on 04/19/11
Source :- http://www.glgroup.com

Yes - in some markets, and some sunny areas, not everywhere. This answer relates to utility-grade solar installations as alternatives to new coal-fired plants, not to small rooftop systems.

Investor-owned utilities resist buying solar power since they can make more burning coal in depreciated generating plants. Canadian Solar, Inc., SunPower Corp.,, Fotowatio Renewable Ventures Inc., and Areva S.A. are building new utility-scale systems now and predicting 20% efficiency gains by 2020...

http://solarsyz.com/Blog.html?entry=is-solar-pv-power-becoming

 

[WhoWee]

Okay, I have to call you on that one. Your position on energy policies depends on Ahmadinejad's position?

It's sad isn't it?

http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/Oil/8044750

"Iran's OPEC Governor Ali Khatibi said Monday the International Energy Agency's decision to release 60 million barrels of oil from emergency stocks was "a dangerous game" as caretaker Oil Minister Mohammad Aliabadi said Iran would continue to resist an OPEC output hike."

We need to be self-sufficient - IMO.

 

[russ_watters]

Some solar power companies expect to reach price equity very soon.

A solar power salesman says we should buy solar?! I'm convinced!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A solar power salesman says we should buy solar?! I'm convinced!

The fact is, at the rate prices are dropping, it makes no sense to buy solar right now.

We have a member who is currently working on the practical implementation of large-scale thin-film printed solar panels. This is being done at the commercial level.

Do you have information stating that something in the posted links is incorrect or are you just taking more cheap shots?

 

[talk2glenn]

Solar is not market competitive, or anywhere near price parity. The figures you quote are post-policy. Specifically, the Department of Energy spends approximately 20 times as much per generated industrial MW of solar as energy as per MW of coal energy. Despite that investment, new solar output costs 3 times as much per MW as new conventional capacity, and consumes at least 125 times as much acreage as new conventional plants, again per MW.

The space concern is a huge consideration for any potential developer in the United States. We have one of the most onerous land use permitting and environmental review policies in the world, if not the most onerous. No other state that I'm aware of will delay construction of new power plants for 16 months to consider the impact on a local squirrel that is otherwise doing just fine (not endangered or protected), until investor flight ultimately cancels the project.

The largest solar plant in the United States - SEGS - has an installed capacity of 300+ MW, but an average operating capacity of only 20% of that. The reason? Inefficiency and costs. There are no economies of scale in the production and delivery of concentrated power - they simply stop producing power at the point where subsidies dry up. In this case, PG&E is required to buy a given portion of its electricity from approved sources, like solar.

Solar Two was an experimental plant built in 1996 by a DOE capital grant, with 3 years of guaranteed operating subsidies to expire in 1999 (and the goal of continued competitive operation, subsidy-free, in 1999). The day subsidies expired the plant closed.

Sarnia solar power plant in Canada, the worlds largest PV facility, has a guaranteed purchase contract from the Canadian government for 44 cents per KWh. Without that guarantee, the facility never would have opened.

The list goes on. There is no competitive demand for new solar capacity (there is sufficient conventional capacity) - the market is driven entirely by public rent seeking.

 

[Ryumast3r]

For all the talk about solar and wind, why don't we add Geothermal, or OTEC to the mix as well?


Or, heaven forbid, nuclear.

 

[mheslep]

Solar is not market competitive, or anywhere near price parity. ...

Depending on location I disagree, but that aside, how do you price the externalities of fossile fuel based electric power? Forget about CO2 for the moment, just consider particulate matter, SOX, mercury, radioactivity, etc, etc emissions fromhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/ns/us_news-environment/" , then there's an increase in asthma, etc. How does one price those?

 

[turbo]

Depending on location I disagree, but that aside, how do you price the externalities of fossile fuel based electric power? Forget about CO2 for the moment, just consider particulate matter, SOX, mercury, radioactivity, etc, etc emissions fromhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/ns/us_news-environment/" , then there's an increase in asthma, etc. How does one price those?

There's the rub. There are all kinds of negative effects of burning dirty fossil fuels, and the power companies never have to pay for mitigation. I was a consultant to companies that burn coal for power, and unless they make large changes in their power systems, they never have to pay for scrubbers and other environmental upgrades. They can get around this by making regular incremental changes in equipment, so they never trigger the 'big-project" requirement for installing environmental controls.

Maine has no coal-fired power plants, but we are downwind from huge midwest coal-fired plants. As a result, we have acidic lakes and rivers, mercury bio-accumulating in fish (dangerous for children and women of child-bearing age to eat, according to the state Fish and Wildlife Department), cadmium bio-accumulating in deer and moose (F&W says don't eat the livers), and rolling ozone alerts nearly all summer long. The incidence of asthma in Maine is on a steady increase, too. The costs of using coal and other dirty fossil fuels are very high, and they are being borne by all of us down-wind of the plants. Men, women, children, wildlife...

 

[WhoWee]

We have a member who is currently working on the practical implementation of large-scale thin-film printed solar panels. This is being done at the commercial level.

Is this being discussed in a particular thread?

 

[turbo]

Is this being discussed in a particular thread?

Good question. I'd like to follow that.

 

[WhoWee]

Good question. I'd like to follow that.

I was following a company called NanoSolar for a while - haven't heard much lately?

 

[WhoWee]

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/obama-debt-talks-600/2011/06/27/id/401645?s=al&promo_code=C849-1

"Obama Pushes $600 Billion in New Taxes in Debt Talks"

Cutting corporate loopholes and eliminating oil subsidies might sound good to the Left - but are they serious solutions?

 

[Ryumast3r]

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/obama-debt-talks-600/2011/06/27/id/401645?s=al&promo_code=C849-1

"Obama Pushes $600 Billion in New Taxes in Debt Talks"

Cutting corporate loopholes and eliminating oil subsidies might sound good to the Left - but are they serious solutions?

I'd say they're every bit as valid as refusing to raise the debt limit, which is getting pretty close to the deadline of... August 3rd was it? Then we either default on our payments or have a government shut-down resulting in thousands of more jobs lost.

All we need is a temporary solution that will work well enough for a year or two while we hammer out the real plans that will succeed in taking us far into the future, the plans that no one can seem to agree on right now will have time to become real.

I don't like the $600 billion number (seems a bit high), but if they figure they can get that much without killing the corporations that pay it, well... that's great. I'm skeptical to say the least.

 

[Al68]

Then we either default on our payments or have a government shut-down resulting in thousands of more jobs lost.

This statement has been repeated often by the left, and this forum, but is not true. What is true is that the Treasury Secretary has threatened to default on debt payments unless the debt ceiling is raised as a leverage ploy against congress. Big difference.

It's simply false that debt default is a direct consequence of not raising the debt limit. Unlike what the left would have us believe, it's absurd to think that congress somehow is obligated to authorize the government to go further into debt, while Obama is not obligated to honor existing debt obligations. Like many claims of the left, the exact opposite is true.

 

[BobG]

I'd say they're every bit as valid as refusing to raise the debt limit, which is getting pretty close to the deadline of... August 3rd was it? Then we either default on our payments or have a government shut-down resulting in thousands of more jobs lost.

This statement has been repeated often by the left, and this forum, but is not true. What is true is that the Treasury Secretary has threatened to default on debt payments unless the debt ceiling is raised as a leverage ploy against congress. Big difference.

It's simply false that debt default is a direct consequence of not raising the debt limit. Unlike what the left would have us believe, it's absurd to think that congress somehow is obligated to authorize the government to go further into debt, while Obama is not obligated to honor existing debt obligations. Like many claims of the left, the exact opposite is true.

Which part is false? It was an "or" statement. You only addressed the debt default option; not what government would have to do to avoid the default option.

 

[WhoWee]

Back to 2012?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pres...ance-nod-2012-battlegrounds/story?id=13948413

"Obama Gay Marriage Stance a Nod to 2012 Battlegrounds

Gay pride month celebrations hit the White House today as President Obama welcomes some of his gay and lesbian supporters and renews his commitment to helping them "win the future."

But don't expect the president to flash his rainbow stripes in support of marriage equality: That's an issue he now believes should be left up to the states.

"His belief, our belief [is] that this is a matter that states should decide," White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday after New York became the sixth, and largest, state to allow same-sex marriage.

The position -- a new twist for Obama, who appeared to support legalizing the unions in 1996, later opposed them, and recently said his views are "evolving" -- has rankled advocates who say the president is making a calculated political decision with an eye toward 2012.

"The president has staked out a cynical political position aimed at not rocking the boat," said Richard Socarides, who advised President Bill Clinton on gay rights issues. "This states' rights argument is a separate but equal argument. Would the president have thought it right to let the states decide on the issue of interracial marriage, or on whether or not women should be allowed to vote?""

 

[Ryumast3r]

This statement has been repeated often by the left, and this forum, but is not true. What is true is that the Treasury Secretary has threatened to default on debt payments unless the debt ceiling is raised as a leverage ploy against congress. Big difference.

It's simply false that debt default is a direct consequence of not raising the debt limit. Unlike what the left would have us believe, it's absurd to think that congress somehow is obligated to authorize the government to go further into debt, while Obama is not obligated to honor existing debt obligations. Like many claims of the left, the exact opposite is true.

I'm not talking about the Treasury Secretary, his threats are his own (and frankly, defaulting is dumb - but it'd work... besides, as you said, it's all about leverage). But what happens when the debt limit is finally reached, and we have no other money-moving options like what we're currently doing? You either default on a payment, or you shut down the government so you know longer have to pay employees, thus getting a little extra revenue, and then you continue to pay the debts - or the wonderful third option which is printing out money like crazy, devaluing the dollar, and just saying "Here you go!"

I never said debt default is, there are two realistic options (That I'm aware of, please feel free to point out a valid third one, because I would love expanding my knowledge bank). Default, or shut down services to save money. Even with Ryan's plan (the most extreme one in terms of cost-cutting) the government would still have to raise the debt limit in order to not default/shut down services and keep paying the bills over the next two years.

Congress is obligated, as is the president, to keep this country running. And saying Obama is obligated to honor existing debt is an odd way of putting it, since Congress (not the senate, or the president) is the one with the purse.

 

[Vanadium 50]

A third option would be to sell assets. For example, the US government still owns $13B in General Motors. It could operate for 3 more days on that.

 

[Ryumast3r]

A third option would be to sell assets. For example, the US government still owns $13B in General Motors. It could operate for 3 more days on that.

This is true, they could do that, though I doubt that there's very many assets they could sell without having to lay off workers... that, and 3 days really isn't that long.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The fiscal year ends September 30th. If the debt ceiling is reached in early August, that's maybe 50 days to go. 3 days is 6% of it. Not a bad start. If it were .006% I would say that this is not feasible. But one item getting 6% of the way there?

Let's consider another one: TVA. They have an EBIT of about $2B/year. That gives it a value of something like $24B. Six more days. Now we've solved 18% of the problem.

No layoffs yet - just a change in ownership, although it is probable that eventually there would be. The new owners' goal will be to turn a profit, after all. I'm not so sure that the argument that the government can operate TVA less efficiently is a good reason to keep it public.

 

[Al68]

I'm not talking about the Treasury Secretary, his threats are his own (and frankly, defaulting is dumb - but it'd work... besides, as you said, it's all about leverage).

I agree that defaulting is dumb, but the threats of the Treasury Secretary are not his own. Any power he exercises is delegated to him by the President, and the President is responsible for all executive branch actions.

But what happens when the debt limit is finally reached, and we have no other money-moving options like what we're currently doing? You either default on a payment, or you shut down the government so you know longer have to pay employees, thus getting a little extra revenue, and then you continue to pay the debts - or the wonderful third option which is printing out money like crazy, devaluing the dollar, and just saying "Here you go!"

I never said debt default is, there are two realistic options (That I'm aware of, please feel free to point out a valid third one, because I would love expanding my knowledge bank). Default, or shut down services to save money.

Yes, I agree those are the options, but limiting spending to current revenues is a long, long way from a "government shutdown". It's just a balanced budget.

Even with Ryan's plan (the most extreme one in terms of cost-cutting) the government would still have to raise the debt limit in order to not default/shut down services and keep paying the bills over the next two years.

Which is why I think the Ryan budget is too big on the spending side. It's pretty indicative of the massive shift of the U.S. "left-right" spectrum that a budget far to the left (according to the numbers) of any budget in history, that grows government even bigger by 30% over 10 years (in inflation adjusted dollars) is referred to as "extreme right". I know such characterizations are just fraudulent manipulation attempts, but that one's pretty bizarre.

Congress is obligated, as is the president, to keep this country running.

Neither are obligated, or authorized, to "keep this country running." As far as keeping the federal government itself operating, that cost is a miniscule fraction of the federal budget.

And saying Obama is obligated to honor existing debt is an odd way of putting it, since Congress (not the senate, or the president) is the one with the purse.

Not odd at all, considering that congress has already appropriated the money to honor the debt Obama is threatening to default on.

The issue is that congress has also already appropriated the money for all the other stuff Obama wants to spend money on instead, resulting in the choice being the President's alone if the debt limit isn't increased. The President is purposely putting the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. on top of the chopping block, precisely because it's the most disastrous choice, and therefore gives him the most leverage over Republicans, if they believe his threat. It's not like a threat to not fund Obamacare or the EPA could be used as blackmail against the GOP. My personal opinion is that it's a bluff and the President would not default on the debt.

But it is the fault of congress that the President has so much discretion in the matter, which is why I favor a law requiring the prioritization of debt service.

 

[WhoWee]

Not odd at all, considering that congress has already appropriated the money to honor the debt Obama is threatening to default on.

The issue is that congress has also already appropriated the money for all the other stuff Obama wants to spend money on instead, resulting in the choice being the President's alone if the debt limit isn't increased. The President is purposely putting the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. on top of the chopping block, precisely because it's the most disastrous choice, and therefore gives him the most leverage over Republicans, if they believe his threat. It's not like a threat to not fund Obamacare or the EPA could be used as blackmail against the GOP. My personal opinion is that it's a bluff and the President would not default on the debt.

But it is the fault of congress that the President has so much discretion in the matter, which is why I favor a law requiring the prioritization of debt service.

I'm not sure this is the "Hope and Change" that a narrow margin voted for in 2008? Ideology doesn't replace leadership - IMO - this is one of the President's most transparent moments - his lack of experience is quite obvious. Again, IMO.

 

[mheslep]

Ownership of GM is tiny fraction of the enormous assets of the US federal government which include, for instance, nearly a third of all US land area. Though there would be much gnashing of teeth, the federal government could cease to collect any income tax revenues and finance the current $3.8T/year spending rate for at least a year, if not several by selling off assets. Selling off the strategic petroleum reserve alone (four billion barrels) would run the entire show for a month.

 

[WhoWee]

Ownership of GM is tiny fraction of the enormous assets of the US federal government which include, for instance, nearly a third of all US land area. Though there would be much gnashing of teeth, the federal government could cease to collect any income tax revenues and finance the current $3.8T/year spending rate for at least a year, if not several by selling off assets. Selling off the strategic petroleum reserve alone (four billion barrels) would run the entire show for a month.

Can you imagine if President Obama proposed to sell all of the non-defense assets of the US - to continue deficit spending?

 

[WhoWee]

Is anyone else getting emails requesting $5 donations and a " last chance to enter the "Dinner with Barack and Joe" contest"?