posted on August 14, 2003 03:15:27 PM newprofe - I did notice you haven't posted your position on this issue
and I won't linda, until I have a position to post. I haven't read the articles fully, nor have I seen any news reports on the issue. Being essentially ignorant of the facts, it would be pretty stupid of me to take a position IMO. I can tell you that I am overall a big fan of wind power. My barns , outbuildings and stock wells are all powered by small wind generators . I haven't been to the area in question. I do think it's probably unfair to characterize the entire place as populated by "rich liberals". Wonder what the voter registrations of the area look like?
REAMOND you're right, not one person quoted is a conservative. How many people have been quoted? Three or four?
Why do you dismiss the fishermen's concerns?
Now.. we'll see who makes a crack about being ignorant of the facts.
___________________________________
What luck for the leaders that men do not think. - Adolph Hitler
posted on August 14, 2003 03:21:09 PM new
REAMOND states...
I'll tell you how Linda K- While the rich liberals drive around in the SUVS/Limos/planes/yatchs, they want the hoi poli vulgar mob of "poor" people to ride in public transit, separate their garbage for recycling, live in high density tenements, and "
What a dumb-ass statement that is....Thank god you forgot to finish it. LOL!
posted on August 14, 2003 03:28:35 PM new
profe - I haven't been to the area in question. LOL...you're the second person that made that same statement. Now one must travel to the area to make a decision on a subject like this? LOL
I'm glad to hear you believe in and use wind power yourself. I think that's great.
For those of you who have never lived on either coast....coastal property is super expensive. Only the very wealthy can affort to buy it, or a view of it, or live close to it. VERY EXPENSIVE. With the exception of maybe someone who's owned the property for the past 50 years.
Part of what has driven up the cost of coastal property is the enviornmentalists continue to fight against developing ANY coast properties that are still undeveloped....even when the people have owned the property for years.
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 14, 2003 03:32 PM ]
posted on August 14, 2003 03:55:00 PM new
Nothing has changed here.
I remember last year some stating concern for
birds flying around the large structures out west.
What has Bush found about the wind structures on his ranch? How many does he have there. Surely he has many and they are researching the cost, negative and postive effects, etc?
How many do they have in front of the Bush
compound on the east coast...Maine or Mass? Don't remember the island where the Bush's stay or own, never really cared. Have they decided to add structures in front of their
property?
posted on August 14, 2003 04:02:22 PM newNow one must travel to the area to make a decision on a subject like this?
I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth Linda. I didn't say that. I simply said, I haven't been there. That certainly does not mean I think you or anyone else needs to go there in order to have an opinion.
___________________________________
What luck for the leaders that men do not think. - Adolph Hitler
Have to scroll down a bit for the Bush's compound. I don't see any prototypes in this
water. Why not? Could it be because those rich bastard liberals have said no here too?
Didn't look for a picture of the Crawford ranch. I don't remember seeing any wind turbines on that desolate piece of property
when the strutting little peacock gave a tour. [Am I still free to say that?]
posted on August 14, 2003 04:58:03 PM new
That's a nice little house..Aposter. When I drove by there a few years ago there were no wind turbines in sight. I remember seeing a few SUV's though and some very nice boats. I suspect that they have maids to recycle the trash..(per Reamond's concern) and the Limo's are at the ready.
There is a nuclear power plant in Plymouth (as in Pilgrims), less than ten miles north of the bridge to Cape Cod. It has only been there for thirty years so I wouldn't expect ebayauctionguy and twelvepole to have known of it at this early date.
The concerns expressed by the would be abutters to this wind farm are a very small part of a much larger picture, but have been blown out of proportion to provide the entertainment du jour for the intellectually challenged neo-cons, so they won't suck their thumbs or injure themselves in their pitiful attempts to think for themselves.
There are many small wind farms throughout New England. All of them financed by local communities to provide their own inexpensive and renewable sources of energy, to be used by these same communities so as not to be totally dependent on outside providers, and for other obvious reasons.
Cape Wind would be partially funded by the Federal Gorvernment, that's you boys and girls, the energy produced would be sold elsewhere, and local communities would receive zero benefit. The initial investment by the Feds has been set at 28 million. That may be enough money to pay for the party
the investors (thats not you boys and girls) will throw for themselves should this thing ever get off the ground. When that 28 mil is gone the Feds will be asking you for more of your money, ala the BIG DIG which has cost the citizens of all the states in the Union 18 billion (that's billion, with a B) to build a mile of roadway through the City of Boston, for which the citizens of Massachusetts would like to thank you suckers very much.
Those are only a couple out of a gazillion issues surrounding this very suspicious project. Another is the totally inappropriate location for these turbines. The fact that the towers will be required to reach over four hundred feet, twice the height of any other tower extant, should be a tip-off to even the numbest of the neo-con nerds on this board. There are hundreds of more appropriate locations in Massachusetts to locate wind farms. Why Cape Cod Bay? This project doesn't pass the smell test.
There are objections to the Feds deeding to private parties the riparian rights of the people of Massachusetts. To the best of my knowledge there exist no laws or statutes that would permit this action to be carried out.
Isn't it ironic that we are discussing another energy swindle against the taxpayers
of the US while people are dying to enable Bush and his cronies to steal Middle Eastern oil.
posted on August 15, 2003 05:52:49 AM new - How nice it would be if you could debate without all the insults.
How nice it would be if you could too, Linda.
Your holier than thou attitude is absurd in view of the insults that you have delivered to me alone. The remarks that you refer to are comparatively trivial.
posted on August 15, 2003 07:58:16 AM newthe energy produced would be sold elsewhere, and local communities would receive zero benefit
What a crock. Any energy source added to the mix will help all communities.
This is just a case of very rich and powerful liberals doing their "as long as it doesn't effect me" dance.
Every argument made against these towers is pure bull. Off shore oil platforms are bigger and less environmentally safe than these wind turbines.
The bottom line is that these rich people do not want their "view" spoiled by alternative energy structures.
Are any of the "little people" in these communities against the towers. Probably. But that is because these rich liberals may abandon these communities if the towers are built.
You see, for rich liberals it is OK to go into a poor community and built utility structures. Who cares if a working stiffs home is de-valued or their view is spoiled ?
Rich liberals will exact things upon poor people that they will not allow themselves to be subjected to. They've been doing it for decades. The common people have wised up and are voting against these hypocrits.
posted on August 15, 2003 09:02:02 AM newWhy not build nuclear power plants? They provide lots of cheap power and they run clean.
I live between two of them, Davis Besse and Perry. I can tell you that it is an uncomfortable feeling to be in that kind of sandwich in these uncertain times. Perry has been constant trouble.
Cheryl
Power to the people. Power to the people, right on. - John Lennon
posted on August 15, 2003 09:49:53 AM new
Reamond, get your darn facts straight.
EVERYONE, get it, EVERYONE, listen carefully(I know it is difficult for your challenged brain) EVERYONE, liberal AND CONSERVATIVE is against the farm. It the article you so PROUDLY displayed, the people listed were never identified as liberal or conservative.... You just ASSumed it. I believe Cronkite is registered as a Republican. But I know it is easy to mistake him for a liberal, being so honest and trustworthy and all. And doesn't that blow your imbecilic arguement all to heck, doesn't it.
posted on August 15, 2003 11:54:19 AM newYou don't know beans about the people named nor the area they are talking about. It is filled with rich liberals.
Using your psuedo-psychic abilities again without its training wheels again?
Plenty of conservatives live in that area also and they are also against the project.
But that wouldn't work in your lie will it?
When you lie...deny, deny, deny
[ edited by mlecher on Aug 15, 2003 02:44 PM ]
posted on August 16, 2003 07:52:33 AM new
Contrary to most of the comments on Cape Wind project, most people on Cape Cod are in favor of it. Most of the objections by residents and politicians on both sides of the aisle concern the lack of a framework for regulatory controls on a project that is the first of its kind, and States rights.
Most, if not all, of the excerpts are from the Cape Cod Times. The comments in parentheses are my own.
----------------------------------
"Let's see...the left wants no more drilling for oil anywhere; no more wars for oil; no nuclear power plants; no dirty air from coal; and now no wind power." --Linda
EXCERPT: A small land-based wind farm proposed for the town has done the unthinkable - won the endorsement of both sides in the heated offshore wind farm debate. The municipal project would place up to three 189-foot-tall turbines at Barnstable's wastewater treatment plant on Bearses Way. The project has support from the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound and Cape Wind Associates.
Other communities, including Orleans, Harwich and Brewster, are considering installing limited numbers of wind turbines to power local uses, such as water treatment plants or water pumping stations.
-----------------------------------
"Just how do those of you on the left think we should get the power we need if not by any of these methods"--Linda
EXCERPT: Cape Wind Associates, developer of the proposed wind farm in Nantucket Sound, will have to look closely at other sites, the Army Corps of Engineers has disclosed.
"There will be more than one alternative (site) identified for further study in the draft environmental impact statement," confirmed Larry Rosenberg, chief of public affairs for the Corps New England headquarters in Concord.
"It may add time to the process, but it will ensure a complete analysis of all the viable options for renewable energy," Rosenberg said.
----------------------------------------
My point with this is that there will NEVER be an appropriate spot that the enviornmentalists would agree to.--Linda
EXCERPT: In an endorsement intended to bring financial benefits to Cape Codders, a local energy activist group announced its support for the Nantucket Sound wind project.
Self-Reliance Corp. announced support for the project, but linked the endorsement to several conditions.
Among other things, the Self-Reliance wants Cape Wind to develop long-term supply contracts with Cape-based energy distributors so local customers can enjoy savings from the lower-cost energy.
The non-profit corporation also said the developer must successfully complete the environmental review process, post a bond to cover all removal costs of the project, and comply with any new federal regulations controlling off-shore wind projects.
----------------------------------------
"Part of what has driven up the cost of coastal property is the enviornmentalists continue to fight against developing ANY coast properties that are still undeveloped"--Linda
(Most of the Cape Cod seashore is a National Park, what remains is already "developed". Want to develop Yosemite or harness Old Faithful?)
-----------------------------------------
"You obviously missed this in the article:
Because Cape Wind is proposing the project in federal water, states have no power to stop it."--Linda
EXCERPT: Although the project would be constructed in federal waters roughly six miles south of Cape Cod, states would have a say because the transmission line from the turbines would need to come ashore through state waters to hook up to the regional electric grid.
(I haven't read the article)
------------------------------
"Off shore oil platforms are bigger and less environmentally safe than these wind turbines."
(They are also offshore, way offshore)
-------------------------------------------
"Every argument made against these towers is pure bull."--reamond
(Now there is an objective, well thought out argument without any insults)
-------------------------------------------------
"Helen...just like CA purchases it's energy from many states....just because this area [you say] has enough to meet their needs, doesn't mean it can't be sold to other areas. The more energy there is...the less the cost to the end user... US!"--Linda
(That's what Ken Lay said.)
------------------------------------------------
Listen to 'em squall everytime nuclear is brought up--Twelve
(The sound of a Nantucket squall is music to my ears)
----------------------------------------------------
"Are any of the "little people" in these communities against the towers"--reamond
(There are no midgets on Cape Cod, they are all working for FOX News)
--------------------------------------------------------
Cat got your tongues? --Linda
(Leave my cat out of this.)
-------------------------------------------------
(Cape Wind is not the only player in this probable boondogle.)
[i]Winergy has proposed building 10-turbine arrays off Falmouth, Provincetown and Gloucester, but the proposal for one of four possible locations on Nantucket Shoals is much larger - 231 turbines producing 831 megawatts at a cost of $1 billion.
Cape Wind officials have rejected the sites as too far from the regional electric grid on Cape Cod and at risk from exposure to high winds and waves on the open ocean.[/i]
-------------------------------------------------
(The same people who warned of excesses when the BIG DIG was first proposed are raising flags on these wind factory proposals. The BIG DIG was to be built in four years at a cost of 2 billion Federal dollars. Ten years later the BIG DIG is not yet finished and the cost has ballooned to 18 billion Federal dollars. "That's your money"
I believe, with these wind factory proposals, we are witnessing the genesis of a major league energy swindle of the American people.
Giving public land to private people in order to startup a publicly funded business to enrich private people smacks of what George Bush did in Dallas)
[ edited by hibbertst on Aug 16, 2003 07:57 AM ]
[ edited by hibbertst on Aug 16, 2003 08:01 AM ]
[ edited by hibbertst on Aug 16, 2003 08:03 AM ]
posted on August 16, 2003 08:37:15 AM new(They are also offshore, way offshore)
No, many ocean oil rigs are closer to shore than the proposed wind turbines.
Although the project would be constructed in federal waters roughly six miles south of Cape Cod, states would have a say because the transmission line from the turbines would need to come ashore through state waters to hook up to the regional electric grid.
Wrong. Any item, such as electricity that is in the stream of inter-state commerce comes under federal regulation. The feds may allow state input for political reasons, but the feds have ultimate authority over all inter-state commerce.
This is not new technology either. There have been wind farms for decades in California.
The rich liberals in the area don't want their million dollar ocean views spoiled by wind turbines.
Sure they'll agree for a small cluster of turbines in town, they won't have to look at them.
This position about state control and who gets the electricity is a red herring. The more electricity added to the sytem, the cheaper it gets.
Rich liberals again imposing their will on poor people, and escaping by their wealth and position any of the down side of providing energy to the country.
posted on August 16, 2003 08:52:46 AM new
Below is a quote from one of the liberal groups in the area opposing the sea based wind turbines. The quote is exactly the same as all the rich liberals use when placing a power plant, homeless shelter, transmission line, oil well/rig, highway, factory, mine, timber harvest, or any other commerce that provides less expensive goods and services for the common consumer.
"We believe this project will enable Barnstable County to help Cape towns find ways to accommodate land-based wind power that respect the area's character and environment,"
The the area's character and environment as regards to the ocean views is peopled exclusively by rich liberals. They do not want their ocean views from their multi-million dollar seaside homes spoiled by wind turbines. Put smaller ones on land and out of their view.
These rich liberals that are running and ruining the democratic party are hypocrits.
posted on August 16, 2003 08:55:53 AM new
I guess rich CONSERVATIVES never impose their will on the "little people"...or maybe there aren't any rich conservatives..
___________________________________
What luck for the leaders that men do not think. - Adolph Hitler
Reamond makes no mention, nor will he acknowledge that even conservatives are against the project. Nor will he even acknowledge that the article makes no mention of liberal or conservative designation. So from now on, let us see him for what he really is, a liar, and really punk-a$$liar with absolutely no credibility. He made up the information. He claimed they "were all rich liberals" which is a lie. Walter Cronkite is a registered Republican, which he was told earlier yet he stii claimed they were all rich liberals...
posted on August 16, 2003 06:59:38 PM new
The closest oil rig I know of is 9 miles offshore. Furthermore it occupies a few thousand square feet of ocean surface, not the 24 square miles that Cape Wind proposes.
You are way off base on interstate commerce. For example, trucks engaging in "inter-state commerce" must buy trip tickets just to drive through most western states. Trucks must obey the rules enforced by state police. When entering or leaving Florida, for instance, the loads carried by truck or trailer must be inspected by state officials and must comply with state regulations. etc. etc. Your statement is patently absurd, so absurd that I don't want to discuss it any further.
As I said, a regulatory framework for projects such as this one does not exist.The matter is on the House short list for September.
Nobody said wind farms are a new technology. Open your mind and read the paragraph.
Windmills have been used to convert energy on Cape Cod since the 18th century. Hundreds of them dotted the Cape in the 19th century. Some of them are still there and are still working. As a tourist attraction, windmills help to enrich the coffers of Cape Cod merchants and town treasuries.
I believe that Cape Wind's factory would also attract tourists and the curious, at least until off shore windmills become commonplace. My problem with this project is that it is not necessary, would tap the taxpayers of the US for hundreds of millions of dollars, would cost more than the value of the energy it converts, and is quite likely a scam.
Windmills are an uncomplicated and relatively inexpensive method of converting energy for public use. Communities and groups of communities would have no problem financing, quickly building and managing their own wind farms to supply energy to their inhabitants without creating a huge, expensive bureaucracy and without interference from Washington bureaucrats.
That is the future of renewable energy from the wind as I envision it.
And that is why this Cape Wind project is unnecessary.
posted on August 17, 2003 08:09:44 AM new
The Feds have ultimate authority over ALL inter-state commerce. Your examples of the trucking industry are state functions that the Federal govt ALLOWS states to do. There are many other inter-state regulation activities that states do, but they do those activities with the imprimatur of the Federal govt.
A great example is the 1903 state lottery tickets case. Congress passed a law that lottery tickets could not be shipped inter-state. The Supreme Court upheld the federal law. Later, congress allowed the shipment of tickets.
You have no understanding of the constitution and its commerce clause.
It appears you think that if an entity has authority over a matter, it must be the actual actor under color of that authority.
The Constitution gives Congress the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes." The word regulate means to make regular, or uniform and to prevent discriminatory trade practices among states.
Given a literal interpretation, any activity of any kind not even remotely concerned with commerce, one could argue and has argued before the courts of this land, to be a violation of the much abused Commerce Clause.
Misuse of the Commerce Clause has regularly been one of the favorite methods used by those who wish to circumvent the Constitution’s limits on government. The Supreme Court has constantly been busy defining the limits of this law and reining in Congressess' attempts to abuse it.
Your suggestion that, at this enlightened time, Congress will use the Commerce Clause as permission to do as it pleases concerning the Cape Wind factory, without any input from Massachusetts authorities and those of surrounding states is outrageous.
posted on August 18, 2003 06:39:15 AM newYour suggestion that, at this enlightened time, Congress will use the Commerce Clause as permission to do as it pleases concerning the Cape Wind factory, without any input from Massachusetts authorities and those of surrounding states is outrageous.
The states can have all the "input" they want, it is a political matter. But this does not change the commerce clause and the supremacy of the constitution.
The commerce clause was also used to stop segregation of blacks at restaurants and other accomodations in the south. Those states were allowed to give their "input" too before Congress passed various civil rights acts. They also thought that the Federal govt was "outrageous".
I guess when federal power is used through the commerce clause to support alternative energy that might spoil ocean views of rich liberals, rather than desegregation, is outrageous.
posted on August 18, 2003 08:51:23 AM new
If the purpose of your rant was to tell us something we already know then you have succeeded. We all know it is a political matter and the political framework for regulating Cape Wind has not yet been established by Congress, as I said in a previous post. We also know that prosecutors, Congress and other officials have attempted to use the Commerce Clause many times in circumstances unrelated to interstate commerce, as I said in a previous post.
Perhaps in your hypnotic fixation on the Constitution you failed to read the Bill of Rights, particularly the 10th amendment. I would suggest you do so.
You are blinded by, and therefore ill-served by your politics.
posted on August 18, 2003 11:40:44 AM new
hibber gets quite testy when he gets his nose rubbed in his own ignorance.
The 10th Amendment ? Well let's see:
[i]" Apparent Irrelevance of the 10th Amendment[i]
For nearly 40 years following the Carter Coal decision, the Supreme Court did not invalidate a single federal statute on the grounds that it violated state or local government sovereignty. This sustained stretch has led legal scholars to conclude that the 10th Amendment is completely dead as an independent check upon federal power under the commerce clause.
hibbertst writes: Perhaps in your hypnotic fixation on the Constitution you failed to read the Bill of Rights, particularly the 10th amendment. I would suggest you do so.
I have read all about the 10th Amendment. It is short reading. Perhaps you should fixate yourself into a little education about what you're talking about.
