It’s not just conservatives who deride Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.; liberals are after him, too. Their beef is his underhanded opposition of an offshore wind farm near Nantucket, columnist Froma Harrop reported. Even though 84 percent of Massachusetts residents support the project, Kennedy and other wealthy landowners and yachtsmen have fought it — and fought dirty. “The towers would be at least five miles out and barely visible from shore on the clearest day, but the summer plutocrats resent any intrusion on their waterfront vistas — and, equally, any challenge to the notion that they control everything,” Harrop wrote. She concluded: “After 45 years in the Senate, Kennedy should be polishing his liberal legacy. But his manipulative attacks on this wind farm have so sickened supporters that his long career may be headed for a sorry end.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- gster on Open thread 11/23
- LonnythePlumber on Health care reform would save state money
- aldenrw on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Too many exemptions
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Let immigrants run
- Politico on Too many exemptions
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Let immigrants run
95 Comments
Ted Kennedy is a selfish, egotistical jerk, he can’t life up to RFK, let alone JFK.He needs to retire.
Yes, I admire JFK, for all his faults, the man had guts and a soul.
I can’t say the same for Teddy. Teddy uses electric power, but he is too important to have wind farms visable from his estate?
What a pompous ass!
liveits late
This makes me more disappointed in Ted- I expect fellow Democrats to walk the walk.
The Daily Show lambasted the Kennedys. If you squint hard enough you can see the wind turbines. I guess all of us common folk can deal with providing electricity for the wealthy. Sad thing is that Robert Kennedy Jr. is on the board of a major environmentalist group that promotes wind power. As long as he doesn’t have to see any from his mansion.
Kennedy has had his day and his day is over and he needs to move on and let another Democrat have the seat rather than risk losing it to a Republican. He should step aside or be challenged in a primary.
He pwn3ds Massachusetts, so he’s in for life.
This is pretty much the same thing land owners in the Flint Hills did when groups tried to put wind farms in Butler and Greenwood counties
“Sad thing is that Robert Kennedy Jr. is on the board of a major environmentalist group that promotes wind power. As long as he doesn’t have to see any from his mansion.”
I thought it was Edward that was fighting against the offshore windfarms?
It is Edward.
A lot of people on these posts flunked reading or they ’speed’ read (nudge, nudge).
so what does Robert have to do with that? same family, but so what?
Kennedy has never explained what happened to his secretary satisfactorily. He’s a Kennedy so his home state thinks that is okay. Dont even get me started on the Big Dig, a disaster waiting to happen.
Just another example of a rich politician ignoring his voters who will get reelected. Shame the puke emoticon does not work on this site.
“This makes me more disappointed in Ted- I expect fellow Democrats to walk the walk.
Posted by: political_mom | September 06, 2007 at 01:33 AM”
——————
And what, pray tell, would make you think that?
Hypocracy? From a politician? From a KENNEDY!!!!!??????
Say it ain’t so . . . . .
Hypocracy? From a politician? From a KENNEDY!!!!!??????
Say it ain’t so . . . . .
Posted by: GMC70
His dad was a crook and unethical, why should we expect anything less from his kids. For those who doubt, look up how Daddy Kennedy made his money, or should I stay stole.
Kennedy is a career politician and like all career politicians talk out both sides of their mouths.
I regret that our Founding Fathers was so idealist that they decided against term limits. They thought those who followed would always put the nation first and not run for office forever.
My party has not won too many elections, but we do hold them accountable when they do.
All Senators are rich, both Democrats and Republicans, it is only a matter of degree as to how rich. Let’s see they start at around 170,000 per year, more for certain ones. Americans median income is nowhere near that amount. When they leave office, they get to take any unused political donations with them, and that can be a lot if you have been a Senator for a while.
If you get caught doing something wrong, unless you are an idiot like Craig, then the charges mysteriously go away and the cop that busted you finds his/her career in the toilet, no pun intended, if they arent let go.
They should be paid by the state they represent and that pay should be equal to the state’s median income, not to exceed a reasonable amount. Maybe then they would care about the little people instead of the corporate sponsors they are slaves to now.
WIND?????
By gosh it blows almost every day every where!!
What a novel Idea, use this unlimited, non-poluting energy source to turn the turbins to generate electricity!!!
I wonder if they fought the same fights when they were beginning Hydroelectice power??
We need to make use of the natural energies we have so that we can continue to have energy.
It’s too bad that certain people think they are immune from the effects of progress for all of us!
Laura Bush has as many kills as Ted Kennedy.
This type of political back door dealing has been going on for many generations. It’s only with the improvement in communication (speed, not quality) that we learn about it in a timely manner.
We need to make sure our Senators and Represenatives know we are watching them!!
Is it too much to ask that they simply HONENSTLY represent those who elected them, NOT those who BOUGHT them?
What do you expect,
It will take citizens shaking off the party affiliations and voting in new good candidates, and then voting them out as soon as they develop the Glickman/Tiahrt mentality. They agreed to term limits and both broke that pledge. If they show there are not representing us, they need to go sooner.
Others have pointed out that most (I would say the vast majority) are sheeople that believe what their politicians tell them. The pols have a 98% reelection rate unless they challenge one of the major lobbyist groups (AARP, NRA, etc) or their party gets hit with scandals (Democrats in the 90s, Republicans in the 00s).
People need to drop Republican and Democratic party affiliation in droves, that will send a message that we are fed with and want change. Both parties are guilty of bipartisanship and those who continue to support either party are also guilty.
Voters need to get out and vote. Some say that the current voters that get out and vote are more aware so the others should stay home. My response is if that is the case why do keep reelecting the same bozos? The response is either silence of rationalization as to why Sen/Rep isn’t that way.
Good idea Kennedy taken.
Why doesn’t every American Citizen register as unaffiliated. It would really confuse the candidates for awhile, but they would figure out they would have to really understand and talk about issues and not use political BS rhetoric.
Brian, Ed and RFK Jr. are both fighting against the wind farm. That’s the point. There are more than one member of the NIMBY family opposing wind power. To ??? it’s not a matter of reading comprehension, it’s a matter of knowing more about the subject. Perhaps you should get out and read more.
Thank you I stand corrected.
BTW here is a link to RFK Jr’s position:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/opinion/16kennedy.html?ex=1292389200&en=58e5dd67e381fd58&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Thanks for the link ???That clarifies what another poster mistakenly alluded to earlier today.
BTW Doug, perhaps you should MYOFB
BTW
Most if not all of us like having electricity, correct?
How many of us would like the electric company to put a transformer station(or whatever those quarter acre monstrosities are that the electric lines branch out from) next to their house?
Would you be against it?
I thought so.
Hey Brian, if you don’t want to hear other people’s opinions then perhaps this isn’t the best place to be. Take your own advice asshole.
“There are more than one member of the NIMBY family opposing wind power.”
Posted by: Doug | September 06, 2007 at 10:44 AM
Sorry Doug, but to oppose one particular wind power project does not mean that they oppose wind power.
“oppose one particular wind power project does not mean that they oppose wind power.
Posted by: ??? | September 06, 2007 at 12:56 PM ”
I guess understanding that would require both ‘reading comprehension’ and ‘knowing more about the subject’
Are there other wind projects in their backyard? I’m not aware of any so it is still an accurate statement. I guess we just have a failure of reading on the part of two clones here.
Farmgirl if you don’t see the difference in driving a person in your car into a river and leaving them to die, going home and sleeping through the night before calling the authorities and hitting another car at an intersection and the other driver dies from the impact then you have a perception problem. You always accuse me of ‘they did it first’ well people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
I lived throught the Nancy Jo Kopechne debacle. I was a demo then and JFK & RFK had been my heros.
Teddy is an also ran who rode his brothers coattails to office. He was so drunk that when he turned on a dirt road from a paved one he couldn’t tell the difference. The parents of this girl refused to have an autopsy performed so we never really knew how she died. This was their only child. How much do you suppose her life was worth? Kennedy should be gone.
As for RFKjr. He was on a talk show recently talking about the wealth of the property owners involved. They didn’t want their views impeeded when they were out boating. It would degrade the value of their property. If you believe in the principle of wind turbines you should be prepared to sacrifice for the science.
“If you believe in the principle of wind turbines you should be prepared to sacrifice for the science.Posted by: ksgrm | September 06, 2007 at 01:30 PM”
Why does everything have to be all or nothing?
Expecting others to sacrifice and not being prepared to do it yourself won’t fly in the midwest anymore. Ask the farmers who think the noise bothers their cattle. It isn’t all or nothing, I don’t fly in private planes, I don’t drive SUVs, etc.. They are always asking the rest of us to sacrifice, start leading by example for once.
This is news now?
This has been going on for some time now.
Why a thread all of a sudden?
Typical Democrats…
Don’t drive SUV’s!
-Nevermind that I do.
Save Energy!
-Nevermind my 28,000 sq/ft home.
We must reduce our CO2 emmisions!
-Nevermind that I fly around in my private jet everywhere I go.
And the list goes on.
Learn the facts about the proposed project, opposition, concerns, etc.http://www.saveoursound.org/Cape/Overview
cosmos that site was as biased as can be against the project.
” In fact, given that we do not have a current need for additional power”
I dont know if I am for it or against it yet. The above statement was lifted from that website. I dont know what planet they live on, but America does need more power. Ask CA and NY where brownouts and blackouts happen. RFK, Jr. link was just as biased. He encouraged building it further out, but did not point out that would make it cost even more.
Even if there was not a need, this project or a similar project could allow us to shut down coal burning plant(s) and use cleaner wind.
Would the opposed by upset if it was in someone else’s backyard? They use the same kinds of arguments used against the Flint Hills windfarms.
I would not like a transformer in my neighborhood, but if it meant that I had power, I would learn to live with it. Even if it lowered my property values.
Since the Kennedy Klan is against it, it is probably a dead deal already.
These things have to be built in someone’s backyard, and why should an arrogant Congressperson, and I have seen arrogant Republicans do the same thing, be allowed to kill the deal?
“These things have to be built in someone’s backyard, and why should an arrogant Congressperson, and I have seen arrogant Republicans do the same thing, be allowed to kill the deal?”
Because in America, the citizens (rich or poor) can organize and attempt to shape the world as they see fit.
Many others oppose it besides the “Kennedy Klan”.
http://www.saveoursound.org/Cape/Opposition
I read that list, but just because people oppose doesnt mean it is a bad thing. The opposition you listed is mostly part of the NIMBY crowd based on that link. Again, you are using the same biased website to prove your point.
I thought given your Global Warming fetish that you would be behind a windfarm? Guess I was wrong. Why are you opposed?
What is your green solution? According to one of the links, others have successfully done it.
Is there a better way? Who knows, RFK Jr made a suggestion of building it further out. Is that feasible in that area? Onland did not seem like a viable option since the company would have suggested that first because it would be much cheaper to build it onland.
Cosmos,
I am surprised to see you over here.
How are we ever going to stop polluting the environment if you don’t support the building of alternative energy sources like this?
So lets get the summary:
The left opposes any new coal power…
The left opposes any Nuclear Power plants…
The left opposes oil power…
The left complains about the impact of hydroelectric power…
Now the left opposes wind power because it looks ugly…
The left opposes SUV’s and wants more hybrids, but doesn’t buy them for themselves…
The left complains about CO2 emmisions, but continue to live in 28,000 sq/ft homes…
The left want’s us to be less dependant on foreign oil, but opposes any attempt to get oil from our own soil…
Is it becoming somewhat apparent that we can’t depend on the left for any logical solutions to meet our energy needs?
Gotta go, my new little Prium lost a part going through the car wash last week. Needs to be replaced. I will say that my old Lincoln never lost parts in the carwash. Guess they just make those American cars better.
Nathan,
Tell us WHY you support the project, when the Draft Environmental Impact Statement has not even been released yet.
http://www.saveoursound.org/node/574
Froma Harrop: “The towers would be at least five miles out and barely visible from shore on the clearest day,..”
“Barely visible”???http://www.saveoursound.org/Cape/ConcernsAestheticsScale
“Save Our Sound Photo SimulationsSave Our Sound retained Earth Tech of Concord, MA, to create accurate representations. This highly respected global environmental services company specializes in environmental engineering and planning and is one of the most broadly experienced environmental service practices in the world. Their client list includes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and many public and private utilities.”
Cosmos,
I support more Nuclear Power.
I would rather see 100 new Nuclear Power plants go up rather than a wind farm.
My point is the hypocrisy.
My point is that for someone like you who does little more than talk about the doom and gloom of Global Warming, you should be more concerned about stopping that than how ugly a wind farm is going to look in Kennedy’s back yard.
Nathan,
My point was that Froma Harrop seems to have made a false claim re “barely visible”.
Did you read the “concerns” at http://www.saveoursound.org/node/38 ?
You think the only problem is “how ugly a wind farm is going to look in Kennedy’s back yard”???
And where’s my hypocrisy?
I believe that wind farms SHOULD be built, at sites that will cause minimum environmental impact, and be profitable. Cape Wind seems to fail both of those points.
I believe in reducing greenhouse gases by the fastest and cheapest methods. First priority is higher energy efficiency. Distributed generation is better than the old central power plant setup.
New nuclear plants are too expensive, and take too long to build.
Some examples of the real solutions,http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html
http://www.rmi.org/
‘207 Benefits of Distributed Resources’http://www.smallisprofitable.org/207Benefits.html
‘Creating the Next Industrial RevolutionNatural Capitalism’http://www.natcap.org/
Geez, why do I have to be agreeing with Nathan? A minority of people oppose the wind farm. Many who are wealthy oppose it because they believe it will lower their property values. They could care less if energy prices increase since they’ll be able to afford it and the coal being burned will just affect the health of the poorer people who have to live around it.
The project is supported by numerous environmental organizations.
http://www.capewind.org/
The complaints against the project are pretty weak. Complaints against a platform containing oil is heard of deaf ears since there are numerous yachts which contain thousands of gallons of oil and gasoline. These boats produce noise which is much closer to the beaches than a facility miles away. I certainly can’t hear the wind farm near Wichita.
The ferry routes are miles away from where the farm will be located:http://archive.capecodonline.com/special/windfarm/images/windmap2006.jpg
So shall we have a quiet nuclear plant on Martha’s Vineyard or a barely audible wind farm miles away? Given the huge list of supporters, primarily environmental groups (contrary to the yacht clubs who oppose it) I’d say that the care of the environment isn’t the main reason for opposing the project.
http://www.capewind.org/article47.htm
cosmos, still with the same biased site. What should matter more, the aesthetic view of some rich people, or reducing global warming with this windfarm?
If the environmental impact study says it is bad, then I can see your point.
What if the impact study says it is not bad?
Nathan, I am a moderate and I am against both nuclear and hydroelectic power. I used to be for both until I did the research.
Nuclear power, TMI and Chernobyl are a small taste of what can go wrong with nuclear power. The cost to build them is not worth it. KGE customers got stiffed with the extra cost of Wolf Creek while the KPL customers did not after the merger. I saw the cost comparisons and if you did a far look, nuclear was cheaper, but if you did a closer look, nuclear was a bit more expensive. The far look left out many related costs that were included in the more realistic close look.
Where are you going to store all that radioactive crap from 100 plants. It is radioactive for thousands of years. The Swedes built an underwater container, which if and when it fails will contaminate a lot of our ocean water.
The environmental damage done by building Hoover Dam was huge. It was not taken into account when it was built, and it is probably why it has not been replicated. Yes, they are building the Three Gorges Dam, but against the advice of environmentalists. I do not generally side with environmentalists on some issues, but on this one I do.
First of all, you can’t compare Chernobyl with the Nuclear Power plants we have built today let alone what we could build.
Chernobyl was a Graphite moderated reactor as opposed to the water moderated ones we use today.
It was not properly maintained nor did it have the kinds of redundant safety measures we impose.
Our Navy has been safely operating Nuclear reactors for the last 50 years and we have just over 70 currently operating Nuclear Power plants to this day.
We have not built a new reactor since the 3 mile island incident.
Technology has come a long way on building a safe and reliable Nuclear Power plant.
Page 258 (PDF pg 282 of 332) of
http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html“Regardless, nuclear power has no prospects in market-driven energy systems, for a simple reason: new nuclear plants cost too much to build.
In round numbers, electricity from new light-water reactors will cost TWICE as much as from new windfarms,
FIVER to TEN times as much as distributed gas-fired cogeneration or trigeneration in buildings and factories (net of the credit for their recovered heat),
and THREE to THIRTY times as much as end-use efficiency that can save most of the electricity now used.”
Hello. My name is Cosmo OneNoteJohnny. I am very boring.The End
OK… when was Wolf Creek built, and when did it come Online??? I cant remember….
OK Wolf Creek came online in 1985… So, Nathan, how do you figure that no new nuclear plants have been built since Three Mile Island??? Not to mention the one in Byron, IL???
Nationwide listing of Nuke Plants, and when they came online, and WHO operates them, etc…..
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/nukelist1.htm#KS
IF you click on that link, scroll all the way to the top for the national map…. :-)
My statement should have been since the “70’s” and after Three Mile Island no new plants have been ordered to build…
Wolf Creek started constrcution in the late 70’s.
If we are talking about the one in Byron, is that the one which began constrcution in 1975 and then was dropped later?
Hannity wants to dig up vince foster… now THIS shows up yet once again… Cant the Right Wing find anything NEW???
I think every time we have an economic crisis, I will bring up Herbert Hoover!! LOL
Cosmos/Chas,
I believe there were over 100 cancelations on building Nuclear Power plants after THI.
The reason why the cost is so high is because of the multitude of political action groups and others who try to stall the building and constantly plague the construction process with changing standards the entire way.
It only cost so much to build a Nuclear Power plant because we make it cost so much through our stupidity.
Nuclear Power has been proven to be a safe, clean, and affordable alternative to oil and coal.
Byron, IL is fully functional… and running
Nathan, we all know it takes a long time to build the plants… I think what is MORE important to your argument is when the plants came ONLINE… And there have been LOTS come on line since TMI
Chas,
When did they start building it though?
When was the license granted?
And Wolf Creek didnt save much of anybody any $$$ at all for a LONG time…
That link I provided should tell you that….
Nathan, they arent all that potentially dangerous until you turn them ON!!
Chas,
Most of those which came online after TMI had to jump through constantly changing government policies and standards.
It drove up cost and time to build which in turn caused many plants to be abandoned all together.
Most of that hysteria was indeed caused by the misinformation on what happened at TMI.
Just like a coal-fired plant like Jeffrey…. It doesnt start polluting, until you fire it up…
Chas,
The link you provided was a hardly an unbiased source…
Here is their claim:
“WE CAN SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE OUR VULNERABILITIES BY CLOSING / CONVERTING THE NUKE PLANTS TO NATURAL GAS AND WIND FARMS, ETC..”
I lived just a couple of miles from an OLD Nuke plant(experimental even) in Nebraska… It was deemed not to be feasible, buried, and a Coal Fired plant built on top of where the Nuke plant had been…
There is still Nucular waste buried underground there that will be potentially dangerous for nearly a 1,000 years…
Nathan, it might well have a bias attached to it… but the CHART of the plants is nonetheless accurate…
Chas,
And just what on earth do you think comes out of that coal plant?
Why was the Nuclear Plant in Nebraska deemed not to be feasable?
My intent was merely to provide a “fingertip” listing of ALL the Nuke plants in the nation… for easy access….
Whether I agree with the rest of the stuff there, I dont know for sure… My biggest concern about NUCULAR plants is the horrendus amount of NUCULAR waste, and where the heck to store it safely!!
The nuke plant in NE if I remember right, was too small to do what they had hoped it might do… It has been a LONG time since it was even there…
And yes, I know that a coal plant is one MAJOR polluter… I lived only a couple of miles from that one, and not terribly far from Jeffrey either for 5 years…
Is there a reason you are spelling Nuclear as NUCULAR?
I guess you could say it was a small proto-type of something that was being experimented with at that time… I dont remember when it was buried…
Just thought I would spell it the way Bushie says it ROFL
Chas,
So, why are you opposed to Nuclear power?
Now, Nathan, dont start that crap again… I didnt say I am opposed to Nuclear power… I SAID I am concerned with the horrendous amount of nuclear waste it produces, and where the heck we are going to store it!! At least the left over coal slag has some uses… and it isnt poisonous to the extent that nuclear waste is…
Chas,
What I like to do is figure out what your stance is on things before I aimlessy discuss it with you.
You have a history of arguing against something and then saying you are not against it while never really saying exactly what you are for…
Chas,
You havn’t happened to figure out where you were getting your accusation about how, I was judging you like Jesus said not to, have you?
Not only that, but nuke plants make sitting duck targets for terrorist groups… foreign, or domestic…
Ummm religion is not the subject of this thread… it is energy uses and alternatives… let’s just keep it where it belongs…
I dont know if anybody has mentioned this earlier, or not, but IIRC, hydroelectric power plants – at one time – had a lot of outdoorsy types all in a huff too… They didnt like the superheated water going into their good fishing spots down stream…
Some places, I believe, had major confrontations when some of the dams were built…
Not to mention all those workers that were killed in the accident when Hoover Dam was built…
Chas,
Then I would welcome your response in the other thread…
“It only cost so much to build a Nuclear Power plant because we make it cost so much through our stupidity.
Nuclear Power has been proven to be a safe, clean, and affordable alternative to oil and coal.”
Posted by: Nathan
What “stupidity”? Requiring the plant to be built so that it is safe?
And it is NOT affordable, compared to the cheaper, and faster alternatives. Very high capital costs will increase utility bills.
Nathan, try to refute these…’Nuclear energy’http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid257.php
For example,’Comment on MIT study “The Future of Nuclear Power” (PDF-44k)’http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E04-22_FutureNucPwr.pdf
Well Cosmos tell us your plan – so far today you have shot down nuclear, wind, coal, not sure about hydro. You over and over tell us the problem. Please tell us the solution in your opinion.
Cosmos,
Perhaps if you started with one study you would like to highlight instead of posting a link to dozens more links?
That second link of yours was a specific letter meant to address a specific study.
It doesn’t say much about why Nuclear Power has cost so much vs other sources.
On top of that, most of their arguments are about it taking too long to build the Nuclear Power plants to help curb Global warming.
That is not my argument.
I could care less about how long it will take for them to come into prodcution to stop something I don’t think is being caused by man or needed to be stopped by man.
So, I say build them. When they are done we will be better off for it.
Cosmos,
Would you rather talk like normal people do or turn this into a link posting extraveganza like you do with Global Warming?
ksgrm,
I didn’t shoot down wind.
And I already posted what I think the best solutions are upthread.http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/kennedy-getting.html#comment-81857479
Nathan,
“Normal” people try to base their opinions on facts.
You seem to be saying that you cannot support your opinion that nuclear power is “affordable”.
Or “safe”?
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/overview_db.html“In March 2002, workers at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Ohio discovered a football-sized hole in the nuclear reactor vessel head. The damage occurred over a period of nearly six years and had been overlooked during inspections in 1998 and 2000. According to a study performed by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the NRC, it’s unlikely that Davis-Besse could have survived one more overlook without the hole opening up to cause a loss-of-coolant accident worse than that experienced at Three Mile Island.”
Cosmos,
A loss of coolant accident worse than three mile island?
Thre mile island wasn’t even that bad. So almost anything would be worse than what happened there.
The Navy and our country has been safely operating Nuclear Power plants for the past 50 years.
That is a fact.
Once again, many of the factors which have driven up the price on Nuclear power are because of the absurdity placed upon building a Nuclear Plant.
After TMI many plants had to scrap construction because of all the changing restrictions placed on them and prolonged constrcution due to the delays.
We are the one who have contributed to making Nuclear Power more expensive.
I am saying that all you can do is post links.
You seem unable to intelligently discuss anything outside of posting a link.
Cosmos what I was referring to was your take on the Cape windfarm. No environmental statement agrees that it isn’t a good site. I heard RFKjr say that his objection was because of the view and property value decrease. Not good points in my book. He is constantly telling others what to do and yet takes this position on the Cape windfarm. The Kennedy’s are a very powerful family who constantly tell others what they should do even when they are doing the opposite.
It isn’t just the energy issues they go on about tax breaks for the wealthy as if they aren’t wealthy. The only difference is that the Kennedy money is tied up in trusts in Haiti so the taxes in the US don’t affect them.
Because ‘I said it’ or ‘because I told you it was true’ just don’t work with Uncle Ted and Jr. with me.
“Thre mile island wasn’t even that bad. So almost anything would be worse than what happened there.”
Posted by Nathan.
An expensive unit that’d been online only three months permanently offline.
“Once again, many of the factors which have driven up the price on Nuclear power are because of the absurdity placed upon building a Nuclear Plant.”
Safe design, construction, maintenance, and operation = “absurdity”???
“After TMI many plants had to scrap construction because of all the changing restrictions placed on them and prolonged constrcution due to the delays.”
They should have been built like the TMI unit that failed?
And many planned nuclear plants were canceled BEFORE the 1979 TMI event.
Nathan cannot prove his false claim that nuclear power is “affordable”, so he makes personal attacks on me.
I just got one of those enews alert we all get daily and this one was to good not to pass on. Very Timely.
“An earlier book by Peter Schweizer, “Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy,” also disclosed Kennedy’s efforts to torpedo the wind farm.
“The Cape Wind Project would be built in Nantucket Sound, about six miles off the coast from the Kennedy compound in Hyannis,” Schweizer explained. “The problem was not aesthetic; the Kennedys wouldn’t be able to actually see the turbines from their home. Instead Robert Kennedy Jr., who had been beating the drum for alternative sources of energy for more than a decade, complained that the project would be built in one of the family’s favorite sailing and yachting areas.”
Kennedy was not alone in opposing the project. Authors Williams and Whitcomb disclose that Sen. John Warner, R-Va., added a rider to an urgent Iraq war-funding bill that barred the Army Corps of Engineers from spending money permitting offshore wind projects.
Warner’s wealthy relatives own choice waterfront property on Cape Cod, Harrop notes.
After an outcry, Warner was forced to back down.”
It also shedds light on why John Warner is a friend of theirs. They have the same root system.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Kennedy_Wind_Frams/2007/09/06/30307.html?s=al&promo_code=399A-1
forgot to post the link
Gotta go. It has been a good blog day. Thanks all
ksgrm,
The Kennedys and John Warner are not the only people who oppose the project.
And there are many other factors involved besides “view” and “sailing”.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2007/08/editorial_says.html
“A Kennedy spokeswoman defended his position. The senator opposes the project “because of the numerous unanswered questions about its impact on local fisheries, navigational safety, and the local environment and economy,” Melissa Wagoner said in a statement.
“He also doesn’t believe it’s appropriate to hand any one developer 25 square miles of public property on a no-bid basis and before national standards for offshore wind farms are in place to protect coastal communities,” she said.”
Doesn’t France have like 80 percent of its power supplied by Nuclear Energy?
It appears that the eco-minded French are light years ahead of the swamp water sipping-tree hugging- anti-nuclear power crowd in the U.S.
Haven’t checked for new stats, but a few years ago France’s national utility had around $30 BILLION in debt, mostly caused by their investment in nuclear.
Here in the U.S., the higher than average nuclear electricity rates, and “stranded” costs were paid by consumers.