Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (9435)	12/29/2006 2:38:40 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224741

Apparently everyone is against that wind farm. It's an eyesore and a hazard to birds. Why don't you admit you're pimping for the big polluters by making the phony "limousine liberal" claim, as if it's in any way wrong or hypocritical not to want solar and wind farms anywhere and everywhere. Any smart person would agree that the best place for such farms is in remote areas where they do not affect property values or migratory birds. The real intent here by the corporate rightwing is to discredit the champions of environmental sanity like Gore and Kerry by pointing to very minor hypocrisies. Indeed, if the location of such a wind farm made sense, Kerry would back it 100%. The rightwing also likes to lie that Gore is tied to Occidental Petroleum and some polluting phosphorus mine just because his parents owned some stock or something. This kind of phony baloney "limousine liberal" nonsense needs to stop. Even Bill O'Reilly ranted against such stupid finger-pointing excuses by the corporate rightwing. Indeed, it makes no difference who drives an SUV or owns stock in Exxon. We ALL ought to be backing a cleaner environment and clean renewable fuels, including Exxon, no matter what. It should not be a partisan issue except the Bushie rightwing is in the pockets of big oil and polluters. The real crime these days is the outrageous energy gouging and corporate corruption amongst the big energy thieves, and how they'vce corrupted both our White House and congress under Bush-Cheney-Delay. That is the issue you should be focvusing on, not where a wind farm should go. Also, be aware most of the rich property owners in the area who oppose this are Republicans. The vast majority probably.

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (9435)	12/29/2006 2:40:23 PM
From: American Spirit	Respond to of 224741

And yes Romney did too stop the Cape Wind farm. Liar. Romney, in D.C., asks U.S. to delay wind farm review By KEVIN DENNEHY and DAVID SCHOETZ STAFF WRITERS Gov. Mitt Romney yesterday called for a timeout on the Nantucket Sound wind farm review. During a meeting in Washington, D.C., Romney asked Interior Secretary Gale Norton to freeze review of the ambitious offshore plan until a detailed framework for such reviews is complete. Norton's agency has until May to craft specific regulations for offshore renewable projects, an oversight granted by the new Energy Policy Act in August. Minerals Management Service, the Interior Department agency that now has final say over the Cape Wind proposal, last week unveiled a preliminary schedule for its review of the project. According to that timeline, an expanded environmental report would be due by May, with a final decision expected by January of 2007. ''There has been an indication that Cape Wind would shortcut the eventual process and proceed on an accelerated timeline,'' Romney said in an interview after the meeting. ''We would like to have Cape Wind treated like the other wind projects in the nation.'' Romney, a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2008, has long opposed the Nantucket Sound project, a plan that would put 130 turbines in the Sound and would be the nation's first offshore wind farm. Since August, MMS has taken over the lead role in the review from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In a hand-delivered letter to Norton, Romney questioned the appropriateness of proceeding with the Cape Wind review before the MMS regulations are completed. His argument is similar to concerns raised in a pair of recent letters from Attorney General Thomas Reilly, a Democratic candidate for governor and fellow opponent of the Cape Wind proposal. Project supporters criticized Romney for overlooking an energy bill provision that specifically allows any offshore renewable project with a test tower in place to move forward without having to resubmit applications to Interior. ''This particular effort is so misguided because it flies directly in the face of the federal Energy Policy Act passed by Congress,'' said Sue Reid, a staff attorney for the Conservation Law Foundation. ''The secretary of the Interior can't do what Gov. Romney's asking.'' Romney disagreed, calling the specific provision optional, but not obligatory. Mark Rodgers, spokesman for Cape Wind, predicted that Romney's efforts could needlessly delay review of the project by up to a year. Rodgers said broader threats to energy production make the governor's delay tactics particularly unfortunate for the Bay State. ''To us, the overriding issue facing Massachusetts is an energy crisis,'' he said. ''We're going to experience this winter record-high electricity prices and energy supply shortages ... and potential rolling blackouts. ''In the face of these extreme challenges, Gov. Romney is traveling to Washington, D.C., to try to further delay the time when Massachusetts could have its local source of clean energy.'' Earlier this week, wind advocates labeled Romney a hypocrite after he delivered the opening remarks at a renewable energy conference in Boston despite his opposition to Cape Wind. Romney said he supports renewables, including wind, but insists Nantucket Sound is simply the wrong place. ''We think the Department of Interior, unlike the Army Corps of Engineers, will place a heavier weight on the visual impacts, the tourism impacts and the economic impacts on a national treasure like Nantucket Sound,'' Romney said. ''That's because the Department of Interior has parks. It knows about the value of preserving a pristine environment.'' Deval Patrick, another Democratic gubernatorial candidate and the only one in the race to favor the wind farm, issued a statement slamming what he called Romney's lack of leadership. Romney said it was unclear which way Norton was leaning on his request, but expected a response in the near term. Kevin Dennehy can be reached at kdennehy@capecodonline.com. David Schoetz can be reached at dschoetz@capecodonline.com. (Published: November 11, 2005)

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (9435)	12/30/2006 10:13:14 PM
From: sandintoes	Respond to of 224741

Some of the most "save the earth" people were stomping their feet in opposition to wind mills, go figure. You know, all the granola people. granola An adjective used to describe people who are environmentally aware (flower child, tree-hugger), open-minded, left-winged, socially aware and active, queer or queer-positive, anti-oppressive/discrimin atory (racial, sexual, gender, class, age, etc.) with an organic and natural emphasis on living, who will usually refrain from consuming or using anything containing animals and animal by-products (for health and/or environmental reasons), as well as limit consumption of what he or she does consume, as granola people are usually concerned about wasting resources. Usually buy only fair-trade goods and refrain from buying from large corporations, as most exploit the environment as well as their workers, which goes against granola core values. The choice of not removing body hair (see amazon) and drug use are not characteristics that define granola people, and people, regardless of granola status, may or may not partake in said activities. This definition is sometimes confused with hippy.