Centrist Dem Leader: Has Committee Votes To Block Health Bill

[Oscar Wao]

Big corporate Insurance and Pharma are spending 1.4 million dollars per DAY to lobby for NO change, and right wing pea brains FEEL these corporations are looking out for them...

morons...

"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

As a "right-wing pea-brain" who KNOWS FIRST HAND what sumbitches insurance companies can be, I find your post to be outright condescending, offensive, and dishonest.

Good... I'm glad you know your place...

As you have yours.

Government getting their paws in health care further will be so bad, it'll make the insurance bastards look like your best buddy.

 

[Bfgrn]

As a "right-wing pea-brain" who KNOWS FIRST HAND what sumbitches insurance companies can be, I find your post to be outright condescending, offensive, and dishonest.

Good... I'm glad you know your place...

As you have yours.

Government getting their paws in health care further will be so bad, it'll make the insurance bastards look like your best buddy.

You're right...look what Bush, the Republicans and you right wing pea brain cheerleaders did to Medicare...

Medicare

Traditional Medicare works. Before Medicare existed, only about 50% of people 65 or older had health insurance. By 1970, four years after Medicare went into effect, 97% of those 65 and older had health insurance. Access to health insurance coverage meant that more older people received needed medical care. Access to health insurance also meant that Medicare beneficiaries and their families no longer had to bear the full cost of their care, helping to reduce poverty among older people and their families.

Yet, Medicare program, one of the most successful social programs in the history of our nation, is in danger of being destroyed. Blame lays in large part with the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA). Nobody can argue that a Prescription Drug benefit in Medicare was a good idea, but the structure of the benefit that was railroaded through Congress has been the subject of much debate. Unfortunately, that debate has actually distracted the public from a tiny, dangerous piece of this legislation.

Every year, a group of people appointed to assess Medicare's financial status " called the Medicare Trustees - issue a report. In this report, the Trustees look at Medicare's three significant funding sources " beneficiary premiums, payroll taxes, and general revenues. Now, this little known provision of the MMA established a new rule. This new rule says that if two consecutive Medicare Trustees' Reports estimate that more than 45% of Medicare's budget within the next six years will come from general revenues, the President must propose legislation to lower the cost to less than 45%. This 45% limit is an entirely arbitrary benchmark. No such benchmark exists for defense spending, education budgets, or, to our knowledge, any other areas of the federal budget. Unfortunately, this year, for the second year in a row, the Trustees' report estimated that the arbitrary 45% mark would be reached by 2013.

This happened in large part because the prescription drug benefit that got added by this same legislation was allowed to be funded only by general revenues. That's billions of dollars in new expenses that are applied toward the entirely arbitrary 45% limit. And the same legislation forbade the government from negotiating drug prices, and mandated extra "incentive" payments to private companies to sponsor the prescription drug plan, rather than allowing the plan to exist in the effective and efficient traditional Medicare program. Further, it happened because the MMA authorizes billions of dollars for private Medicare Advantage plans, dollars that would not be needed to cover the same people in the traditional Medicare program.

Now, thanks in large part to the billions funneled to private plans, traditional Medicare is in danger of being gutted. The President is required to propose policies designed to reduce general revenues as a share of Medicare costs below 45%. Congress has to consider these proposals. And, given the restriction on general revenues, it is very likely that the proposals won't include an increase in the employer and employee payroll taxes that help fund Medicare coverage for needed healthcare services, although these payroll taxes have not been increased for over a dozen years.

Unfortunately, the only things that could be proposed are "reductions in benefits under Part B and Part D, increases in Part B and D premiums, or, ultimately, a cap on the amount the government will pay per beneficiary, regardless of that person's health care needs." In addition, given the recent pattern of so-called "Medicare reform," it is likely that proposals will include more responsibility for the program being handed over to private industry " the very source of the current financial situation.

The stable, reliable, and effective traditional Medicare program will be subject to draconian cuts and more privatization. This is a terrible irony, since traditional Medicare was enacted precisely because private insurance failed our nation's older people.

http://www.emaxhealth.com/72/11787.html

 

[Oddball]

 

[Oscar Wao]

When you quit associating conservatives with Bush and the neo-con dream team, THEN I'l have a discussion with you.

Until then, bye bye!

 

[Bfgrn]

Hey Dude...you wear your pea brainism proudly...

Don't LOOK at any facts, that would require intelligence, an ability to discern and work...

It's much easier for you to just be a moron... no solutions, no ideas...just WHINING...

 

[Oddball]

Fuck you, asshole.

Your corporate hack fuck-ups are no better just because they carry the title of "The Honorable" in front of their names.

Get a grip, boy.

 

[Oscar Wao]

Fuck you, asshole.

Your corporate hack fuck-ups are no better just because they carry the title of "The Honorable" in front of their names.

Get a grip, boy.

He says I "know my place"?

Well...

He knows his place, too!

 

[Bfgrn]

When you quit associating conservatives with Bush and the neo-con dream team, THEN I'l have a discussion with you.

Until then, bye bye!

Yea Oscar, I suggest you cut & run...you're out of your league...

 

[DiveCon]

When you quit associating conservatives with Bush and the neo-con dream team, THEN I'l have a discussion with you.

Until then, bye bye!

Yea Oscar, I suggest you cut & run...you're out of your league...

wow, how ironic

 

[toomuchtime_]

Good... I'm glad you know your place...

As you have yours.

Government getting their paws in health care further will be so bad, it'll make the insurance bastards look like your best buddy.

You're right...look what Bush, the Republicans and you right wing pea brain cheerleaders did to Medicare...

Medicare

Traditional Medicare works. Before Medicare existed, only about 50% of people 65 or older had health insurance. By 1970, four years after Medicare went into effect, 97% of those 65 and older had health insurance. Access to health insurance coverage meant that more older people received needed medical care. Access to health insurance also meant that Medicare beneficiaries and their families no longer had to bear the full cost of their care, helping to reduce poverty among older people and their families.

Yet, Medicare program, one of the most successful social programs in the history of our nation, is in danger of being destroyed. Blame lays in large part with the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA). Nobody can argue that a Prescription Drug benefit in Medicare was a good idea, but the structure of the benefit that was railroaded through Congress has been the subject of much debate. Unfortunately, that debate has actually distracted the public from a tiny, dangerous piece of this legislation.

Every year, a group of people appointed to assess Medicare's financial status " called the Medicare Trustees - issue a report. In this report, the Trustees look at Medicare's three significant funding sources " beneficiary premiums, payroll taxes, and general revenues. Now, this little known provision of the MMA established a new rule. This new rule says that if two consecutive Medicare Trustees' Reports estimate that more than 45% of Medicare's budget within the next six years will come from general revenues, the President must propose legislation to lower the cost to less than 45%. This 45% limit is an entirely arbitrary benchmark. No such benchmark exists for defense spending, education budgets, or, to our knowledge, any other areas of the federal budget. Unfortunately, this year, for the second year in a row, the Trustees' report estimated that the arbitrary 45% mark would be reached by 2013.

This happened in large part because the prescription drug benefit that got added by this same legislation was allowed to be funded only by general revenues. That's billions of dollars in new expenses that are applied toward the entirely arbitrary 45% limit. And the same legislation forbade the government from negotiating drug prices, and mandated extra "incentive" payments to private companies to sponsor the prescription drug plan, rather than allowing the plan to exist in the effective and efficient traditional Medicare program. Further, it happened because the MMA authorizes billions of dollars for private Medicare Advantage plans, dollars that would not be needed to cover the same people in the traditional Medicare program.

Now, thanks in large part to the billions funneled to private plans, traditional Medicare is in danger of being gutted. The President is required to propose policies designed to reduce general revenues as a share of Medicare costs below 45%. Congress has to consider these proposals. And, given the restriction on general revenues, it is very likely that the proposals won't include an increase in the employer and employee payroll taxes that help fund Medicare coverage for needed healthcare services, although these payroll taxes have not been increased for over a dozen years.

Unfortunately, the only things that could be proposed are "reductions in benefits under Part B and Part D, increases in Part B and D premiums, or, ultimately, a cap on the amount the government will pay per beneficiary, regardless of that person's health care needs." In addition, given the recent pattern of so-called "Medicare reform," it is likely that proposals will include more responsibility for the program being handed over to private industry " the very source of the current financial situation.

The stable, reliable, and effective traditional Medicare program will be subject to draconian cuts and more privatization. This is a terrible irony, since traditional Medicare was enacted precisely because private insurance failed our nation's older people.

http://www.emaxhealth.com/72/11787.html

This is complete nonsense.

Specifically, Part D expenditures are financed through the premiums paid by enrollees, special State payments to Medicare, and appropriations from the general fund of the Treasury.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2009.pdf page 123

So Part D is not financed entirely by transfers from the general fund of the Treasury as the article claims. Furthermore,

In calendar year 2008, [Part B] contributions received from the general fund of the Treasury amounted to $146.8 billion, which accounted for 73.2 percent of total revenue.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2009.pdf page 91

And when you consider that total Part D expenditures are less than a quarter of Part B expenditures, it is clear that what the author likes to call traditional Medicare would be over the 45% benchmark even if there were no Part D.

But all of this is much ado about nothing. MMA only requires Congress to consider taking action to bring the contributions from the general revenue fund under 45%; it does not require taking any action. The Part D account, according to the trustees, will always be in balance, because

the appropriation language adopted for the Part D account provides substantial flexibility in the amount of general revenues available to the account. Although a specific appropriation amount is referenced, based on estimates from the President’s Budget, the appropriations language also allows indefinite budget authority for Part D in the event that the annual appropriation amount is insufficient. Thus, further Congressional action would not be required to cover a higher-than-expected level of Part D expenditures.45 Similar flexibility is anticipated for future Part D appropriations.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2009.pdf page 123

However, the trust fund accounts for "traditional" Medicare will be depleted by 2017 and "traditional" Medicare will be unable to pay its bills unless the current 2.9% payroll tax, half paid by employer and half paid by employee, is raised to nearly 6.8% in the next few years. However, rather than propose the inevitable payroll tax increase while he is trying to persuade the public to support another gigantic government health care program, Obama is reducing Part B payments to providers, and this will require providers to care for a larger number of patients in order to maintain their income. It is reasonable to assume that this will compromise the quality of care available to Medicare recipients while Obama is in office.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Big corporate Insurance and Pharma are spending 1.4 million dollars per DAY to lobby for NO change, and right wing pea brains FEEL these corporations are looking out for them...

morons...

"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

and so you put a quote from one of the biggest Hypocrites in the country in there....way to go....

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is one of the smartest people in the country...

wait a second........ok got that out.....hes a fucking HYPOCRITE...you understand that Bf...MR. environmentalist...UNTIL its in his backyard,then it a oh no that will not be.....those wind turbines that they want to put off the coast of Mass.....no good we may be able to see them from our dock...you will have to move them elsewhere....off someone elses coast....but not the sacred Kennedies....Hypocrites every one of them...Robert being the biggest....

 

[elvis]

and so you put a quote from one of the biggest Hypocrites in the country in there....way to go....

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is one of the smartest people in the country...

wait a second........ok got that out.....hes a fucking HYPOCRITE...you understand that Bf...MR. environmentalist...UNTIL its in his backyard,then it a oh no that will not be.....those wind turbines that they want to put off the coast of Mass.....no good we may be able to see them from our dock...you will have to move them elsewhere....off someone elses coast....but not the sacred Kennedies....Hypocrites every one of them...Robert being the biggest....

Bfgrn thinks the Kennedy blood line is holy.

 

[DiveCon]

and so you put a quote from one of the biggest Hypocrites in the country in there....way to go....

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is one of the smartest people in the country...

wait a second........ok got that out.....hes a fucking HYPOCRITE...you understand that Bf...MR. environmentalist...UNTIL its in his backyard,then it a oh no that will not be.....those wind turbines that they want to put off the coast of Mass.....no good we may be able to see them from our dock...you will have to move them elsewhere....off someone elses coast....but not the sacred Kennedies....Hypocrites every one of them...Robert being the biggest....

oh well, what could have been a boon to the Mass economy is getting a shot up here in Maine, lets just hope the fools up here that vote down jobs all the time wont nix this too

 

[Bfgrn]

An Ill Wind Off Cape Cod
The New York Times
December 16, 2005

By ROBERT F. KENNEDY Jr.

As an environmentalist, I support wind power, including wind power on the high seas. I am also involved in siting wind farms in appropriate landscapes, of which there are many. But I do believe that some places should be off limits to any sort of industrial development. I wouldn't build a wind farm in Yosemite National Park. Nor would I build one on Nantucket Sound, which is exactly what the company Energy Management is trying to do with its Cape Wind project.

Environmental groups have been enticed by Cape Wind, but they should be wary of lending support to energy companies that are trying to privatize the commons - in this case 24 square miles of a heavily used waterway. And because offshore wind costs twice as much as gas-fired electricity and significantly more than onshore wind, the project is financially feasible only because the federal and state governments have promised $241 million in subsidies.

Cape Wind's proposal involves construction of 130 giant turbines whose windmill arms will reach 417 feet above the water and be visible for up to 26 miles. These turbines are less than six miles from shore and would be seen from Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. Hundreds of flashing lights to warn airplanes away from the turbines will steal the stars and nighttime views. The noise of the turbines will be audible onshore. A transformer substation rising 100 feet above the sound would house giant helicopter pads and 40,000 gallons of potentially hazardous oil.

According to the Massachusetts Historical Commission, the project will damage the views from 16 historic sites and lighthouses on the cape and nearby islands. The Humane Society estimates the whirling turbines could every year kill thousands of migrating songbirds and sea ducks.

Nantucket Sound is among the most densely traveled boating corridors in the Atlantic. The turbines will be perilously close to the main navigation channels for cargo ships, ferries and fishing boats. The risk of collisions with the towers would increase during the fogs and storms for which the area is famous. That is why the Steamship Authority and Hy-Line Cruises, which transport millions of passengers to and from the cape and islands every year, oppose the project. Thousands of small businesses, including marina owners, hotels, motels, whale watching tours and charter fishing operations will also be hurt. The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston estimates a loss of up to 2,533 jobs because of the loss of tourism - and over a billion dollars to the local economy.

Nantucket Sound is a critical fishing ground for the commercial fishing families of Martha's Vineyard and Cape Cod. Hundreds of fishermen work Horseshoe Shoal, where the Cape Wind project would be built, and make half their annual income from the catch. The risks that their gear will become fouled in the spider web of cables between the 130 towers will largely preclude fishing in the area, destroying family-owned businesses that enrich the palate, economy and culture of Cape Cod.

Many environmental groups support the Cape Wind project, and that's unfortunate because making enemies of fishermen and marina owners is bad environmental strategy in the long run. Cape Cod's traditional-gear commercial fishing families and its recreational anglers and marina owners have all been important allies for environmentalists in our battles for clean water.

There are those who argue that unlike our great Western national parks, Cape Cod is far from pristine, and that Cape Wind's turbines won't be a significant blot. I invite these critics to see the pods of humpback, minke, pilot, finback and right whales off Nantucket, to marvel at the thousands of harbor and gray seals lolling on the bars off Monomoy and Horseshoe Shoal, to chase the dark clouds of terns and shorebirds descending over the thick menhaden schools exploding over acre-sized feeding frenzies of striped bass, bluefish and bonita.

I urge them to come diving on some of the hundreds of historic wrecks in this "graveyard of the Atlantic," and to visit the endless dune-covered beaches of Cape Cod, our fishing villages immersed in history and beauty, or to spend an afternoon netting blue crabs or mucking clams, quahogs and scallops by the bushel on tidal mud flats - some of the reasons my uncle, John F. Kennedy, authorized the creation of the Cape Cod National Seashore in 1961, and why Nantucket Sound is under consideration as a national marine sanctuary, a designation that would prohibit commercial electrical generation.

All of us need periodically to experience wilderness to renew our spirits and reconnect ourselves to the common history of our nation, humanity and to God. The worst trap that environmentalists can fall into is the conviction that the only wilderness worth preserving is in the Rocky Mountains or Alaska. To the contrary, our most important wildernesses are those that are closest to our densest population centers, like Nantucket Sound.

There are many alternatives that would achieve the same benefits as Cape Wind without destroying this national treasure. Deep water technology is rapidly evolving, promising huge bounties of wind energy with fewer environmental and economic consequences. Scotland is preparing to build wind turbines in the Moray Firth more than 12 miles offshore. Germany is considering placing turbines as far as 27 miles off its northern shores.

If Cape Wind were to place its project further offshore, it could build not just 130, but thousands of windmills - where they can make a real difference in the battle against global warming without endangering the birds or impoverishing the experience of millions of tourists and residents and fishing families who rely on the sound's unspoiled bounties.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is an environmental lawyer and professor at Pace University Law School.

http://www.robertfkennedyjr.com/articles.html#

 

[Harry Dresden]

An Ill Wind Off Cape Cod
The New York Times
December 16, 2005

By ROBERT F. KENNEDY Jr.

As an environmentalist, I support wind power, including wind power on the high seas. I am also involved in siting wind farms in appropriate landscapes, of which there are many. But I do believe that some places should be off limits to any sort of industrial development. I wouldn't build a wind farm in Yosemite National Park. Nor would I build one on Nantucket Sound, which is exactly what the company Energy Management is trying to do with its Cape Wind project.

Environmental groups have been enticed by Cape Wind, but they should be wary of lending support to energy companies that are trying to privatize the commons - in this case 24 square miles of a heavily used waterway. And because offshore wind costs twice as much as gas-fired electricity and significantly more than onshore wind, the project is financially feasible only because the federal and state governments have promised $241 million in subsidies.

Cape Wind's proposal involves construction of 130 giant turbines whose windmill arms will reach 417 feet above the water and be visible for up to 26 miles. These turbines are less than six miles from shore and would be seen from Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. Hundreds of flashing lights to warn airplanes away from the turbines will steal the stars and nighttime views. The noise of the turbines will be audible onshore. A transformer substation rising 100 feet above the sound would house giant helicopter pads and 40,000 gallons of potentially hazardous oil.

According to the Massachusetts Historical Commission, the project will damage the views from 16 historic sites and lighthouses on the cape and nearby islands. The Humane Society estimates the whirling turbines could every year kill thousands of migrating songbirds and sea ducks.

Nantucket Sound is among the most densely traveled boating corridors in the Atlantic. The turbines will be perilously close to the main navigation channels for cargo ships, ferries and fishing boats. The risk of collisions with the towers would increase during the fogs and storms for which the area is famous. That is why the Steamship Authority and Hy-Line Cruises, which transport millions of passengers to and from the cape and islands every year, oppose the project. Thousands of small businesses, including marina owners, hotels, motels, whale watching tours and charter fishing operations will also be hurt. The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston estimates a loss of up to 2,533 jobs because of the loss of tourism - and over a billion dollars to the local economy.

Nantucket Sound is a critical fishing ground for the commercial fishing families of Martha's Vineyard and Cape Cod. Hundreds of fishermen work Horseshoe Shoal, where the Cape Wind project would be built, and make half their annual income from the catch. The risks that their gear will become fouled in the spider web of cables between the 130 towers will largely preclude fishing in the area, destroying family-owned businesses that enrich the palate, economy and culture of Cape Cod.

Many environmental groups support the Cape Wind project, and that's unfortunate because making enemies of fishermen and marina owners is bad environmental strategy in the long run. Cape Cod's traditional-gear commercial fishing families and its recreational anglers and marina owners have all been important allies for environmentalists in our battles for clean water.

There are those who argue that unlike our great Western national parks, Cape Cod is far from pristine, and that Cape Wind's turbines won't be a significant blot. I invite these critics to see the pods of humpback, minke, pilot, finback and right whales off Nantucket, to marvel at the thousands of harbor and gray seals lolling on the bars off Monomoy and Horseshoe Shoal, to chase the dark clouds of terns and shorebirds descending over the thick menhaden schools exploding over acre-sized feeding frenzies of striped bass, bluefish and bonita.

I urge them to come diving on some of the hundreds of historic wrecks in this "graveyard of the Atlantic," and to visit the endless dune-covered beaches of Cape Cod, our fishing villages immersed in history and beauty, or to spend an afternoon netting blue crabs or mucking clams, quahogs and scallops by the bushel on tidal mud flats - some of the reasons my uncle, John F. Kennedy, authorized the creation of the Cape Cod National Seashore in 1961, and why Nantucket Sound is under consideration as a national marine sanctuary, a designation that would prohibit commercial electrical generation.

All of us need periodically to experience wilderness to renew our spirits and reconnect ourselves to the common history of our nation, humanity and to God. The worst trap that environmentalists can fall into is the conviction that the only wilderness worth preserving is in the Rocky Mountains or Alaska. To the contrary, our most important wildernesses are those that are closest to our densest population centers, like Nantucket Sound.

There are many alternatives that would achieve the same benefits as Cape Wind without destroying this national treasure. Deep water technology is rapidly evolving, promising huge bounties of wind energy with fewer environmental and economic consequences. Scotland is preparing to build wind turbines in the Moray Firth more than 12 miles offshore. Germany is considering placing turbines as far as 27 miles off its northern shores.

If Cape Wind were to place its project further offshore, it could build not just 130, but thousands of windmills - where they can make a real difference in the battle against global warming without endangering the birds or impoverishing the experience of millions of tourists and residents and fishing families who rely on the sound's unspoiled bounties.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is an environmental lawyer and professor at Pace University Law School.

http://www.robertfkennedyjr.com/articles.html#

yea right....its because its in his front yard....

RFK Jr. and other prominent enviros face off over Cape Cod wind farm | Grist

 

[Bfgrn]

An Ill Wind Off Cape Cod
The New York Times
December 16, 2005

By ROBERT F. KENNEDY Jr.

As an environmentalist, I support wind power, including wind power on the high seas. I am also involved in siting wind farms in appropriate landscapes, of which there are many. But I do believe that some places should be off limits to any sort of industrial development. I wouldn't build a wind farm in Yosemite National Park. Nor would I build one on Nantucket Sound, which is exactly what the company Energy Management is trying to do with its Cape Wind project.

Environmental groups have been enticed by Cape Wind, but they should be wary of lending support to energy companies that are trying to privatize the commons - in this case 24 square miles of a heavily used waterway. And because offshore wind costs twice as much as gas-fired electricity and significantly more than onshore wind, the project is financially feasible only because the federal and state governments have promised $241 million in subsidies.

Cape Wind's proposal involves construction of 130 giant turbines whose windmill arms will reach 417 feet above the water and be visible for up to 26 miles. These turbines are less than six miles from shore and would be seen from Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. Hundreds of flashing lights to warn airplanes away from the turbines will steal the stars and nighttime views. The noise of the turbines will be audible onshore. A transformer substation rising 100 feet above the sound would house giant helicopter pads and 40,000 gallons of potentially hazardous oil.

According to the Massachusetts Historical Commission, the project will damage the views from 16 historic sites and lighthouses on the cape and nearby islands. The Humane Society estimates the whirling turbines could every year kill thousands of migrating songbirds and sea ducks.

Nantucket Sound is among the most densely traveled boating corridors in the Atlantic. The turbines will be perilously close to the main navigation channels for cargo ships, ferries and fishing boats. The risk of collisions with the towers would increase during the fogs and storms for which the area is famous. That is why the Steamship Authority and Hy-Line Cruises, which transport millions of passengers to and from the cape and islands every year, oppose the project. Thousands of small businesses, including marina owners, hotels, motels, whale watching tours and charter fishing operations will also be hurt. The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston estimates a loss of up to 2,533 jobs because of the loss of tourism - and over a billion dollars to the local economy.

Nantucket Sound is a critical fishing ground for the commercial fishing families of Martha's Vineyard and Cape Cod. Hundreds of fishermen work Horseshoe Shoal, where the Cape Wind project would be built, and make half their annual income from the catch. The risks that their gear will become fouled in the spider web of cables between the 130 towers will largely preclude fishing in the area, destroying family-owned businesses that enrich the palate, economy and culture of Cape Cod.

Many environmental groups support the Cape Wind project, and that's unfortunate because making enemies of fishermen and marina owners is bad environmental strategy in the long run. Cape Cod's traditional-gear commercial fishing families and its recreational anglers and marina owners have all been important allies for environmentalists in our battles for clean water.

There are those who argue that unlike our great Western national parks, Cape Cod is far from pristine, and that Cape Wind's turbines won't be a significant blot. I invite these critics to see the pods of humpback, minke, pilot, finback and right whales off Nantucket, to marvel at the thousands of harbor and gray seals lolling on the bars off Monomoy and Horseshoe Shoal, to chase the dark clouds of terns and shorebirds descending over the thick menhaden schools exploding over acre-sized feeding frenzies of striped bass, bluefish and bonita.

I urge them to come diving on some of the hundreds of historic wrecks in this "graveyard of the Atlantic," and to visit the endless dune-covered beaches of Cape Cod, our fishing villages immersed in history and beauty, or to spend an afternoon netting blue crabs or mucking clams, quahogs and scallops by the bushel on tidal mud flats - some of the reasons my uncle, John F. Kennedy, authorized the creation of the Cape Cod National Seashore in 1961, and why Nantucket Sound is under consideration as a national marine sanctuary, a designation that would prohibit commercial electrical generation.

All of us need periodically to experience wilderness to renew our spirits and reconnect ourselves to the common history of our nation, humanity and to God. The worst trap that environmentalists can fall into is the conviction that the only wilderness worth preserving is in the Rocky Mountains or Alaska. To the contrary, our most important wildernesses are those that are closest to our densest population centers, like Nantucket Sound.

There are many alternatives that would achieve the same benefits as Cape Wind without destroying this national treasure. Deep water technology is rapidly evolving, promising huge bounties of wind energy with fewer environmental and economic consequences. Scotland is preparing to build wind turbines in the Moray Firth more than 12 miles offshore. Germany is considering placing turbines as far as 27 miles off its northern shores.

If Cape Wind were to place its project further offshore, it could build not just 130, but thousands of windmills - where they can make a real difference in the battle against global warming without endangering the birds or impoverishing the experience of millions of tourists and residents and fishing families who rely on the sound's unspoiled bounties.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is an environmental lawyer and professor at Pace University Law School.

http://www.robertfkennedyjr.com/articles.html#

yea right....its because its in his front yard....

RFK Jr. and other prominent enviros face off over Cape Cod wind farm | Grist

You have the right to your opinion, and so do I... I believe Kennedy is being honest, you believe he isn't and that YOU know his intentions...

 

[Harry Dresden]

You have the right to your opinion, and so do I... I believe Kennedy is being honest, you believe he isn't and that YOU know his intentions...

when a group of like minded people go against one of their own,on an issue that all of them USUALLY agree on.....and the one that suddenly decides this is no longer an issue BECAUSE it involves my families property,kinda makes JR. look like a hypocrite.....if it DID NOT involve his property i can guarantee you he would be telling those who dont want these things off shore of their property....TOUGH SHIT...Kennedy being honest about this?...yes he is....he does not want those windmills offshore of his families property....and his fellow Enviromentalist have now seen his true colors.....the man has just lost a lot of his credability....but then just about every male Kennedy has....so im not suprised,and im sure anyone outside of his kingdom is not also....

 

[Bfgrn]

You have the right to your opinion, and so do I... I believe Kennedy is being honest, you believe he isn't and that YOU know his intentions...

when a group of like minded people go against one of their own,on an issue that all of them USUALLY agree on.....and the one that suddenly decides this is no longer an issue BECAUSE it involves my families property,kinda makes JR. look like a hypocrite.....if it DID NOT involve his property i can guarantee you he would be telling those who dont want these things off shore of their property....TOUGH SHIT...Kennedy being honest about this?...yes he is....he does want those windmills offshore of his families property....and his fellow Enviromentalist have now seen his true colors.....the man has just lost a lot of his credability....but then just about every male Kennedy has....so im not suprised,and im sure anyone outside of his kingdom is not also....

Well Harry, like I said you have a right to your opinion, but your guarantees and your bluster are meaningless...

Did you ever consider that RFK Jr KNOWS Cape Cod, the local economy and issues that effect the Cape BETTER than outsiders? He is all FOR the wind turbines a few miles farther out, but placing them on Horseshoe Shoal could have an over $1 billion impact on the local fishing industry and the tourist economy. (from YOUR article)

I really don't understand the right wing hatred for the Kennedys... they have always worked FOR the little guy and the average citizen. They have never been for sale to any corporate interest...

My guess is that right wingers are drowning victims... I learned years ago when I got my Red Cross lifesaving card, that the reason you always place an inanimate object between you and a drowning victim...a drowning victim only see you as land...something to push down so he or she can breath...

 

[Harry Dresden]

You have the right to your opinion, and so do I... I believe Kennedy is being honest, you believe he isn't and that YOU know his intentions...

when a group of like minded people go against one of their own,on an issue that all of them USUALLY agree on.....and the one that suddenly decides this is no longer an issue BECAUSE it involves my families property,kinda makes JR. look like a hypocrite.....if it DID NOT involve his property i can guarantee you he would be telling those who dont want these things off shore of their property....TOUGH SHIT...Kennedy being honest about this?...yes he is....he does want those windmills offshore of his families property....and his fellow Enviromentalist have now seen his true colors.....the man has just lost a lot of his credability....but then just about every male Kennedy has....so im not suprised,and im sure anyone outside of his kingdom is not also....

Well Harry, like I said you have a right to your opinion, but your guarantees and your bluster are meaningless...

Did you ever consider that RFK Jr KNOWS Cape Cod, the local economy and issues that effect the Cape BETTER than outsiders? He is all FOR the wind turbines a few miles farther out, but placing them on Horseshoe Shoal could have an over $1 billion impact on the local fishing industry and the tourist economy. (from YOUR article)

I really don't understand the right wing hatred for the Kennedys... they have always worked FOR the little guy and the average citizen. They have never been for sale to any corporate interest...

My guess is that right wingers are drowning victims... I learned years ago when I got my Red Cross lifesaving card, that the reason you always place an inanimate object between you and a drowning victim...a drowning victim only see you as land...something to push down so he or she can breath...

oh yea YOU KNOW the Kennedies.....why do they get away with doing things that you or i would not Bf?.....walking away from a drowning girl,rape and DUI's..and who knows what else....you wanna answer me that?....and hey your hero Ted he knows about drowning victims too,doesnt he?....you have your head so fucking far up their asses you cant even see what kind asses they are...

 

[DiveCon]

You have the right to your opinion, and so do I... I believe Kennedy is being honest, you believe he isn't and that YOU know his intentions...

when a group of like minded people go against one of their own,on an issue that all of them USUALLY agree on.....and the one that suddenly decides this is no longer an issue BECAUSE it involves my families property,kinda makes JR. look like a hypocrite.....if it DID NOT involve his property i can guarantee you he would be telling those who dont want these things off shore of their property....TOUGH SHIT...Kennedy being honest about this?...yes he is....he does want those windmills offshore of his families property....and his fellow Enviromentalist have now seen his true colors.....the man has just lost a lot of his credability....but then just about every male Kennedy has....so im not suprised,and im sure anyone outside of his kingdom is not also....

Well Harry, like I said you have a right to your opinion, but your guarantees and your bluster are meaningless...

Did you ever consider that RFK Jr KNOWS Cape Cod, the local economy and issues that effect the Cape BETTER than outsiders? He is all FOR the wind turbines a few miles farther out, but placing them on Horseshoe Shoal could have an over $1 billion impact on the local fishing industry and the tourist economy. (from YOUR article)

I really don't understand the right wing hatred for the Kennedys... they have always worked FOR the little guy and the average citizen. They have never been for sale to any corporate interest...

My guess is that right wingers are drowning victims... I learned years ago when I got my Red Cross lifesaving card, that the reason you always place an inanimate object between you and a drowning victim...a drowning victim only see you as land...something to push down so he or she can breath...

you mean the locals in the other locations DONT, but Bobby does?
what a fucking hypocrite