CapeCodToday Blog Chowder

Electric bills on the Cape and islands will go down after the wind farm is built - according to the Alliance

... as in the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound.
Hard to believe, right?
What's harder to believe is how some observers continue to insist, long after this was settled, that when it comes to Cape Wind and electric costs, "no one's bill is going down," in the words of my fellow blogger Massachusetts Democrant.

But since even the Alliance has given up on that shaky claim, it may be time for Democrant and others to move on to genuine issues (yes, like the impact to birds).
The Alliance didn't always say this about Cape Wind. Back in the fall of 2002, the group distributed a brochure with nine questionable claims about the project, including "Electric rate increases."

Yet by the following summer, the Alliance had changed its tune. In its quarterly newsletter (Vol. 3, Number 3), right out front, was an article titled, "Save Our Sound Calls on Cape Wind Developer to Clarify Electricity 'Savings' and Private Profits: Is 35 cents a month worth spoiling Nantucket Sound Wildlife and Beauty?"
The article cited Cape Wind's website as promising "New England electricity ratepayers annual savings of $25 million on their electricity bills. "
What this meant for New England residents, said Isaac Rosen, the Alliance's executive director at the time, were "on average, a savings of $4.16 a year, or just 35 cents a month."
"They are threatening to turn one of the most pristine sounds in the world into an electricity generating plant and the return for all of us who have to live with it isn't even enough to buy a cup of coffee," Rosen said. "And that doesn't even include all the public subsidies that will line the developer's pocket" (yeah, I miss Isaac, too).

Then a couple of weeks ago, when gubernatorial candidate Deval Patrick announced his support for Cape Wind, Patrick was interviewed later that day on New England Cable News.
The first commercial to run after Patrick's segment was one paid for by the Alliance (what a coincidence). The ad ended with the dubious claim that the wind farm would cut electric bills, on average, by a dime per month.
No wonder so many people are confused about savings from Cape Wind - we've come to rely on the Alliance being consistently wrong about things like that.

As for the figure of $25 million annually cited by Cape Wind, where does that come from? It is based on a report from a consultant hired by Cape Wind in 2001, LaCapra Associates, "to examine how the insertion of a 400 MW wind project into the New England electricity market would affect clearing prices for energy in the regional electricity market."
Mainly due to that tough-to-beat fuel cost for wind - zero - the study concluded that "savings to New England electricity customers would be on the order of $18 to $22 million per year. While this estimate is very rough, it indicates that the savings impact of the project would be at least in the tens of millions of dollars over a several-year period."

But even if the report overstated the savings, what has happened to the cost of natural gas and oil since 2001? Natural gas has tripled in price while oil is twice as expensive - and who knows what happens if we get hit with a harsh winter.
Another caveat worth mentioning - the study examined the effect of a 400 megawatt wind farm; the capacity has since been expanded to 468 MW, which would mean further savings.

30 comments »

No love lost between editors Rolbein and Pronovost

1 comment »

Nice Night to Travel

1 comment »

Abbicci: The ABC?s of Italian

Sometimes a restaurant takes on a personality of its own, regardless of who’s doing the cooking.

Abbicci is an intimate restaurant, on the town line in Yarmouthport, near Cummaquid. It’s a familiar and reassuring site to the locals. It recently underwent a face lift which makes it much more inviting. And the valet service makes parking a cinch. Parking can be a challenge otherwise.

Atmosphere

This is the type of restaurant you take your spouse to. In fact, all the diners this night were couples. It’s a nice place to set the mood for the rest of the evening. Understated, with no particular decor, no special lighting and no tacky music. Just a simple ensemble of elegantly set dining rooms and tables.

Service

And that’s the thing with a date night restaurant, it’s not about the food.  Service is the thing. And Abbicci delivers it in buckets. The wait staff was extremely efficient. Swift, silent and unobtrusive to the point of being invisible. Exactly what you want if you’re focusing on your date. Memorable by its absence.

Food

An ode to Marcella Hazan, the menu gives a lesson in classic Italian cuisine. And therein lies its secret.  Abbicci hooks you with their menu. It reads like a romance novel. It seduces you. Unfortunately, just like reading a book, it tends to leave you unsatisfied.

We ordered the (very) small portions of several dishes. Arancini –  the 2 small risotto croquettes filled with cheese, were a bit too skimpy. Risotto – not the rich creamy porridge variety, but the rice side dish kind, was overwhelmed by black pepper. Cannelloni – a spinach pasta stuffed with veal, in tomato sauce and béchamel, was interesting enough. But the Pesce – a delicately pan prepared sole in a Milanese style, egg battered with lemon and olives, was the best selection of the evening.

The dessert menu featured, what else - chocolate. We tried the Trio of Chocolate, a sampler of favorites, otherwise, made with chocolate.

Wine

The extensive wine menu is skewed in favor of very expensive wines at some very generous prices.  We chose a bottle of  syrah from a small California vineyard. Delicious.

The season’s over, the kitchen’s tired, and it shows. Overall we give Abbicci 2 ** for setting the scene for date night right. But you have to shell out some serious plastic to get the mood right. So it’s also 3$$$ for Abbicci.  Subconsciously, that's part of the seduction.

3 comments »

Write us a letter

cctoday wants to hear from you

While we now have forty local, blogs on this site, we still haven't heard from YOU.

If you are reading these words you are online and have access to email, and now you can write as easily as our bloggers do without maintaining your own blog.

Just send a Letter to the Editors

If any local matter concerns you,  or you have thoughts you wish to share with our surfers, send an email today with the word "letters" in the subject line to jbrooks@eCape.com 

Of course you can also add coimments to any of your blogs, but we'd like to feature your letter more prominently as well.

(Just don't write to me for the next 3 weeks as I'm typing this in the S.F. airport waiting to leave for Cambodia. Walter)

On a side note, our "What's  Hot!" continues to sizzle. Here's the latest rankings of our forty "Cape Blogs" and I didn't even make the Top Ten:

10 most popular blogs

 1. RappCity - (13,947 references)
 2. Citizens for Open Government - (8,148 references)
 3. Media Watch - (7,547 references)
 4. Cape Cod Living - (7,328 references)
 5. Dead Bloggers Society - (6,869 references)
 6. Wind Farmer's Almanac - (5,551 references)
 7. Peter Porcupine - (4,599 references)
 8. Massachusetts Democrant - (3,339 references)
 9. Boston Cod - (3,197 references)
 10. Cape Cod Crusader - (2,928 references)

Leave a comment »

Surrendering control of content - and why it should be allowed

Several years ago I read an article about "60 Minutes" and "Nightline" that was critical of how the shows handled interviews.
On "60 Minutes," questions asked by correspondents were often filmed a second time, without the person interviewed present, ostensibly for the sake of brevity.
The way to tell when this happened, according to the article, was if you could see only the correspondent and not the subject when all the questions were asked. 
On "Nightline," a different technique was used - Ted Koppel would interview someone hundreds of miles away, with Koppel looking at the person on a screen and he or she apparently looking at Koppel on another. In other words, both people could see each other while they spoke.
But according to the article, the subject being interviewed would not be looking at Koppel on a screen and see him as he asked questions - he or she would be looking at a camera lens.
As a result, many of the people on the show came across as shifty because they did not seem to look Koppel in the eye. Problem was, they couldn't see him.
I haven't watched either show enough in recent years to know if the practices have been abandoned, but I hope so. They are inherently unfair and the potential for manipulation is enormous.

Why do I mention this? Because readers who post responses to postings in Blog Chowder may be unaware of the potential for similar abuses of trust.
As constructed, each of the bloggers at this site is, in effect, his or her own publisher, with control of the content. In turn, the publisher of capecodtoday.com, Walter Brooks, has control of the entire site, as he should - he owns it.
When a person decides to blog, a fundamental question has to be answered - to what extent will responses be allowed: completely unfettered, none at all or something in the middle?
Unless you are drawing thousands of readers every day, having time to respond to comments should not be a problem. This is why I have always allowed them on my blogs.
And since I often don't mince words in my criticisms, I have an obligation to allow those I've criticized to respond - in their own words, exactly as they write them.

I doubt that many people who post comments at Blog Chowder are aware that their comments can be edited. I say this from first-hand experience - Peter Porcupine misspelled a word in a response and I corrected it. Barbara Durkin, an intelligent and rational critic of the wind farm, double-posted a comment and asked me to remove one.  Sure, Barbara, not a problem.  Obscene spam appears on my old wind blog, for some reason on older posts, and I delete it. The same goes for anything libelous or defamatory - the laws for them still apply here.
As for me editing anyone's comments, that's it. Beyond that, I don't do it - ever.
Keep in mind that the bloggers here have control of only their own content; in other words, their postings and responses to them. None of us have access to the content of other blogs, as well it should be. We're a long way from the level of trust needed for open access to all on a site like this, if it happens at all.

This issue of access  is one of the fundamental ways that online media differs from the mainstream. Every letter to the editor of a newspaper goes through an editing filter. Few publishers are comfortable running anything even slightly critical of them or what they have published, regardless of how much readers or viewers love seeing it. When was the last time you saw a correction on the nightly news?
These are among the reasons why mainstream media is so threatened by the blogosphere:  many of us here are willing to surrender control of content - even to those we have criticized in the strongest terms.
The beauty of this approach is that it allows readers and our opponents to have their say, in their own words, in response to what they see in the media, rather than the traditional model of the high priests in the media interpreting their words for them.
Those still working in that model are worried about the future, as well they should. And this approach, to this observer anyway, looks to have a long, healthy future.

6 comments »

Thoughts from this week's State House News

A couple of items were interesting in the weekly summary from the State House News Service. Let's look at one piece mentioned, speaking about the Reilly's criticism of the Legislature over Melanie's Bill.

"The AG's criticism, incidentally, is fraught with its own peril for Reilly: in Massachusetts, when you criticize the Legislature, you're criticizing the Democratic establishment, and Reilly needs that very establishment to do well in his gubernatorial bid. Past AG's have suffered significant damage to their ambitions by building a sense they enjoy attacking their would-be patrons and supporters. But the immediate point is how bad the public relations are going for the House of Representatives - so bad that DiMasi is starting to deliver tirades against the press, a classic symptomof the PR death spiral."

Did I miss something? Has being part of the insider club worked out well for any of the preceeding candidates for Governor my Dems have tossed up there? I'm not a Reilly fan, and I wouldn't say criticizing the Legislature over this is profile in courage material. However, it is in Reilly's interest to show some independence to the electorate. Perhaps the party is blissfully unaware that the GOP has been effective at using the "insider" argument repeatedly.

Next we have Treasurer Cahill's secret You Don't Work Here Anymore club. I'm not sure to what extent these type of agreements exist in  any level of state government.  The piece I'm interested in is the resignation of his Deputy Treasurer, who is the one that crafted these. Back to SNS:

The appointment of political operative Doug Rubin had struck State House veterans as odd, and his position became far less tenable after stories surfaced of five-figure "non-disclosure", "non-disparagement" agreements were arranged with several employees as they departed the Treasury, some abruptly. Rubin will go back to political consulting; the press release  announcing his departure said he planned to do so even before the brouhaha over the severance packages.

Certainly a misstep from Treasurer Tim, I don't know if we have a cause and effect thing here. Regardless, I was not happy to read elsewhere that Rubin has been advising Deval Patrick. I think I'd stay away from that for the time being. Rubin may have been instrumental in helping Cahill get elected, but it isn't telling tales out of school to suggest that the slogan "Tim for Treasurer" is what stuck in the voters' minds. I believe it was his daughter that came up with that.

I'd check, but she too has signed an agreement not to discuss matters pertaining to the Treasurer ;). I lose points for taking the easy joke. Cahill overall has done a good job, especially in his role in revising the entire School Building Assistance reimbursement process.

3 comments »

A sand spit held together by package stores

Welcome  to a meeting place for Cape families affected by alcohol

Someone once described Cape Cod as a sand spit held together by package stores. Whether this is correct or not, there are hundreds of AA meetings here and many Cape members say they took a "geographic cure" which landed them here before becoming members.

This blog is NOT an AA site, however. It is a place where members and non-members, alcoholics and non-alcoholics can tell their stories anonymously, or make comments and ask questions.  

As the preamble to the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous states, "Alcoholics Anonymous® is a fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism. The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. There are no dues or fees for AA membership; we are self-supporting through our own contributions. AA is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization or institution; does not wish to engage in any controversy, neither endorses nor opposes any causes. Our primary purpose is to stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety."

Feel free to add your opinion, anonymously or otherwise. 

18 comments »

A Proposal Of Marriage Could Be Salvation For The Church

By Greg O'Brien Codfish Press When in Rome do as the Romans do. In rejecting again the precept of married priests last week, the first Synod of Bishops under the tenure of Pope Benedict XVI held fast to a time-honored tradition of the Roman Catholic Church. Or did it? Rocked by a sex abuse scandal that has occupied rectories around the world and faced with a dearth of priests that in some countries translates into one priest for every 15,000 practicing Catholics, the synod of more than 250 bishops from around the world discarded further discussion of the church?s celibacy rule. ?There has been a massive restatement of the importance of the tradition in the Latin church of mandatory celibacy,? Cardinal George Pell, archbishop of Sidney, Australia said at a news conference. Responding to the voice of the synod, Sister Christine Shenk, representing two American Catholic reform groups, wryly observed in the New York Times that the church has determined it is ?going to keep on doing what we?ve always been doing.? Yikes! It?s a sobering thought for an institution screaming out for change. A quick peruse of history shows that Catholic Church celibacy, dating back to the 1100s as an edit, had more to do with church finances than with purification, although there were many priests and prelates before the middle ages who had been self-possessed in sexual indulgence with multiple wives and mistresses. In medieval times, kings and princes donated valuable property to clerics in return for faithful service. ?A controversy arose when married priests left this property to heirs?celibacy soon followed as a requirement for ordination, so as to prevent such transactions,? writes theologian Raymond Grosswirth in a commentary on the subject. Precedence for marriage within the priesthood dates all the way back to Peter, the first pope, and to the 12 Christ-appointed apostles, most of whom were married. In fact, seven popes?from Peter to Felix V in 1439?were married, and collectively they fathered seven children, according to various church documents and histories. Eleven popes were the sons of other popes, and six popes reportedly had children outside of marriage. Enough was enough. The church was losing its worldly kingdom, as valuable property slipped into private hands. And so in 1074 Pope Gregory VII declared that anyone to be ordained a priest must first pledge celibacy. ?Priests (must) first escape the clutches of their wives,? he is quoted as saying. By the 1500s, half the priests were still married, prompting the Council of Trent in 1545 to state that celibacy was a higher calling than marriage. The rules of engagement, so to speak, were bowed in 1966 when Pope Paul VI allowed celibacy dispensations for married men who were converts from Protestant churches. Celibacy was no longer an absolute. Many Catholics today would agree that the church ought not change its unbending stand on key moral issues, but believe the subject of marriage within the priesthood is a healthy discussion?one that in time could lead to a much-needed rebirth in the church and priests, in many cases, with higher moral standards.

8 comments »

The wind farm off Texas will make lease payments to the state; why not Cape Wind?

The Lone Star state, "which has juridiction out to 10 miles along the Texas Gulf Coast, has agreed to lease 11,355 acres to Galveston-Offshore Wind, LLC, about seven miles off of Galveston Island," the Associated Press reported on Oct. 24.
Here in Massachusetts, the state has juridiction over the first three miles of its coastline.
The recently passed energy bill puts Cape Wind in the likely position of paying a lease to the federal government. Cape Wind CEO Jim Gordon has said for years that he would comply with this mandate  if it were imposed. 
Whether the proposed wind farm off Texas will pay fees to both the state and federal governments, I'm not sure.
But how many of Cape Wind's opponents want the company making lease payments for wind turbines built within three miles of Hyannisport, Cotuit and Craigville Beach?

2 comments »