CapeCodToday Blog Chowder

A simple question for Dona Tracy: is it rude to make baseless accusations against people who you have never met, and have no possible way of making such a judgement about?

A yes or no answer will suffice.

Magical,

Your taste for perpetuating attack mode on Cape Cod Today shows no abating.

This has nothing to do with expecting "Cape Gal" to keep her opinions to herself (unless they are baseless accusations of sexism). Heck, I allow my child bride to scrub the toilets AND work a full-time job! That should count for something, shouldn't it?

Cape Gal,

I was responding to your addressing me directly by name: "PETER and DREW; I bet you'd love us to live under more MALE rule."

Perhaps your Dad would have done all of us a favor had he taught you proper manners.

Are we to assume that Mr. Cohen is concerned about some modern form of "tyranny of opinion," by his attempting to apply Tocqueville's words to today's America? I wonder what Tocqueville's opinion of the United States would be if he were to return today? I imagine it would be quite the culture shock.

It is hard to believe that Mr. Cohen and I grew up in the same country. Does he really feel that Tocqueville's aged assessment that no country but America exhibits "less independence of mind and true freedom of discussion" still applies today? From my perspective, no country shows, promotes and allows MORE independence of mind and freedom of discussion than America.

Our failings as a country can not be blamed on anyone but ourselves.

I'm not sure how our our primitive monkey, male brains could have comprehended "Lord of the Flies" all of those years ago. Maybe the gun fire at the shooting range just made it difficult to concentrate? It was hard to read, hold my seat while four-wheeling in the monster truck, and wave my rebel flag at the same time...

Cape Gal,

Is accusing people you have never met in your life of sexism your idea of "exceptional character and thought?"

Would reading alone quell this irrational fear run riot?

Alito is definitely mainstream. I am confused as to why some people are even unwilling to let prominent Democrats reason with them about the senseless fear mongering attached to this nominee.

My first reaction: this whole story reminded me of some of the stunts I have seen teenage drivers pulling in the past couple of years. I would be curious to know if these maniacal teen drivers (and, sadly, this young man) are fans of the Grand Theft Auto video games. Kids in the suburbs seem to be acting in ways that, until recently, were only the stuff of video games and "Cops" on TV. It is scary.

Unfortunately, I don't think incidents like this teach them to have more respect for the law. The attitude in much of the media, and some of the public reaction, seems to be one of mistrust and condemnation of the law enforcement people we entrust to protect us. Do you think these police officers were acting out a scene from a video game? Investigation will most likely show they were reacting to what they considered a life or death situation. They should not be the villains in this.

My thoughts today are with this young man's family. No parents should endure outliving their children. I can't imagine what they are going through. I imagine I would be questioning this too...

Pilgrim,

I think your observations apply to ALL extremists (including the far right AND the far left).

If my artwork ever becomes worthy of the MFA, they better include all of my bicycles on the lawn. They better track down a replica of my parents old VW bus too. That thing was a work of art...

Reilly is criticized for "standing by as Gov. Mitt Romney's 8.5 percent cut in insurance rates was accepted, instead of pushing for a higher reduction?" The real issue should be that Reilly campaigned AGAINST the governor's insurance reform plan.

The primary criticisms of Reilly should not be related to his potential as a candidate. Reilly should be taken to task for repeatedly putting his own political interests ahead of his of duty to defend the public interest.

That is a perfect definition of a farm Stephen, and applies to wind, just as well as any natural resource.

I am afraid the local Oyster Farmers would be offended at losing their status as Industrial Oyster Production Engineers, however.

Magical,

We have already seen how you lash out at those of us who support it based on our own personal beliefs and judgement. One can only imagine the enjoyment you would get from tearing into a Jim Gordon penned opinion of his own project.

Magical,

So far, you have accused me of BIGOTRY, HATRED, and NAME CALLING in your comments today. I can only assume that this is because I openly consider the Kennedys to be the ultimate living, breathing examples of hypocrisy in these parts. I am not sure if you have noticed, but your admonishments sound remarkably like the "knee jerk responses" and "labeling" that you suggest makes communication here difficult (even to the inattentive).

I think it worth mentioning that I have never HATED anyone (not one person or group) in my entire life, nor have I ever been labeled a bigot. I am also interested (as I am sure anyone reading these comments would be interested) in knowing where there has been ANY name calling here at all.

I seem to recall a recent suggestion that the personal attacks were unappealing to our readers. Apparently the suggestion escaped you.

Magical,

If you notice, I often use the word hypocrisy in reference to... THE KENNEDYS! Perhaps you disagree with me? Does that mean it is you, or I, that is not paying attention? That would be a matter of opinion, would it not?

On several occasions I have referred to RFK as an environmental advocate. I would say that is giving him credit where it is due. That you disagree with my opinion of his Cape Wind posturing tells me that maybe you are against Cape Wind too?

My nomination for the first chapter of the yet to be written book, "Do as I Say, Not as I Do," Profiles in Environmental Hypocrisy:

Robert F. Kennedy

Apparently, if I were paying more attention to what RFK is saying, I would not be suggesting his rightful place is in such a book.

In the SF Chronicle op-ed, Kennedy explains that most environmental leaders are concerned with developing new ways to communicate with the American public. It seems he is working hard to develop the op-ed method of communication. He delivers his hypocritical appeal loud and clear, in typical Kennedy fashion.

That Kennedy proposes deep water siting as an alternative for Cape Wind shows his true hypocrisy. He must know, just as well as any thoughtful environmental advocate, that deep water siting is not a legitimate option.

Peter Porcupine's mention of Olivers reminded me of the fantastic meals I have had there over the years. Olivers is the perfect midway meeting point for people on the upper Cape with loved ones on the lower Cape too. Their gift certificates are also a great idea for people who live in the mid to lower Cape area.

My fiance votes for lunch or dinner at Wimpy's (Osterville), Captain Scott's (Sandwich) or The Red Inn (Provincetown), and for breakfast, The Wicked Oyster (Wellfleet). She also seconds Seneca's Chinese suggestion of Double Dragon.

Clem and Ursies, 85 Shankpainter Rd. in Provincetown gets my vote.
http://www.clemandursies.com

Clem and Ursies played host to one of the first casual dates my fiance and I went on, so my appreciation is admittedly sentimental. Still, the menu offerings are fantastic, and go well beyond their popular and delicious seafood fare. The desserts alone (especially the cakes) make it well worth the trip.

The mood set by Clem and Ursies locks them a place in most customer memories, and guarantees them repeat patrons. The atmosphere is created by its bright and colorful decor, and the cheerful and helpful employees. The most fitting description I can come up with for Clem and Ursies: clean and casual, modern, pop-clam-shack. It is a perfect place for a casual, Cape Cod meal.

It is often said that people are our most valuable resource. It is unfortunate that so many of our most valuable resources do not choose to utilize their own most valuable resources: their consciences.

I found myself referring people to the Power is in Your Hands link you provided today. My boss' December electric bill was TRIPLE last years. He is now on his way home to sit in a dark house to eat his cold dinner. I can't imagine what some of the seniors with electric heat who are on fixed incomes are going to do.

Dukakis is still considered an "authority" on health care reform.

Shame on you Peter Porcupine.

It obviously makes no sense to have the energy companies themselves performing these surveys. I would agree.

http://www.thewind.info/downloads/birds.pdf

Magical,

The radar study that was carried out in Denmark showed that the birds (by day and night) altered their route nearly a 1/4 mile before the turbines, and then passed above or around the turbines at a safe distance.

You mention the best way to help is a financial contribution. I assume you are referring to Operation In From the Cold. Anyone wishing to contribute should contact Rick Brigham at 508-771-5400, extension 279, or 508-364-7590 for more information.

The "significant gaps in the research" Congressman Mollohan refers to in his statement, is directly related to the lack of any evidence of significant harm done wildlife or the environment to be found anywhere aside from Altamont and the mountain top bat kills in his home state of West Virginia. There is simply no literature to support negative claims against wind farms aside from these TWO LOCATIONS OUT OF HUNDREDS. I would agree, that is a significant gap in research.

Specific siting of wind farms has little supporting literature in the United States scientific community, simply because those who are against wind farms refuse to accept the results of foreign studies.

The impact of wind farms on migratory routes have no documentation, because migratory routes, by their very nature, are not definite enough to be studied.

Please explain how and where I am wrong anout this.

This is rather like foreign countries having a cure for cancer, but the U.S. not allowing the foreign drugs here in order to protect the U.S. interest and investment in domestic drugs.

It is impossible to ignore the obvious benefits of wind power, wherever it is put to use. Clearly there are drawbacks and limitations to any form of power production, but we must figure environmental protection and conserved resources into the final analysis of wind power production. The nay-sayers keep poo-pooing financial and environmental results without any consideration for long term benefits and immediate conservation of resources. Have we really become this short-sighted, that any pursuit must provide us with instant, visible results? It is not going to happen, not in most of our lifetimes... especially at this rate.

Oh, and Happy New Year!

On several occasions, the two of you (Crusader and Magical) have now chosen to label dissenters here as attackers. Crusader applauds your admonition of me here for my innocent comments, while she sings praises to someone in her comment section who calls Cape Codders inbreeds. You, Magical, have been repeatedly accusing wind farm supporters of having no conservation interests beyond Cape Wind, yet when I (a wind farm supporter) attempt to contradict your misrepresentation, you admonish me for making personal attacks. Can you honestly say you do not see the hypocrisy here? The issues we are discussing on Cape Cod and beyond are personal and will quite often be emotionally charged. Debate the issues, but lose the victim act.

Magical,

My last comments here were completely sarcastic, and should be taken as such.

You have chosen to respond to my comments above as a personal attack, rather than the topic related comments and direct responses to your commentary that they were. That is certainly your perogative. However, do not mistake that for approval of your attempt at character assasination.

A recent email from the editor of these pages warned us of negative feedback from readers about in-fighting and personal attacks between bloggers here. The email asked that we stick to Cape Cod issues, and stop blogging about each other. I certainly agree that there is nothing attractive about personal attacks, but do not confuse this with a free ticket to belittle your opposition, or to label intelligent debate as such an attack. I responded to your comments and there was absolutely nothing personal about it, other than the passion each of us have for this issue.

Magical Eye,

You are right. Your continuous comments about the proponents of wind power are beyond reproach. I should not feel compelled to respond to them. I stand corrected.

Magical,

Inflammatory? Talk about projection... I was simply responding to your questions to Pilgrim above and the mantra that you have been repeating over and over again:

"why do you not point to conservation and strict regulation on our wasteful and over use of fossil fuel and explore other clean energy sources? Why is wind power the only option you see as reducing our dependance of fossil fuels? Why go to such extremes when the answer is really so simple?"

I think you need to RELAX and read my response instead of reacting to the attitude and argument you have projected onto me.

Magical,

Do you really think conservation can be "enforced" any more than compassion for wildlife can? You keep bringing up conservation, and pointing an accusatory finger at anyone who favors wind power, as though they are ignorant or uncaring of anything beyond wind power generation. You couldn't be further from the truth. Does it strengthen your position to present us all as simple-minded?

Magical

Most wind farm supporters consider any electricity being produced by renewable resources to be a good thing. Every kilowatt produced by a clean energy producer is one that was not produced by burning carbon-based fuels. I am not sure where there could be any confusion in that.

Magical,

The point is that the rest of us would not consider this a failure, but a giant leap in the right direction.

The A.G. appears to be trying to play politics while throwing the people under the bus yet again. His opposition to the Governor's auto insurance plan is similarly politically motivated, and just as ignorant of what would best serve the citizens of Cape Cod.

Barbara:

I think you would find that these words are not the only thing we would agree on, despite our differences on Cape Wind.

Magical,

Sorry, I must have confused your commentary on yourself as being a formidable opponent with bragging.

Magical,

My suggestion, before we were so sidetracked by accusations of making this personal, was that it seems you are presenting as evidence, arguments that fail to place any value on nature or the environment. You have several times proferred the argument that wind technology does not make economic sense. Well, what about environmental sense? Shouldn't the environment be figured into the financial equations you have offered here? Do nature and the environment have a monetary value that we can work into these numbers you present? So, we ignore the most feasible, renewable power technology out there, and at what price to the environement?

Reducing global warming would never happen by wind technologies alone. Nobody rational is suggesting that it would. This is about preserving the resources we must take from the earth, and about cleaning up the air we all breathe. This is about making a solid start toward reducing our reliance on carbon-based fuels.

It is impossible to distinguish you from the rest of the opponents of wind energy now. Is that something to brag about?

To all concerned (continued),

Our friends the Kennedy's, for example, have huge financial interests in oil, and an obvious interest in keeping this project out of THEIR personal sailing grounds. Bill Koch, co-chairman of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound is the owner of a major energy conglomerate that includes oil, natural gas and petroleum interests. Doug Yearley, the former President of the Alliance, is a board member of Marathon Oil. Congressman Don Young of Alaska was a key leader in the fight for approval of the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline, and now author of legislation to derail offshore wind. Senator John Warner, VA, and Senator Lamar Alexander, TN. have been actively opposed to this particular project as well. The list of opponents clearly contains some very prominent names, and the ties to oil companies are undeniable.

Please explain how my lifelong interest in preserving and protecting the environment, and my understanding of the dire importance of securing alternative sources of energy, can in any way be assigned some ulterior motives.

To any and all concerned,

Respectful disagreement and personal attack are far different animals, as you have clearly exhibited here. I have been a proponent of this particular project since early in 2003, as letters to the editor in the local rag and my early blog posts will attest. I have no financial interest in this, or any other fuel or electric producing company. This is much more than can be said for the opponents of this particular project and wind technologies in general.

Magical,

If you plan to express your personal opinions in such a public forum, I would suggest you get used to disagreement. You have chosen the wrong venue if you are going to take opposing views and internalize them like this. Blogs very often involve communication with people whose opinions are contrary to our own. I always try to deal with this in a respectable and gentlemanly manner. Please call me out on this if you ever feel that I am not.

You have chosen to increase the anti-wind rhetoric by planting yourself firmly in opposition to not just Cape Wind, but all wind technologies. That is a very difficult position to validate, while retaining respect as an environmental advocate. Prepare yourself, for you have put yourself out on a limb.

Until recently, I had always appreciated and admired your dedication and steadfast adherence to your principles. In the past week, I have witnessed an entirely different animal.

Magical,

Questioning the intentions of someone when they present as fact something that clearly conflicts with information you have been told is normally a common practice in such a debate. To put this in context, one of the Alliance's favorite ad populum arguments, bringing the Big Dig up in reference to Cape Wind, is what I was questioning.

I was clearly embarassed to have made such an accusation. It is telling that you fail to notice or mention that I quickly apologized when presented with the facts, and that she accepted.

Magical,

You have chosen to reduce this to an ad hominem argument by inferring that I have hit below the belt. Rather than respond to my questions related to this post, you suggest I need to learn fair play. Is it too much to ask that you back this up with evidence?

Magical Eye,

As the accused, I would respectfully like to request one example of ungentlemanly conduct that I have ever exhibited here, in a post or in my comments (in context please). If you will provide me with this one example, I will be happy to forever remove myself from these debates.

It is you that is choosing to attack the person. I have questioned your opinions based only on your posts and comments.

Magical,

Is it bad form for me to assume that you agree with the reports and views of those you are using as evidence in your argument against wind technology? Either you agree with the people that you are quoting here, or you do not. You have pitted yourself firmly against wind power, and painted yourself into a corner. You have climbed into bed with hypocrites of the highest order, and yet feel your views should not to be compared with theirs?

Your economic "reports" completely ignore the very thing you seem to hold most important... the value of nature and the environment. Can you not see that these arguments totally disregard quality of life, the value of clean air, and the importance of reducing dependence on carbon-based fuels?

Magical,

This has nothing to do with control, and evcerything to do with common sense.

As for my links, I read the opinions of both sides, weigh the pros and cons, and try to make an educated decision that takes into account the views of experts who know much more than myself about such things.

I do save links to both sides, but the links admittedly start growing and leaning to the side I feel makes more sense.

It is terrible that Greenpeace would consider the planet as worthy of protection as a whale... isn't it?

Regarding your comment: "been there, done that." What if we do save our breath, and just allow people their self fulfilling prophesies regarding tourism and their views? Where will we be then?

We will be exactly where we are right now... talking about and debating clean power and alternative energies, but not doing anything to utilize them.

Magical,

The data is overwhelming. If you have not read it yourself, I would say your "research" has been aimed only at the side of this debate you have already chosen. I will create a web page early next week with all of my alternative energy related bookmarks, and provide you with a link.

Wise and concerned,

Yes, I do know who I refer to... I was referring to non-residents.

Yes, there are polls about these subjects. However, the effects of wind power on tourism, property values and the environment have been investigated and studied more than any other form of renewable energy. The data is there... no polls required.

I have done plenty of research on Scotland, and I encourage others to do the same. I invite everyone to begin their tour of Scotland's renewables by investigating tourist attitudes toward wind farms in Scotland. The results might surprise our non-resident, Cape Wind opposition.

Also, claiming that wind turbines "use electricity" is hogwash. Every kilowatt produced by a wind turbine is a kilowatt that WAS NOT produced by a dirty, fuel burning, power plant. Modern wind turbines are far more efficient than these plants could ever be.

Thank you for using Scotland in your example. This is a great example of a country that has come to grips with the realities of our impending energy crisis. In Scotland, they recognize that security and economics are just as much benefits of wind power as clean air.

It pays to spend some time looking beyond the rhetoric and actually analyze the reasoning of those who make emotional appeals for change, yet oppose real progress.

I encourage all to make an informed decision on this subject. Do more research, turn off your television, do some related reading and think for yourself.

Anonymous F.:

Did you notice how you just put a good dig in on me (off the mark, but nice shot)? There are numerous ways to pummel people without using offensive language. People that can't grasp that concept are hurting their own cause, and forfeiting their right to respect and free speech.

p.s. I hadn't gotten to the religious portion of the article yet. Please disregard the above link if offended by other's religious beliefs.

There is a great article called "Taming the Tongue".
Perhaps had Gary read it, and taken it to heart, we would not be reading this. He was doing his worthy cause a disservice. I approve, and congratulate the editors on their firm stance.

"simple math,"

The attempts to make this into a political issue are so far in left field it is rather comical. I can assure you all that, unfortunately, there are FAR fewer "Conservatives" in support of Cape Wind than "Liberals."

Cape Wind, like conservation, is not something that should have to be advocated; it should be common sense. The sad part is that we are all, regardless of our politics, being forced to debate something that should be a no brainer.

Well said Mike.

Barbara,

I apologize for my comments regarding your Big Dig references. The Big Dig has typically been brought up in an attempt to drum up negative connotations regarding leaks in tunnels, etc. In this regard, Mr. Cashman's company is completely innocent, and that is what I should have been arguing.

The Cape Cod Times and the Alliance have used the Big Dig and other unrelated negative subjects in numerous attempts to foster an atmosphere of mistrust with the people of Cape Cod. I should not be so concerned about pointing out the fallacies. They aren't working on me. I imagine those who have yet to make up their minds about this project are objective enough to see through the negative responses you are trying to create.

Mr. Cashman is not "of the Big Dig."
He purchased a company a year ago that worked on it.

Try telling the truth for a change. I know that is difficult for you.

Barbara Durkin:

Big Dig? Floating Casinos?

Do you have any clue how these turbines will be erected? Are you aware of the care that will be taken to minimize construction's limited and temporary impact on the ecosystem? Do you know anything about the equipment that will be used to erect these turbines? You do not, because your sole purpose is fighting this project, not analyzing its benefits or the limited, short term effect its construction will have on the marine environment.

The wind farms arrival will be a victory for us all and our children's future.

Barbara Durkin:

Many of us do not view Cape Cod as a brand or product that would lose its appeal because its packaging has changed. For many of us, Cape Cod is where we were born, and the place we have chosen to call home. Cape Cod is not Coca Cola, and a wind farm off our shores is not going to cause us to lose our fizz.

Mad Moderate,

Your description of this war as an "occupation" reveals more about where your story is really coming from than your not-so-subtle stereotypes of "red" chowder, boot clad guys and cashmere sweaters.

You still do not get, or are intentionally misrepresenting the arguments here. There is no slant or political motivation in making soldiers names known. Nobody here has said there is. You keep ducking and dodging the arguments presented you like a seasoned politician.

Nobody is asking that the media keep quiet. We are asking that the media report the facts, positive and negative. The omission of positive stories about happenings in Iraq, and editing or ignoring our soldier's words, should be just as disagreeable to us all as censorship. Portraying our dead soldiers as victims when reporting their names is ignorant of war's realities, and making their coffins into political soap boxes.

Patriotism requires sacrifice from us all. Did you support the Patriot Act? Would you agree that living with it has been worth the sacrifice?

Barbara Durkin said:

"Are the views that you have so long promoted no more an important feature?"

The distinctive scenic quality of Cape Cod would not be damaged by wind turbines in the distance. Our views would simply become more distinctive and unique.

Barbara Durkin said:

"Protecting the Nantucket Sound viewshed from industrialization" [prohibiting clean power from our shores] "would extend benefits to; commercial fishing interests, property values, tourism," [None of these have been affected by similar projects in tourist areas elsewhere, and "green tourism" has actualy sought out wind farms as an attraction, rather than a discouragement. I challenge you to find numbers to support your claims from tourist areas in other countries. The facts contradict your repeated use of these fallacies] "marine life, avian life," [Again, studies and facts contradict your faulty use of authority on this] "protect cultural resources," [Is the Alliance next going to claim their are submerged cultural resources on Horseshoe Shoal?! If anything our seafaring cultural heritage would be better honored and preserved by harnessing the winds our ancestors sailed] "and provide for the safety of citizens" [we should all feel safer knowing we are doing something to curb our oil dependence, and clean up our air. Thanks for looking out for us though].

Gadfly:

Since El Greco has yet to respond to your annoying buzz, should you honestly be interested, there is plenty of information out there on the equipment used in offshore construction, and the efforts made to minimize impact to the ecosystem (investigate the use of "jack-ups," barges and cranes, making dredging completely unecessary).

Magical,

Last night, within minutes of each other, three of us answered your question: "Why this EXACT location?" This morning, "Huck Finn" also added his answer. You obviously had our undivided attention, and you respectfully received our answers. However, your opposition to Cape Wind obviously prohibits you from accepting our answers as well reasoned support for this project right now, in this exact location. Please accept that we have answered your question, but admit that our answers were not what you wanted to hear.

If you are really interested, there is an abundance of information out there on the expense, mechanical challenges, reduced power output, time constraints, and other such limitations posed by siting such projects in deeper waters.
Siting wind farms close offshore has nothing to do with an "in your face" attitude. Demanding such a harmless and beneficial project be erected elsewhere has everything to do with an "out of my sight" attitude.

I also agree that we should spread these hypocrisy barbs fairly. How about Republican Senator Lamar Alexander from Tennessee? Here, we have an example of a Republican hypocrite. There are plenty on both sides of the aisle who talk the talk, have a history of supporting environmental issues, but fail to walk the walk when real progress might be made in their own back yard.

This is not about throwing barbs at the much maligned Kennedys. This is about holding our representatives accountable for acting in a way that conflicts with our government's own environmental policies. Our politicians are throwing away millions and millions of dollars to further clean energy in this country, yet the same politicians are doing everything in their power to see to it that NONE of those millions ever get put to good use.

Magical,

In my view, you have just touched on the crux of the issue. As you stated, there is a reason we take to the shores and the mountains to get away from it all. Should we ignore the warnings that unchecked global warming will forever destroy our coastal ecosystems? If we continue down this "MORE NOW" path, as you put it, all that remain of many of our beautiful mountain ranges will have to be leveled by strip mining for more coal.

We certainly must weigh the pros and cons of these projects as we seek to meet our clean energy goals. However, the fight to preserve our "viewscapes" is one that should be secondary to making sure we are making every effort to insure those cherished views remain for everyone, not just the chosen few.

Magical,

If I may venture my own answer (I am certain bryfry has his own), the hypocrisy is in claiming their are "appropriate landscapes" for such projects, but dismissing Nantucket Sound as one of them despite sound evidence to the contrary.

This post came before the announcement, so be bemused and bewildered no more.

Gadfly said:

"I have trouble recognizing my own views when stated by others."

Do you have trouble recognizing your own words?

What is the next step after we are done persecuting people for their religious beliefs "charlie" and "sister wife"? Where do I sign up with you guys?

I was reading a Florida newspaper the other day, and rather than making the war into their political soap box they had a regular column with the thoughts of living soldiers in war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan. It was really very informative, and brought a perspective that we very rarely get in our local media (or in the mainstream media for that matter). None of these soldiers sounded as though they were "asking what they could be doing for themselves." On the contrary, they were celebrating what they were doing for the freedom of people other than themselves.

We should concentrate just as much on the purpose of our living soldiers and their perpective on this war as we do on the importance of each and every one that does not make it home. Had you been in a bar full of Marines, I wonder what course your conversation would have taken.

It would be much easier if those opposed to this war could reduce the supporters of it to war mongers and self serving cretins, with screwed up ideas of patriotism. It would be a simple, open and shut case, but is it?

Brian,

Cape Light Compact could be reworked into an entity that locks in a rate and purchases directly from Cape Wind on our behalf, could it not? From what we are seeing with our present electric rates, the idea of locking in a rate with a company that can and will produce power without dependence on oil is something we should be embracing, not rejecting.

Monponsett,

The mention of the "White Bread" all star team had NOTHING to do with bias against the GOP.

Oh, and you are a CIA agent? I had heard they were schooled in sensitivity training these days...

Monponsett,

I pointed out your "White Bread" all star team post as another obvious example of bias. That you claim not to be critical of Romney based on his being Republican is laughable. Even his Democrat Governor peers have expressed their admiration.

Barbara:

I was referring to Audubon's survey of the only endangered species in the area, the Roseate Terns. I should have been more specific.

Direct quote from Audubon's public spokesperson: "Our three years of data shows that the majority of Roseate Terns, as they migrate around that area, avoid Horeseshoe Shoal."

Is there some piece of information that you are aware of that I am missing?

Magical,

Did you read their avian survey results?

Brian,

So, are you willing to join me in a Ban Cape Wind, Fire Up the Nukes campaign?

Magical,

"The Audubon Society supports the ""responsible planning and development"" of offshore renewable energy resources."

Since early on in this debate, the Alliance and other Cape Wind opponents (including the Cape Cod Times) have somehow twisted this statement into being against the Cape Wind project. I wish I still had the article from the Cape Cod Times from May 27, 2003, when the Audubon Society came out with their position statement on Cape Wind. The Cape Cod Times immediately spun it into opposition of this project, when it was anything but.

Since then, the Mass. Audubon Society has conducted their own studies, and have concluded there is no danger to the birds. If anything, their position appears to be more in favor than it was before.

As Mass. Audubon found in their study, the avian argument against this project does not fly. Since the migratory route question has been brought up again, it is also worth repeating the dramatic differences between the oft mentioned Altamont Pass wind towers, and the modern turbines that Cape Wind will be using. Technologies have changed a great deal in the last 20 years.

1) The 80's vintage blades were shorter, lower to the ground, and had to move much faster to produce the same amount of energy as can be produced today by longer, slower moving blades.

2) The bigger blades on modern turbines are also far easier for birds to spot and avoid than the old-school wind towers in Altamont.

3) The towers were only 25 feet apart in Altamont Pass. Cape Wind's turbines would be closer to a half mile apart.

4) The Altamont towers were constructed in a way that attracted nesting raptors. The newer towers are solid tubes that can not be nested in.

Magical,

The Massachusetts Audubon Society conducted their own study due to their concerns for an endangered species common to the project area:

"If it looked like these birds were going to be further jeopardized in the northeast as a result of this project then we would have some very, very serious concerns and strong doubts about whether it's a viable project, but we don't see that. Our three years of data shows that the majority of Roseate Terns, as they migrate around that area, avoid Horeseshoe Shoal."

Gadfly,

"Rice is black in skin only"?!?!

What makes a person black inside and out... being a liberal Democrat?!?!

PULEEZ:

A female, black Democrat is a "soul sistah," but a female, black Republican is a puppet for "country club" Republicans. And nobody called you on such a racist remark?

Condoleeza Rice's accomplishments speak for themselves. That you would deny her this simply based on your unthinking, discriminatory attitude is sickening.

Here is a link to her accomplishments: http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ricebio.html

Please read it and come back and tell me she is a puppet again.

Hey! Cape Cod Today's Google rankings are skyrocketing- must be the inflatable girlfriends. Nothing like biker gangs, sperm, HIV, and inflatable sex toy references to liven things up and draw an audience.

I heard that the Cape Cod Times is looking for a reporter to keep the score at needle exchanges Monponsett. You wouldn't have to sacrifice your theme...

To Anonymous: Apparently you have never been in a ballot box with me. I imagine I should be grateful for that.

Monponsett:

Do you know anything about Governor Romney beyond his being our governor? Get a tissue, dry your crocodile tears and take a look at our past Presidents. Playing politics for years is no prerequisite for being President.

Actually, from the looks of things, we would be better off with someone who has not even looked at the ladder, let alone climbed it.

Barbara:

You say, "We need to assess the appropriate locations for offshore industrial use."

By this, are you saying there are more appropriate locations for offshore wind projects? Or are you saying we need to assess and seek out such locations someplace else?

Would you admit that, by your standards and arguments, there would never be a proper place for offshore wind farms; and therefore, the government is just wasting millions on the idea of easing our oil dependence?

Barbara,

You said, " ""Benign"" according to Drew."

This project is benign, not according to me, but in every definition of the word. The only true argument is the visual impact the Wind Farm will have, and that is in the eye of the beholder. By "benign" I was referring to this project's physical effect on the ecology of Nantucket Sound.

Crusader,

You didn't happen to write an article for the Cape Cod Times about bloggers a few weeks back did you? In it, there appeared to be some confusion about what a blogger is, and you seem to be suffering the same misconception. A blogger is someone who has a blog. A commenter is someone that posts comments to a blog. Bloggers can comment to other blogs, and commenters could also be bloggers, but you really should try to separate the two in your holier than thou tirades. You seem to be lashing out at your fellow bloggers, and I do not see where your fellow bloggers have caused you or anyone else any grief here.

Crusader,

99% of the time, these comment sections are ripe with people arguing what they feel is the best solution to a given problem. I am curious how you suggest the debates in these comment sections be conducted without one side or the other being what you consider "naysayers."

Not that you would listen to a fellow blogger who habitually disagrees with you, but doesn't it seem hypocritical that your determination of rudeness only applies to those who contradict your side of an argument?

May I suggest you refrain from making pharisaic accusations against your fellow bloggers? Let she who has not shown a continual pattern of fellow blogger bashing cast the first stone.

In an earlier address from Gadfly, he said: "CPN should be publicly outraged at the shabby review done by the Corps."

Obviously, I can not speak for all Clean Power Now members. However, I am personally more outraged that any further review is necessary. An unbiased analysis of this project clearly reveals the short-lived, physical impact that this project will have on the ecology of Nantucket Sound. The absence of any other physical impact, aside from what some would claim as their personal seascapes, reveals that the opposition to this project amounts to nothing more than environmental elitism.

Cape Wind's Clean Power Now supporters are not all liberal extremists as you describe. Every cause has their extremists to be sure, but support for this project should not be determined by our political beliefs. Support for this project should be determined by its benefit to all, the analysis of its true impact, and questioning the motives and expertise of arguments for both sides, rather than just one's emotionally chosen side.

Crusader,

You should be asking yourself what is in it for you and future generations, not what is in this for those of us who support it. Does there have to be some evil, ulterior motive for everything in your world?

Have you ever ventured to Clean Power Now's web site? This web site best explains what we are fighting for here:
http://www.cleanpowernow.org/

I am not sure who blessed your post with the Cape Cod themed Christmas Tree, but it is very creative and representative of our little sand bar. Well done!

"Governor Romney believes we should reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, but we need to make sure that we do not harm the energy-consuming businesses in Massachusetts." ???

Nine northeast states were ready to announce an agreement to lower emmissions, but now Rhode Island and Massachusetts appear to be backing out. Governor Romney wants to amend the agreement to include a cap on what our energy producers will have to pay to emit "certain amounts" of greenhouse gases. It sounds more like he is trying to protect energy producers (dirty ones) rather than "energy-consuming businesses" as they stated. If the fear is that lowering emmissions will make it impossible for these producers to keep up with demand, then perhaps the Governor might want to rethink his stand on Cape Wind. We have a great natural resource right off our coast here in Massachusetts that could easily alleviate the Governor's (and our power producer's) concerns.

Barbara,

Even one hundred years of real estate experience can not alter real estate values that have not changed in other countries where wind farms have been built. Why would it be different here on Cape Cod?

To Dick Armey's pal,

I would hope that blue blooded environmentalists, and anyone else in support of this project, are adult enough to put principles before personalities.

Barbara,

I am sorry that you took offense to my belief that even as a tourist you are not immune to the not-in-my-backyard label. I do try not to label people, but find it difficult buying the "pure intentions" defense from someone who claims no ties here. I have a hard time accepting arguments against a project that could pave the way toward my children being able to breathe cleaner air someday (regardless of the source, nothing personal). I especially find it tough to swallow from non-residents who are not stuck breathing the terrible air we breathe here.

As for the views, in other countries the property values have not been affected negatively, so I am curious what your husband's opinions are based on other than "feelings." During my 36 years here on Cape Cod, there have been many changes (especially in real estate development) that have been depressing to witness. However, we eventually adjust and accept these changes as part of the landscape and our growing population. After the initial novelty wears off, wind turbines will quickly become something we won't even notice.

Related note:

In the current Republican proposed budget, the northeast would receive $1 BILLION more for low-income heating assistance. This means that while our tax dollars are SUBSIDIZING the use of more energy, we will also be spending billions promoting energy conservation. Yet, here we are bickering about a project that represents forward progress on this issue.

Nothing wrong with this picture at all...

The "G" word (GOOGLE) is rarely mentioned in these obituaries. In between phone calls at work, I can click on Google News and get news stories as they happen. The newspapers are still good editorial fodder, but newspaper editors seem to be dooming themselves by their bias (deciding what we should and should not be reading) and disconnect with their readership.
Interactivity and fairness are key to the modern media, and newspapers (especially their editors) seem to be dropping the ball.

We will always have the need for quality journalists, but the continued employ of biased editors in the role of story and letter to the editor filters has become a hindrance to continued readership.

Drewmat,

I do not denigrate all veterans, just Senator Kerry. There is nothing honorable about him or his service tot his country. He received his three purple hearts, without a scar to show for it, or the need for a hospital trip, and then proceeded to tell lies about his fellow soldiers. That is denigrating to fellow veterans, not my speech.

Senator John Kerry has consistently had one of weakest track records on national defense in the Senate. He has openly criticized our intelligence community after terrorist attacks, yet he has made every effort to disassemble and block their ability to protect us. If it were left up to Senators like John Kerry, there would be no country for him to lead. There is diplomacy (or international fair play as anonymous put it) or there is being a doormat. If we followed his lead, Senator Kerry would make us the doormat. There is nothing funny about self-centered foolishness.

Canola Oil is good swimmins Brian:

It is lowest in saturated fat, high in cholesterol-lowering mono-unsaturated fat and the best source of omega-3 fats of all popular oils.

But Canola is not what we are talking about when we are talking about 40,000 gallons of mineral oil in a triple containment system is it?

Your comments are entertaining Brian, but not factual. If you are worried about swimming, wildlife and beach conditions, I think we have far greater worries than thousands of gallons of mineral oil in triple containment. Take a deep puff on your inhaler and come up with some fact based arguments.

Magical Eye,

I very much appreciate your passion for animals, and the conviction of your beliefs. There are too few who stay so unselfishly true to their cause.

However, your expertise in the humane treatment of animals obviously does not transfer into the defense of our country and humans. Had we not intervened, Iraq was, and would have continued to be, a serious threat to build and use weapons of mass destruction. That the equipment and materials used in the manufacture of these weapons have vanished does not change the FACT that they were there and that this was an admitted goal of Saddam Hussein's regime.

One of the key articles in the media claiming that officials in Iraq had failed to uncover any nuclear threat (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17707-2003Oct25?language=printer) was proven (by David Kay, chief UN Weapons Inspector) to be full of misrepresentations and lies. The Washington Post later went back to print a "correction" (a disgustingly incomplete "correction" I might add) of its reporter's "errors", but the damage had already been done. Everyone now speaks these lies as truth, and calls those who speak the truth liars.

Were they LIES when told us over and over again by the Clinton administration? Or did they somehow become LIES once there was a Republican President saying the same things that have been spoken of Saddam Hussein for fifteen years?

The Story of Hook's Worm:

'E's passed on! This worm is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!

'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't hung 'im from the hook 'e'd be pushing up the daisies!
'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig!
'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!

'E's an ex-Worm!

I once had a "friend" (you will note I said had) who found it hysterical that I pulled over to the side of a highway to give a bird that flew into my pick up's front grill a roadside burial. I do not believe caring for animals is exclusive to people opposed to this wind farm. Some of us find more comfort knowing that the pursuit of clean energy is more important to all of earth's inhabitants.

Perhaps if we started calling them sexual "PREDATORS" (as they are), instead of sex "offenders," we might briefly awaken more people to the seriousness of this issue. It seems the "offender" label has lost its punch.

Label them and treat them as what they are. We have thousands upon thousands who do not belong out on our streets. Yet another symptom of our diseased society.

My Two Cents,

Thank you, I appreciate your kind words.

Democrant

Were I to expound on my own thoughts beyond Friedman's here, it appears I would be wasting my breath based on the comments above. It is my opinion (as well as Friedman's) that our problems in this country are more social than economic. Money is not the cure to our social ills. At some point, we will be forced to recognize the difference between compassion and enabling.

Jack,

Did you read the related "Can wind farms like the one proposed off Nantucket Island provide significant amounts of alternative energy? Yes / No" articles in the same newspaper?

Our local should be taking notes that we are getting our news from 2,432 miles away.

"Nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own."
~ Milton Friedman

Cape Cod Times... is that a local paper?

Win Tin, Burma’s most famous journalist, celebrated his 75th birthday from his cell in Insein prison this year.

Be grateful that Reporters Without Borders does not have to deliver your birthday card Blogfather!

Happy Birthday!

Democrant,

I merely attempted to let you know I was not casting a blanket judgement over you or anyone else here. I'm not sure what part of my comments you misconstrued.

You said, "any implication that I am opposed to putting a wind farm in the Sound is simply untrue." Yet, in your own blog you state that the Wind Farm is "not a win-win situation" and seem to resent the implication that being against it somehow paints opponents as not "green." It seems you already have decided that anyone for this project thinks they are "greener" than you and you are reacting to them accordingly. I have relatives that are against this project and I think no less of them as a result. I'm not sure what I have said here that caused you to feel otherwise- I just expressed my support for the project, and encourage others to do the same.

As for the Denmark study, I think any extensive study of bird behavior in relation to a wind farm more than apply here, they are critical to the debate.

I am surprised that people have this new found concern for migratory birds. The Waterbird Society must be taking in new members like mad...

An interesting blog on this subject for anyone who is interested: http://jimbuie.blogs.com/journal/2005/10/while_i_applaud.html

The "geographical cure" AA members speak of is the false assumption that a change of venue will somehow magically cure one's problems. Many alcoholics try this method of escape, as they often consider all of their problems to be external.

Unfortunately, the rule that "wherever you go, there you are" applies. We are the authors of our own disease, not the victims of our environment.

Hasn't Kennedy come face to face with the black Merman before? Oh... you said "Morman."

This is certainly a subject we should all be aware of and informed on. I appreciate that JC has brought it up. However, it is not one that most of us are capable of discussing for lack of medical knowledge. This is one subject we should all be intelligent enough to shut our traps about, and listen to reasoned voices like Mr. Cavanaugh's above, for example. Politicizing a flu outbreak that has not yet occured is pathetic, as well as a distraction from the real issues involved. A crisis of this magnitude requires protocol be followed(something many here seem to be missing). I am confident that anyone's comments that were deleted here were examples of those who do not grasp proper conduct.

Here on Cape Cod, we have many excellent wildlife centers working closely with sick and injured birds. I would hate to see their hard work provide an open door to this problem here on Cape Cod and elswhere. I am sure this issue will be taken seriously by our wildlife advocates.

To JC:

Were tax cuts brought up because you feel we need more revenues to meet this crisis? This country has more than enough tax revenue. I would still like to see some manner of graduated progressive tax someday, but I don't see increasing taxes as the solution to our current problems.

Repeat question to WB,

Don't you think there is a huge difference between "buying" opinions and being forced to bypass a hostile, uncooperative media to explain a meaningful education agenda?

This is comparable to Cape Wind, for example, being forced to distribute the truth about a project that has all along deserved fair, unbiased media recognition.

"The "Checks and Balances" we hear about all the time, concern the three branches of Government."

Actually our founders were more concerned with our Executive and Legislative branches in creating their "checks and balances" JC. I don't think they could have predicted (without collapsing into hysterics) that our State Courts and Supreme Court would be "legislating" and twisting law to suit present day ethical and moral questions.

Howie,

Is it ridiculous for someone to defend someone else's religion?

I can assure you, I am not the only one who has this question.

WB,

Don't you think there is a huge difference between "buying" opinions and being forced to bypass an uncooperative media to explain a meaningful education agenda?

This is comparable to Cape Wind, for example, being forced to distribute the truth about a project that has all along deserved fair, unbiased media recognition.

Aviatorsky,

Where are the numbers to support your claims that real estate owners facing the farm will lose property value? "As I see it" does not qualify as evidence.

Other countries with visible wind turbines, such as Denmark and Australia, have seen no decrease in property values at all.

There is no need to move further offshore what can be built closer to shore with no impact.

It seems that many of us, along with our educators and the media, need to play some catch up with a world that is changing. The stubborn belief that the antiquated philosophies of yesterday can somehow apply to today's problems is obtuse. Life is reactive. The media, our educators, and many of our chuckle-headed, flip-flopping politicians bear witness to our inability to confidently react to the world around us. Clinging to these outdated methods of operation will be the downfall of more than just one sided newspapers.

I find it interesting that JC and others seem to have some sort of insider knowledge of Mr. Bennett's inner workings. Taken at face value (and out of context), I would have to agree that what he said was reprehensible. However, I prefer to give someone who professes to be against abortion the benefit of the doubt when they are speaking of someone else's outlandish hypothesis. There are enough good people defending Bill Bennett, that I have to believe the man is no racist. If we judge our politicians based on their past personal battles we will be quickly left without worthy representatives.

The bias and incompetence at the Cape Cod Times goes right to the top. It is sad that we are slowly losing our alternatives to their monopoly.

The National Ledger poses some very important questions regarding the Tom Delay indictment which bear repeating. Hopefully the media will ask these when they are done doing their happy dance.


"Here are some questions that need to be answered:

What did the prosecutor say during his speech at a Democrat fundraiser about the Delay case and about the ongoing investigation into Delay's campaign finances? In most states such conduct is an ethics violation punishable by disbarment.

Did the prosecutor contact any Democrat Party bigwigs such as DNC chairman Howard Dean, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Harry Reid, etc. and discuss the Delay investigation? Did they contact him? Did Earle have contact with state Democrat leaders prior to the indictment? What did he discuss with his friend Ben Barnes, a known Bush hater whose own daughter called him liar on several occasions when he changed his story about Bush's National Guard enlistment?

What conversations about the case, if any, did Earle have with Dan Rather's daughter Robin? Did he discuss the case with Dan who attended a 2000 Democrat Party fundraiser for Earle?

Why did it take so many grand juries before Earle finally got the indictment he wanted? What was the evidence Earle presented to that fifth grand jury that caused them to indict Delay?

In his case against Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, it's been alleged that Earle was involved in unlawful and unethical practices during the investigation of the conservative senatorial candidate. What were these questionable activities? Why were they not subject to further investigation?

Why is Earle discussing cases and smearing unindicted Bob Bullock, who was George Bush's political mentor, during a Democrat fundraiser? The grand jury in the Bullock case refused to indict yet Ronnie Earle discussed this case at a partisan event?

Why is the published indictment so short on substantial allegations? Why is there practically no mention of Tom Delay?"

...the real dangers being the millions of barrels transported through our waters to power plants (in case you were unaware).

Drew Bryden (Dead Bloggers)

Mr. Mullin,

The oil will be in triple containment systems to protect against any spills.

If you were honestly concerned with oil spills and clean up, your focus would be directed at the real dangers- not fantastic ones.

Drew Bryden (Dead Bloggers)

Wowzer,

Were it my mother making these statements I would be both embarassed and ashamed.

Joyce,
I am unable to serve, but I would be proud to do so if called. Aside from my age being prohibitive, the reasons are none of anyone's business.

Joyce,

It seems if anyone needs to "lighten up" it is you.

Billy,
Saddam Hussein was the most wanted man on the planet. He is no longer a threat. I would not be willing to risk your life, mine or countless thousands on a hunch that there were no weapons. The weapons are not the issue- the threat of Saddam Hussein was.

The thoughts and opinions expressed in my blogs are mine and mine alone. Should I be affected by something you said, the President said, or the New York Times said, that would not change. Travel the blogosphere and you will find blogs that are simply parroting others views, cutting and pasting others opinions, and directing people to other blogs that the blogger has found worthy of linking to. My blogs are my opinions- my reactions to the world around us. I am sure it would be more comfortable for you if I just crawled away into my own corner to blog, but not much progress whould be made in that. If we keep preaching only to those who agree with us, the output gets very predictable. For me, having others around to point out the weaknesses of our arguments and where we have been close-minded is critical to growth. Maybe you aren't interested in progress...

p.s. I have never missed an election since my eighteenth birthday. Does this make me eligible to blog?

JC,

Debates occur when people disagree with the conclusions drawn by others. You seem to disagree with mine, as I most definitely disagreee with yours. If you did not expect debate or dissention, you should have taken this into account when you began placing your views in the public eye for all to see. I am sure it would be much easier if everyone agreed with your narrow view of things. As for "blogging up" the main page - that is what bloggers do, they blog. I am not sure what part of that concept you missed.

Should you not wish to be called out on denigrating those who disagree with you, I would suggest you simply think more about what you are saying. I didn't say these things, you did. "Now in my humble opinion (hit comment for yours)..." I am not putting words in your mouth, nor would I attempt to. It seems that you assume everyone thinks just as you do. I hit the comment button as you suggested, and now I am the bad guy? Take some responsibility for your opinions. Either own them, or disown them. You can't throw all of this out there and then be immune to criticism from those who are offended.

As for my personal life (yes you made this personal), you obviously know or care nothing about my personal relationship, or you certainly would not be making assumptions about my sex life, marriage and adoption - all very serious decisions. Perhaps marriage and adoption are something taken lightly by you, but they are both much more serious propositions for most. Apparently for you race would be a consideration in adopting. For us, it would most certainly not. Thank you for your concern?

Perhaps you should go back and read the progression of the dialogue here before you accuse me of attacking you... it was most definitely the other way around. I simply disagreed with your opinions, nothing personal about it. The personal attack came from you and you alone, it is right here in black and white for all to see. Why don't you read it for yourself?

Jammie,

If you really cared about the environment you would be commending those things as worthy.

Your predisposition to rudeness shows no bounds.

Jammie,
Do you have any clue as to how dedicated I am to cleaning up our environment? I use my bicycle for transportation and I am a contributing supporter of Cape Wind for that very reason. I just don't take unproven theories as gospel. There are many who believe we are actually headed for a cooling spell due to slowing solar activity. Try not to be so judgemental of a person before you know them.

CapeGal,

What courage is there in being an anonymous "reporter?"?!

What have we done for society lately? To live a moral life, which is what I am trying to do, I must do much more than just preform good deeds for society.

What we are doing is complaining and what J.C. is doing is not?

Take the blinders off Cape Gal. That you equate religiously intollerant rants with "wonderful writing" reveals your taste in free expression... well researched indeed.

JC,
First, thank you for clarifying your population control theory. Asking what we will do when "women don't even have a ""morning after"" pill to take with their ""morning after"" coffee" seemed (and still seems) a rather cavalier attitude toward the concept of procreation and led me into my "monologue." Funny how my opinions are a monologue, yet yours are something else?

Second, I never voiced any support for the radical anti-abortion groups or their beliefs, so I am not sure where that tangent came from. I was discussing decaying values... nothing else.

Third, my fiance and I have very seriously discussed adopting a baby in the aftermath of this catastrophe. To assume you know something about me or my beliefs based on your natrrow mindedness is just sad.

Fourth, Pat Robertson is not my hero. I never said he was. I am not even religious. I just can't stand this growing left wing trend of maligning faith-based programs and Christian groups. This reeks to me of the worst kind of prejudice. I really get upset when I see the words "faith-based" used in a negative context, and preachers names being thrown out there in attacks on other's beliefs (regardless of their own weaknesses). I am sorry that you disagree, but I think that morals and family values are a very serious issue that played an enormous part in the lives of the victims of this disaster (whether prior to this storm or subsequent to it).

This whole debate has been propelled forward by those who immediately blasted the President after this hurricane hit... the day it hit. To accuse those who disagree of getting on the soap box instead of saving lives is the most ridiculous attempt to deflect blame in this. It was faith-based organizations first trying to aid victims in this; and, the last time I checked, money has no political affiliation or beliefs.

We are all paying the price for years of misdirected priorities and decay. Should you disagree with that, I am very sorry for you.

Anon and Paul,

I am not here to debate Pat Robertson's beliefs- read my comments. Pat Robertson and the "Christian" ministers you are so quick to dismiss have the right idea when it comes to declining moral values.

Paul,

Your labelling me as a "right-wing parrot" is a typical "left-wing" response: denigrate someone whose beliefs you can't swallow, then ignore the issue at hand. If my beliefs make me a "right-wing parrot," then I will proudly wear that label. It is people like you who push those of us in the middle, further and further to the right.

Explain to me why it is that 200,000 Hispanics in the same economic and transportation situation were able to get out.

You had me right there with you JC, right up until “Especially if Mr. Bush gets the Supreme Court he wants and women don't even have a "morning after" pill to take with their morning after coffee.” Although I can agree with you on most points (aside from your unquestioning certainty about global warming) I am curious about your population control philosophy. Is that really the answer? Abortion and the morning after pill? I am just trying to get you to clarify what you are saying there. If earth's immune system is trying to fight anything off, I would propose that it is the steady decline of morals and personal responsibility that this statement represents.

“Seeing sick, starving, homeless people on our front steps is something a little harder to ignore.”
While this statement on the outside is very caring and understanding of a sensitive topic, it ignores the underlying issues behind it. What we were confronted with after hurricane Katrina was a segment of our population that was “set up for the fall.” Much of the poverty in our country can be traced back to years of learned reliance on welfare. We have a whole segment of the population that could not help themselves if given the tools to do so because they are so conditioned to having someone else do it for them. For every poverty stricken person who was waiting for rescue in New Orleans, I can show you a person new to this country (perhaps not even here legally), unable to speak the language, and yet completely capable of beginning a life here – and able to evacuate themselves and others in their community. I am not saying there should not have been better evacuation plans. There certainly should have. I am saying that we are not addressing the real problems resulting from overwhelming teenage pregnancy, absentee fathers, welfare reliance and dropout rates. It takes a responsible family to raise a responsible child and we are completely ignoring this issue. We have a whole segment of our population caught in a cycle of degeneracy: broken families, welfare, crime, violence, drugs and alcohol abuse. These are all symptoms of a disease that nobody likes to admit plagues America: decaying moral values.

You can poo poo Pat Robertson and his ilk, but they are on to something that some seem too willing to overlook. They are very conscious (more than most of us) of the deterioration of our values, families and communities. The good works of these faith-based organizations are shunned, ignored or unnoticed by those offended by the idea of religion. The battle these groups are fighting to preserve our country's moral fiber should be accepted by all of us as critical to the survival of our society. The path we are headed down is a dark one. Even one who does not believe in evil should be able to recognize that. When headlines read of newborns dumped in trash heaps and we have different levels of sex offenders on our streets, it is time we woke up and recognized the seriousness of our degenerating society. Regardless of beliefs, we all have a common interest in climbing out of this hole we are digging for America. We are kidding ourselves if we think there was that much difference between what we witnessed in New Orleans before and after Katrina. What we saw was a snapshot of what this society is becoming. It quickly degenerated into a pit of hopelessness, moral decay and suffering. To blame government for this free fall into misery is both ignorant and wrong.