CapeCodToday Blog Chowder

I couldn't really make it all the way through this "story". Can someone tell me, are there any actual "facts" in the story? My impression is that this is a rumor and some guessing. Can someone please tell me I'm wrong? I hate to be a stickler, but please limit your response to actual facts, not innuendo. I like stories that give me who what where when. This gives me who and then a lot of guesses as far as I can tell.

oops, that wasn't capemom. It was me. Sorry capemom. I should have logged out first.

Again, there is no reason why it would EVER be acceptable to run ANY ad in ANY CVB or Chamber fullfillment piece (like this guide) that portrays the destination negatively. It is the OPPOSITE of their mission and reason to print the guide. Anyone who doesn't understand that, doesn't know the first thing about CVB/Chamber fullfillment pieces/guide books. To even debate and argue about this is sheer foolishness, as anyone who knows about these things INSTANTLY knows that it is a major mistake by the chamber. It is really sad that politics has interfered with the mission of the chamber. Time for a change of leadership in the CCChamber, or the creation of a real CVB and not some merchant assn. that it is becoming. The ad is dishonest, as tourist would never see the thing anyway, duh.

Capri, Don't you understand, that it doesn't matter if the Chamber is pro or against the wind farm. Running that ad runs against their reason for being, their mission.

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!

What evil nepotism inspired the creation of those evil benches? The backs go straight up, vertical. The bottoms angle or curve up. This creates literally an acute angle to the seat, which is not comfortable. Evil, evil nepotism bench contract! evil.

Nice job Tim. Looks like you had that story up a couple minutes after the rescue.

http://www.uscgnewengland.com/go/doc/778/137328/

I would wonder extremely what caused them to capsize and wtf a 14 foot boat is doing out there that is capable of sinking (ie., not full of floatation like a Boston Whaler). This whole story souds VERY odd.

Kerry isn't a disgrace. Bush is a miserable failure. go ahead, type "miserable failure" into google.com and click "i'm feeling lucky". I dare you.

Again, He was trying to make fun of BUSH. duh. He was implying that Bush didn't do well in school and see where it got him? mired in Iraq. How dense do you have to be to think he would be stupid enough to put down the troops? You people are retarded if you think he wasn't trying to poke fun at BUSH, not dissing the troops. Come on guys, you are starting to look silly.

Kerry said it was a botched joke. To me, that seems obvious. It is obvious to me that he meant to say that if you didn't do well in school you would end up lik BUSH, mired in Iraq. Duh!

This is typical Rush Limbaugh anti-intellectual, snippet and anecdote as proof of reality B.S.

This is an obvious political ploy to distort one silly statement and try to make political advantage of it by the cynical republican election campaign. They are trying to get all the servicement to vot republican by taking one botched joke and blowing it up out of all proportion. The best thing servicemen could do would be to vote Democratic! That way, they wouldn't be dying at the rate of 100+ per month in order to facilitate Bush's neo-colonial nation-building fiasco.

People need to avoid dangerous species. Some fish are fine. Some are toxic and should not be eaten at all. I'm sure the research sited above is fine and fish can be healthy. I'm just saying BEWARE and don't trust the FDA.

Go here: (drag mouse to highlight, right click "copy" then rt. click "paste" into browser address bar.
http://www.mercurypolicy.org/new/documents/CanTheTuna061903.pdf

and here:

http://www.mercuryexposure.org/index.php?category_id=5

here is a good resource:
http://www.sierraclub.org/mercury/

A friend of mine at IFAW recently told me that they (or maybe the Sierra club) had recently rated Striped Bass at ZERO MEALS per month allowed, because of mercury levels.

Before you eat a fish, you need to know the maximum meals allowed per month from a reputable source.

I am SHOCKED when I hear things like one of my kids 8 year old friends eats WHITE tuna every day. If you don't know why that is bad, then maybe you need to find out.

FDA is not testing tuna any more and their guidelines are wrong.

Greg, Unfortunately, most people dont' know that toxic mercury is much worse in fish than believed. Fish can be very detrimental to your health. Many species have very harmful levels of mercury. Bioaccumulation of HG (mercury) increases going up the food chain. Try finding out which are safer species. Typically, younger fish and non-predators are fine, unless they come from a specific lake or area with govt. warnings and meal restrictions. The more I research this issue the more scared I get. It is obvious that the FDA is not doing what it should to protect people. They stopped testing tuna in the late 90's. They use those historic levels as benchmarks for estimating what is acceptable consumption of fish/mercury in today's fish -WITHOUT TESTING ANY MORE. They have bent over to the big food business lobby and Americans are being poisoned. See more info and link in my next comment below

Well, now that I know that no one was hurt...

HA HA HA HA HA! LOL!1

I got a pretty good chuckle out of this, since I used to go to that Midas all the time and i know that setup very well. THere is a pretty good hill there. The truck would have gone over a short retaining wall just before coming down on the sidewalk/street. That is what bent the whole truck, landing a 3 foot ski jump. They are lucky it didn't miss the house and go down into the little swamp and cause a gas/oil cleanup situation and costs/fines. Freekin' funny.

Amazing stuff Tim! Great photos. BTW, I noticed that townonline.com finally had the story about the Harwich Heroin guy on their site, but not until YESTERDAY! Talk about a scoop. Way to go. Jay B.

re.: Harwich crash knocks out power

Awesome update! 1:30 AM! wow. I just heard about this on NECN traffic report at 8:00 AM and they say Rte. 28 might be closed until around noon.

Mcfly

You are chiding ME for namecalling? That's a good one! I only said what I did as an OBVIOUS and direct comeback, in kind to your earlier comments. You must actually believe your earlier comments were fact and not "namecalling" that you decry. That is pathetic. I refer to your comment "you have to go slow and speak in generalities" Which provoked my obvious reply of "dim". sheesh! You can't name-call and then complain about someone namecalling in direct reply. Typical liberal bashing, unthinking conservative, Rush ditto-head language.

Just as Rush does, you try to prove a large point with a meaningless anecdote. Whether or not the CCTimes is liberal has no bearing on whether the U.S. has or doesn't have a "liberal media". sorry, BZZZZ! Wrong! next question...

The overwhelming weight of science tells us that global warming is real and that ignoring the problem could be catastrophic. A "wait and see" attitude, based on no or little science is not prudent policy.

I'm voting for Mihos. I can't stand either of them, but Healy is the worst.

Mcfly

I guess your kind of conservative can't tell when a tounge is in a cheek? I'll make it more obvious for you next time, as I realize all you conservatives are a little dim.

anyone who goes spouting on about some mythical "liberal media" is no better than just being a Rush ditto-head. You take it on "FAITH" that it is true, because you can't understand that intelligent people actually believe things differently from you - usually based on facts. I guess if Rush claims there is a "liberal media", and gives one half-baked anecdote then it MUST be true, despite all the studies to the contrary.

The overwhelming scientific evidence points to global warming as being fact. You can have your irrational faith that all the scientists are wrong, but that doesn't change the truth. Call the liberals "slow" and ignore science with faith and keep on skating blindly into the future.

First of all, there is no elite (liberal) media. It is unproved and untrue. See here:
http://www.makethemaccountable.com/myth/LiberalMedia.htm

Second of all, Clinton actually won both of his elections, unlike Bush.

Third, No amount of weak arguments, like yours above, can change the fact that Bush is a babbling idiot and Clinton is extremely intelligent. It is not some phantsm "elite media" that forced people to think that. It is what they obviously percieve. Clinton is articulate and Bush is a retard.

my 2 cents =

Even the Cape's highest rate is less than 1/2 what my frieds pay inside 495 area around Boston. The Cape rates are very low.

http://www.dls.state.ma.us/TaxRates/taxrate.htm

OMFG! I'm moving to an off-shore platform to get away from carjackers on Cape Cod. Who thought I would ever type or say the words "cape cod carjacker". unreal. They need to catch these low lifes and put them away for a long time.

Monponsett, You use "hippies" as a pejorative term. Hippies stood for love, peace and spiritual freedom, etc.

"Conservatives" would actually be a more accurate term, I think - if you meant money grubbing looters bent on taking advantage of poor people and putting them in danger. Or were you just referring to "Carnies"?

BTW, PETA probably actually has a point in being against petting zoos that travel in midway shows, etc., as they are in bad trailers being treated badly. I think where PETA ere's though, is in casting such a wide blanket of villany onto pefectly decent establishments, like the one in the article. That is one BIG reason they come off sounding like such wack-jobs.

If the radical eco-terrorist (as some call PETA) want to be more effective, they won't OVER-generalize like this so much. Having a blanket policy, stating that all petting zoos are dangerous and cruel, etc. etc. limits their credibility. This is because it is false and not true. Don't spout half truths as gospel if you want people to take you seriously.

I've heard that "life is hazardous to your health". OH NOES!!! Everybody panic.

Do petting farms have poop? You bet! Should we inflate a sealed plastic bubble around our kids and protect them so much that they are stifled? NO!

I'm sure petting zoos are responsible for some problems. I'm not saying that it isn't an issue.

I was at that petting zoo with my children. It was spotlessly clean. There was certainly nothing "cruel" about it, unless you think an idyllic farm setting is cruel, in which case there would be bigger issues at play here.

I brought my kids there. The place was beautiful and the children were extremely happy. I would bring them back. I'm guessing that you have not been to that petting zoo. I am confident that your warnings and generalizations are overly broad, to say the least.

I don't get it. They say there is no more pharmacy in Chatham? What about Monomoy Pharmacy and CVS pharmacy. What am I missing here?

The main reason our economy is as healthy as it is, and will remain that way, even while all the white people turn gray and white haired, is because we know how to take in immigrants to do the work. Too bad Europe will fall on its face when they all get too old. We will actually have people (Americans) available to do work and support all our old fogeys. If you don't understand the basic demographics of advanced industrial countries' then I can't help you.

Capri, you are a one-issue voter. Deval is pro-wind farm, so you are anti Deval. You are a tree-hugging, animal-loving deep ecologist who all of a sudden is siding with the gun-toting, capital-punishment detractors of Deval.

I wonder how much you would have in common with the type of NRA tough guys who support Healey and attack Deval. Anything at all?

I can add one that I just made up...

WTNNS

It stands for
Welcome
To
Nineteen
Ninety
Seven

I just heard of this great site you should "check out" in "cyberspace" or the "information superhighway", try keyword infoseek

Here is a decent reference BTW...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_slang_phrases

Man, it has been a very stabby week! What the he11 is going on around here?

WBZ is saying it is a stabbing:
..."Cape Cod Woman Found Murdered, Husband Arrested

Boston (WBZ Newsroom) -- A 66-year-old Cape Cod woman is dead and her husband has been arrested for murder.

Police and the district attorney\'s office say the body of Elaine Romero was found at about 6:30 this morning on the porch of a neihbors home on Tahanto Rd.

District Attorney Michael O\'Keefe tells WBZ the victim was stabbed to death in what appears to be a domestic dispute.

Under arrest is her husband, 69-year-old William Romero. He is expected to appear today in Falmouth District Court later today. "...

KMA, you are joking about the 2.5 right? This property has 10+ acres in E. Orleans. I'm surprised it isn't more expensive.

# 7 bedrooms, 8 baths
# Main Residence on 10+ acres
# Carriage House, Equestrian Facilities, and Pool House
# In ground Pool, Tennis Courts, and two ponds on professionally landscaped grounds

Did you go to, and read the listing?

/maybe I just bit on your troll/joke?

I don't know that the blizzard of '78 set any stage for the outer beach breaking through. That just doesn't make much sense. One thing that blizzard DID do though, was cut Monomoy in half.

I would guess that in MA, many/most of these expensive properties belong to families that don't move very often. In the N.E. these properties are frequently in families for generations. In CA, I bet people change houses like they change their trendy clothes... not that I don't like CA :-)

This Chatham story has been picked up by the Associated Press:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/29/ap/tech/mainD8KE6FRO0.shtml

There were just about zero seals when I was growing up on those waters in the 60's and 70's + Now, the seal population is out of control. I don't know when we had that many seals out there, maybe 200 years ago (guess)? I honestly think that they need to have some population control.

I don't fear for the fish population as much as I fear for the human population, at the hands (teeth) of great white sharks.

The whole "heavy government subsidies" argument is such B.S.

Gee, we wouldn't want to give incentives to help create alternative energy or anything, would we. Yeah, that's a horrible idea (NOT!) And the word "subsidy" is basically a lie - a lie, lie lie. Incentives are not subsidies, period.

Here I'm just testing to see if the "embed" code works:

Monponsett is correct.

Libby, I think either the filmmakers were dead wrong or they quoted KILOMETERS per hour and not MPH. 200 kph equals about 124 mph, which was the max sustained winds on the EAST side of the storm.

I'm not saying that Katrina wasn't a powerful and bad, destructive storm. Obviously, it was. I'm just trying to point out that 200mph is just silly.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2005/katrina.html

200 mph winds? Where did that come from? Katrina reache a maximum sustained wind of around 173 mph when it was a Cat 5 in the middle of the gulf. It hit LA with approx. 127 mph max sustained winds (east side of the storm). Winds in New Orleans (on the west side of the storm) were only approx. between 78 and 97 mph sustained. see: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/12/21/katrina/index.html

I'm not getting down on the article. I just read "200 mph" and thought that it didn't sound right. It didn't because it isn't.

Sounds like just another person wanting to blow up the bridges the moment after they grace the Cape with their presence. Tourists have been coming to Cape Cod for many, many decades. The writer doesn't seem to understand that there wasn't such a crush until the Cape became overpopulated with year-rounders. There are at least 20% fewer tourists now than there were in years past. It seems like more because the cape is overrun with "locals" like this whining whashashore. no, you are not a "local". Real locals are actually very likely to draw their families' paycheck from these tourists you scorn. You are deriding the industry that is responsible for more than 50% of the economy of the Cape. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. It isn't the tourists that are the problem, it is really you.

btw, my Cape ancestors were born in the 1500's and moved here in the 1620's. I am a local. I depend on tourism to pay my mortgage and feed my kids. Please stop whining about tourists.

One last reference:

Article:
"Why racial profiling doesn't work"

Terrorist attacks have been carried out by people of all ethnicities. What police need to look for is strange behavior, not dark skin.

By Kim Zetter

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/08/22/racial_profiling/index.html?pn=1

Monponsett,

that is just as nonsensical as profiling on race, and is really part of the definition of racial/religious profiling, as it pertains to terrorism issues. The Nazi's used religious profiling. Do you think that was effective and justified? I'm not calling anyone a Nazi. I'm just using this to make a point and to show the moral equivalence. Besides, ehem,
IT DOESN"T WORK!

To educate yourselves, please go here:
http://www.bepress.com/mwjhr/vol3/iss1/art3/
and click on "Download the Paper" on the top right. just give a quick name and email address (they can be fake, btw) and you will be allowed to view the full article. It will better explain why racial/religious profiling is wrong and ineffective. Come back and try to make an intelligent argument after you read that article. Please, also, someone please cite one single instance where a terrorist has been stopped using racial/religious profiling. You can't, because it hasn't happened. The US has detained and interrogated 5000+ Arab AMERICANS since 9/11 using profiling and not caught one single terrorist

That last link had the "f" dropped off the end of it. It should read:
http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/racial%20profiling%20report.pdf

Again, I would be against racial or physical profiling simply for the reason that it doesn't work and in fact, creates an easy way for the enemy to be sure of success. If it actually worked, I could probably get past the ugly and damaging aspect of institutionalized racism ,which is akin aparthied and Nazism, etc. whether you want to admit it or not.

Fortunately, we don't have to wrestle with this choice, because we don't have to make it, since physical or racial profiling doesn't work.

"Common sense" is not always the best guide for security policy, or any other policy, if it actually flies in the face of good science and proven security industry practices. Anyone with even a cursory scientific understanding of the profiling issue should know that PROFILING DOESN'T WORK. As soon as you institute a profile, all the enemy has to do is keep running tests with different subjects, different types of people, until they find enough that get right through the profile. Then they can be sure of successfully getting past security and carrying out their plan on the given day. With random checks, they can never be certain that all plot members will get through.

Here is an M.I.T. study that shows how science easily trumps common sense in these matters:

http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_10/chakrabarti/

Besides being completely innefective, ethnic profiling is also institutionalized racism. Whatever your take on ACLU, they have an informative piece here:
http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/racial%20profiling%20report.pd
I don't care if it is PC if it works. It doesn't.

I'm amazed that it is even possible to get 9 OUI's! I would understand if you lost your license for life with the third offense, but 9? This is a new law? What was it before, 20? unreal...

While unfortunate, it would be hard to support (as you attempt) the notion with actual facts and statistics, that 2004 was a fluke because of the W/L record Sox vs. Yanks. Until that last series, they were something like 38W/38L vs. each other. You'll have to do a little better than that. The last 5 game series was the anomoly, not everything else.

It is WAY MORE than just Iraq. The fact that you, a CONSERVATIVE, likes him so much is indicitive of the reasons (plural) that ol' Lieberman is done. He is a republican trying to run as a Democrat. Game, Set, Match.

NEXT!

The reasons are simple. There are less tourists here every year. We have lost thousands of rooms to motels turning condo. We have lost hundreds or thousands of rental rooms too, to second homebuyers. The Cape's biggest and most important industry is being squeezed out of existance by high real estate prices and rich retirees buying up the land. The fact is, about 20% fewer tourists come to Cape Cod now than they did 10 years ago. Tourists are the ones that primarily go to the N.Seashore. Case closed.

There is a long history and tradition of people decrying the decay in moral standards, etc. in this country. You are just joining every generation since our founders who have said the same thing. Guess what? It isn't true. If it was, then we would have all been swimming in some sesspool of hell generations ago. Every generation the old coots say that the young generation has lapsed into unthinkable moral decay. Any serious student of history uses this as an obvious case-study. The fact is, that things are just about the same as they ever were, if not better. EVERYONE PANIC! Our Youth is in moral decay and everything is bad! NOT!

croftbs I did my homework. I mentioned the issue of scale two posts before yours.

Robert,
Your blog post above, "USA - Asleep?" is largely about ethanol fuels and cites an example of what Brazil has done. You then try to belittle my comments by saying you didn't mention corn and that I have a corn fetish. That's really not very helpful if we are trying to have an intelligent debate. Your blog post was saying how wonderful Brazil's model is and how alchohol fuels will be so great for the U.S. I brought up just a few important detailed problems with what you propose (there are more, believe me). Anyone who knows the first thing about ethanol production in the U.S. knows that it is all about corn. I guess you didn't know that when you suggested what our national energy policy should be. I think we need many different things to help lessen foreign oil dependance. I like organic corn based ethanol. It doesn't subsidise big business or pollute our drinking water with pesticides, or create a dead gulf of Mexico with fertilizer runoff, or use the land like an expendable resource, etc. etc. etc. BTW, that isn't even close to what our Govt. is doing now.

Any serious analysis of Brazil vs. U.S. ethanol production has to include corn vs. sugar cane. To not do so fails to actually compare the two case studies. Brazil's ethanol production makes sense. It uses cane in an efficient process that makes sense in their country. The U.S. can't make or expand much ethanol production from cane sugar for many reasons. This isn't really all that debatable. The U.S. has an issue of scale too. It just isn't feasible to make anywhere near as high a percentage of home grown fuel here from corn, the only current source for ethanol refining. Corn is very inneficient for ethanol refining. Any serious analysis of the inputs will show that between fertilizer, pesticides, fuel for tractors, fuel for refining, machinery, etc. etc. etc. it just doesn't add up. We, as citizens are on the losing end of a HUGE corporate giveaway that won't lower fuel costs and will end up using up our farmland like a throwaway resource. Also, there are many bad qualities of alchohol as fuel. It is a nightmare for boaters and places with winters, etc. etc. do the math.

Brazil uses sugar cane, not corn. Sugar cane can efficiently be refined into ethanol - not so for corn. Corn is not rich enough in sugars to make sense for fuel use. We can't really expand our sugar production past the gulf and Hawaii. High import duties on ethanol don't allow cheap sources in that would help us. Archer Daniels Midland (US agri-business) uses the 51 cents per gallon we pay to subsidise their production. The U.S. process corn ethanol production actually uses more energy than you end up with in the ethanol. U.S. Agri-businesses are using our tax dollars to sell themselves more fertilizer and pesticides. To be in favor of corn based ethanol or biodiesel, you have to agree that big business practices sustainable farming practices and that that is good for the land. It isn't.

We need to do many different things to increase our energy independance and sustainability. An ethanol policy that actually made sense and that wasn't just a big business give-away by the government would be a good place to start. That is NOT what is happening in Washington right now.

I'm all for the wind farm, but this story has glaring problems with the facts. It takes about 4.5 seconds to find out on google news that...

"...The North Slope field accounts for about 8% of U.S. oil production and is the source of 20% of the crude used by gasoline refineries in California,..."

BP may well supply 20% of U.S. petroleum (or not, I don't know), but the article implies that 20% of our entire oil supply comes from Alaska. It is 20% of the crude used for gasoline refineries in California.

Your post would make perfect sense if there weren't such a thing as science, medicine and facts. The fact is, it has been proved in study after study that needle exchanges work. They help limit the spread of HIV in very real and scientifically measurable ways and amounts. This is not my opinion. This is medical and scientific fact.

next,

You say that the (moral) majority is being subverted and that that is bad. What about when slavery was abolished even though it was morally acceptable at the time, and enjoyed popular, majority support. By your "tyranny of the majority" ideal, it was a bad thing that slavery was abolished. No, sometimes the correct and legal thing to do does fly in the face of "moral" or majority approval. That is why we have a constitution and not mob rule.

You should read Scientific American. If you had, you would be aware of the promise of the next generation of nuke plants that actually use high level waste for fuel. The worst thing we could do right now is bury this waste. We could use it to power our economy for the next couple hundred years if we don't bury it. Nuclear has a bright future in the USA.

Drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will not end America's dependence on Persian Gulf or other oil imports. At peak production in 2026, oil from the Arctic Refuge would only still account for just 8/10 of one percent of world production per year, and only 3 percent of U.S. oil consumption. Even then, gas prices would only be affected by one penny.

According to the Energy Information Agency (EIA) in a report released in March, 2004:

"It is expected that the price of ANWR coastal plain production might reduce world oil prices by as much as 30 to 50 cents per barrel... Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the OPEC could countermand any potential price impact of ANWR coastal plain production by reducing its exports by an equal amount."

The United States has only 3% of the world's oil reserves, yet consumes 25% of the world's oil production. There is simply no way to drill our way to "energy independence".

Wow, I guess you think liberals are boogey men. Too bad for you. If anyone is using "character assasination" it is you with your dogma and simplistic liberal bashing. Bush botched his so called energy policy. Like everything else he has failed at, he formulated it in secret with Cheney's energy industry cronies. It was worked out really well for them but not for regular American citizens. Liberals are not ruining our energy future by trying to preserve wilderness in Alaska. The amount of oil that we could get could possibley lower our gas prices by about 1 penny per gallon 20 years from now. Anwar is no solution to our energy woes by a long shot. Conservatives want to boost oil company profits by literally raping a wildlife sanctuary. They then call liberals names when they try to stop the looting and environmental destruction. Nice try

so, there are around 12 million illegal Mexican aliens here and around 100,000+ per year come over illegaly. I say we just grant around 100,000 more visas every year and be done with all the B.S.

Anyone who knows anything about demographics knows that we need more people to enter the workforce than we are creating with our anemic birth rate. The one thing that can help keep all our rich seniors fat and happy is enough workers to pay for them. Without immigration we won't have enough workers. What's the problem. Just legalize it. It is something that is good for our country.

I'm a guy, so my comments are probably out in left field to most of the women here, but here goes...

I would imagine that Cape Cod would have to be just about the worst place to find a guy. Look at the demographics. Most guys here are either very old, married or are landscapers and heavy drinkers. There are no college kids here in the summer any more, if that is your age. 90% of smart enterprising 18 - 35 year olds get the hell out of here asap. No decent jobs and it costs too much to live here. I would imagine Cape cod would be a great place to meet a semi employed commercial fisherman with a drinking problem though.

oops, the link didn't work. copy/paste this:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D5560-D9B2-137C-99B283414B7F0000&ref=sciam&chanID=sa012

There is no need to thoughtlessly abandon nuclear power. We should get rid of the old plants, but that doesn't mean it can't be done right.

It is a good thing that new technology is coming along to replace these old nuke plants. The next generation of plants will not only be extremely safe, but will actually use high level waste as fuel, thus eliminating the need for storage and disposal.

Scientific American: Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste [ ENERGY ]Fast-neutron reactors could extract much more energy from recycled nuclear fuel, minimize the risks of weapons proliferation and markedly reduce the time nuclear waste must be isolated

BarbaraDurkin et. al.

When you and others start spouting about tax breaks and subsidies, and saying that these kinds of tax incentives are a bad thing, you are dealing in dirty half lies.

These type of incentives are a good thing and have been in place for decades to encourage smart and alternative energy development. When you use sneaky language to call these incentives dirty names you are being dishonest and trying to whip up negative opinion with tired and innacurate dogma. I remember studying PURPA in the 80's and I think a lot of these incentives come directly out of that original wonderful legislation. Are you familiar with the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 [PURPA]? How is that, and the current alternative energy incentives a bad thing? Please elaborate in language that doesn't try to trick people with half-truths and catchy phrases.

A half truth is just as much a lie as a zero truth. I think this issue deserves honest debate and not innacurate and deceptive rhetoric.

cont.

When you talk to a staffer, you can mention that you expect Rep. Delahunt to vote for the bipartisan Sensenbrenner/Conyers "Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act" when it comes to the House floor.

To maximize impact, please call your representative's Washington, D.C. and local office.

I don't mean to "threadjack", but Delahunt seems to have a pattern of doing things that are not good for us regular folks. Look at this email I just received from moveon.org re: his non-vote on net neutrality yesterday. Save the internet and call Delahunt. Use the contacts below to call him re: the wind farm too.
here it is:
Dear MoveOn member,

Yesterday, Net Neutrality advocates stunned the political world by winning a vote overwhelmingly in a House committee. You were a big part of that win.

Unfortunately, your representative, William Delahunt, was not at all a part of it. The free and open Internet was under seige, and your representative in Congress boldly...abstained. While other members of Congress took a stand, He was the only person to vote "present."

Can you call Rep. Delahunt today to demand he publicly support Net Neutrality?

Here are the numbers:

Congressman William Delahunt
Phone: 202-225-3111
District Offices:
Hyannis: 800-870-2626
Quincy: 800-794-9911


When you talk to a staffer, you can mention that you expect Rep. Delahunt to vote for the bipartisan

I love when I hear opponents of the wind farm cite "tax benefits" or talk about Cape Wind receiving all these "tax breaks", etc. as if it is a bad thing.
These "tax breaks" or credits, whatever you want to call them, are INCENTIVES to help create alternative and renewable sources of electrical generation. This is a good thing people. Who disagrees that the govt. should create incentives to help jump start alternative energy projects? Using this kind of "tax break ripoff" language is dishonest and not correct. Anyone who stoops so low to use this tricky language and tactics cannot be trusted in my book.