Skip to main content

View Diary: [ED] My detailed dissection of Robert F. Kennedy Jr 's misguided Op-Ed on Nantucket Wind in the NYT (390 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sorry I cannot tip you (3.82)
    I often read your diaries and as with this one I find them quite good and often a learning tool. My disagreement is not with your diary but with your title. I do not think RKF Jr. is lying, deceitful nor pathetic. I do think he is a NIMBY. I think you do a great job of calling him on this  and would be better served by not getting into a pissing contest with the name calling. Except for the title this was another exceptional diary by you.

    Economic -6.63 Social -5.95

    by Lawdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 06:35:43 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I hear your point (3.76)
      and, as often with the titles of my diaries, I thought long and hard about it. Today, I have very few qualms about putting that title, as all of it is true. His arguments are malicious, deceitful and, occasionally, pure lies. His article cannot have been justified by anything but nimbyism. As an enviromentalist, this charge is a sell out (in that case, to his private interests).

      The fact that he is a well known environmentalist, in addition to his rockstar family name, immediately gives a lot of credibility to his claims, and that can do a lot of damage to the cause of renewable energy, and, by extension, the fight against polluting energy and global climate change.

      Thus I feel that a highly visible and explicit rebuttal, backed by what I think are strong arguments, is necessary.

      The man has shown that he has no principles.

      In the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)
      Read more on the European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe

      by Jerome a Paris on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 06:44:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I guess we just disagree on this one. (4.00)
        We all have our own selfish interests, I have them, you have them and so does RFK, Jr. That does not make any of us unprincipaled but it can makes us all less principaled. I live on a small fishing lake. I find that most people that live on the lake want to protect it and have environmental interests concerning the lake. For many their environmental concern ends at the waters edge. It is amazing however what we have gotten done in our county with rural sewer systems, zoning regulations etc. by exploiting these selfish interests. Many  who support us are Republicans who are against business regulation, higher taxes and zoning regulations are suddenly all for them when shown the benefits of such action.
        We do not tear down walls and build bridges through name calling we do it through education and good sound arguments. Paint RFK Jr. as the NIMBY he is. But do not tear him down so that he is weakened in his next battle to save the environment to the point that he is ineffective. The next battle he fights very easily could be a battle that you would want to fight side by side with him.
        To many times I see us on the left when we disagree with our own also eating our own. RFK Jr. is wrong here, call him out on it. The name calling does nothing to re-enforce your arguments it only weakens RFK, Jr. in the next battle he attampts to fight. Like his father he is flawed as are we all. But he dreams, he wants us to dream, he is not an enemy he simply is one of us, a friend, whom we disagree with on this issue.

        Economic -6.63 Social -5.95

        by Lawdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 07:33:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  unproductive, Jerome (4.00)
        I must disagree with you, too, Jerome.  I recommend most of your diaries, and I "voted" for you to appear as a front-pager, but this diary is too much.  It seems that you're saying that one op-ed negates all the work that Kennedy has done.  Isn't it possible to disagree without all the over-the-top rhetoric and name-calling?
      •  i got your back on the title (3.50)
        RFKjr is using his name and authority to advance a highly personal agenda - that of the NIMBY.  And, since the arguments against putting a wind farm off Nantucket basically boil down to "Rich people shouldn't have their view spoiled", an argument that really won't fly with anyone who can't afford to LIVE on Nantucket, he has to resort to specious, false arguments - complaining about cost and tax subsidies, comparing Nantucket to Yosemite (!), etc.

        Lying, deceitful, and pathetic indeed.  Maybe I could argue that we shouldn't have windmills breaking the skyline of our beautiful midwestern prairies?  After all, they're as beautiful as the ocean.

        Why are there no dinosaurs in the Bible?

        by Leggy Starlitz on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 08:15:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're beautiful prairies are being (4.00)
          destroyed anyway.  Put the windfarms where there is already industry and then preserve some of your praire land.
          When you do, I will be against wind farms being placed in those preservations. Won't you?
          •  By this argument, (3.00)
            the Cape Wind wind farm ought to be great just where they're trying to put it--if fishing and shipping and pleasure-boating and whale-watchers ("industries," not to put too fine a point on it) are already crudding up the pristine waters, why not some wind turbines as well?  Preserve the area closest to the shoreline, which is likely what most people see anyway, and throw them where they'll be barely visible from land.
          •  you misunderstand (none)
            I'm not arguing that windmills shouldn't be put on the prairie.  I love them here!  I'm arguing that HIS comparison to Yosemite is false.  If Nantucket is as precious as Yosemite, maybe he should push to stop running thousands of container ships through there every year.

            Why are there no dinosaurs in the Bible?

            by Leggy Starlitz on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 11:00:24 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  it's not just rich people (none)
          You're so quick to condemn this as a "rich people don't want their view spoiled".  Have you ever actually BEEN to Cape Cod or Nantucket?  Yes, there are rich people, but there are also A LOT of normal bluecollar people who struggle to make ends meet.  Do you know how many old rundown houses and mobile homes there are on the Cape, mixed in with the McMansions?  Some of those old houses look like they haven't been painted in 40 years.  And do you know why?  Because their owners don't have the money.  Many people on the Cape work in tourism-related businesses.  Many others are fishermen (and women).  Have you considered how this wind farm would affect their lives and livelihoods?

          I wouldn't be too quick to slam rich people, either.  Often it's the rich people who are most concerned about environmentalism and preserving our natural resources for future generations to enjoy.  A good example of this is Teddy Roosevelt.

          Perhaps some mighty victory is growing in you now. - Mike Finley

          by hrh on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 09:37:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  of course tourism would be ruined (none)
            Beacon Hill Institute said so, as RFKjr quoted.

            Of course, they're a right wing think tank.  The fact that he's quoting the likes of them to support his position raises my hackles a wee bit.

            Why are there no dinosaurs in the Bible?

            by Leggy Starlitz on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 11:02:43 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Point is ... (none)
            that these people would likely have their lives 'enhanced'. Why?

            -1-  Electricity prices would not rise for a 10-15 period (or at least the share associated with the wind farm).  Thus, they would be deflationary!  Lower electricity bills disproportionate aid the less wealthy?

            -2-  Tourism would likely be boosted -- as every other area with wind farms like this has discovered.  Check out, for example, some of the studies in the diary's links. If these 'poor' rely on

            -3-  Pollution will be lower than otherwise in the area -- better health for those without health insurance?

            -3-  Just like with sinking ships to create man-made reefs, the windmills themselves will be a boom to additional marine life in these areas.  I love fishing around manmade facilities due to density of fish in these areas -- locals there will as well.

            All told, don't get it why someone would think this would be detrimental to the less wealthy ... other than continuation of NIMBY ...

            Well, someone has to have things in their backyard ... and, this is a back yard item that will improve quality of life in 99 out 100 ways to consider those issues.  That is a pretty good balance in my book!

            9/11/05, Day 1469, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

            by besieged by bush on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:07:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks for making this point ... (none)
            ... based upon your first hand knowledge of the area.  Although I moved away permanantly in the 1980's , I speak as someone with significant roots in New England (i.e. I lived 6 years as a kid in the gun-rack country of Maine, washed dishes and played harmonica  in Provincetown during college, spent 5 years in Cambridge as a research fellow while my wife wife attended grad school) -- that said, I will take the view from the top of Saddleback Mountain (Rangeley ME) over any I've seen at Yosemite -- all of which is to say that New England, and its indigenous natural remnants, not to mention the Yankee survivors still hanging on to such time-honored livlihoods as  fishing and (yes) the tourism industry, deserve a little more respect than they seem to get around here.

            Switching venues, and with all due respect to Jerome, my farmer friends in the Drome (just outside Valence) hardly inhabit a pristine wilderness, but it is nonetheless a world of great natural beauty, which also supports a populace engaged in traditional occupations (of far greater antiquity than those we mostly have in America); I would be shocked to see a propellor farm plunked down in the midst of this to take advantage of the famous winds along the Rhone.

            Sorry folks, I support the Kennedy dude...

      •  Well, I recommended the OTHER diary... (none)

        And promptly UNrecommended it trying to see who ELSE had recommended it.

        So I recommended yours and REFRAINED from indulging my moronic curiousity, lest I once again undo my effort.

      •  RFK Jr.'s fact problem (3.00)
        I admire many of the causes RFK Jr. has championed, like cleaning up the Hudson River, and I admire his passion about the environment.  But he does not bother to check his information some times.

        Your rebuttal of his claims about the Nantucket Sound wind farm are a good example of why his claims must be closely examined before we accept them.

        And he ought to be consistent.  He considers mercury a highly hazardous product of coal combustion and yet he opposes two energy sources that do not emit mercury--wind and nuclear.  Furthermore, though mercury is a bad actor, some of RFK Jr.'s claims about it are not supported by peer-reviewed studies or the Centers for Disease Control.

        Indian Point nuclear plant is also in RFK's backyard in Westchester, and he has published misinformation about it and about nuclear power in general.  In this he has been supported by Rory Kennedy, who did a bogus documentary starring him and making claims that are unsupported by the laws of physics.

        We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. -Albert Einstein

        by Plan9 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 09:31:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I also think a better title is called for... (4.00)
      All the best Ideas have GREAT TITLES

      Clear Skies
      No Child Left Behind

      The left will do much better to learn the lessons of that Great Man, George Orwell!

      Ask Three Poeple a Day: What Noble Cause?

      by Random Excess on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 06:46:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  But ... But ... But ... (none)
      What if this were not a halllowed name (RFK Jr) but were Joe Schmoe writing it?  What if, rather than the NY Times, Joe Schmoe had been publishing in the Wall Street Journal?

      Read the words of the OPED, Jerome's words, and Jerome's citations (which are great).  At the end of all that, would you have felt comfortable if Jerome had called Joe Schmoe of the Wall Street Journal Lying, Deceitful, and Pathetic?  I tend to think not.

      In my mind, in this situation, RFK Jr is sullying a hallowed name ...

      While I agree with that he is driven by the shallowest form of NIMBYism, his OPED is -- at minimum -- deceitful and not truthful (thus, dishonest -- if not lying).  Looking at it, all told, and with my concerns over the future of this nation and the world, all told, it makes the OPED and the stance pathetic ... Thus, the OPED writer (Joe Schmoe .. oops, RFK Jr) is, in this case:  deceitful, dishonest and pathetic!

      9/11/05, Day 1469, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

      by besieged by bush on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:01:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site