Redstate

While certainly not as funny as the movie namesake So I Married an Axe Murderer, the Massachusetts' reality version called So We Continue to Re-elect an Unrepentant Killer is a constant source of fascination to me.  How do these people vote for this guy?

This hypocrisy over the windmills is just another example of how Ted Kennedy considers himself above the laws and the judgment of mere commoners.  

Ever in opposition to any method of destroying our habitat, I present the following KnownFacts™:

• Windmills are an environmental hazard, second only to hunting as a leading cause of death for birds.  Does no one care for the birds?
• Downwind from large wind farms the air is more still, and has an odorless and flavorless quality to it.  We've found another way to kill our planet, in this case by taking the very life from the air around us.
• By drawing energy from the air they cool it, which could lead to massive global cooling.  Actually, that link says wind farms cause the air to get warmer, but that's just their opinion.

If a large number of wind turbines are installed in an area, some of the kinetic energy of the wind is dissipated in friction and turbulence, which would cause local heating of the air downwind of the turbine.

But if there is enough wind to turn the turbine and generate electricity, the volume rate of air flowing over the turbine will be such that any increase in temperature would be extremely minimal.

Ted Kennedy isn't worried about birds or the climate. He doesn't want to spoil the view from his vacation paradise.

a sitting United States Senator, may I remind you.  He finds it difficult to stand.

There was a ("Look at me! I'm a scientist!") story last fall about computer modeling massive scale wind farms.  The headline grabber was that they would cool the atmosphere by taking too much energy from it.  And kill birds.

Sometimes I think pointy-headed academics live underground or never step outside to see how big the world is.  I also wonder if they modeled the effect that an equivalent number of large trees would have.

...that for a fair number of ageing Irish Catholics, voting Republican is still considered to be something requiring absolution from the local Papal representative.

Having a conversation with a male of that species usually goes something like this...

"So, you're pro-life"

"Yep"

"Not in favor of gun control"

"Nope"

"Opposed to homosexual marriage"

"Sure am"

"Think government is too big"

"Sure do"

"And taxes too much"

"Absolutely"

"So let me sum - you're a traditional values kinda-guy who thinks government is too big and taxes too much"

"That seems fair"

"And you're voting for..."

"TED KENNEDY, ALL THE WAY!"

"Uh, why?"

"Because I've voted for Ted Kennedy since 1962, and I'll vote for Ted Kennedy - and every Democrat on the ballot - until the day I die, and then maybe a couple of times more"

"Uh, ever considered voting Republican?"

"Nope"

"Why not"

"Rich, blue-blood, country-club WASPs living off a trust fund with no contact with 'regular people' like me"

"Uh, but aside from the P in WASP, don't you realize you just described Ted ... Oh, never mind."

I could recite this conversation by heart for the number of times I've had it.  It's pointless trying to convince these folks otherwise - better to wait for them to "pass on" to that great Union Hall in the Sky - it's less frustrating for everyone involved.

Plus, neither can you discount the preponderance of over-educated, pseudo-intellectual, white urban liberal know-it-alls around here - all of whom think of themselves as independent thinkers as they soak-up, lemming-like, the latest Talking Points™ and regurgitate them freely - as if on que.

At least, that's been my experience.  YMMV.

by erecting massive wind farms.  

Many conservative Democrats in the South also fell into this bizarre type of behavior, but obviously it wasn't as bad as Mass.

Why not just cleverly hide windmill props in very large leafy trees? I think we could get a compromise, but they might not even notice!  After all, some can't see a windforest for the trees!

Why don't we run nuclear power back through the wind turbines on still days and create just enough breeze for Kennedy and his friends to sit out on the veranda and toss down a few.  Note that I did not suggest he stand near the rail out of compassion - I would not want him to be hit by one of those injured birds

Hiding windmills in large, leafy trees? Surely you jest! They get much more wind when they're out in the open.

Besides, a wind turbine must always face the wind, meaning that the it must be free to rotate around a vertical axis, to be able to face a wind coming from any direction. Having trees around a wind turbine would be a good way to chop up the trees, the turbine, or both.  

we put the tree on a turntable. What's the problem :-)

I was being mildly sarcastic towards environmentalists.  

the sun did rise this morning and is expected to set tonight.

Kerry and Kennedy produce enough hot air to move those turbines so fast that the whole eastern seaboard can have electricity.

But just because Fat Teddy's hypocrisy is something you can set your watch to doesn't mean we should fail to call it out when it's so deliciously obvious, right?

Cheers.

so many times, by so many people, over so many years.

Get over it!  He's my senator and I'd rather get some fresh blood in there too, I think 40 years is a tad too long.  But justifying a tribal allegiance to one party by pointing at the other party -- over something that's really not THAT bad, considering the shenanigans and hypocrisy in congress on a daily basis -- is just fappery.

into this piece that was neither stated nor implied - MCAS must not have been good to you.

In addition, your talents as a mind-reader are off on a rather global scale as "justifying a tribal allegiance to one party" could not possibly have been further from my mind when writing this.

Here's a hint - sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

And by the way, as I happen to know what "fappery" is I'll suggest your dictionary skills need some work as well.

But thanks for playing.

would be one way to interpret a usage of the word.  In that case I think I had it right.  

Who cares about a dumb position taken by Teddy K on a project you're abivalent about unless the only way to get through your day is to give yourself a smug "those stupid liberals" pat on the back.  

I'm an alternative-energy geek.  As such, I have a great deal of interest in this issue and this project in particular.

Though fairly, it would be difficult at best to figure that from the text.

I'll capitulate to your definition.  That was not the way I was thinking about it (I was thinking you were meaning along the lines of "pontificating without a license", or something in that realm) - pretty clever, yours.  Well played.

By "pontificating without a license" I mean the following - making statements of questionable veracity that cannot be verified in order to make oneself appear knowledgeable on a subject about which said speaker actually has very little real knowledge.

Hence, the shorthand.

The windmills proposed would be placed in and near shipping lanes, creating a hazard, especially in low visibility conditions.  

Granted, a full veto is unnecessary and asinine.  If the windmills were constructed under similar regulations as offshore oil rigs, which are required to be constructed 500 ft from the nearest lanes, the project would be completely safe.

Kennedy is no saint, and is going overboard, but there is a legitimate underlying safety concern.

and every other government agency that looked into this "issue", didn't seem to agree with that assessment.

Just saying.

Certainly they have and had no intention of placing those generators in or near a shipping lane.  Less of a hazzard than are oil and gas platforms, which are located here and there, wherever there's something to gain