(Editor’s note: This piece comes courtesy of my oldest stepson, Adam, who, if he had any sense at all, would have his own weblog (he’s got a LOT on his mind). In addition to being flat-out brilliant and having a keen mind for the sort of policy minutiae that turns the brains of most normal folks to oatmeal, Adam’s going to make one hell of a lawyer. Hamlet’s soliloquy on lawyers aside, Adam will be the sort of lawyer we actually NEED.)
I listen to a radical leftist band named Boysetsfire from time to time. The politics they preach doesn’t always resonate with me, but it’s good music, and the liner notes are usually thought-provoking. One of their best songs, Eviction Article, contains a lyric that I generally think of as wild hyperbole, especially considering the context. The lyrics go “Your government’s become a whore for outside interests,” and in context refer to corporate domination of the proletariat.
While I disagree to some extent with their application of that lyric to the problem of the working people in poverty, a rude reminder of the truth of the statement’s applicability to politics as a whole showed up at the end of the week.
In quick and dirty dealings on April 6, the House/Senate conference committee reporting on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 dealt a crushing blow to a planned wind power generating station to be built off the cost of Massachusetts, known as Cape Wind. The long and short of the amendment is that the governor of Massachusetts now has (non-reviewable) veto power over the building of any wind farm in costal waters within 15 miles of the coast. The full text of the provision can be found here at the top of page 26. Republican Gov. Mitt Romney is an outspoken opponent of the wind farm’s development, and is sure to use his veto power with a smile.
Luckily for a few Senators, Congress went on a two week break starting Friday, so they will have ample time to receive counseling for the massive cognitive dissonance this amendment must be causing them. You see, the two senators largely responsible for this mess are Ted Stevens of Alaska and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. Ted Stevens says the phrase “Energy Independence” so often that if you google his name along with that phrase, you get “about 14,000” results.
Similar treatment for Kennedy yields over 9,000 results and reveals that he founded and runs The Committee for a Democratic Majority which, as of January 1, 2005 lists as one of its goals “Increased investment in renewable energy, and in policies that promote energy independence and conservation and reduce global warming.” Supporting this legislation, then, is incontrovertible proof that Kennedy is, at the very least, a duplicitous prick.
But wait! Don’t roll your eyes just yet, we haven’t even gotten to the good part. You may be thinking to yourself “gosh Adam, if these committed friends of the environment and noble energy patriots don’t like Cape Wind, then there must be some consequences of the project that they base their objections on! Let’s hear them!” If you thought that, you would be right, there is one objection. They are ugly and they can be seen from land. No, I am not kidding.
Like all good politicians, those involved in this debate attach nebulous impacts to their scenery argument. Romney claims that the waters 6 miles off the coast are a “national treasure” and therefore should be left undisturbed. Kennedy argues that property values will decline and the local economy will be hurt because tourists don’t want to see turbines. This is disputed by a report that includes assessments from 17 different government agencies that concluded that property values are unlikely to drop and that the economy would probably be boosted from both increased tourism and the jobs created by the farm’s operation.
Perhaps the most hilariously ironic justification for opposing Cape Wind’s development comes from Robert Kennedy Jr., who says that “People go to the cape because they want to connect themselves with the history and culture. They want to see the same scenes the Pilgrims saw when they landed at Plymouth Rock.” Really? I guess all the million dollar homes, including the Kennedy compound, have been around since 1620.
Returning to Sen. Stevens of Alaska, we see an even more disgusting motive. Allowing the creation of a high-profile, environmentally sound, profitable, American renewable energy project is a threat to his long-term goals to develop the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Helping orchestrate this bit of legislation exposes his claims of being for “energy independence” and “safe alternatives” as public frauds, trotted out only when they suit his interests. He has made no public statement on his support for this amendment.
This is getting extremely long. I had originally set out to outline answers to some questions about the wind farm and its operation, but I think I’ve rambled enough. All of this adds up to one unavoidable truth: many of our elected leaders have self- and corporate interests ranked ahead of the public interest in matters of serious consequence. If it were up to me, they would be publicly humiliated and forced to resign because of it, but sadly, I know that’s not going to happen. What I can hope for is that by exposing just a tiny clip of the ridiculous dealings that lead to the implementation of policy here, I can inspire a few people to learn a little more and become a little more involved in changing things.
At the start of “Eviction Article” is a spoken (well, screamed really) lyric that asks “Who are the real patriots? Who are the real traitors? Who will stand up? Who will be the new leaders? If you love this country, take it back from those that would destroy it. Protest is patriotism.” We can fix this. As Jack would say, “we deserve better.”
