I wonder if those that suggest drilling closer to shore would feel the same if they owned property or had businesses that depended on these shores?
NOT IN MY BACK YARD!
I wonder if those that suggest drilling closer to shore would feel the same if they owned property or had businesses that depended on these shores?
Oh SNAP!NOT IN MY BACK YARD!
The campaign to stop the wind farms was started by Cape Cod merchants and wealthy landowners. It's also opposed by almost every town government. Sen. Ted Kennedy, who has a home overlooking the proposed wind farm, also opposes the project. So does one of Martha's Vineyard most famous residents, former CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite.
The first U.S. offshore wind farm, a giant project 5 miles/8 km off the Massachusetts coast, was approved on Wednesday after years of opposition involving everyone from local Indian tribes to the Kennedy family.
Is it a pretty naive idea of what lobbying has become?dragonfliet said:This is a pretty naive idea of what lobbying is.
Is it a pretty naive idea of what lobbying has become?
otoh it's not acceptable to have a situation where such equality doesn't exist, where only a few are heared or have the power to be heared, it just weakens democracy. It's not acceptable to stomp it either. In an huge country where some live thousands of km away from central goverment, it's already extremely hard to be influencial, in practice only a few can have their voice heared. It's just that natural selection has no place in democracy.You can't legislate equality of access to lobbying without stomping on the right to free speech of others.
Ok, I'm done here.It is an incorrect idea. Also, "is" refers to present-term. Otherwise he would have said "was".
There is lobbying... and then there's all the other stuff you mentioned.
That's why we have federalism/state-rights and a weak federal government. At least, we're supposed to.In an huge country where some live thousands of km away from central goverment, it's already extremely hard to be influencial, in practice only a few can have their voice heared. It's just that natural selection has no place in democracy.
otoh it's not acceptable to have a situation where such equality doesn't exist, where only a few are heared or have the power to be heared, it just weakens democracy.
In an huge country where some live thousands of km away from central goverment, it's already extremely hard to be influencial, in practice only a few can have their voice heared. It's just that natural selection has no place in democracy.
Then regarding free speech, it's quite possible it will look like supressing today's predominant lobbyists freedom of speech! Of course, if there are 3 people at the table, someone introducing a 4th will be called a thief or denying their freedom or whatever excuse they come up with.
Oh SNAP!
Sorry, but I felt compelled to correct your quote.That's why we have federalism/state-rights and a limited federal government. At least, we're supposed to.
yea, you're version is better. I noticed that too, but was too lazy to fix it since I figured it got the point acrossSorry, but I felt compelled to correct your quote.
Please don't go on rehashing my first post. That's why I started thinking about a proper method, remembered, and actually found it in that PDF. Consider this:Which is why your idea of banning lobbyists is not a good one. But going further than that, equality means that everyone has an equal opportunity to speak, whether it be individually or as a group.
That's not the point. I have enough understanding (for my needs) on how the US government works, and how an widespread goverment is supposed to work. However, I have even better understanding on how hard in practice it is to be heared and be taken into consideration when you belong to a peripheric region, even with all the structure in place. It can be ****ing frustrating, even with stuff like this: http://ec.europa.eu/europedirect/call_us/index_en.htmYou need to study the US government because you don't demonstrate understanding of how it is supposed to work.
BP has turned to "Waterworld" star Kevin Costner to help clean up the oil slick that is spreading across the Gulf of Mexico.
Costner has been funding a team of scientists for 15 years in hopes of developing a technology to clean up massive oil spills, and his research has created a powerful centrifuge that he claims can separate oil from water and dump the oil into a holding tank.
Costner and representatives of Ocean Therapy Solutions, the firm that developed the machine, demonstrated the centrifugal device for BP officials in New Orleans last week. "I believe they'll want to do the right thing," Costner told reporters at the time.
"We've agreed to test it," BP spokesman Mark Proegler told ABCNews.com today.
Officials with Ocean Therapy Solutions have said one of their machines is capable of cleaning up to 210,000 gallons of water per day. The oil extractor leaves the water 99 percent clean of crude, the firm said in a statement.