Original Post: NY Times
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
THIS is what poverty sometimes looks like in America: parents here in Appalachian hill country pulling their children out of literacy classes. Moms and dads fear that if kids learn to read, they are less likely to qualify for a monthly check for having an intellectual disability.
Many people in hillside mobile homes here are poor and desperate, and a $698 monthly check per child from the Supplemental Security Income program goes a long way — and those checks continue until the child turns 18.
“The kids get taken out of the program because the parents are going to lose the check,” said Billie Oaks, who runs a literacy program here in Breathitt County, a poor part of Kentucky. “It’s heartbreaking.”
This is painful for a liberal to admit, but conservatives have a point when they suggest that America’s safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency. Our poverty programs do rescue many people, but other times they backfire.
Some young people here don’t join the military (a traditional escape route for poor, rural Americans) because it’s easier to rely on food stamps and disability payments.
Antipoverty programs also discourage marriage: In a means-tested program like S.S.I., a woman raising a child may receive a bigger check if she refrains from marrying that hard-working guy she likes. Yet marriage is one of the best forces to blunt poverty. In married couple households only one child in 10 grows up in poverty, while almost half do in single-mother households.
Most wrenching of all are the parents who think it’s best if a child stays illiterate, because then the family may be able to claim a disability check each month.
“One of the ways you get on this program is having problems in school,” notes Richard V. Burkhauser, a Cornell University economist who co-wrote a book last year about these disability programs. “If you do better in school, you threaten the income of the parents. It’s a terrible incentive.”
About four decades ago, most of the children S.S.I. covered had severe physical handicaps or mental retardation that made it difficult for parents to hold jobs — about 1 percent of all poor children. But now 55 percent of the disabilities it covers are fuzzier intellectual disabilities short of mental retardation, where the diagnosis is less clear-cut. More than 1.2 million children across America — a full 8 percent of all low-income children — are now enrolled in S.S.I. as disabled, at an annual cost of more than $9 billion.
That is a burden on taxpayers, of course, but it can be even worse for children whose families have a huge stake in their failing in school. Those kids may never recover: a 2009 study found that nearly two-thirds of these children make the transition at age 18 into S.S.I. for the adult disabled. They may never hold a job in their entire lives and are condemned to a life of poverty on the dole — and that’s the outcome of a program intended to fight poverty.
THERE’S no doubt that some families with seriously disabled children receive a lifeline from S.S.I. But the bottom line is that we shouldn’t try to fight poverty with a program that sometimes perpetuates it.
A local school district official, Melanie Stevens, puts it this way: “The greatest challenge we face as educators is how to break that dependency on government. In second grade, they have a dream. In seventh grade, they have a plan.”
There’s a danger in drawing too firm conclusions about an issue — fighting poverty — that is as complex as human beings themselves. I’m no expert on domestic poverty. But for me, a tentative lesson from the field is that while we need safety nets, the focus should be instead on creating opportunity — and, still more difficult, on creating an environment that leads people to seize opportunities.
To see what that might mean, I tagged along with Save the Children, the aid group we tend to think of as active in Sudan or Somalia. It’s also in the opportunity business right here in the United States, in places like the mobile home of Britny Hurley — and it provides a model of what does work.
Ms. Hurley, 19, is amiable and speaks quickly with a strong hill accent, so that at times I had trouble understanding her. Ms. Hurley says that she was raped by a family member when she was 12, and that another family member then introduced her to narcotics. She became an addict, she says, mostly to prescription painkillers that are widely trafficked here.
Equipped with a crackling intelligence, Ms. Hurley once aspired to be a doctor. But her addictions and a rebellious nature got her kicked out of high school, and at 16 she became engaged to a boyfriend and soon had his baby.
Yet there are ways of breaking this cycle. That’s what Save the Children is doing here, working with children while they’re still malleable, and it’s an approach that should be a centerpiece of America’s antipoverty program. Almost anytime the question is poverty, the answer is children.
Save the Children trains community members to make home visits to at-risk moms like Ms. Hurley, and help nurture the skills they need in the world’s toughest job: parenting. These visits begin in pregnancy and continue until the child is 3 years old.
I followed Courtney Trent, 22, one of these early childhood coordinators, as she visited a series of houses. She encourages the mothers (and the fathers, if they’re around) to read to the children, tell stories, talk to them, hug them. If the parents can’t read, then Ms. Trent encourages them to flip the pages on picture books and talk about what they see.
Ms. Trent brings a few books on each visit, and takes back the ones she had left the previous time. Many of the homes she visits don’t own a single children’s book.
She sat on the floor in Ms. Hurley’s living room, pulled a book out of her bag, and encouraged her to read to her 20-month-old son, Landon. Ms. Hurley said that she was never read to as a child, but she was determined to change the pattern.
“I just want him to go to school,” she said of Landon. “I want him to go to college and get out of this place.” Ms. Hurley said she was clean of drugs, working full time at a Wendy’s, and hoping to go back to school to become a nurse. I’d bet on her — and on Landon.
“When kids come to us through this program and come here, we can see a big difference,” Ron Combs, the principal at Lyndon B. Johnson Elementary School here, told me. “They’re really ready to go. Otherwise, we have kids so far behind that they struggle to catch up.
“By second or third grade, you have a pretty good feeling about who’s going to drop out,” he added.
A group of teachers were in the room, and they all nodded. Wayne Sizemore, director of special education in Breathitt County, puts it this way: “The earlier we can get them, the better. It’s like building a foundation for a house.”
I don’t want to suggest that America’s antipoverty programs are a total failure. On the contrary, they are making a significant difference. Nearly all homes here in the Appalachian hill country now have electricity and running water, and people aren’t starving.
Our political system has created a particularly robust safety net for the elderly, focused on Social Security and Medicare — because the elderly vote. This safety net has brought down the poverty rate among the elderly from about 35 percent in 1959 to under 9 percent today.
BECAUSE kids don’t have a political voice, they have been neglected — and have replaced the elderly as the most impoverished age group in our country. Today, 22 percent of children live below the poverty line.
Of American families living in poverty today, 8 out of 10 have air-conditioning, and a majority have a washing machine and dryer. Nearly all have microwave ovens. What they don’t have is hope. You see it here in the town of Jackson, in the teenage girls hanging out by the bridge over the north fork of the Kentucky River, seeking to trade their bodies for prescription painkillers or methamphetamines.
A growing body of careful research suggests that the most effective strategy is to work early on children and education, and to try to encourage and sustain marriage. Bravo to Mayor Julián Castro of San Antonio for backing a landmark initiative to add one-eighth of 1 percent to the local sales tax to finance a prekindergarten program. Early interventions are not a silver bullet, and even programs that succeed as experiments often fall short when scaled up. But we end up paying for poverty one way or another, and early childhood education is far cheaper than adult incarceration. I hope that the budget negotiations in Washington may offer us a chance to take money from S.S.I. and invest in early childhood initiatives instead.
One reason antipoverty initiatives don’t get traction in America is that the issue is simply invisible.
“People don’t want to talk about poverty in America,” Mark Shriver, who runs the domestic programs of Save the Children, noted as we drove through Kentucky. “We talk more about poverty in Africa than we do about poverty in America.”
Indeed, in the 2012 election campaign, poverty was barely mentioned. A study by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, a liberal watchdog organization, found substantive discussion of poverty in just 0.2 percent of campaign news reports.
Look, there are no magic wands, and helping people is hard. One woman I met, Anastasia McCormick, told me that her $500 car had just broken down and she had to walk two miles each way to her job at a pizza restaurant. That’s going to get harder because she’s pregnant with twins, due in April.
At some point, Ms. McCormick won’t be able to hold that job anymore, and then she’ll have trouble paying the bills. She has rented a washer and dryer, but she’s behind in payments, and they may soon be hauled back. “I got a ‘discontinue’ notice on the electric,” she added, “but you get a month to pay up.” Life is like that for her, a roller coaster partly of her own making.
I don’t want to write anybody off, but I admit that efforts to help Ms. McCormick may end with a mixed record. But those twin boys she’s carrying? There’s time to transform their lives, and they — and millions like them — should be a national priority. They’re too small to fail.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Racist Madison to disenfranchise the elderly and minorities
Original Post:JS Online
University of Wisconsin students and employees have unlimited ride passes. There are concerns the bus passes are being used fraudulently. So, beginning Monday, an employment or school photo ID will be required.
UW-Madison employee and student bus passes are non-transferable. So, if the users don't have their IDs, the passes will be confiscated and a 1-day pass will be offered.
UW and UW Health employees who have their passes confiscated can get a replacement for $20. Students should contact the bus program office.
The university says no identification is needed for the free campus bus routes.
Well this is absolutely outrageous! This only hurts the people who need the bus the most. How can minorities and the elderly ride the bus now? Answer, they can't. We know only white males have Drivers Licenses and that it's not possible for anyone else to get them, even if they're free; so if you can't get an ID you can't ride the bus and you have no options. I'm absolutely disgusted by Madison.
Madison to require IDs for bus riders with passes
Madison - Riders who have an unlimited pass on Madison Metro buses will now have to show identification.University of Wisconsin students and employees have unlimited ride passes. There are concerns the bus passes are being used fraudulently. So, beginning Monday, an employment or school photo ID will be required.
UW-Madison employee and student bus passes are non-transferable. So, if the users don't have their IDs, the passes will be confiscated and a 1-day pass will be offered.
UW and UW Health employees who have their passes confiscated can get a replacement for $20. Students should contact the bus program office.
The university says no identification is needed for the free campus bus routes.
Well this is absolutely outrageous! This only hurts the people who need the bus the most. How can minorities and the elderly ride the bus now? Answer, they can't. We know only white males have Drivers Licenses and that it's not possible for anyone else to get them, even if they're free; so if you can't get an ID you can't ride the bus and you have no options. I'm absolutely disgusted by Madison.
ANOTHER ACTRESS ENDORSES ROMNEY, ANOTHER ACTRESS GETS MAULED BY THE LEFT: ‘I HOPE YOU F**KING DIE B**CH’
Original Post:The Blaze
Actress Melissa Joan Hart, best known for her roles in “Sabrina, the Teenage Witch” and “Clarissa Explains It All,” threw her support behind the Romney/Ryan ticket on Twitter Monday, swiftly prompting vicious attacks from the Left.
The actress first tweeted “Finish this sentence for me … Being a Republican in Hollywood is like…” She followed up with a full blown endorsement for GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan.
@MelissaJoanHart Can't get too political in only 140 chac but for those asking, I'm voting #RomneyRyan. 5 Nov 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite And that seemingly innocent tweet posted by an American female expressing her constitutional right to vote for the candidate of her choice was more than enough to shake the metaphoric bee hive of the “tolerant left,” as Hart put it.
Here are some of the ugliest attacks hurled at the actress (WARNING! Graphic language):
@MelissaJoanHart Ahhh the "tolerant left" at work!RT @BasiaMilewicz: On behalf of women everywhere, may I say 'Fuck you, bitch!' Washed-up has-been cunt. 5 Nov 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite
@MelissaJoanHart So to u that is a punishment? RT @17days: @trentvanegas @pitnb am incredible let down. I hope she ends up with a gay child. Clarissa sucks.
5 Nov 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite Big Crow@BIGCROENT “@MelissaJoanHart: Peace to all! Get out and #VOTE tomorrow! instagr.am/p/RrGrKhlHhs/” Fuck this bitch she's voting for bitch Romney and the hoe
5 Nov 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite Jah.@JaheemWith2Es Stupid bitch RT “@MelissaJoanHart: Can't get too political in only 140 chac but for those asking, I'm voting #RomneyRyan.”
5 Nov 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite Ghetto Ass Kass@WhamBamBitch Melissa Joan Hart is a stupid cunt. Her show is garbage and she should just give up on her sad, republican life.
5 Nov 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite Landon@WhoaLando You aint been shit since Sabrina bitch RT @MelissaJoanHart Can't get too political but for those asking, I'm voting #RomneyRyan.
5 Nov 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite Eddie Haskell ☜ ™@EddieisKrueger Go fuck yourself Sabrina "@HuffPostEnt Melissa Joan Hart's Last-Minute Romney Endorsement huff.to/Yy1fG3" 5 Nov 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite Though out of all of the disgustingly profane and ugly tweets, this one may take the cake:
PRETTY MOTHERFUCKA!!@RomanMinaj_ @MelissaJoanHart YOUR A FUCKING IDIOT AND I HOPE YOU FUCKING DIE BITCH #OBAMA2012
5 Nov 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite However, it should be noted, for every hateful message that Hart received, she got two or three supportive tweets. And she was appreciative.
“The amazing amount of love & kind messages were overwhelming today. Lets all get out and #vote tomorrow for whichever candidate u prefer!” she later tweeted.
Actress Melissa Joan Hart, best known for her roles in “Sabrina, the Teenage Witch” and “Clarissa Explains It All,” threw her support behind the Romney/Ryan ticket on Twitter Monday, swiftly prompting vicious attacks from the Left.
The actress first tweeted “Finish this sentence for me … Being a Republican in Hollywood is like…” She followed up with a full blown endorsement for GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan.
@MelissaJoanHart Can't get too political in only 140 chac but for those asking, I'm voting #RomneyRyan. 5 Nov 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite And that seemingly innocent tweet posted by an American female expressing her constitutional right to vote for the candidate of her choice was more than enough to shake the metaphoric bee hive of the “tolerant left,” as Hart put it.
Here are some of the ugliest attacks hurled at the actress (WARNING! Graphic language):
@MelissaJoanHart Ahhh the "tolerant left" at work!RT @BasiaMilewicz: On behalf of women everywhere, may I say 'Fuck you, bitch!' Washed-up has-been cunt. 5 Nov 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite
@MelissaJoanHart So to u that is a punishment? RT @17days: @trentvanegas @pitnb am incredible let down. I hope she ends up with a gay child. Clarissa sucks.
5 Nov 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite Big Crow@BIGCROENT “@MelissaJoanHart: Peace to all! Get out and #VOTE tomorrow! instagr.am/p/RrGrKhlHhs/” Fuck this bitch she's voting for bitch Romney and the hoe
5 Nov 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite Jah.@JaheemWith2Es Stupid bitch RT “@MelissaJoanHart: Can't get too political in only 140 chac but for those asking, I'm voting #RomneyRyan.”
5 Nov 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite Ghetto Ass Kass@WhamBamBitch Melissa Joan Hart is a stupid cunt. Her show is garbage and she should just give up on her sad, republican life.
5 Nov 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite Landon@WhoaLando You aint been shit since Sabrina bitch RT @MelissaJoanHart Can't get too political but for those asking, I'm voting #RomneyRyan.
5 Nov 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite Eddie Haskell ☜ ™@EddieisKrueger Go fuck yourself Sabrina "@HuffPostEnt Melissa Joan Hart's Last-Minute Romney Endorsement huff.to/Yy1fG3" 5 Nov 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite Though out of all of the disgustingly profane and ugly tweets, this one may take the cake:
PRETTY MOTHERFUCKA!!@RomanMinaj_ @MelissaJoanHart YOUR A FUCKING IDIOT AND I HOPE YOU FUCKING DIE BITCH #OBAMA2012
5 Nov 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite However, it should be noted, for every hateful message that Hart received, she got two or three supportive tweets. And she was appreciative.
“The amazing amount of love & kind messages were overwhelming today. Lets all get out and #vote tomorrow for whichever candidate u prefer!” she later tweeted.
Monday, November 12, 2012
The same media that calls Occupy a peaceful demonstration demonizes peaceful protest
Original Post:The DM online
BY GRANT BEEBE, JENNIFER NASSAR
I'm citing this article because another article refered to the protest as "a riot".
Hundreds of Ole Miss students exchanged racial epithets and violent,politicized chants What is a "violent, politicized chant"? in response to the announcement of the re-election of President Barack Obama.
What began as an argument around midnight quickly spread across campus.
UPD responded to a fire alarm being pulled in Brown Hall as crowds gathered near Kincannon and Stockard.
Just as all seemed to calm down, those in disagreement moved to the Grove.
UPD cleared the Grove on the grounds that it closes at midnight. Displeased, crowds continued to grow and returned to Kincannon.
UPD responded and forcibly dispersed the crowd.
“Disperse or go to jail,” UPD officers said.
So no one was hurt, nothing was damaged and this is considered a riot? I don't even know that there were "racial epithets".
BY GRANT BEEBE, JENNIFER NASSAR
I'm citing this article because another article refered to the protest as "a riot".
Hundreds of Ole Miss students exchanged racial epithets and violent,politicized chants What is a "violent, politicized chant"? in response to the announcement of the re-election of President Barack Obama.
What began as an argument around midnight quickly spread across campus.
UPD responded to a fire alarm being pulled in Brown Hall as crowds gathered near Kincannon and Stockard.
Just as all seemed to calm down, those in disagreement moved to the Grove.
UPD cleared the Grove on the grounds that it closes at midnight. Displeased, crowds continued to grow and returned to Kincannon.
UPD responded and forcibly dispersed the crowd.
“Disperse or go to jail,” UPD officers said.
So no one was hurt, nothing was damaged and this is considered a riot? I don't even know that there were "racial epithets".
Lib Dem Energy Secretary slapping down Tory minister who declared 'enough is enough' on onshore wind farms
Original Post:Daily Mail
By MATT CHORLEY and JAMES CHAPMAN A furious coalition row erupted today after a junior Tory minister declared that the relentless march of onshore wind farms is at an end.
Insisting ‘enough is enough’, energy minister John Hayes said turbines had been ‘peppered around the country’ with little or no regard for local opinion. He said existing sites and those in the pipeline would be enough to meet green commitments with no need for more.
‘Even if a minority of what’s in the system is built we are going to reach our 2020 target,’ he said. ‘I’m saying enough is enough.’
But at an early-morning showdown with his boss - Lib Dem Energy Secretary Ed Davey - Mr Hayes was told he does not decide government policy.
Mr Hayes told the Mail he had commissioned research on the impact of wind turbines on the landscape and whether they drive down house prices.
He has also asked scientists to examine noise complaints and more sinister suggestions that the turbines endanger military aircraft by blocking radar signals. The intervention by Mr Hayes, who became energy minister in last month’s reshuffle, will delight 100-plus fellow Tory MPs who have urged David Cameron to take a more sceptical approach to onshore wind power.
It does however risk a clash with the Liberal Democrats, who are enthusiastic advocates of renewable energy.
A source close to Mr Davey said today: 'John does not decide government policy. There will be no change. We are in a coalition government, not a single party government and definitely not a single minister government.
'We are determined to make sure the coalition lives up to the Prime Minister’s pledge to make it the greenest government ever.'
Energy Secretary Ed Davey today slapped down Mr Hayes, insisting onshore wind has 'an important role to play' in Britain
'Onshore wind is one of the cheapest renewables, which is why we’ve been able to cut the subsidy. It has an important role to play in our energy future.'
However Mr Hayes suggested the controversy over turbines was giving other sources of renewable power – such as offshore wind, solar and tidal power – a bad name.
‘The onshore wind debate is skewing the whole debate, which is not good for the Government, not good for people and not good for the renewables lobby,’ he told the Mail.
‘We can no longer have wind turbines imposed on communities. I can’t single-handedly build a new Jerusalem but I can protect our green and pleasant land. ‘Firstly, I have asked the planning minister to look again at the relationship between these turbines and the landscape.
‘It seems extraordinary to have allowed them to be peppered around the country without due regard for the interests of the local community or their wishes. ‘We have issued a call for evidence on wind. That is about cost but also about community buy-in. We need to understand communities’ genuine desires.’
Mr Hayes said policy should not be based on some ‘bourgeois left article of faith’. ‘These things are about the people and I am the people’s minister,’ he added.
Controversial: The Energy Minister said onshore wind farms are turning people against other sources of renewable energy such as offshore alternatives and solar power ‘I want to look at a broader analysis of the effects – I mean house price values, and other quality of life issues. I want to look particularly at noise, so I have asked the Institute of Acoustics to look at the noise issue from a completely independent perspective.
‘There is a case where people had to move from their family farm because of noise. It is very often the case that local authorities don’t have the wherewithal to address these planning issues.’
Mr Hayes said defence ministers had agreed to investigate claims of radar interference from the spinning blades.
The Government has set a target of increasing the amount of power generated by onshore wind farms to 13 gigawatts by 2020.
But in an indication of a shift in Government policy, ministers announced this summer that the subsidy for onshore wind power generation would be cut by 10 per cent this year.
Approvals for onshore wind farms – around 3,800 turbines are in operation – have however reached record levels, according to figures published yesterday. RenewableUK, the wind industry trade body, said in a statement: ‘For the first time in five years, the UK is seeing a rise in the amount of UK capacity approved at a local level.’
There was a 15 per cent increase in approval rates for smaller onshore projects with capacity of less than 50 megawatts last year compared with the previous year, it said.
Applications for new wind farms have to be made to councils, and around a half are refused. But under the existing system, energy companies often win on appeal to the planning inspectorate.
Campaigners took heart from a court ruling in May, in which villagers in Hemsby, on the edge of the Norfolk Broads, succeeded in blocking four 350ft turbines after a judge agreed their right to preserve their landscape was more important than renewable energy targets.
Tory MP Chris Heaton Harris, who has led calls for a rethink on wind power, said of Mr Hayes’s remarks: ‘This is a huge step forward. These awful turbines do nothing for the environment – they barely reduce CO2 – they force up energy bills and put more people into fuel poverty.
‘It’s about time the Government listened in this way. Communities will be delighted that they may now be spared the torment they have seen others go through when turbines go up.’
Former Conservative Chancellor Lord Lawson, an arch-sceptic on climate change, said: ‘I would welcome the minister’s statements. I would hope they would translate into a moratorium. An additional problem is that wind power is one of the most expensive forms of generating electricity there is.
‘At a time when there is so much concern both from households and industry about the cost of energy, that too should be a decisive argument against going this way.’ But Labour seized on the coalition row about the future of wind farms.
By MATT CHORLEY and JAMES CHAPMAN A furious coalition row erupted today after a junior Tory minister declared that the relentless march of onshore wind farms is at an end.
Insisting ‘enough is enough’, energy minister John Hayes said turbines had been ‘peppered around the country’ with little or no regard for local opinion. He said existing sites and those in the pipeline would be enough to meet green commitments with no need for more.
‘Even if a minority of what’s in the system is built we are going to reach our 2020 target,’ he said. ‘I’m saying enough is enough.’
But at an early-morning showdown with his boss - Lib Dem Energy Secretary Ed Davey - Mr Hayes was told he does not decide government policy.
Mr Hayes told the Mail he had commissioned research on the impact of wind turbines on the landscape and whether they drive down house prices.
He has also asked scientists to examine noise complaints and more sinister suggestions that the turbines endanger military aircraft by blocking radar signals. The intervention by Mr Hayes, who became energy minister in last month’s reshuffle, will delight 100-plus fellow Tory MPs who have urged David Cameron to take a more sceptical approach to onshore wind power.
It does however risk a clash with the Liberal Democrats, who are enthusiastic advocates of renewable energy.
A source close to Mr Davey said today: 'John does not decide government policy. There will be no change. We are in a coalition government, not a single party government and definitely not a single minister government.
'We are determined to make sure the coalition lives up to the Prime Minister’s pledge to make it the greenest government ever.'
Energy Secretary Ed Davey today slapped down Mr Hayes, insisting onshore wind has 'an important role to play' in Britain
'Onshore wind is one of the cheapest renewables, which is why we’ve been able to cut the subsidy. It has an important role to play in our energy future.'
However Mr Hayes suggested the controversy over turbines was giving other sources of renewable power – such as offshore wind, solar and tidal power – a bad name.
‘The onshore wind debate is skewing the whole debate, which is not good for the Government, not good for people and not good for the renewables lobby,’ he told the Mail.
‘We can no longer have wind turbines imposed on communities. I can’t single-handedly build a new Jerusalem but I can protect our green and pleasant land. ‘Firstly, I have asked the planning minister to look again at the relationship between these turbines and the landscape.
‘It seems extraordinary to have allowed them to be peppered around the country without due regard for the interests of the local community or their wishes. ‘We have issued a call for evidence on wind. That is about cost but also about community buy-in. We need to understand communities’ genuine desires.’
Mr Hayes said policy should not be based on some ‘bourgeois left article of faith’. ‘These things are about the people and I am the people’s minister,’ he added.
Controversial: The Energy Minister said onshore wind farms are turning people against other sources of renewable energy such as offshore alternatives and solar power ‘I want to look at a broader analysis of the effects – I mean house price values, and other quality of life issues. I want to look particularly at noise, so I have asked the Institute of Acoustics to look at the noise issue from a completely independent perspective.
‘There is a case where people had to move from their family farm because of noise. It is very often the case that local authorities don’t have the wherewithal to address these planning issues.’
Mr Hayes said defence ministers had agreed to investigate claims of radar interference from the spinning blades.
The Government has set a target of increasing the amount of power generated by onshore wind farms to 13 gigawatts by 2020.
But in an indication of a shift in Government policy, ministers announced this summer that the subsidy for onshore wind power generation would be cut by 10 per cent this year.
Approvals for onshore wind farms – around 3,800 turbines are in operation – have however reached record levels, according to figures published yesterday. RenewableUK, the wind industry trade body, said in a statement: ‘For the first time in five years, the UK is seeing a rise in the amount of UK capacity approved at a local level.’
There was a 15 per cent increase in approval rates for smaller onshore projects with capacity of less than 50 megawatts last year compared with the previous year, it said.
Applications for new wind farms have to be made to councils, and around a half are refused. But under the existing system, energy companies often win on appeal to the planning inspectorate.
Campaigners took heart from a court ruling in May, in which villagers in Hemsby, on the edge of the Norfolk Broads, succeeded in blocking four 350ft turbines after a judge agreed their right to preserve their landscape was more important than renewable energy targets.
Tory MP Chris Heaton Harris, who has led calls for a rethink on wind power, said of Mr Hayes’s remarks: ‘This is a huge step forward. These awful turbines do nothing for the environment – they barely reduce CO2 – they force up energy bills and put more people into fuel poverty.
‘It’s about time the Government listened in this way. Communities will be delighted that they may now be spared the torment they have seen others go through when turbines go up.’
Former Conservative Chancellor Lord Lawson, an arch-sceptic on climate change, said: ‘I would welcome the minister’s statements. I would hope they would translate into a moratorium. An additional problem is that wind power is one of the most expensive forms of generating electricity there is.
‘At a time when there is so much concern both from households and industry about the cost of energy, that too should be a decisive argument against going this way.’ But Labour seized on the coalition row about the future of wind farms.
Mitt Romney literally ripped for gathering food donations
Tell me there's no media bias. Mitt Romney is gathering food for people and this is apparently a poor act. It is no possible for him to do good in the eyes of the media.
Benghazi facts still unreleased, but reporters care about Romney's victory website
Original Post: Yahoo
By Dylan Stableford
Mitt Romney told reporters aboard his plane on Tuesday afternoon that he had prepared an 1,118-word "victory speech" to give supporters on election night. And it appears the Romney campaign was preparing a website for his transition from candidate to president, too.
The site appeared online on Wednesday and was taken down—but not before Taegan Goddard, a blogger for Roll Call's Political Wire, captured screenshots, which included a "President Elect" seal, information about the inauguration, a fresh tagline ("Smaller, Simpler, Smarter") and a quote from the Republican nominee ("I'm excited about our prospects as a nation. My priority is putting people back to work in America.").
The site also included a page with information on how to join the Romney administration, as well as a section on the president-elect's process of picking a Cabinet:
President-elect Romney is working closely with his transition team to put together his administration to ensure a smooth transfer of power on January 20th, 2013 and get to work for the American people.
It's unclear how long the transition site was live or who was responsible for its content. A spokesman for the Romney campaign did not return a request for comment. According to the Huffington Post, it was produced for the Romney campaign by Blue Host, a Provo, Utah-based web-hosting company whose owner said the site was produced about 10 days before the election.
But it's not unusual for the campaign to have had one ready. As CBSNews.com noted, federal funds are provided to both presidential nominees months in advance "to build transition teams and rent office space."
Perhaps the Romney IT team was simply still in shock. A few minutes after the former Massachusetts governor gave his concession speech early Wednesday, President Barack Obama's victory speech was streamed live at the top of MittRomney.com, adjacent to the words "Stand With Mitt."
Romney ‘transition’ website briefly appears online
By Dylan Stableford
Mitt Romney told reporters aboard his plane on Tuesday afternoon that he had prepared an 1,118-word "victory speech" to give supporters on election night. And it appears the Romney campaign was preparing a website for his transition from candidate to president, too.
The site appeared online on Wednesday and was taken down—but not before Taegan Goddard, a blogger for Roll Call's Political Wire, captured screenshots, which included a "President Elect" seal, information about the inauguration, a fresh tagline ("Smaller, Simpler, Smarter") and a quote from the Republican nominee ("I'm excited about our prospects as a nation. My priority is putting people back to work in America.").
The site also included a page with information on how to join the Romney administration, as well as a section on the president-elect's process of picking a Cabinet:
President-elect Romney is working closely with his transition team to put together his administration to ensure a smooth transfer of power on January 20th, 2013 and get to work for the American people.
It's unclear how long the transition site was live or who was responsible for its content. A spokesman for the Romney campaign did not return a request for comment. According to the Huffington Post, it was produced for the Romney campaign by Blue Host, a Provo, Utah-based web-hosting company whose owner said the site was produced about 10 days before the election.
But it's not unusual for the campaign to have had one ready. As CBSNews.com noted, federal funds are provided to both presidential nominees months in advance "to build transition teams and rent office space."
Perhaps the Romney IT team was simply still in shock. A few minutes after the former Massachusetts governor gave his concession speech early Wednesday, President Barack Obama's victory speech was streamed live at the top of MittRomney.com, adjacent to the words "Stand With Mitt."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)