Archive for the ‘Huron county wind farm wind turbines’ Category

WCO (Wind Concerns Ontario)

October 30, 2008

Wind Concerns Ontario Is  a coalition of 22 small rural groups opposing projects in their own municipalities.

Suncor wind farm Ripley

Suncor wind farm Ripley

Enbridge wind farm Kincardine Ontario

Enbridge wind farm Kincardine Ontario

Wind Concerns Ontario

Advertisements

Man decries 'intimidation tactic' Critic of Wolfe Island wind plant issued cease-and-desist order

September 12, 2008

What can I say – Industry and govt. working together = citizens take a back seat.

Posted By JENNIFER PRITCHETT WHIG-STANDARD STAFF WRITER

   

The Calgary-based company building a $410-million wind plant on Wolfe Island has issued a cease-and-desist letter to a citizen it claims is spreading “false and defamatory statements.”

Canadian Hydro Developers Inc. sent the letter in connection with a statement made by Wolfe Island resident Chris Brown, an outspoken

critic of some aspects of the project.

Brown, a local musician, is one of a handful of citizens who sit on a community liaison committee Canadian Hydro set up last year to answer local concerns about the project.

Brown regards the letter as an attempt to gag critics of the project.

“It’s an intimidation tactic,” he said.

Brown said he isn’t against wind power or the Canadian Hydro project on Wolfe Island. He does want to see the 86 turbines that are being erected there placed in areas where they won’t impact wildlife or people.

The cease-and-desist letter goes back to an e-mail Brown sent to former St. Lawrence College president Volker Thomsen and others, following an international wind energy conference at the college in June.

Brown said he hoped “the examples brought to light by the conference can prevent Wolfe Island from becoming an autopsy of grid monopoly and community exclusion.”

Canadian Hydro took exception to his comments, saying they suggest the firm “has no respect for the environmental and regulatory process and fails to consult with the community.

“Canadian Hydro has conducted itself in a responsible manner throughout the approval process,” stated the cease-and-desist letter.

The letter, written by Canadian Hydro’s Toronto-based lawyer Paul B. Schabas, warns Brown of the possibility of future legal action.

“Should you persist in this course of conduct, please be advised that our client will proceed against you and pursue all legal and equitable remedies available to it without further notice being provided to you. Kindly govern yourself accordingly,” Schabas wrote.

When theWhig-Standardrequested an interview with Canadian Hydro about the letter, the firm issued a short statement from Geoff Carnegie, its development manager for the Wolfe Island project.

In it, Carnegie wrote that Brown’s “claim of community exclusion overlooks three and a half years of community consultation by Canadian Hydro, as documented in the Environmental Review Report.

“The purpose of our letter to Mr. Brown was to insist that he act responsibly and utilize the relevant facts in his arguments.” Brown said he refuses to be quieted. “I will continue to exercise my right

to free speech and advocate for a full and transparent public review of this project, just as I will continue to participate in the community liaison group to ensure proper communication between proponent and citizenry,” he wrote in a response to Canadian Hydro.

The Kingston Wig Standard

Wind Turbines Have a Negative Affect On Real Estate Value and Health

August 1, 2008

Premier McGuinty:

You are allowing wind turbines to be placed as close as 350 meters from homes.
This blatant disregard for people and their property must stop immediately.

No more excuses. Your office, and the office of the MOE, has all the information needed to fully  understand the negative impacts of placing wind turbines too close to people and their homes.

The guidelines for wind turbines in Ontario border on criminal. (knowingly putting health at risk and causing loss of equity)

Dr. Ian Gemmill, Kingston’s medical officer of health said, “that though there are concerns about low-level noise, appearance and stress caused by the turbines, research has suggested that those effects don’t cause long-term health impacts after people are no longer living near wind farms“. (If a person has to move to have good health – health risk
Who is going to purchase the property – loss of equity.
Dr. Gemmill
should have added stray voltage – a very real problem and health risk to both people and animals)italic added.

The reality is this.
Nowhere in the world has wind energy ever replaced, or caused the closure, of a fossil fuel plant.
Whether or not the coal plants in Ont. ever close, wind energy will not be the main contributing factor of any such closure.
Wind energy does not do a credible job of reducing emissions. If it did, the papers would be full of stories to that affect, they aren’t.
The main purpose of wind energy is to create carbon credits (e8).

Keeping the lights on and cutting emissions, is how wind energy is promoted in Ont. Neither is a credible statement.

At noon today the 472 MW’s of wind energy were producing – a not very
impressive 32 MW’s. I almost felt compelled to turn off my air conditioner. But then, it’s not my job to ensure we have power when needed, it’s yours, Mr. Premier. 8pm – 29 MWs

Premier McGuinty, if you think this post is harsh, it’s meant to be.

I visited with some more of your “wind farm” victims today.
They have been run out of their homes and had their lives turned upside down. WHY?
I also met with some of your “soon to be victims”.
How many more have to suffer Mr. McGuinty?

Poll Results- Is the Govt. being honest about wind energy (this blog)

  1. Yes – 148
  2. No – 632
  3. Don’t Know – 60

Mr. McGuinty, the citizens and industry in this province require and deserve, a cost effective, stable electrical system.

Build it, or call an election.

Premier McGuinty, if you believe your energy plan will stand up to public scrutiny, lets have a televised debate.
You bring your experts and I’ll bring mine.

I have a feeling the public will have a very different view of wind energy after a good healthy debate, or after reading the article below.

Premier McGuinty, give me a call and lets get on with the televised debate. It’s time the public understands the reality of wind energy in Ontario.

It’s also time they came to grips with the global warming scam. 50 years later – we’re still waiting.

Global Warming Video 1958

Yours

Ron Stephens

Independent
Huron-Bruce
519-396-1958

Note: I have invited the Ont. Govt., on several occasions, to check this blog for accuracy and to contact me if  they disagree with, or question, the information contained on this blog. Even though the  Ont. Govt. visits this site  often, “site tracker” and I send them information, I have never had the Govt. question or challenge any information concerning wind energy posted here.

Turbine noise nuisance highlighted

The judgement by the Lincolnshire Valuation Tribunal said it was apparent from the evidence submitted that the construction of the wind farm 930 metres away from the appeal dwelling had a significant detrimental effect on the appellants’ quiet enjoyment of their property.

“The tribunal found that the nuisance caused by the wind farm was real and not imagined and it would have an effect on the sale price of the appeal dwelling” said the judgement.

Now estate agents have acknowledged that the house, worth £170,000 before the wind farm was built in 2006, is now so severely blighted that no one is likely buy it.

Mr Lang said that the ruling is effectively an official admission that wind farms have a negative effect on house prices, and he said that the “victims” have had to rent a house five miles away where they go to sleep.

“It means many families in Scotland living in the shadow of giant turbines could see thousands wiped off the value of their homes as the Government pushes ahead with plans to build thousands more onshore wind turbines over the next decade to meet ambitious green targets.

“Jane Davis came up in September last year and gave a moving presentation in Auchtermuchty village hall on the subject of the intrusive, damaging and unpredictable noise from wind turbines.

“Since then she has been continuing in her own campaign and supporting others in the quest to have a safe buffer zone between wind turbines and dwellings.

“Scottish Planning Policy 6 sets out a distance of two kilometres from a village, but ignores the substantial number of dwellings that could be in that zone but not in a village.

“The effect on property prices is obvious and people should not be selectively economically disadvantaged in this way. There are about 30 properties within one kilometre of the EnergieKontor site near Ceres” said Mr Lang.

Gordon Berry

The Courier

full story at Turbine noise nuisance highlighted

Wind power was useless in blackout

June 1, 2008

Editor:
Another example of the importance of wind energy.

The Ont. govt. is a regular visitor to this site and should have learned something by now. I’ve come to the conclusion they suffer from one of the following.

1) They can’t comprehend what they read.

2) They are stupid and suffer from very low IQs.

3) They are evil traitors and are following the UN – New World Order Agenda.

Which one do you think it is?

With these fools at the helm, it is easy to understand why our Health Care, Education, Agriculture and Manufacturing sectors are in such disarray.

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
?”
Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP

Read Agenda 21
Now!

.

Wind power was useless in blackout

The British Wind Energy Association claims that there are more than 2,000 turbines in the UK with an installed capacity of 2,500 megawatts. Where was all this megawattage when it was needed on Tuesday, when 500,000 homes were blacked out as Sizewell B and eight other power stations shut down?

The answer is simple: the 2,000 turbines were impotent and would have made the situation worse had the grid operators tried to feed in their spurious outputs.

Coincidentally, Government figures describing the CO2 savings achieved in 2007 show no contribution from wind. The wind industry received nearly £320 million during 2007 in subsidies — from us, the consumers.

A letter by Bob Graham, Inchberry, Morayshire to the Telegraph

1 June 2008

Wind Farms – Lake Huron Ontario – Video

May 31, 2008

Editor:

Tried to post a comment on this video by the Windsor Star but it wouldn’t accept comments so I had to bring it here.

These comments will make sense, or not, after you view the video.

The reporter in the video says the wind will power 440,00 homes. According to the ISO – for planning purposes they are rated at 10% of capacity or 44,00 homes. Big difference.

Ernie Marshall, in the blue coveralls, and his wife have moved. Ernie was suffering from health problems he didn’t have before the arrival of the turbines. Ernie says his health is slowly returning and his doctor is happy with his progress since he moved. Both Ernie and his wife say that after two years of living near the turbines,they are finally enjoying uninterrupted sleep. The neighbors Ernie said goodbye to are still suffering from noise, stray voltage and flicker, not to mention the flashing lights on top of the turbines every night.

The gentleman in the brown coveralls has moved as well. After the problems at the Epcor site he didn’t want to be around when the Enbridge site was completed. He is well aware of the problems created by wind turbines and feared he might not find a buyer after the turbines arrived.

Neither of these people wanted to move, but felt they had no choice.

Every wind farm in southern Ont. has impacted families in a negative way.

Bob Simpson, the gentleman from Enbridge says they will respond quickly to solve any problems. Unless Mr. Simpson plans on moving the turbines farther away from peoples homes there is nothing he or his company can do. For the next twenty years people will suffer the consequences of bad planning and greed.

Mr. Simpson mentions reducing emissions. Nowhere on the planet can I find any evidence of emission reductions from the use of wind turbines.

Germany has more wind turbines than anywhere else. They are in the process of building 20 plus coal plants. I would say their emissions are about to take a big jump. Wind doesn’t seem to have done Germany much good.

The number of fossil fuel plants closed as a direct use of wind energy – o – Zero – none – zip

Wind energy has doubled in Ont. Does that mean we are twice as stupid as we should be.

When the govt. the industry and the media are all saying how great wind energy is,it’s hard to accept the reality that is the wind industry – and that’s exactly what they are counting on.

A quote from a person living at the Suncor wind farm Ripley. When asked how it was living near the turbines. “I’ll tell you how it is, our life is shit since the wind farm came.”

Ripley has a 700 meter setback, The Enbridge and Epcor wind farms have a 450 meter setback.

A video of the Ripley wind farm can be found under videos at top of page.

Do some research on your own. Theres nothing on TV anyway.

.

Video by the Windsor Star

.

Home near turbines won't sell

May 23, 2008

Editor
A property 900 meters from wind turbines In England had been deemed unsaleable. Most wind turbines in Ont. have a 450 meter setback. Kiss your property value goodbye.

Don’t forget to send your elected officials a card thanking them for their concern.

.

Home near turbines won’t sell – agent

A couple who have been forced out of their home by wind turbine noise have found out their house is unsaleable.

Jane and Julian Davis moved out of their Deeping St Nicholas home in Christmas 2006 after months of sleepless nights due to what they believe is noise and vibration from wind turbines, which are around 900m from their property.

They have long believed it has no value, and their fears have now been proved justified, after estate agents Munton and Russell refused to market the property at Grays Farm.

Mrs Davis said: “We have said for a long time that our house has no market value at the moment.

“But people said ‘put your money where your mouth is’ and prove it. While we knew that was the case, it is still a very painful thing to see written down.”

Russell Gregory wrote to Mr and Mrs Davis saying until the problems with wind turbines were resolved it was impossible to put a current market value on the property as no prospective buyer would want to live there and no mortgage lender would be prepared to lend on it.

He said: “I don’t think I have ever refused one before.

“Everything has a value, but where that value lies with something like this is a bit of an unknown quantity.

“We have a duty towards the buyer but if you can’t sleep there then it is uninhabitable.”

Mr and Mrs Davis own the house but they have another 23 years to run on the tenancy of the farmland.

And if it was not for Lincolnshire County Council relaxing their rules, Mr and Mrs Davis would not be allowed to moved out without losing the land and the bungalow in which Mr Davis’ parents still live.

The whole situation has seen their plans for the future, including extending the house, thrown into turmoil.

Mrs Davis added: “It was all our life’s dreams. We had plans to build on. Everything was ready to proceed but ultimately there was no point.”

By Tom Hughes

Spalding Today

22 May 2008

Ontario Wind Farms – Dalton McGuinty

April 26, 2008

Edtior:
Mr. McGuinty, you are allowing the UN to set our energy policy. Your wind farms have forced people from their homes, and threaten many more.

If you are stupid enough to think that wind will power this province – you are too stupid to be leader of this province. Health – Education – Agriculture and the manufacturing sector are all suffering. But then that’s the plan under Agenda 21.

Mr. McGuinty you are a Disgrace and a Traitor

Watch as Dalton powers his press conference with wind energy

.

Sound specialist offers expertise on industrial wind installations

February 6, 2008
Sound specialist offers expertise on industrial wind installations

[ News Watch Home ]

“Understanding Sound Associated with Industrial Wind Developments”, was the theme of the presentation by Rick Bolton, Engineer & Sound Specialist, and sponsored by Citizens for a Healthy Rural Neighborhood (CHRN), on Wednesday, January 30, at Perry’s Masonic Temple.

Though Wednesday’s inclement weather prohibited attendance by many from outlying areas, citizens and Town Board members from Perry, Gainesville, Leicester, and Orangeville were there. Mr. Bolton’s presentation was designed to convey a basic understanding of the complexities of sound, effects on humans, and flaws in current analysis standards being employed by wind developers in the U.S.

Mr. Bolton began by explaining that sound associated with wind turbines is an extremely complex issue, and one that needs thorough analysis. “Sounds are waves – just like light and water,” he said. These sound waves are measured in deci-Bels (dB, or dBA – A-weighted deci-Bels – most closely imitate the human ear).

“Human audibility is extremely sensitive,” he said. “In fact, far more sensitive than anything we can use to record sound electronically. While the human ear can detect to 0 dBA, the lowest range even the most expensive noise meters can measure is 14 dBA.”

Elaborating on the factors that can amplify sound, Bolton pointed out:

1.) Sound can propagate for over a mile, and even further over water;

2.) Sound gets worse in water (i.e. – ice, fog);

3.) Low frequencies can double sound by refraction off hard surfaces (hillsides, snow-pack);

4.) ‘Wave Coherence’, created by a number of turbines together, amplifies sound;

5.) When the wind is blowing, it can refract noise from the elevated source-point downward;

6.) Sounds below 30 Hz, termed ‘infrasound’, create serious health problems (turbines have been indicated as being a strong source of ‘infrasound’)

7.) Ice-loading on the front edge of turbine blade tips disturbs air flow around the blade, creating turbulence, and increasing sound.

8.) Modulation occurs when the blade compresses air as passing the mast of the turbine, and is worsened by large groups of turbines’ blades not operating in sync. (Bolton has never seen modulation addressed in any wind developer provided studies.)

Bolton explained the many ways wind developers methodology is flawed. Field measurements are not done correctly (i.e. – improper microphone placement, no justification for sampling sites, etc.); accurate samplings need to be done for a full year to account for seasonal variations, but aren’t; and computer prediction models wind developers rely on are inadequate because they don’t account for modulation, coherence, refraction, and icing.

Facts contained in Perry’s DEIS from the sound study done by Horizon for Perry were brought up that highlighted Bolton’s point that sound studies being done are totally inadequate: “5 monitoring locations; Survey was carried out over roughly a 3-week period; Unfortunately, 3 primary & 2 backup instruments were destroyed by water infiltration, so octave band data could not be collected for ALL positions for the entire 3-week survey; There were a number of periods of either inclement weather or low wind speeds – conditions that are not generally useful; General conditions of temperature, barometric pressure, & wind for the survey period are shown in plots below as observed at DANSVILLE, NY – some 20 miles southeast of the site.”

Illustrating and explaining his points with numerous charts and graphs that were part of his presentation, he also included examples and measurements from homes that had been abandoned by their owners due to the resulting life-altering health effects of living too close to turbines. Not surprisingly, these health problems have been linked to sleep disturbances.

The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines recommend that sound level should not exceed 30 dBA for a good night’s sleep. WHO also unanimously agrees that noise levels greater than 42 dBA create sleep disturbances, and that disturbed sleep has serious health effects.

Bolton explained that rural country settings currently enjoy extremely quiet night-time noise levels of 20 – 30 dBA. However, wind developers typically propose 50 dBA as acceptable noise levels at property lines of neighboring homes to their industrial wind installations. They do so despite the fact that the NYS DEC recommends no more than a 6 dBA increase over existing night-time ambient noise levels.

“Every 6 dBA is a perceived doubling of sound, or loudness,” Bolton said. When you understand this, you can begin to understand the problems that are occurring from siting these facilities far too close to people’s homes in rural areas. Bolton’s research suggests that 3,000′ – 5,000′ setbacks from the nearest property line should be the rule of thumb.

Neither citizens, nor the town officials being rushed through zoning, siting, and approval processes by wind developers truly understand the vast difference between 30 and 50 dBA until it is too late. Bolton stressed the importance of “getting it right” before allowing industrial wind facilities to be built, since mitigation after the fact is not available. He has yet to see wind developers do any follow-up studies for those now experiencing problems. They simply ignore them.

Bolton also explained that NY Townships are perpetuating flawed methods by accepting, and placing in their ordinances, the 50 dBA sound levels being submitted by wind developers, without demanding justifications – despite the fact that this is contrary to SEQR rules. NYS DEC’s Environmental Conservation Rules for SEQR state that the noise pollution potential must be evaluated at each affected “receptor”.

NYS DEC’s Program Policy, “Assessing & Mitigating Noise Impacts”, states: “When a sound level evaluation indicates that receptors may experience sound levels or characteristics that produce significant noise impacts, or impairment of property use, the Department is to require the permittee or applicant to employ necessary measures to either eliminate, or mitigate, adverse noise effects.”

If our townships fail to hold developers accountable to required standards, “we will lose the privilege, and precious asset, of having the peace and quiet of the country,” he said.

Mr. Bolton then took questions from the crowd. In response to questions asking what he thought of being “surrounded” by up to 23 turbines within 1.5 miles of their homes, he answered, “I would be VERY concerned if I were you.”

When asked if he has conducted any studies in the Perry area, Bolton replied that he had. Those who attended Perry’s Public Hearing October 16, 2006, will remember Mr. Bolton adding his comments, and handing in the study he did for Perry to the Board that evening. (Mr. Bolton’s comments on the Noise Issue can be found in the Comments to Perry’s DEIS under H-1, pages 1-24.)

By Mary Kay Barton

Batavia Daily News

Wind turbines in Union Township would need to be at least one-half mile from homes

February 1, 2008

 Watch the video

— Regulations being considered for wind turbines in Union Township would make a proposed wind energy project in the township impossible, the wind developer said this morning.

Wind turbines in Union Township would need to be at least one-half mile from homes and 1,000 feet from property lines, according to a proposed wind ordinance presented to the Town of Union Plan Commission on Thursday night.

The town’s Wind Turbine Study Committee was charged with investigating wind turbines and writing a proposed ordinance to regulate them.

Curt Bjurlin, Wisconsin project developer for EcoEnergy, said he is disappointed with the draft ordinance because he said it is “far more restrictive” than the state’s model draft ordinance.

“I think the town leadership realizes the people in the town and surrounding area greatly desire the need to have renewable energy,” he said.

The proposed setbacks leave “very, very little land” available, he said, “and certainly not enough for a renewable energy project.”

Bjurlin said EcoEnergy staff will work with town officials and residents to answer questions.

“We’re dedicated to building this project and moving forward,” he said.

The recommended setbacks are the absolute minimum, committee chairman Tom Alisankus stressed, because the committee’s research suggested distances of up to 12 miles.

The town board appointed the seven-member committee in September, and it has met nearly every Saturday since. The town board imposed a stay on construction of large wind energy systems until August.

EcoEnergy is proposing to put three 397-foot tall wind turbines in the township. Wisconsin Public Power would buy the energy to be used by Evansville Water and Light customers.

A town attorney will review the committee’s recommendations, and the plan commission will discuss the ordinance at its Thursday, Feb. 28, meeting and likely hold a public hearing at its March 27 meeting.

Committee members worked hundreds of hours, and committee member Jim Bembinster visited wind farms as far away as Wasco, Ore., Alisankus said. The committee’s results are summarized in a 318-page report, along with a 25-page draft ordinance.

Members looked through thousands of pages of documents and only considered information that was peer-reviewed or cited by reputable sources, Alisankus said. Doing so eliminated any influence from members’ personal feelings, he said.

Committee members started with the state’s model draft ordinance, which Alisankus said left a sour taste in their mouths. They sent an open records request seeking the scientific and medical documentation used to develop the state’s model ordinance, which has an “aura” of state approval, he said.

“The committee was shocked to receive a response to this open records request that in fact there was no scientific or medical documentation used to create the model draft ordinance,” he said.

Instead, the state sent them 11 pages, most of which were notes from meetings used to write the ordinance. It appeared the ordinance was written predominantly by a Florida power company, Alisankus said.

In Ontario it appears rules governing wind farms were written predominantly by CanWEA (added by blog editor)

The committee also invited stakeholders to participate and sent lists of questions to the companies involved.

“We were not particularly pleased with the responses we got,” Alisankus said. “In one case, even though there were scores of questions, we only received five answers back.”

Setbacks and sound were key to the committee’s work, he said.

“If you control … the setbacks and the sound levels appropriately, there should be no issue with ultimate construction of these turbines, at least with respect to the health and safety boundaries that we had to live by,” he said.

The state’s model ordinance makes the “assumption” that a 1,000-foot setback is OK, Alisankus said.

EcoEnergy plans its projects to have at least a 1,150-foot setback, Bjurlin said.

But the majority of the scientific and medical documentation the committee found recommended a minimum of one-half mile from homes, Alisankus said.

Their research came from the World Health Organization, audiologists, physicists, acoustical engineers, doctors and residents, he said.

“The whole problem area that a lot of people have been focusing a lot of time on can be solved by proper siting and proper testing ahead of time,” he said. “If the community does that and if the wind industry goes along with that, there shouldn’t be too many issues left over beyond that.”

WIND COMMITTEE

Members of the Town of Union Wind Study Committee are Tom Alisankus, chairman; Renee Exum, secretary; Scott McElroy, Jim and Cathy Bembinster, Mike Leeder and Sue Pestor.

ORDINANCE HIGHLIGHTS

Under the Town of Union Wind Study Committee’s recommended draft ordinance:

— Wind turbines must be sited at least one-half mile from the nearest home, business, school, daycare facility, church, hospital and other inhabited structures.

— Turbines must be sited at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line and at least five times the rotor diameter from the property lines of all adjoining property owners who have not granted an easement for a lesser setback.

— Turbines must be sited at least 1,000 feet or three times its total height from any road, railroad, power line right-of-way and above-ground public electric power line or telephone line.

— Applications for a wind energy system must include—in part—a pre-construction noise survey within a 1-mile radius of each proposed turbine location, a sound study, an environmental study, ice and blade throw calculations plans, a shadow flicker and blade glint map, a stray voltage and ambient voltage test/plan and a fire prevention, emergency response and rescue plan.

— Limits would be placed on the sound produced by turbines as measured from the outside of the nearest residence and other inhabited structures.

REGULATION LIMITS

Wind turbine ordinances can only regulate turbines in regard to public health and safety, said Tom Alisankus, chairman of the Town of Union Wind Study Committee.

Alisankus said the committee could not address:

— Necessity of a meteorological tower to gather data in a proposed site

— Impact on farmland

— Divisiveness in communities

— Impact on property values

— Decommissioning of turbines

— Other alternative energy sources

Watch the video

Gazette Xtra

Five Tips on Manipulating Fools

December 8, 2007

From the Editor:
This could be why we, all those fighting wind farms, are having a hard time informing the average person about the realities of the wind industry. We are asking them to read and think. Two things they don’t want anything to do with.

1. Dumb it all down
Make things really simple, even if they weren’t particularly complicated before. Idiots want the payoff of having a skill or “knowledge” without the unpleasantness of having to study or practice. You need to oversimplify life, convince them by summarizing and redacting, knowing that anything requiring education or even common sense to grasp will go completely over their heads. They need the comfort of being told that there are certain things they don’t have to know. They want the difficult issues of life taken from their hands. Boil complexity down to black and white and they will follow you into the jaws of hell out of relief and gratitude.

2. Terrify them
Every single human is terrified of the unknown. Some of us try to learn in order to deal with it, while some go into denial, and others choose to just remain fearful. Morons tend to avoid the first option, due to a tendency to not understand shit and to be bored by the sheer difficulty of reading. The third option makes people pliable. Note that we have already established that they are not fond of thinking, fear only makes that worse. Simpletons usually know very little of history, and cannot understand long-term goals, making them very much like sheep. Myopic and ignorant. You can convince them to do anything as long as you make the alternative irreversible and dangerous.

3. Be one of them
People want a face they can relate to. If you are selling a product you need a spokesman, Al Gore and David Suzuki in the case of global warming, not just a logo. As has already been stated in this post, morons have trouble with understanding things. Therefore if you tell them something, they need to know if they like you before they decide whether or not to go along with it. It’s an easy way to make difficult decisions. You buy from the salesman who makes you laugh and feel generally comfortable, not the one who merely tells you lots of stuff about the product. You listen to a preacher because he makes you feel good, feel at home, not because what he says makes sense. What intellectuals usually fail to grasp is that stupid people really are not interested in knowing things, truth is not important to them, therefore things like good reportage, thoughtful writing, accurate analysis, logic, cannot sway them one way or the other.

4. Isolate intellectuals
You really don’t want them on your side unless they are all the way on YOUR side. You do this by stating an outrageous principle, or doing something outrageous in a way that only the smart people will find it offensive. You camouflage your motives, but not all the way, you let the intelligentsia peek inside. Intelligent debate is a meritocratic, the smart will grasp, the dumb will fall by the wayside. You wind up with smart people buying the same books, visiting the same websites, posting on the same messageboards, watching the same movies. They become identifiable because they aren’t with your flock. You get an intellectual apartheid wherein your enemies can be rounded up or intimidated without menacing the whole population.

5. Be very visual
The subtle joke does not work, for the fool you need the crass, loud sight-gag. Anything you use to harness the fool population must be something they can see. Fools need to see blackened lungs to stop smoking, they need to see concentration camps to know that their government was evil, Kaposi’s sarcoma to know why condoms are important. They need pretty pictures and flashing graphics, for evidence of this surf My space randomly for a while, read the profiles with the pretty pictures and big fonts.

Dirty writer