When the truth is inconvenient . . .

[green 6]

Ooh, I can't deal with heat and humidity, either. Let's go to the mountains and trout us a fish. I'll bring chocolate and wine. And yes, it is too bad you didn't save your drugs! A grrl never knows when she might enjoy a rest from the rat race. Haha *wink*

[gadgetlady 4]

I've read two interesting articles recently about climate change:

Newsmax.com - Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back

BMI Special Report -- Fire and Ice

[BJean 16]

What a relief. Ice is back. No global warming. I'll sleep better tonight.

[gadgetlady 4]

Glad to hear it. As for me, I haven't been sleeping well because it's so darn cold!!

BTW, I do suggest reading the articles in case all you did was read the titles. There's some very interesting info in there.

[lindata 1]

Where have I been and why haven't I seen this post before?

[lindata 1]

I mean thread

[gadgetlady 4]

We've pretty much covered every controversial topic known to man in R&R. You just have to dig!

[ELENATION 0]

LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.

HOUSE # 1:

A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's in the South.

HOUSE # 2:

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground Water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.

ANSWERS:

HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville,Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.

HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W Bush.

So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet another story you WON'T hear on CNN, CBS,ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Indeed for Mr. Gore is "an inconvenient truth".

Oh Gadget Thank you so much for posting this. I have learned so much about Al Gore and his hypocrisy on the enviromental issue that frankly it didn't surprise me...I must say it's not just Al Gore, but many of the celebrities that claim to be "green" and are constantly doing the opposite, it's ridiculous.... and it doesn't surprise me either that our President's enviromental friendly home or efforts are not mentioned....you know, anything positive that George Bush does will never air, he will never be credited.... and absolutely every single thing that may go wrong in our country and even abroad, well...it's his fault... however, I do admire how strong and graceful he has been throughout the years while the bashing was going on, I think he has handle it with a lot of dignity....I'm sorry, I'm rambling on but it just gets to me...Thanks again!

[ELENATION 0]

Once again, whether it is considered merely ironic or clearly hypocritical, the idea of double standards does seem to exist.

If not that, then it's just Bush-hatred again. Or, it could be ignorance of Gore's background?

The point of the original post is not how many houses, or how big the houses are, or who the parents are or how much assistance in the children's success the parents gave...it is the media exposure to the TRUTH...thus, the "inconvenient truth" phrase.

Also, it is the arrogance of taking a message to the public without the ability to self-examine...can you not look at your life and lifestyle and think that it might not be examined and found somehow to be coming up a little short in the "role model" department as measured to your message? This is something that is hammered at time aftr time in people delivering other messages, specifically religious ones; when they fall short of their messages, the media absolutely delights in pointing that out. Why the double standard? Is it so difficult to even think about this, or do you have to buy the Gore message hook, line, and sinker...and hold him unaccountable?

Mouse, I wish I was as eloquent as you... your post is right on the money.

[ELENATION 0]

Dang skippy, Carlene!!! I think all of you should get a wind turbine for the back yard, solar panels for the roof and a pedal powered washing machine. Be sure to chop plenty of wood for cooking and heating in the winter, too. No wait! The wood would be polluting, so no wood burning. You could put in one of those underground residences. 65 degrees all the time down there. Just have to wear a big sweater all the time. Live close to your work and the grocery store...wait! Too much wasted energy growing that food. You should put in a garden and learn how to can. But you have to have heat to can, so..... but then you could eat nothing but raw vegetables, until they quit growing, but then..... It's all making my head hurt. (He said with a grin and a wink)

:redface::biggrin::thumbup::hurray:

[ELENATION 0]

Wouldn't it be a sneaky coup if the guy who owned the first non-environmentally-friendly house in the example also made a big hoop-la about being "green" and then invested in a bunch of companies that produced the products or provided the services he advocated? What a windfall that would be for such a snea . . . um . . . environmentally friendly guy . . .

Oh but that couldn't possibly be true could it???

[ELENATION 0]

"Except for one thing. Someone asked a retorical question but one I'd like to answer: You can bet your sweet patooty that if it were George W. Bush who was on the green bandwagon that those who are critical here of Al Gore's efforts would be supporting environmental issues right along with Dubya. But how likely is it for the wealthy to be interested in being "inconvenienced" with issues like these? I know I don't need to bother answering that question."

Sorry BJean.... and I hope I understood the above comment correctly, I apologize in advance if I missunderstood you, but there are plenty or wealthy people that are "interested" in being inconvenienced with these issues, just look at the many wealthy celebrities... not that they live by what they preach, but the "act" interested...:biggrin:

In my particular case, I do care about the enviroment and contribute to the cause in a moderate way, but if President Bush was a "green freak", I promise you that it would not change how I feel about the issue and would not make me do any more or less about it, I like and agree with President Bush because obviously I'm a republican and he stands for most of the same things that I stand for, but I don't blindly follow anybody's ideas or views... which means that I don't have to agree with absolutely everything that Beorge Bush or any President says or does, I have my own brain....make my own conclusions, decisions, etc...

[BJean 16]

Are you aware of some of the environmental decisions that Bush has made while in office? I mean actual decisions, not the things he SAYS he wants?

He has favored big business over environmental concerns all along the way. If that is what you want and expect from your president, then okay. But please don't kid yourself into believing that just because a lot of people are moving toward a greener world, and criticizing Bush in the process, that Bush has done anything to improve our environment just because he says he's concerned (which he has said).

I firmly believe that if Bush (and the Fox network) were to come all out in support of addressing global warming issues, it would be much more acceptable (and real) in most Republicans' minds. Of course I can never conjur up a scenario where that might actually happen. It is contrary to what the party stands for.

I don't mean to be insulting at all, I honestly do not. However the record speaks for itself.

[ELENATION 0]

Are you aware of some of the environmental decisions that Bush has made while in office? I mean actual decisions, not the things he SAYS he wants?

He has favored big business over environmental concerns all along the way. If that is what you want and expect from your president, then okay. But please don't kid yourself into believing that just because a lot of people are moving toward a greener world, and criticizing Bush in the process, that Bush has done anything to improve our environment just because he says he's concerned (which he has said).

I firmly believe that if Bush (and the Fox network) were to come all out in support of addressing global warming issues, it would be much more acceptable (and real) in most Republicans' minds. Of course I can never conjur up a scenario where that might actually happen. It is contrary to what the party stands for.

I don't mean to be insulting at all, I honestly do not. However the record speaks for itself.

Hey, that came across insulting, but I'm used to it, so no worries...

I'm completely aware how Bush has been handling the enviromental issues, and I admit I'm not big on this issue, so what he has done or not done doesn't affect me much, but it has nothing to do with being a republican or that I feel this way because Bush has done or not done enough, if I feel strong enough on a subject, I couldn't care less what Bush or anybody else says for that matter, I used to live under a system where they tried to brainwash me for many years and I didn't fall for it, so neither BUsh, nor Obama or whoever comes out strong on something, will convince me to think or feel certain way..., I'm not kidding myself, believe me..

Many out there that claim that they are doing so much for the enviroment are simply not doing anything and are hypocrites... and of course, I'm sure there are some honest people around as well..

To say that the entire party stands against it is unfair, but that's your opinion..

Ah Fox Network... my favorite.... are you surprised?

[green 6]

The United States is a mighty large country and yet you folks have a choice of only two parties. This means that there will be a wide variance in the personal ideologies, intellects, ambitions and desires between Republicans. Republicans should not, indeed must not be tarred with the same brush. Of course the same logic applies to Democrats, Christians, Muslims, Catholics, atheists, feminists, whatever.... In fact I suspect that when it comes to voting time it is likely that many of you hold your nose and reluctantly vote for the party of your choice believing only that it may be the lesser of two evils.

This being said, it is my opinion that the reign of mini-Bush was pretty much a disaster. He put a corrupt man into the office of the Attorney-General. Under his rule your constitutional rights to privacy, etc have been eroded. He pushed a man of dubious ethics into heading up the IMF. He led your country into a costly no-win war with Iraq when it was already known that no WMDs were found in that country and that, moreover, Saddam was hostile to Islamic fundamentalists. The results of this last stunt have been disasterous: he has all but destroyed the only country capable of keeping fundamentalist Iran occupied in local wars; he has engaged in a fruitless war which is causing your country to hemmorhage money to the tune of trillions; he made this decision unilaterally and in doing so alienated America from many of her traditional allies. This man has often displayed himself as being stupid, woefully ill-informed, and arrogant.

You must understand that much of what political figures say is written for them by professional speech writers. What we hear is a combination of the marriage of spin doctors and those writers. Talk is always merely talk. But even when George II talks he does appear to be a little on the dim side though definitely a fun cat to hang with. (I know that I would much prefer hanging with the Dubya than with Hillary or Obama. Representing my country is an entirely different matter.)

Now, I am not dissing the man nor his regime simply because he is Republican. I am dissing him because he was and is unprofessional and unfit for the job. A cat like Mitt Romney would do a splendid job. It is likely that McCain will do a fine job.

It is for this reason that I find it impossible to take seriously any commentaries made or inniatives taken by the Bushites concerning the greening of America, conservation of fossil fuels, etc. You will note, by the way, that Bush started talking green only after his popularity plummeted in the polls and Nancy Pelosi and her gang of Demos won in the half-term elections.