When the truth is inconvenient . . .

[BJean 16]

luluc I know TX is a really big state, but we moved to the country a few years ago and after 9/11 we were happy to be in the position of having a Water supply from an artesian well and propane that we could control. We also had a septic system that was environmentally friendly. All the rest of the family decided that our place was where we'd stay in the event of an all-out attack. My how fearful we all were back then.

I eventually got tired of the drive to town and we moved back. I do still miss that feeling of independence that we had out there. And I envy you your garden. Congratulations on making the effort to have a green life!

[gadgetlady 4]

No. When the law prohibits women from being able to making decisions affecting their mental and physical health, women will die as a result.

Not allowing women to choose is saying that women do not have the right to their own bodies. A fertilized egg is part of a woman's body and you can't have it any other way.

Laws should not intervene so that it costs a woman her right to living a healthy life. And the arguments that anti-choice lobbyists make are pretty convincing evidence that they do not care if a woman lives or dies if she is unable to make her own choice. They use terms like "inconvenience" and "abortion as birth control". They either are ignorant of the facts, or they don't care.

Pregnant mothers without life-threatening illnesses (which will kill them if they carry a baby to term) get to make all sorts of choices in their lives. The baby has no choice at all. Furthermore, we shouldn't willfully kill someone because another person's mental health may suffer.

If the baby is part of the mother's body, then a pregnant mother has 2 hearts, 2 brains, 4 arms, 4 legs, often two blood types, and sometimes male reproductive organs. Saying the baby is the mother's body just doesn't fly.

[gadgetlady 4]

I've read with interest this thread, and though sidetracked at times, I have a comment with the Green Concept & trying to do what's right for the Environment.

My husband and I bought a ranch coming up on 3yrs now - and are remodeling/renovating our Farm House. This is a Ceiling to Floor remodel, replacing plumbing/electric/hot Water heaters/air units/septic/propane tanks/etc - the list grows daily. My husband is an engineer, always wanted a "Green" house - and for the most part we have made improvements to do so where appropriate. Where this does "Not" work in my opinion is when dealing with the local town (politics) & generally "Used" services in the area. This could be a TX thing, but you don't fight or challenge certain services - including how you get water onto your property. We've wanted to make "green" choices during this renovation - and have been told flat out we will not be supplied propane, if it's "not' their tank we buy (not enviro friendly). Our water line stops about a mile from the house, and it "has" to be shared w/our neighbor who is next door....but there are 32 acres between us - because there is no initiative to bring it closer to our home. So water choices can't be made, they have to be shared. Now we have no issue w/our neighbor - quite friendly - but there are a LOT Of Government entities that really inhibit our ability to do what they're preaching as far as "Go Green".

Ok - just my story, I do have a nice green house that I'm growing veggies for the first time, tying to do my part:tongue:

Thanks for bringing this thread back to the original topic! We also do our best with a solar pool heater and now solar heat for our house (our goal wasn't to "save the planet" but rather to "save our pocketbooks" from rising energy costs ). I would love to have fresh veggies but our yard isn't big enough. We do have some fruit trees, but they don't accomplish much.

[luluc 6]

luluc I know TX is a really big state, but we moved to the country a few years ago and after 9/11 we were happy to be in the position of having a Water supply from an artesian well and propane that we could control. We also had a septic system that was environmentally friendly. All the rest of the family decided that our place was where we'd stay in the event of an all-out attack. My how fearful we all were back then.

I eventually got tired of the drive to town and we moved back. I do still miss that feeling of independence that we had out there. And I envy you your garden. Congratulations on making the effort to have a green life!

I love the country - Never would imagine this NYC chick would LOVE having no neighbors; just dogs / cows / horses. lol

We just put in a new septic tank and are in the process of drilling a well - but ya know is does pi$$ me off that those choices are TRIPLE the cost of doing things "non enviro friendly". It's a gripe of mine, I think if we're asked to do our part; we should have some cost efficient alternatives:)

[BJean 16]

Amen luluc! Just think, we pay more for meat, poultry, Vitamins, milk, and the list goes on, for food that doesn't have harmful additives!!! Isn't that a kick in the pants!

[snuffy65 1]

Thanks for bringing this thread back to the original topic! We also do our best with a solar pool heater and now solar heat for our house (our goal wasn't to "save the planet" but rather to "save our pocketbooks" from rising energy costs :thumbup:). I would love to have fresh veggies but our yard isn't big enough. We do have some fruit trees, but they don't accomplish much.

Wow, the original post was a topic about how to be green? I thought it was a smear article about Al Gore.

And FYI, going green would be even more cost efficient IF we let the market decide rather then oil execs and congressmen. For all the conservatives out there screaming socialism when someone talks about going green, if the Free Market was in effect we couldn't afford NOT to lower energy use.

Edited April 9, 2008 by snuffy65

[gadgetlady 4]

Wow, the original post was a topic about how to be green? I thought it was a smear article about Al Gore.

The original topic was centered around environmental issues, one of which was the hypocrisy of Gore (not translations of the Bible or abortion, which we have digressed into).

[WestCoastFatGuy 3]

The original topic was centered around environmental issues, one of which was the hypocrisy of Gore (not translations of the Bible or abortion, which we have digressed into).

Which, of course, turned out not to be hypocritical at all. But then, why let facts stand in the way of good fiction?

[gadgetlady 4]

Which, of course, turned out not to be hypocritical at all. But then, why let facts stand in the way of good fiction?

And I again renew my question: why did a man who is presumably 100% "sold out" on the environmental movement take 5 years to complete "green" renovations to his mansion? As I said back in February,

He's been on the "green" bandwagon for years. Why did it take someone exposing him for him to make improvements on his house?

My dh and I put in a solar pool heater about 2 years ago and solar panels on our house just about 6 months ago. We do not fancy ourselves "green" by any stretch of the imagination. We did it to save money on our electric and gas bills. The only thing that stopped us from doing it previously was the cost.

Presumably, Al Gore, who has had the funding source AND the "green" drive for many, many years, would have done it prior to now. IMO, if not for someone's exposing his hypocrisy, I doubt he would have done it at all.

[BJean 16]

The way it works is for us to learn from ALL of our mistakes, not just some of them. We have been guilty of going green when it is convenient. When it is inconvenient, or not profitable, we decide that it is not in the best interests of the greater good to make changes.

[NukeChik 1]

Another example of short sighted greening are the compact flourescent (sp?) low wattage bulbs everyone touts. Sure they reduce energy consumption, but they also contain mercury. Now we are using less energy, but we are contaminating the earth with heavy metals because most people don't know they have to be properly disposed of.

I work in a Nuclear power plant so go ahead and jump on me. Most people are ignorant to the ways of nuclear power and therefore are afraid of what they don't understand. Bottom line is we make CHEAP power. So you can put up all the windmills and solar panels you want, but it drives the cost of what we in America have come to accept as a basic need, electricity. So what does that mean? More people freeze to death in the winter because they can't afford to heat there houses.

[BJean 16]

Nukechick: I know the cost advantages of nuclear power, but do you think we should be afraid of expanding the number of nuclear power plants in the U.S.? Who can forget Cherynoble? You obviously believe that we have learned from our past mistakes and that we are prepared to keep catastropic accidents from happening, right?

[NukeChik 1]

Yes, I do believe there should be more nuclear plants in the US. No, I cannot fathom that with the rules, specifications and regulations that are followed by US nuclear plants that Chernobyl could EVER be a reality (I can only give my opinion of US plants, for I do not know how foreign plants are regulated).

[luluc 6]

Not a fan of Nuclear Power Plants, well maybe I'm not well informed...but do have some experience. Grew up near one on Long Island, NY ... and in the period of time in operation, LI had a rapid increase of cancer, specifically breast cancer.

I personally have no backup information to proove this - however as a young girl I recall many TV reports & Doctors claimed this plant to be the cause. When it hits your family (mom & 2 of her sisters in their 40's, all survivors of breast cancer) - you have to "suspect" the worst.

This was the early 80's - so these plants I'm sure have evolved .. but I know I would never live near one (are there any in TX?).

I sorta do like my windmills - they do aid in providing our tanks (ponds) with Water for cattle, and after last nights storms....their full.

Again not overly informed, & not trying to act as such,...my experience has formed my opinion.

Lulu~

[L8BloomR 1]

France gets something like 80% of their energy from nuclear power....and as far as I know, they have not had any real problems with it. Does any one know if there are statistics on either problems or successes with nuclear energy usage in that country?