Former Member
Member deleted their account on 04/02/2016
Displaying 1 - 10 of 30 Forum Posts1 2 3 Next
  • Mar 11, 2015 04:40 PM
    Last: 5yr
    2.4k
    Dutch Wrote:
    Schneider, your statement:" Lets get behind what really runs (not only) America, but actually the whole world.
    God is a corporate subdivision..".. is B.S. No one "run's" the whole world, .......snipped
    Actually, in corporate America the decisions made at the top rule - input from the majority is not usually welcomed by the minority who "run" the organization or establishment or whatever. This type of decision making really DOES run America. There are many smaller corporations which are swallowed up to become one huge entity, and thus the decision making is extremely limited, limited to those running the parent corporation, with the voices of the subsidiaries often very silent. I have been part of corporate America (as was my late husband) and I am very aware of how decision making is managed. People whose voices are not heard have no way of messing up their world; people who cannot make decisions are not to blame. If you can't be heard, how can you be blamed?

    How can you say that politics is truly managed in a democratic manner? We vote for president, but our individual votes are not the deciding factor - the Electoral College makes that decision. We elect representatives in government, but do they always vote as we want them to? Of course not. We, the people, elect someone in good faith, but in the end, the decisions they make, which affect our world, are not always OUR views.

    As for corporate America, as more and more corporations are swallowed up in one mega-corporation, and the decision making rests in the hands of the very few who hold the top positions, can anyone say that we, THE PEOPLE, are to blame when things go bad? We might have spoken, but we were not heard and considered.
  • Mar 11, 2015 04:40 PM
    Last: 5yr
    2.4k
    Michael39301 WroteI say the combination of Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren would be virtually unbeatable.(snip), BUT I can envision 8 years with Hillary as President, and then 8 more a strong possibility for Elizabeth immediately thereafter.
    I disagree strongly. I doubt that a ticket with TWO women would stand much chance of winning! We have not even elected ONE woman. Two on the next ticket? No way.
    Clinton and Warren are very dissimilar. Their platforms are dissimilar in many ways. Warren is not ready for the world stage. Someone else here suggested she would make an excellent Secretary of "something". I agree. She has much to offer and that would be lost in being the "compromiser-in-chief" which the role of President clearly consists of.

    I am a woman, would want a woman on any ticket, vote for one if qualified, but two would be the kiss of death at this point I think.
  • Mar 04, 2015 05:17 PM
    Last: 3yr
    4.7k
    I think you have something there. I can think of some too. Maybe by bashing gays they are drawing the attention from their own gay-ness. I have no issues with gays. Some of my best friends over the years have been gay, some of them better friends than non-gays. I feel strongly it is something a person has in their genetic makeup, not an acquired trait. Some people are latent gays, never "coming out", and they live what one considers a normal life. But what really is normal? My feeling is that we should judge the person as a book, seeing what is within, not what is on the cover. Some of the most productive and talented people through history have been gay. It should not be an issue. Obviously I am a liberal, and no religious affiliation.
  • Mar 06, 2015 08:33 PM
    Last: 5yr
    1.8k
    This guy's idea is similar to what you suggest - the panels would be elsewhere and what energy they provided would be shared by those in the program, as a benefit on their bill. You would own the panel, I gather, and thus even when used for power to others, your ownership would entitle you to benefit.

    I get a lot of phone calls and other solicitation for solar panels, but I have a very steep gable roof and a lot of trees so in the end I doubt they would be much use to me. With an all electric house, superbly insulated, I shut off every room I am not in, and that is my best solution to saving money on my bills. Dark roof to absorb heat in winter, white siding to reflect heat away in summer. We built the house decades ago with energy as a huge consideration. Planning paid off.

    In our town there are solar arrays being "permitted" to be built. Hearings can be heated for no-one wants them near their homes. If it were functional for me I would use the back half acre of my property for solar, but I doubt it would work to my advantage. And I would have to cut all the trees which buffer me from the main AMTRAK line behind my property. Thus the options are minimal for my solar use. And my neighbors would not support my usage, I am sure.

    Actually, a lot of surrounding areas near me have begun using solar panels in small "farms". The issue seems to be that everyone talks about this as an option, but no-one really wants to SEE them in their neighborhood! Grid sharing makes a lot of sense as well as abandoned land even here in the Northeast. I cannot see why all these condemned properties (toxic, etc.) or trash disposal sites (dumps) now defunct cannot be reclaimed for solar farms. At least the farms would be more appealing to look at than the trash covered land, and there would be benefit as well. Would the toxicity be an issue for above ground farms?
  • Mar 06, 2015 08:33 PM
    Last: 5yr
    1.8k
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/03/06/startup-selling-solar-panels-cloud-not-your-roof/ZIlSLORzszmpm0nwYRoyFM/story.html

    Today's Boston Globe had a very interesting article about use of solar panels "in the cloud" for those who have no location in which to place them.
    Basically a startup is offering to sell solar panels which are not actually on your roof, but elsewhere, but you reap the benefit by being issued a check in proportion to your usage of energy, as in an apartment, but without the panels on the building itself. Interesting concept.

    This had me questioning - in the Northeast with all the snow on peoples' roofs, what happens if you depend on solar panels for your energy needs? It you have 3 feet of snow on the roof, obviously the solar panel is not absorbing sun, and thus not working for you. And should you venture to clear the roof with a rake or something, what if there is damage from that? Flat roofs are often used as solar panel locations, and here many flat roofs have collapsed. We are being urged to clear our roofs, even those with steeper gables who have never had issues with collapse. If solar panels are to be a valid source of energy, what happens when there is snow like this? For many, it will be months before the roofs are clear. And should we have sudden heavy rain, or excessive melts, the damage to roofs could be even worse.

    Any ideas? A concept of this type has merit, especially if you have either no roof location for a panel array, or you have the issues of snow and ice making your solar usage impossible during weather like this.....
  • Mar 01, 2015 07:36 PM
    Last: 5yr
    1.4k
    that guy in Arizona Wrote:
    In the very near future, a movie titled " Merchants of Doubt" will be playing in theaters. You can view the trailer for the movie at the link below:

    http://act.forecastthefacts.org/signup/buzz_mod/?t=3&akid=701.72727.Psnqj5

    Like other thoughtful and timely movies, it probably won't be in theaters for very long.

    Great link, thanks. Have to keep a watch for this one. Noticed mention of FOOD, INC. which was another eye-opener.
    Blog article also interesting. Good thread with food for thought from all.
    Seems when you think one solution works, another set of issues crops up to refute it. And I also agree it is not something we will see resolved, or even really addressed properly, in our lifetimes.
  • Jan 15, 2015 01:35 PM
    Last: 2yr
    3.9k
    hollysmom Wrote: Hi, Newbie here
    I am hoping having everyone insured will get more people to the doctor earlier - (SNIP) When they found it , it was stage 3, she was dead a few weeks later. (SNIP) I also had stage 1 cancer - a quick operation and it was done for, I really do feel if most people see the doctor earlier, that fewer will die or need more serious intervention - kind of like if you see the dentist you will have yoru teeth longer. ,. - ditto with heart problems. take care of it early and it will not be as big a problem.
    HI newbie hollysmom,
    Welcome from another newbie (who also is a survivor of almost 20 years of stage 3C uterine cancer). Awareness is great, but survivors sharing experience is even better. In any situation. We all are here to learn from one another.......
    I joined the forum to learn more about our world, issues we face, and broaden my involvement. I do not say too much, but I do read everything Happy

    Click my avatar and you can learn more about me in my profile, Perhaps we can be "friends"
    ....meanwhile read, contribute when you can, ask questions.....
    I am concerned about the issues we face in conserving the world for our children, grandchildren, and on and on. Lots of varied content here to provide food or thought and to chew on.
    Again, welcome.....
  • Feb 12, 2015 04:16 PM
    Last: 5yr
    1.4k
    Tony Johnson Wrote: Best of luck to everyone dealing with serious issues. As far as drug interactions........ Do a Google search because there are several sites that will check this for you. I keep a site in my favorites because I take 5 meds (plus insulin) and I think that it's important to be aware of interactions and side effects.

    Yes, best of luck to all echoed here.
    Tony - the point I make is that we pay these educated doctors to advise us as patients. Why should it be on our watch to have to google and figure out what interacts with what? They should assess our charts and US (seeing us a person, not a chart) and go from there in their recommendations. Sure, we have to advocate for ourselves too, but why even go to the doctor for advice when you are left in a quandary over whether the advice/Rx is right for you.
    They are supposed to be working for us, not the other way around. And they are not supposed to be working for the big drug industry.
  • Feb 12, 2015 04:16 PM
    Last: 5yr
    1.4k
    No surprises here, but great that this issue is being made even more public. I have friends who take layers of Rx meds to deal with Rx meds upon Rx meds. Doctors will prescribe anything if you ask for it. And our insurance skyrockets paying for all this. No-one seems to bother to ask what interacts with what! I had a recent minor medical issue in a routine blood test and my doctor was immediately on the phone requesting me to have tests (some invasive) and so on. I said NO. Let me investigate. I did my research. Turns out several OTC supplements he had recommended (heartburn, etc,) may have affected the lab readings. Did he look at my chart and figure this out? No. I did my research and dropped those, and added one which I should have been taking. They (docs) are all about the simple solution (for them) - test for everything and rule it in or out, and cover their malpractice "behinds".

    When my daughter had lung cancer, stage IV terminal, her oncologist was trying exploratory drugs right to the last weeks. And quality of life was horrific. Hospice was a "bad word". When my husband was diagnosed with the same, we opted hospice immediately. The oncologist sort of washed her hands of us for that meant no income and drug payouts. Co-ordination of necessary meds was confusing and useless at times.

    My own cancer diagnosis and treatment was luckily resolved (almost 20 years ago) with surgery and radiation (gynecological). I did not have to deal with a medical oncologist, relief! It seems they are mostly committed to trying whatever their salespeople bring them sometimes. The patient is secondary.
    As for TV ads - "ask your doctor" - never ending for just about anything and even things which probably don't exist. It seems they make up conditions and diseases just to sell their drugs! Big pharma has to pay for the ads, and make their profit. Who benefits is about 1% of the equation. Except for them.

    You have to be your own advocate. You have to read and understand and then ask and decide what makes sense for you. Elders especially are prescribed so many drugs that many counter effect the others, leaving them confused and weak. I've read some great books on this topic.
    And one book I recommend to anyone, a recap of which is now being shown on PBS FRONTLINE, "Being Mortal". Gawande, Atul
    Not exactly about TV ads and big pharma, but the concept applies to us all.
  • Feb 05, 2015 04:09 PM
    Last: 5yr
    3.3k
    My two cents added - L A - your posts are great and I always look for them. You write HONESTY and EXPERIENCE. With humor, and a bit of tongue in cheek.
    I hope you consider somehow compiling your thoughts somehow - you have a lot to offer.
    Keep them coming.