Reap the benefits of going green
By Charlotte Moore
Following the recent headlines about Roanoke County’s environmental programs and our membership in ICLEI, we should keep the conversation going. Not about the conspiracy theories embraced by a small group, but about the real opportunities we share as a community: to save energy and money, and to help keep our valley a healthy, beautiful and prosperous place to live.
As a community, we get to determine our own path forward and decide what kind of place we want to leave for our children. In my role as county supervisor, I have taken part in countless dialogues on these issues. When we talk about the environment and going green, I am always struck by how much common ground we share — even when we don’t realize it at first.
Moore is a member of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors.
November 21, 2012 - 6:13 AM
Wait….
Are we allowed to have reasonable people elected County Supervisor? I only ask because my representative is Butch Church who seems favorably disposed to listen to the conspiracy nuts.
This probably isn’t the place for it but I would like to suggest to Ms. Moore that a law be put in place that are person be able to return their trash, etc. back to the place they bought it. Make the companies selling the product bear the full cost of disposal.
That way, you could take left over food stuff to Kroger for example. You could take waste packaging and cardboard to WalMart for drop off. You could take used motor oil back to Autozone.
The great thing about this is, in my opinion, it provides a financial incentive to the retailers to make items recyclable and to reduce excess packaging.
Everybody wins!
Supervisor Moore’s stated, “Following the recent headlines about Roanoke County’s environmental programs and our membership in ICLEI, we should keep the conversation going. Not about the conspiracy theories embraced by a small group, but about the real opportunities we share as a community.”
Supervisor Moore’s statement appears meant to put so-called ‘conspiracy theorists’ (the demeaning term used for critical thinkers / skeptics who go against the concensus) in a nice tidy box. We have provided factual information in various forums (written and spoken) across our area over the last year and a half. Those who choose to remain ignorant and ridicule those facts are doing nobody any good. As Gandi once quoted, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” Right now ‘they’ are somewhere between laughing at us and fighting us. And we are not a small group. We are a network of groups across the country who are concerned about this country’s sovereignty. For those who wish to research UN Agenda 21 you can find the actual UN Agenda 21 document on line. Read Chapter 8 and 28. If you want to find out more about UN Agenda 21′s influence on our specific region (and regions across the country) visit The Green Menace in Southwest Virginia on Facebook and ‘like’ us.
If you think this concern is coming from only the right side of the political spectrum please visit this site run by a left-leaning lesbian who just so happened to stumble on how UN Agenda 21 was affecting her community in Santa Rosa, California while she was a forensic commercial real estate appraiser specializing in eminent domain valuation.
http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/
Watch her video speech at the bottom of that link.
Open your eyes and see this agenda clearly hidden in plain sight in our region and regions across the Country.
Here’s just one example of what is sweeping the country over the past year or two. It comes from La Plate County, Colorado. Like I said we are not a small local group. We are networked and have been learning each other’s stories for a while now:
http://www.hcn.org/issues/44.2/fearful-of-Agenda-21-an-alleged-united-nations-plot-activists-derail-land-use-planning/print_view
Does Mr. Gregory really expect someone to believe a bogus website (www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com) setup by some disaffected or malcontented person or persons pretending to be someone that they are not? This fear mongering tactic has been used by political right wing groups for decades. The ICLEI is strictly an advisory body to communities. It does NOT impose any rules or regulations. Luckily, his type and their convoluted thinking are in the minority.
#5 – “This fear mongering tactic has been used by political right wing groups for decades.”
Has this tactic also not been used by Democrats in the past?
Does “They’re going to take away your social security!” ring a bell?
@Michael #5 Only the Right Wingers can claim the patent on “Fear Mongering,” or at least its beginnings as used against the opposition.
#6 – “Only the Right Wingers can claim the patent on “Fear Mongering,” or at least its beginnings as used against the opposition.”
You must have slept through Obama’s last campaign, Gary.
Is not Social Security as we know it on the cutting board as we speak?
8 – whose cutting board?
The one Boehner and McConnell use.
10 – so they’ve proposed eliminating entirely? Chopping it? I was not aware of that.
Gotta love libs:
Only the Right Wingers can claim the patent on “Fear Mongering”
followed by:
Social Security is on the cutting block Boehner and McConnell use
Nope…no hyperbole there. No fear-mongering there.
Yes, the GOP has proposed entitlement reform, but nothing akin to chopping it or ending it completely. As President Obama acknowledged we need (in 2008 and even more recently). It appears to be an acknowledgement from both sides that the entitlement system cannot go on without reform, without, in some manner, “ending it as we know it”.
Fear-mongering hypocrites, all of them.
Shiela Jackson Lee says that “entitlements are earned”.
Good lord.
In the words of Bugs Bunny, “What a maroon.”
If you Google the accusation Michael insists “we” make, “They’re going to take away your social security!” it appears that it is Republicans that use that “threat” far more often than “we” do. Both in campaigns and here.
And as a matter of fact, who HAS made the efforts at privatization and reform of the “entitlement” of Social Security? Do you need a hint?
In most cases, what many derisively call “entitlements” ARE earned. You, yourself made the distinction for unemployment benefits the other day, certainly people who have paid into Social Security and Medicare all of their working years have a right to consider they paid for their benefits, even if technically they did not, nor do they get to decide the amount/limits.
Even if you fall on hard times and need SNAP, Social Security Disability or some other assistance, all the years you worked and paid taxes you were funding those programs.
I am no Sheila Jackson Lee fan, but on this, she is not wrong. The only real argument against anyone not “earning” any aid is if they never worked and contributed anything to any system.
“Social Security, let’s lay it to rest once in for all…Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. Social Security is totally funded by the payroll tax levied on employer and employee. If you reduce the outgo of Social Security, that money would not go into the general fund to reduce the deficit. It would go into the Social Security trust fund. So Social Security has nothing to do with balancing the budget or erasing or lowering the deficit.”
~Ronald Reagan 1984
http://boldprogressives.org/ronald-reagan-in-1984-social-security-has-nothing-to-do-with-the-deficit/
#14 ‘And as a matter of fact, who HAS made the efforts at privatization and reform of the “entitlement” of Social Security? Do you need a hint?’
Who assumes “privatization” is bad & government confiscation/bureauracy of private funds is good? (Do you need a hint?).
“reform”?…..gosh, what a terrible idea. (How progressive).
#15 ‘In most cases, what many derisively call “entitlements” ARE earned. You, yourself made the distinction for unemployment benefits the other day, certainly people who have paid into Social Security and Medicare all of their working years have a right to consider they paid for their benefits, even if technically they did not, nor do they get to decide the amount/limits.
Even if you fall on hard times and need SNAP, Social Security Disability or some other assistance, all the years you worked and paid taxes you were funding those programs.
I am no Sheila Jackson Lee fan, but on this, she is not wrong. The only real argument against anyone not “earning” any aid is if they never worked and contributed anything to any system.’
Mrs. Saunders…are you really comparing paying into SSN (and getting returns based on those payments)…to (whatever) percentage of payments made by welfare recipients toward their “benifits”?
Certainly, let’s have intelligent discourse as to safety nets & social benevolence. Please, let’s not blur the issues, and the priorities, of such issues.
Let’s not make deamons of those that recognize the difference.
Do you have a 401k, Jim? How much did you lose in the crash? By all means let’s subject our hard-earned SS to the same Wall Street chicanery. Not.
#15 – I know a person who has never worked a day in her life. When she recieves her monthly giveaway from the gov’t, she calls it “getting my paycheck”.
Sorry, Sandi, she hasn’t earned squat.
There’s a HUGE difference between someone receiving benefits that has paid into the system and those who have not.
Let’s not get them mixed up.
Please, let’s make our own points and speak only for ourselves.
Yes Michael, which is why I said “The only real argument against anyone not “earning” any aid is if they never worked and contributed anything to any system.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — December 12, 2012 @ 5:56 pm”
If this woman you know is not disabled, have you turned her in for investigation? If she is disabled, what was she supposed to do, conveniently drop dead?
Since the Democrats (President Obama) have recognized the need to reform (i.e., change as we know) the entitlement system, and have made some suggestions, specifically breaking promises to the newly retired (via raising eligibility age, and breaking promises to the more fortunate (via means testing)…
…and Republicans have recognized the need to reform (i.e., change as we know) the entitlement system, and have made some suggestions, specifically incorporating some elements of the free market (which bring with it elements of free market risk)…
…it is demagoguery and fear-mongering and lying and hypocrisy from BOTH sides to claim that one or the other is out to screw the elderly and less fortunate. It is demagoguery and fear-mongering and lying and hypocrisy from BOTH sides to claim that the other is out to change the system as we know it (implying they are not).
The grand lie is to pretend that the systems can survive without some sort of reform, whether risky free market reforms, or breaking promises to certain segments of the population (or, more likely, some combination thereof). We need Washington to admit the system cannot exist as it is. That would be a huge step.
And quit spreading lies and fear. Hypocrisy is ugly.
#22 – Not my place to turn her in for anything, Sandi. If she’s playing the system within their rules, then she’s doing nothing wrong.
It is not the system’s fault it can be gamed, if indeed that is even the case.
I cannot disagree that “demagoguery and fear-mongering and lying and hypocrisy” abound on “from BOTH sides”. That is sadly, the way this “game” is played, but I do not necessarily believe the “grand lie” is that the system cannot be sustained. An improved economy and better wages overall, not just at one end, would go a long way to solving our problems as well as paying the debt and ending the deficits.
The system, nor the nation, can sustain any radical reform or drastic cuts. We need a balanced, incremental approach or we risk much more than where we are now. There are so many places in the funding system that we could start small and cut smart and come out ahead on several levels. I personally do not think this Congress WANTS to move forward and solve problems. Four more years of their same tactics will not serve them as they believe, but they seem bent on it.
#25 – “It is not the system’s fault it can be gamed, if indeed that is even the case.”
It’s not? If a system contains loopholes that allow people to game it, then who’s fault is it?
26 – Sandi what I said is that the grand lie is that the systems can survive without some sort of reform…please be complete, or at least contextual, when quoting me. That’s what the debate is…how to reform it. Neither side is proposing removing the entitlement system completely…for one side or the other to imply so is purely a lie.
They may disagree on HOW to reform it, but disagreement and discussion should be welcomed, not demagogued.
No doubt an improved economy would improve the odds of sustainability, although I would argue that it would merely give more options for reform, and would not provide long term sustainability without some sort of reform. But since economic actions seem to be limited to what has failed in the past (QE4EVA), I don’t see any progress there, either.
The fault lies where it always has and always will, those who take advantage, and in the end, often ruin “it” for everyone else.
#29 – So no fault lies with the person (or group, committee, bureaucrat, whatever) that wrote/approved the policies that allow people to game the system?
Really?
Funny how it’s ALWAYS someone else’s fault when it comes to Liberals and accepting responsibility.
Yes, it is funny how the bad guy is ALWAYS at fault not those he scams or cheats. But that is the way it should be. A system is not designed to prevent every possible fraud and mistake, that would take much more manpower to enforce and we already know where you stand on government employees.
89Hoo, I know you will not believe it, but there are schools of thought that the system does not need significant reforms to be sustainable long or short term. The cuts and measures being discussed, for the most part, make the situations worse, not better. How is fewer people on Medicare and more on Medicaid helpful? How is a longer retirement age helped by more people on disability? We cannot rush to “fix” one thing and mess up (and pay for) another.
32 – then why are all sides clamoring for some sort of reform (lying to the recently retired, lying to those fortunate to be fortunate, free market)? If things are so grand why are all sides looking to change the systems as we know them, while denying they are doing just that, and accusing the other guys of trying to change the systems as we know them?
If nothing needs to be done, why are we still inflating the currency?
http://karendecoster.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/fed-reserve.png
#31 – A system is not designed to prevent every possible fraud and mistake?
Really?
I sure would hate to have you as an employee…
89Hoo, “please be complete, or at least contextual, when quoting me”. I did not say “nothing needs to be done”, and that was not what I meant or implied either.
Oh and here we go with Michael making this personal. Gee wasn’t he bemoaning the insults people have to suffer here just recently? I happen to be a damn fine employee.
I have seen precious little that any Congress has designed or any bureaucracy has operated that accounts for every possible fraud and mistake without expensive people and systems in place. Business makes a mint on such services for a reason.
36 – no, what you said was that you “do not necessarily believe the “grand lie” is that the system cannot be sustained”, an incomplete – and therefore inaccurate – representation of what I said. Please be accurate.
89Hoo, you bemoaned me “when quoting” you. I only quoted your “grand lie” and the rest was my interpretation that you were saying the systems were unsustainable. If that is not what you meant, say so.
To quote us both accurately: You said: “The grand lie is to pretend that the systems can survive without some sort of reform”
And I replied: “I do not necessarily believe the “grand lie” is that the system cannot be sustained”
Now mayhap you meant something beside what I interpreted, but I don’t think so. Are we arguing over can survive as opposed to be sustained?
#36 – It wasn’t an insult at all, Sandi…simply stating that based on your comment, I wouldn’t want you as an employee.
You may very well be a “damn fine” employee in your mind, but if you worked for me and I knew you were unwilling to do everything possible to protect the company or ensure a program was as fraud-proof as possible, I wouldn’t want you around.
Michael, it was an insult and it was delivered as an insult and denying that only makes it worse for your anonymous credibility. It is most assuredly not in my mind that I claim to be a damn fine employee, it is well over 30 years of affirmation of that fact from employers, co-workers and my rising wages and responsibilities. If I had to rate myself, I would never aim to brag like that.
I get it that you believe the people who work for the government should have the black helicopters and jack booted thugs ready to ferret out every attempt at fraud or every non-deserving person who dares to apply, but there remain laws against such “everything possible” efforts for them and for employers too.
I think it’s a distinction without a difference Sandi. But I’ll let it go (starting my New Year Resolution (to be more easy-going and relaxed) a little early).
#40 – “Michael, it was an insult and it was delivered as an insult..”
If you feel it was an insult, then nothing I can say will change your mind…nor will I attempt to.
I know how it was meant and stand by my comment. Take it however you like.
Keep it down to a dull roar, folks. Thanks.
No worries, Christina.