Reader opinions on Planned Parenthood, beef and more | PostIndependent.com
YOUR AD HERE »

Reader opinions on Planned Parenthood, beef and more

Artist Natalie Jean Terrell of New Castle submitted her painting, "We are the same," as her opinion. She says, "May this help remind us all that regardless of differences, skin color or uniform, we are the same."
Provided |

Sanders the idealist

There is a secret to being a supporter of Bernie Sanders. It is something that totally escapes the thinking of most Democrats and Republicans. It is the mental understanding that Sanders is fighting a war that most people are not. It is the war between corporations and the people.

Unless you are fighting the war as we are, you cannot possibly understand how important it is to vote for Bernie, not Hillary. This is not about Hillary or Bernie; it is about fighting your real enemies, the multinational corporations who are trying to control this nation and the world.



Hillary, during her husband’s first term was one of my greatest heroes, a progressive battling for health-care reform, an issue on which she was soundly defeated; but since that time she has become much more of a politician; a realist, as she says, rather than the idealist she once was, and Bernie Sanders is. Hillary is taking, or has taken, money from big pharmaceuticals, the oil and gas industries, Wall Street and the private prison companies.

She has served on the board of directors of Wal-Mart. She has waffled so many times on the Trans Pacific Partnership and the Keystone pipeline that no one has any idea where she stands, or what she would do if elected president. The best answer lies in following where she gets her money from: big pharma, big oil, big banks. That is what being a political realist is. Nothing to do with serving the people…everything to do with her personal ambitions.



Bernie, on the other hand, is an idealist. He wants the office so that he can do the right thing for the people he will be serving. He has held consistent positions against the Trans Pacific Partnership and the Keystone pipeline, and in favor of breaking up big banks and repealing Citizens United. Bernie is and idealist, a person you can trust. Hillary has recently absorbed many of Bernie’s positions, but will she stick to them? The record shows otherwise.

Bob Bogner

Basalt

Dangers of ‘smart’ meters

Electric utilities are installing “smart” meters without customer’s knowledge or consent, and in late July they even started denying that what they had installed were “smart” meters.

There are significant health problems from “smart” meters identified by dozens of scientists. The pulsed microwave radiation emitted from the meters is harmful to health, causes DNA breakages and a myriad of symptoms.

Our bodies are bio-electric, as measured by EKGs and EEGs. Interference from microwave radiation can alter the electrical activity that regulates the function of our hearts, brains and other organs. Heart rhythm disturbance, sleep disruption and headache are only a few of the common symptoms.

“Smart” meters are wireless digital devices that record the amount of energy you use in your home and send this information to the utility company. They provide two-way communication to send your usage data between your home and the utility. They are being installed around the world for multiple reasons, not one of which benefits you the user.

They can be read remotely, and a primary reason for their installation is that they can match electricity consumption with the real time demands on the grid. In other words, the “smart” meter can track the time the energy is being consumed with the amount of electricity consumed. You will be charged higher rates for using electricity during peak demand times. Generally, electric bills double when the utility implements this feature. Your information is open to thieves and hackers.

Each electric appliance you use has a particular “footprint,” and the utility can remotely shut down or dampen any appliance at any time.

Ask yourself: Does this benefit you more or the utilities more?

There is no law forcing us to accept “smart” meters or to pay “opt-out” fees.

Traditional analog meters track total consumption, period. And they do not put out extremely dangerous pulsed radiation, plus they are not vulnerable to cyber attack. The former CIA Director James Woolsey says the “smart” grid’s security vulnerabilities make it a “really, really stupid grid.”

Learn more tonight at 7 p.m. tonight at the Carbondale Library.

Marilyn Shettel

Glenwood Springs

Outraged by commissioners

It is with spitting outrage that I see three senior white men pull funding from Planned Parenthood in Glenwood Springs, when you clearly have no idea what goes on there because you are not a woman.

I went there from the age of 16 until 30, to get Pap smears (which check for cervical cancer, in case you don’t know), checkups of woman parts, and birth control so I didn’t have to be a teenage mother or have an abortion. I couldn’t afford to go anywhere else; Planned Parenthood has a sliding scale for young women and poor women, the least capable of having an unwanted pregnancy.

For God’s sake, where is your common sense and a vision for the future? How about a future full of teenage mothers and back-alley abortions because of lack of affordable care for the other sex — the one that isn’t yours.

I’m sure you waited until marriage until having sex, and I’m very complimentary for your superior morals, but it is unrealistic to expect your fellow men, especially those 16-30, to abstain. When they don’t, it always falls to the woman to either prevent the pregnancy, or deal with it when things go wrong; hence the multitude of single mothers and absent irresponsible fathers.

Every man out there should be blessing Planned Parenthood, because one way or another, that organization has covered their butts and corrected their mistakes. Except you, of course. Don’t make this horrific error by taking their support.

P.S.: According to the poll on the Post Independent website as of Nov. 5, 68 percent of the respondents agree with me that you are making a grave mistake.

Rebecca Driscoll

Aspen

Beef, it’s what’s sustainable

It is disappointing to see the Post Independent print something that is utterly lacking in fact, and erroneously inflammatory to the economic backbone of this community. This region of the state has a long and proud history in beef production, and it’s disheartening to read this type of misinformation in such a respectable publication.

The beef industry has taken great strides to evaluate and refine its impact on, and, yes, even contribution to, the environment. There are a number of scientifically based sources of information available regarding the sustainability of our industry, including a life cycle assessment analyzing the environmental impacts of a given product by accounting for all the impacts that occur throughout the entire production chain. The results from this study can be found at Beefresearch.org.

Our industry is proud of the fact that since 2005, there was a nearly 7 percent decrease in the environmental and social impact of the beef value chain, resulting in a 5 percent improvement in overall sustainability.

Our industry has and will continue to evolve with the times. The knowledge we have gained through modern technology has allowed us to better assess the impacts we are having on our environment and make the necessary adjustments to keep our businesses thriving for the next generation of ranchers and businesses in our local community.

ExploreBeef.org and FactsAboutBeef.com provide science-based information about beef production and the care ranchers take with our planet’s precious resources.

Frank Daley

New Castle, past president, Colorado Cattlemen’s Association

Editor’s note: In addition to the Doctor’s Tip arguing that animal products have a significant environmental impact that the author is criticizing, the Post Independent published a rebuttal by local rancher Dan McCarty. Statistics and arguments on this issue vary; we disagree with the assertion that the Doctor’s Tip was “utterly lacking in fact” or “erroneously inflammatory.” Quite often, the facts a person cites, groups together or chooses to ignore depend on the case the person wants to make or believe. The Washington Post did this examination of related questions: http://tinyurl.com/WaPoFood.

Grinding axes and beef

In response to Dan McCarty’s guest opinion (10/31/2015): Mr. McCarty begins by accusing Dr. Greg Feinsinger of spreading misinformation in behalf of a biased agenda. Yes, Greg has biases and an agenda. He’s pretty open about it. However, given that Dan makes his living from ranching, it seems disingenuous for him to imply that he is less biased and more agenda-free than Greg. We all have an ax to grind. Here’s how Dan McCarty grinds his.

Dan bragged that feedlots of 1,000 or more are federally regulated, but conveniently omitted that according to the USDA, the vast majority of feedlots have fewer than 1,000 head. But these many small facilities produce only about 5 percent of U.S. beef, so we appear to have a great many unregulated facilities spread hither and yon, generating considerable pollution while producing relatively little food.

And water consumption? Dan claimed 441 gallons to produce a pound of beef, a figure he neglected to say comes from a single, cherry-picked study. The U.S. Geological Survey says it takes 1,800 gallons, so there’s obviously room for argument, but let’s not argue. According to Dan’s own claim, my single-use ¼-pounder consumed 110 gallons during production.

Dan also wrote that producing one T-shirt uses 713 gallons. So if I wear my shirt only 40 times, each wearing cost 18 gallons and I have some pretty good rags afterward. Producing a car takes 40,000 gallons, wrote Dan. So, if the car has a useful life of 150,000 miles (pretty modest nowadays) each mile consumes about ¼ gallon of water. With average vehicle occupancy of 1.67 and average trip length at 9.7 miles, my average automobile trip uses about 1½ gallons of water. (Statistics from U.S. DOT.)

In summary; Car trip: 1.5 gallons. Shirt: 18 gallons (minus rags). Burger: 110 gallons. This “unbiased” information supports beef as environmentally friendly compared to cars and T-shirts? These are strange comparisons to begin with, but if you’re going to make them, Dan, do the arithmetic.

Ron Kokish

Carbondale

Build for the future

Hey Mr. Developer man: Don’t just build to leave your children a great inheritance. Build something that your grandchildren will be proud of. Let them know that you are/were a progressive builder who believed in passing a sustainable future onto them.

This of course means going beyond the current building code for insulation and windows. This means LEED Platinum certification. It stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. Read inhabitat.com/infographic-everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-leed/. Or visit those geniuses at the Rocky Mountain Institute down in Basalt. And FYI, you get a better rate of return on your investment. But, you have to tell your architects to do it, only you can specify this.

As Albert Einstein said, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”

Tom Mooney

Aspen


Support Local Journalism

Support Local Journalism

Readers around Glenwood Springs and Garfield County make the Post Independent’s work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.

Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.

Each donation will be used exclusively for the development and creation of increased news coverage.

 

Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User