Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

To those whining about the "enviromental impact" and "hypocrisy "of Edwards' new home

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-26-07 09:02 PM
Original message
To those whining about the "enviromental impact" and "hypocrisy "of Edwards' new home
Edited on Fri Jan-26-07 09:08 PM by JohnLocke
From Elizabeth Edwards' blog at JohnEdwards.com:

John and I had been married just two years when, in July 1979, President Jimmy Carter gave one of several speeches he delivered on energy. It was a remarkable speech for many reasons, not the least of which was that it wasn't really a speech, it was a conversation, a plea maybe, and a call to action to each American. It was about not just what the government could do for us about the rising cost - in so many ways - of our dependency on fossil fuels; it was also about what WE as citizens could each do. Sound familiar? A national call to action.
I have talked a lot about that speech over the last years, about how President Carter asked each of us to make small sacrifices to improve our energy profile. You remember, if you are old enough, that among other things he asked us to turn our thermostats down and to put on a sweater. We get together to cheer at the Olympics; we get together to grieve and reassert our patriotism after September 11th. Certainly we can, as President Carter said, "get together as a nation to resolve our serious energy problem." It has been almost 28 years since that speech, and it is past time we get together on this.
Here is what our family has done and is doing.
We sold the conventional fuel SUV that we used to carry children, strollers, luggage and toys between Washington, DC and North Carolina, and we bought a hybrid, a Ford Escape.
Since we were building a home in Orange County, we decided to take advantage of some of the technology that President Carter had encouraged.
All the water (all of which comes from wells) in our home and some of the flooring is heated with solar energy.
We built a highly energy efficient house. In fact, our home is Energy-Star rated. Energy Star is an EPA regulated designation for homes that are at least 30 percent more efficient than the national Model Energy Code. In building we made sure we had effective insulation in floors, walls, and attics. We chose efficient heating and cooling equipment and high-performance windows. Our builder paid close attention to making sure the construction was tight to seal out drafts and moisture. The day the independent inspector came to evaluate the house, we were on pins and needles while he tested our home's energy performance. As he packed his equipment, he gave us the good news: we are an Energy-Star home!
We recycle, of course, although just yesterday we got our Orange County recycle bin. Until then we used the recycle facility just down the road. (The trash compactor I debated putting in is really useful for compacting cans and plastic, it turns out.)
And as the incandescent light bulbs the electrician installed in our fixtures burn out, we are replacing them with fluorescent bulbs. If you are thinking that we are living now in harsh light, with buzzing sounds and constant flickers, you are thinking of your grandmother's fluorescent bulbs. There are a wide range of shapes and fittings available now; there are even dimmable fluorescents, and honestly I cannot tell without checking which of our bulbs are still incandescent and which are now - and will continue to be -- fluorescent. Switching is a little bit of a bite, because the bulbs are more expensive (although Costco and eBay have some good prices), but replacing a single 60 watt incandescent with a 15 watt fluorescent you use just six hours a day could see an energy savings of more than $40 over the 4 year (4 year!) life of the bulb. And it is not just energy. A single fluorescent bulb "can prevent more than 450 pounds of emissions from a power plant over its lifetime" according to the Energy-Star website. That same site has these incredible statistics: "If every American home replaced just one light bulb with an ENERGY STAR, we would save enough energy to light more than 2.5 million homes for a year and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of nearly 800,000 cars." One bulb.
Tomorrow is the first One Corps Day of Energy Action. Our family is headed to Scranton, Pennsylvania, to help winterize a home. One Corps groups throughout the country will be undertaking service projects in their communities. I urge you all to join the One Corps nearest you, to start a One Corps near you if you don't have one, or to take it on yourself to be active on energy tomorrow. Maybe it is helping to winterize a house, or maybe it just means changing a few bulbs. But, as President Carter understood, progress happens when all of us act individually and together to reach our common goals.
See you tomorrow!


Those of you who whined about the Edwardses' new home: STFU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SharonH Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-26-07 09:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. Hush yo mouth! Elizabeth can only be appreciated when
she types from a hospital bed.

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-26-07 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. Thank you John Locke. Some folks should be feeling pretty stupid-head right now.
Let go of the hate. It's just not healthy.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-26-07 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
3. Kick (nt).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RiverStone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-26-07 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
4. Better yet, forget about John's house....
And see what Al Gore says regarding what we ALL can do to reduce Global Warming.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x50954

peace~


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-26-07 10:16 PM
Response to Original message
5. Makes you wonder if these critics of John Edwards Are Pushing Another Candidate....
... obviously there is a concerted effort to 'trash' John Edwards on these boards, claiming he is working in concert with Bush to start a war with Iran, that he is a rich guy buying rich things(even though he grew up poor) and does not care about the environment.

I guess if you can dream up a reason not to support John Edwards you are free to post it here, but it usually just shows your own ignorance to criticize him for things you know nothing about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #5
47. We know nothing about his Iran-war rhetoric?
You know - you don't have to be advocating another candidate to seriously question Edwards' actions vs. his rhetoric.

Hell, my guy may not even announce, so I have no dog in this fight right now. I really don't like anyone currently running all that much.

But, to assume anyone who opposes Edwards is either jealous or doesn't know much is rather simplistic.

I've stated 100 times that I don't care where he lives, but I do care about his changing rhetoric as it suits his political needs, how he didn't propose any (or much, since I can't find it) legislation to help the disadvantaged when he was senator and how he DID support the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act just before he ran for president the first time.

I'm not jealous of Edwards: my guy last time around beat him in five of the nine races in which they both competed and warned him and other senators that going to war in Iraq would be a lost cause and was correct about it. My guy also did not want to run as VP.

What's there to be jealous of?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aaronbees Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-26-07 11:06 PM
Response to Original message
6. Good for them
I love Elizabeth Edwards; a very decent woman who puts her ideals into action. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pandrmn Donating Member (46 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-26-07 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Yes, good for them.
Trial lawyer makes millions, knocks down a bunch of trees and buys a big-ass house living the capatalism good life. A man for the people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #7
18. Pandrmn
??? to DU!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pandrmn Donating Member (46 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. Gracias! Que revoluciones?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #20
26. ...
no-violento social revolución ahora!




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabasco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #20
54. There's a revolution in Iraq.
www.goarmy.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #7
24. Yes, welcome, Pandrmn!
Ain't greed grand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aaronbees Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 02:13 AM
Response to Reply #7
30. Yes, how awful of them...
:eyes: I don't begrudge them their choice, even if I wouldn't do the same. And frankly they've earned their money, and their choice on a home is fairly close to irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

But hey, thanks for the snark ... and enjoy your stay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pandrmn Donating Member (46 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #30
65. By your comments, you agree with capatalism and disagree with tort reforms?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aaronbees Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #65
67. Like I said....
enjoy your stay here. Nice obfuscation of the issue, too. This isn't about tort reform. Adios.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
39. I doubt Valerie Lakey would agree.
The defining case in Edwards' legal career wrapped up that same year. In 1993, a five-year-old girl named Valerie Lakey had been playing in a Wake County, N.C., wading pool when she became caught in an uncovered drain so forcefully that the suction pulled out most of her intestines. She survived but for the rest of her life will need to be hooked up to feeding tubes for 12 hours each night. Edwards filed suit on the Lakeys' behalf against Sta-Rite Industries, the Wisconsin corporation that manufactured the drain. Attorneys describe his handling of the case as a virtuoso example of a trial layer bringing a negligent corporation to heel. Sta-Rite offered the Lakeys $100,000 to settle the case. Edwards passed. Before trial, he discovered that 12 other children had suffered similar injuries from Sta-Rite drains. The company raised its offer to $1.25 million. Two weeks into the trial, they upped the figure to $8.5 million. Edwards declined the offer and asked for their insurance policy limit of $22.5 million. The day before the trial resumed from Christmas break, Sta-Rite countered with $17.5 million. Again, Edwards said no. On January 10, 1997, lawyers from across the state packed the courtroom to hear Edwards' closing argument, "the most impressive legal performance I have ever seen," recalls Dayton. Three days later, the jury found Sta-Rite guilty and liable for $25 million in economic damages (by state law, punitive damages could have tripled that amount). The company immediately settled for $25 million, the largest verdict in state history. For their part, Edwards and Kirby earned the Association of Trial Lawyers of America's national award for public service.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0110.green.html

I'd say he deserves every last drop of his "capatalism good life." STFU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pandrmn Donating Member (46 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #39
66. Agreed.
What do the parents of a 25M settlement do? Pay their lawyers about 40%. Talk about corp. rip offs - who needs this? I see plenty of rants against oil and pharmaceutical co.'s, but where is the throw down on this bull! What's more is that many here defend this. If this capitalism is ok, then ok! But do not complain about how the "rich" are getting away with not paying their dues in other industries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
citizen snips Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #7
50. how many other politicians live the capitalist good life?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greendog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 12:14 AM
Response to Original message
8. How much energy is it going to take...
Edited on Sat Jan-27-07 12:26 AM by greendog
...to keep that lawn mowed?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Can you please resize that pic...
some people don't have broadband.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greendog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Sorry about that...
...I had copied the photo from another thread on DU without thinking about size. Got it fixed now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. Thanks so much!
That is better :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. I don't see a lawn, but they could use some landscaping.
Landscaping doesn't have to be labor and water intensive either. If they sow it with grass then maybe they intend to keep horses. There's no need for a lawmower then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. That's how my sister mows her lawn...
It's a huge lawn and it gets too hot for the riding lawn mower. She'll set three or four of her horses loose and they do a decent job. That's what she tells me. She's the country girl.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #14
31. The horses do a great job. My neighbor's two horses who graze
in the pasture next to my yard not only do a great job in keeping their pasture trimmed, but they reach over the fence and relieve me of many of my ornamental plants as well. :-)

Many of the neighbors seasonally rent goats to take care of weed control on their acreages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greendog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. Perhaps a small herd of donkeys?
I was assuming short grass close to the buildings and somewhat longer grass for the fields. Maybe they will use animals. Who knows?

It's a pretty obvious question, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #8
23. It's for the polo ponies....
maybe they'll 'mow' it?! It'll be just like a Ralph Lauren shirt!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #8
89. Let most of it stay meadow, don't mow it.
Why mow except for a bit around the house to play in and for fire safety? Meadow the rest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nam78_two Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 12:32 AM
Response to Original message
12. The nice thing about not being on Bill O'Reilly's show
Edited on Sat Jan-27-07 12:34 AM by nam78_two
..is that one doesn't have to "shut the fuck up"...

As the tag-line for Greenwald's movie "Outfoxed" went:

"In a democracy, you don't have to shut up..speak up."

So, I won't be stfuing about the fact that I think Edwards has a poor environmental record overall (either a 27 or 37% rating from the LCV at some point-I am trying to find a record of the individual votes but can't see them right now), which would IMO make him an exceptionally poor choice at this point in history.

I will keep "whining" about the environment-because its important to me.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=52438&mesg_id=52438

I am praying that Gore decides to run...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G Hawes Donating Member (440 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 12:45 AM
Response to Original message
16. STFU?
Edited on Sat Jan-27-07 12:51 AM by G Hawes
Um, no.

Anyone who pretends to be environmentally conscious while building and inhabiting a monstrosity like the one the Edwards have done, and then has the audacity to pen a BS note like the one in the opening post, deserves the derision that those actions attract.

The note is written as though it's a normal sized house (and never mind the attached building twice its size). Who on earth is taken in by this?

I didn't even care about the house and buildings much at all, frankly, until I saw this thread with that snivelling, self-serving, deceptive note.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #16
25. And that the Edwards PR people told him to
have the wife write it....nauseating. I thought better of Elizabeth. She probably just signed her name to what a Communication Specialist wrote.

They had to realize there would be flack over this....

Hey, I wonder if this will piss off Gore enough to throw his hat in the ring??????

STFU???? Right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #25
40. Wow. I've never seen someone make up so much shit about Elizabeth Edwards.
She's a fine person. More than I can say for you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #40
57. Wow...I feel as if I've returned to the playground
of my elementary school. Tag, you're it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
citizen snips Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #25
52. Can you back that statement up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #52
58. I'm sure that Elizabeth writes everything herself...
I'm sure there are no Communications/Press Specialists on staff.

:sarcasm:

It's just mom and dad running a little presidential campaign from their little abode.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buck Rabbit Donating Member (999 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #16
28. Me too. I was neutral about the house, but this note hits me wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #16
29. What, compact fluorescent bulbs don't an environmental hero make?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Porcupine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:10 AM
Response to Reply #29
70. Well, not when you lie about them....
the "little note" by Elizabeth Edwards doesn't pass the smell test.

When you are building a new house of this size your architect and designer get together and "design" the lighting. The fixtures are sized and placed for certain effects in each room. Rarely in custom houses over 3000 sq. ft. is the lighting design compatible with 15 watt fluorescents. Usually there are a great many can lights, 15 watt candle bulbs and sometimes DC micro-lights.

In a place that size it would take 2-3 HOURS just to confirm that all the switches worked and turned on the lights they were supposed to. The Edwards never touch a light bulb; their staff takes care of it. Therefore it's cheaper to have lighting techs come in and switch out all possible bulbs at once due to the hassles with ladders etc.

The biggest savings the Edwards will realize in switching to fluorescents is staff time because they will replace bulbs every few years instead of every six months. The cost of the electricity pales in comparison.

In another thread somebody mentioned that Elizabeth Edwards said that they were geo-exchange ready. This place probably has a massive zone-controlled HVAC system. A competent heating engineer can always hook an existing system to a geo-exchange system but it costs around 15k for a normal house. The ground loop part of the geo-exchange has to be buried in the ground or sunk in multiple wells. I doubt they are planning to install landscaping and then destroy it later for that purpose.

I believe this little missive was written by a well meaning staffer. The well meaning staffer should cover his/her bosses ass better than that.

The Edwards might consider getting a competent energy consultant in to help them green up their house a little more because as of this September this will be a major issue.

To be fair the trees surrounding the house had to be cut for a defensible perimeter in case of forest fire. It actually looks like they would need to thin the surrounding forest some to really be safe.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #70
74. Are forest fires a big issue in the Carolinas?
Summer is their wet season.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Porcupine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 03:08 AM
Response to Reply #74
76. Forest fires are an issue in the Amazon.
I can't imagine that somehow the Carolinas are exempt from drought and wind. You live in California and I know you've seen the results of not cutting the brush in your perimiter.

I was in Oakland the day it burned. It made an impression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 06:08 AM
Response to Reply #74
82. this area of Carolina
is prone to severe drought and water shortages, unlike the coast and the mountains. So fire is not a far-fetched consideration. However this site is in an area that has a lot of development. It's not quite as rural as it looks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #82
87. Ah ok
Are you Francis Marion's ghost?

I spent a summer at the confluence of the Great and Little Pee Dee. I was so happy to hear that area is protected! :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #87
88. No not the screenwriter
I am sharecropper Marion's ghost, watching fields & woods fill up with McMansions around here, nowhere near the confluence of the Pee Dees. More like the confluence of the rabid foxes and the rabid developers in central NC. Some people built a humonga house in the lot next to our 40 yr old (ordinary, best described as rustic contemporary) house recently. We call this newcomer The Fortress. The owners told us how much they loved the fact that we have owls around here because it's so wooded. Then they proceeded to put up 3 (!) halogen street lights like the kind you see on highways on their gravel driveway. Then, although we're the only ones who can really see it, they covered the entire house in Christmas lights in Dec. Don't they know that owls like it dark at night (and so do we)? The owls have not been seen or heard since the neighbors moved in a year ago. No regulations exist about light pollution, nor water quality, nor any other kind of degradation --though there is some lip service, it's all the worst kind of BS. Nobody cares. It's all about development. So I understand why people are sensitive about the Edwards' house. It's not surprising but it is disappointing. We have to get serious about this as a nation.

I googled Francis Marion. She was "America's highest-paid screenwriter" of the early 20th century.
She was a real figure in early movie-making. Interesting character. Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #88
91. Not the screenwriter
The Swamp Fox. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #91
95. oh yeah....the Swamp Fox LOL
thanx for clarification. I still had to google him tho. Francis Marion, Revolutionary War hero of South Carolina...who lost the British in the swamps. One of those fun figures in our murky history. I like that swamp fox image. Disappearing like ghosts. Fits.:)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #16
32. Yeah this message from Edwards is rather insulting
Edited on Sat Jan-27-07 09:29 AM by high density
I'll be upfront that I'm not an Edwards fan. "Two Americas" Edwards building a house like this seemed kind of hypocritical to me, but this post from Elizabeth Edwards really pisses me off even more. "As the incandescent bulbs burn out we're replacing them with compact fluorescents." I mean how much more shallow can you get? They sound so desperate to fit in but they're just so awkwardly out of touch.

This is like those fools that put "conservation" plates on their massive Lexus and Infiniti SUVs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #16
46. I also will not "STFU"
Edited on Sat Jan-27-07 01:16 PM by lwfern
So y'all will have to excuse me for continuing to criticize gross consumption habits where I see fit - and, god forbid, criticizing the benevolent rich. Making an effort to have a smaller environmental footprint is a good thing. I applaud their use of green technology where they've applied it.

However, building a house/complex that is 10 times what you need, and then bragging because you've reduced the energy requirements of it by 30(+)%, is not "reducing" your footprint.

It's like the old joke about going shopping, coming back with $200 dollars worth of crap you didn't need, and then boasting that you saved $300 because everything was on sale.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nevernose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
17. SO they're using 30% less power than a noramal home?
So their house only has the energy footprint of a 20,000 square foot home? Thank God for the responsibility they show.

To be fair, I still like John Edwards. And if I had that kind of money, I'd probably buy two houses that size: one to live in, and one just so I could impress my new rich friends with the size of my weekend getaway house.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #17
35. Or a drafty older home
I don't know much about the energy standard that they were talking about. I know that some people with older homes have weatherized, cutting their energy bills by a lot more than 30%, probably not even using materials as good as the Edwards'.
Also, energy use and square footage isn't a one to one correlation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #17
41. No, it's *at least* 30 percent *for the Energy Star designation.*
They got the Energy Star designation for using at least 30 percent less power. Presumably the house uses even less power than the average home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 12:53 AM
Response to Original message
19. STFU? Since when? That house is a mcmansion and I do believe
that in this world, with all that is happening to the land, that is verboten. Unless you candidate is getting gored. when someone is wrong, they are wrong. in this world, that house is wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeunderdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #19
59. Uh....A McWhopperMansion.
It saves 30% of the energy on 5000% of the room you need. It uses only 8000% above reasonable levels of Earth's precious energy-effiient resources to live in comfort.

Is it a deal-breaker? No. Does it totally suck? Yeah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #59
62. Um...see post #41.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #59
69. They must be freaking out about the negative attention this house is getting
and now they are trying to defend their presidential campaign with stuff like this? Yesterday I was supporting Edwards on this and even posted a poll to show how dumb this issue was. This thread was part of my switching sides. It's simply insulting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 01:13 AM
Response to Original message
21. Wow, I had no idea that all it took was a
pretty smile and some kind words about the poor.

Hook, line and sinker. Damn, you're easy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. What do you need, stigmata?
Gee, it's not as if his stand on matters of policy are as relevant as his house.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #21
42. Lemme get this straight.
You're disparaging a man who spent YEARS and YEARS of his life helping the poor? What have you done?

I'm sickened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 01:46 AM
Response to Original message
27. I am more concerned about his views on Israel,
Iran, Iraq, and all the middle east. I do not trust him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philosophie_en_rose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
33. Lets not confuse ourselves with facts now.
I read in a spam email that the Drudge Report says that Hannity suggests that Edwards built his home to produce mega monsters with radioactive waste.





So it must be true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forrest Greene Donating Member (946 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
34. Stop Whining
...about whining. And that's an order.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #34
43. Thanks for your substantive comment.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forrest Greene Donating Member (946 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #43
55. And The Very Same
...to you!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forrest Greene Donating Member (946 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #43
56. But Really, John
Edited on Sat Jan-27-07 03:12 PM by Forrest Greene
...your original post consists of a lengthy copyright abuse, the use of a right-wing catchphrase ("whining" to describe discussion of an issue that discomforts you,) & a direct, illegitimate order to me to censor myself, laced with an obscenity. You ought to be embarrassed.

(Edited to correct a mispressed key.)
(& again, to be just a wee bit more polite.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
36. no one is "whining" about his rhetoric
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neshanic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
37. No mention of LEED standards.
Edited on Sat Jan-27-07 11:54 AM by Neshanic
"LEED for Homes is a voluntary rating system that promotes the design and construction of high performance "green" homes. A green home uses less energy, water, and natural resources; creates less waste; and is healthier and more comfortable for the occupants. Benefits of a LEED home include lower energy and water bills; reduced greenhouse gas emissions; and less exposure to mold, mildew and other indoor toxins. The net cost of owning a LEED home is comparable to that of owning a conventional home."

I think the acres of grass and water to maintain that estate look and clear cut forest is a non-starter for the Edwardses.

He better be carefull about his next environmental responsibility speech, of course he could have it while poor folk play on the grass on the expansive grounds.

Oh...and a listing of "Energy Star" homes in Phoenix. Impressive is it not?

http://www.arizonaenergystarhomes.com/energystarbuilders.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
38. STFU?
Wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrunkenMaster Donating Member (582 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #38
86. yep
Edwards uses energy saving lightbulbs, so quit your whining, treehugger!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
44. I have a legitimate question.
Is this you (or something you advocate):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke_Foundation

http://www.johnlocke.org/about/

And, especially: http://www.carolinajournal.com/

Or is it unfortunate that you share the name?

I'm seriously asking. Not flaming.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. Hell no (nt).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. OK. Just wondering.
Edited on Sat Jan-27-07 01:22 PM by Clark2008
That's where the link regarding the house goes now and I saw the John Locke Foundation at the bottom or the link and then saw your user name, so it made me wonder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
citizen snips Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #44
49. John Locke was an english philosopher.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 05:21 AM
Response to Reply #49
81. Moderately influential. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
citizen snips Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
51. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
53. And if a portion of the complex is offices for John and Elizabeth...
...which I'm guessing it is, they save on fossil fuels not having to run back and forth to the workplace every day.

NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
60. Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
61. Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 11:48 PM
Response to Original message
63. Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
64. Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:08 AM
Response to Original message
68. That's doesn't change the fact of the 50,000 trees cut or the excessive size of the home.
Edited on Sun Jan-28-07 02:17 AM by Clarkie1
It's an ugly scar upon the land, and it doesn't set a good example for our country...or the world, for that matter. It's gross to see that kind of excess, especially from those who wish to lead. He can put in all the flourescent bulbs he wants and that's great, but a castle of that size is still wasteful and unseemly.

This world has a population problem, a dwindling resource problem, and a land use problem. Edwards has made himself part of the problem by building this house, instead of working toward being part of the solution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
71. Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neshanic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
72. This is just strange.
Edited on Sun Jan-28-07 01:46 PM by Neshanic
"Since we were building a home in Orange County"...so much for the renovation thing.

"All the water (all of which comes from wells)"...notice the plural. Lots o' lawn to irrigate.

"In fact, our home is Energy-Star rated."...big woop! Most house built now in large suburban areas are.

"We chose efficient heating and cooling equipment and high-performance windows."...they would need it considering the amounts of glass in the picture and solar gain.

"And as the incandescent light bulbs the electrician installed in our fixtures burn out, we are replacing them with fluorescent bulbs."...really, what a scarafice. can you shoot hoops in the gym with that light?

"Our family is headed to Scranton, Pennsylvania, to help winterize a home."..try staying at yours and figure out a water recycle system that the Chimp even has the brains to install.

The trees clear cut.
The open space that will be lawn.
The bad timing and bad choice/vulgarity of it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
73. Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jcrowley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
75. Could we get
an actual breakdown on the entire ecological consequences and sources for materials bought?

Um sorry but there is a squash court or two on the complex I believe and I assure you the cost of that alone is grotesque. In all ways. I'm not speaking from inexperience.

Just the tip of the (melting) iceberg.

This is not whining it is rightful disgust and disdain at opulence that leads to ecological catastrophe and social inequality.

If you are not all the calculations into account then they are wrong from the start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 03:12 AM
Response to Original message
77. KICK!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 03:22 AM
Response to Original message
78. It's the shut the fuck up thread again!
For some reason people keep kicking this back up to the top even though no one is posting on it any more. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nutmegger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 03:26 AM
Response to Original message
79. KICK KICK KICK KICK KICK
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RiverStone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 04:51 AM
Response to Original message
80. 3, 2, 1, ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 07:15 AM
Response to Original message
83. I like the Edwards but this is a problem
Edited on Mon Jan-29-07 07:28 AM by marions ghost
John would make a good president, there's no question in my mind about that.

...But I do think they've made a tactical mistake with this complex they built. It's certainly a case of bad timing --in a year in which you run for president on a populist platform.

The break that I give them is that I don't see it as a house--it's more correctly described as a "facility"--which lots of developers build. It's just that the Edwards business happens to be a home-based business. I can understand why they'd want a built-in conference center since the area is not urban (though more developed than it appears in the photo). Beyond that, this is obviously a tax shelter and real estate investment. They need to push back hard on this point IMO. It's their best defense--stop defending it as a house and call it what it is.

Of course in hindsight the Edwards could have done this in ways that wouldn't be so open to criticism. It's a choice they made and they do have to own it. Are they so naive as to think that it would not make them a target for rabid dogs? All Drudge had to do was strike a match. I'm not not surprised at their plowing their money into real estate, just disappointed that they did not see the swiftboaters ready to kick into high gear. And also disappointed that they did not see this as an opportunity--to build something that would REALLY be seen as a new concept in environmentally sensitive building. There would have been plenty of consultants who would have jumped at the chance to create a cutting edge complex. He would have gained support with that approach.

I still support Edwards--as far as you can support any politician in the mainstream in America. This was a naive move on his part, but it's still important to weigh his strengths over his failings. You won't find perfection. If this is the worst that he's done, well, it's not as bad as what some have done, and it certainly isn't hidden. Trying to keep it in perspective.

GOOD thing they shop at Costco... :D LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
84. how many electricians does it take to install a bulb at the edward's house...?
Edited on Mon Jan-29-07 09:31 AM by QuestionAll
"...as the incandescent light bulbs the electrician installed in our fixtures burn out..."

can't some people do anything for themselves?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #84
92. It is not uncommon for people doing the building of the house to put in lightbulbs.
"And as the incandescent light bulbs the electrician installed in our fixtures burn out, we are replacing them with fluorescent bulbs."

The electrician wired it, then put in lightbulbs to make sure that it worked. That is normal. Then the owners replace them when they burn out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrunkenMaster Donating Member (582 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
85. Yeah! STFU, You Damn Treehuggers!
How DARE you whine about hypocrisy! Johns Edwards is LIVING THE AMERICAN DREAM: becoming rich and famous so you can flaunt your success, waste our natural resources and never be accountable! The American Dream is to drain this planet of every natural resource so we can live like Kings!

How dare you claim that because Edwards builds a house so big its an insult to the poor he claims to support he is a hypocrite? How ridiculous!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cgrindley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
90. That's offensive
That they are even trying to defend their bloated, disgusting 28,000 square foot house is a disgusting insult to everyone's intelligence. It's sick and gross and she should be ashamed of herself. Maybe she and her husband should use their gross fortune to purchase 28 houses for the poor in their state to attone for their hateful over-consumption.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #90
93. here is a link to real numbers.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x54475
If you are going to complain, at least use the real size, not the exaggerated numbers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
94. The sad part is, this is none of my business
but good for them.

People will trash for trashing sake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 17th 2024, 09:46 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC