Need some anti-recycling bumper stickers (vanity)

June 9, 2003

[ElkGroveDan]

Here's the deal. Out in Sacramento County where I live they provide each house with three of those big plastic trash cans, a brown one for garbage, a black one for lawn clippings and a green one for recycling products.

When I first moved in they showed up with all three and I told them to take away the recycling can because I was not going to use it. Family and friends suggested that I keep it and just fill it up with regular garbage. My problem is that I refuse to place it at the end of my driveway along with all the other sheeples advertising that I don't mind participating in socialist behavior modification.

My problem now is that when I moved in there were just my wife and two daughters and I and so I got by with the trash space we had. After the third baby I went to a trash compactor for all the plastic bottles and cartons and that saved a ton of room for a while. We had another baby this year and now with 6 people in the house the volume of trash has gone up and its getting diffuclt to deal with.

My choices were to either order another brown garbage can and pay through the nose for it; (apparently this is considered bad behavior for we lab rats, and when you order another one they need to apply a severe electric shock by way of some huge monthly charge.) or to order the green can for free and just throw garbage in it.

So I finally gave in and ordered the green "recycling" trash can. To set the message straight for my neighbors and other passers bye, I want to plaster it with anti-recycling bumper stickers.

I don't think the garbage-nazis care, since no one has objected yet to the DUMP DAVIS stickers we all still have on our cans on my block.

My request to my fellow freepers is this...Where can I get some good anti-environment anti-recycling bumper stickers?

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

I activly refuse to wear Levi's, ...

What's wrong with Levi's. They are the only jeans I wear...

[Atlas Sneezed]

"Your point is that you are paying for it already so you might as well do nothing to help the environment?"

RECYCLING DOESN'T HELP THE ENVIRONMENT!

It is a social conditioning process of making people unthinking slaves to leftist propaganda.

Recycling fails to help the environment because it consumes more resources than it conserves, reducing societal wealth. There is a strong correlation between societal wealth and environmental quality. What makes us poorer (like recycling does) makes us dirtier.

Recycling also fails to help the environment because of the energy it wastes, because of the other resources it wastes (which could be devoted to things that actually help.)

There is nothing environmentally wrong with putting glass, paper, aluminum, steel, and plastic into holes in the ground.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Thanks for the excellent article. Do you have a link I can bookmark?

[Sonny M]

Made a lot of sense on environment, clearing land mines, and a bunch of other stuff.

Clearing land mines? Please tell me, he means clearing already existing land mines, and not banning US made ones.

To be honest with you, I think recycling has potential to do alot of good, but the problem is, is that the whole system is done so wrong, and ignores so many basic facets of economics and reality that it does more harm then good.

To many enviornmentalists, enviornmentalism is relgion, and recycling is akin to recieving communion or self sacrifise, regardless of its actual cost. I believe in conservationism, which is very very different in spirt and application.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"waste reduction cuts down on the amount of space taken up in landfills"

Who cares? (Not to mention that much of those thing you loyally segregated, stored, and displayed at the curb end up in the SAME LANDFILLS.)

[Drango]

What's wrong with Levi's. They are the only jeans I wear...

Levi's was one of the first firms to side with the gays rather than the Boy Scouts. See the following that I quicky found on google

---

To: sethbrower
Sent: September 7, 2000 7:21:56 PM GMT
Subject: RE: Boy Scouts funding
Dear Seth:

Thank you for contacting us regarding the charitable contribution policy of Levi Strauss & Co. and the Levi Strauss Foundation. Customer feedback is very important to us and we appreciate your taking the time to express your opinions about this issue.

LS&CO. has an established commitment to nondiscrimination policies and practices based on the Company's core values and respect for individual freedoms. In accordance with this philosophy, our Foundation provides support to organizations which do not discriminate on the basis of age, political affiliation, race, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation or religious belief.

The Boy Scouts of America has confirmed that their membership criteria is in conflict with our grant making policies of nondiscrimination on the basis of religious belief and sexual orientation. Accordingly, LS&CO. and the Foundation can no longer fund the Boy Scouts of America.

We recognize the valuable contributions Boy Scout programs have made to millions of young men. It is not our intention or goal to be punitive or to force the Boy Scouts -- or any other organization -- to change its policies to comply with our funding guidelines. LS&CO. employees are welcome to volunteer their personal time and resources to any organization they choose, including the Boy Scouts of America.

We value your comments and feedback and will be passing them on to senior management for their review and information.

Sincerely,

Tamara
Levi Strauss & Co

[fnord]

Wow, this certainly turned out to be a contentious thread :-)

Most people, even intelligent and conservative people, don't consider the science of the question before forging ahead to the 'solution'. Certainly politicans would not be inclined to actually learn something about the issue before they pass yet another law. After all, the goal is that we 'feel good', not actually solve a problem. In fact, the question of whether there is actually a problem is usually ignored too.

Likewise, economics is rarely considered, i.e., you are facing an economic penalty if you produce too much garbage in a week.

- Let's take a big leap and assume for arguments sake that landfill space is lmitied (as it is in some areas). There is then a valid economic reason for a government to place a limit (hopefully well-reasoned) on garbage it has to pay to dump at a landfill (or whereever).

- You stated that for years you did not exceed this limit. In fact, no doubt you actually came in under the limit during your early family life. Have you been compensated for these years of 'underproducing' garbage? Perhaps this shortfall volume should have been placed in escrow for you to draw upon when needed.

- No doubt there are some families in your area who are currently underproducing. Shouldn't their shortfall accrue to someone?

Assuming a valid reason for placing a limit on per-household garbage, it only seems economically rational and fair that this limit be looked at as a limit on the total garbage produced by your community. As long as there are some families (no doubt many) who are underproducing, you should be allowed to exceed the per-capita limit, i.e. take up their slack.

Too rational? Sure. Overanalysed? No doubt.

Sorry for the long post, but at least it is shorter than yours above! lol, j/k

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

Great, just freaking great. I shouldn't have asked. Now I have to reconsider both 505's and Dockers.

[breakem]

Gotta find the real answer and ignore the fringe.

Wattenberg had a web site at which he described his idea for clearing land mines. You remember that every so often some soldier bites it after the shooting is over, not to mention during the invasion of hostile territory. And now that have countries which are saturated.

Wattenberg had a meeting with some procurement Colonel from the pentagon and there was a ego war going on. The Colonel went back and said it didn't work. Wattenberg is a smart guy and he says let's have a filed test. The pentagon, to this date as far as I know, has not called him.

Can't remember his web site, maybe a search?

[breakem]

pushback.com

[Dog Gone]

When they pay me to recycle, I'll do it. And I'm glad I don't live somewhere where they tell me that I have to buy their colored trash cans in order to get my sorted garbage hauled off.

[Normal4me]

You're right. Every neighborhood should have it's own mountain of trash and contaminated drinking water. Lets keep "storing" it and let the next generations deal with it as it is to expensive now to be responsible!

[breakem]

heliocopter minesweeper right there on the left side about halfway down.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

I've got it! Since it is bad economic policy, and bad economic policy disproportionately hurts minorities ...

Stop The Racist War Recycling!!!

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

Every neighborhood should have it's own mountain of trash and contaminated drinking water.

Gee, that's really what people are suggesting. You look really stupid when you start to project the left's extremism into the arguments against their policy.

[ElkGroveDan]

He has no forced recycling, his household is just creating too much trash for one can and he is too cheap to pay for a second can and is whining about recycling because he can get a recycling can for free, and then he has to get off of his butt and put the recyclables into a different place he is using more energy on this thread than he would if he just did it or paid for the second garbage can

It has nothing to do with "getting off my butt". My wife will tell you I spend way too much time puttering and tinkering around the house and the yard. It would be very easy for me to separate the garbage if I thought there was a compelling and legitimate reason to do so.

It has nothing to do with cheapness. I am not cheap. Both my wife and I can be too free-wheeling in our spending some times. You should see teh piles of wrapping paper we don't recycle at Christmas time each year from all the excessive gifts we buy our kids and each other.

I do however, object to spending money against my principles. If I was going to buy a car and it said on the invoice we add one cent to the price of every car to help pay for abortions, I wouldn't buy the car -- period -- At any price.

Its a matter of principles and when they foist a massive fee on me as punishment for being a consumer I will find every scheme I can to get around it.

[Sonny M]

Thank goodness, he really is talking about clearing mines, not banning american ones.

US landmines, now also use "smart" technology. Timers, remote control activate or deactivate, different sensors, easier to pick up, etc.

[breakem]

At a cost of millions no doubt. I just read Wattenberg's letter to the wh and the pentagon. The government owns the item he invented and the sost is a few thousand per. No wonder the pentagon doesn't like it.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"You're right. Every neighborhood should have it's own mountain of trash and contaminated drinking water. Lets keep "storing" it and let the next generations deal with it as it is to expensive now to be responsible!"

Putting your rhetoric aside, no one proposes to shut down remote landfills (which provide desired jobs, and are normally welcomed by the communities.) If you want to live far from such a community, you will pay more for your trash hauling, of course, but it can still be hauled, and recycling won't help the matter.

(PS: How does burying recyclables contaminate groundwater?)

[lilmsdangrus]

Dan, I think you got some people with over-active hemorrhoids of their own tonite! I got your point, and I say, go for it dude! (for whatever that's worth)