In the San Francisco Chronicle's Sunday edition of the Pink Section, Susan Alexander, a freelance writer based in San Francisco, complains of all the junk she gets from charitable organizations and says:"Most of them end up in a charity donation bag (one hand washes the other?) or, even worse, the trash, adding to our overflowing landfills or our overburdened recycling centers."
So, to prove my point - that I'm not "confused" about cultish-thinking on the environment (or anything else) but most everyone else is being duped, making me live amongst people who remind me of that idiot, Timothy Treadwell, of Grizzly Man, bottom photo, who wanted to galantly "save" bears who were already protected) and our lousy Left-wing, New Age-influenced, newspapers are even assisting with the problem - I'm going to put (a little of) my Macho Money where my big ol' Macho Mouth is. Here's the deal:
If anyone can find proof of "our overflowing landfills" anywhere in the United States - links to articles about just two overflowing landfills will do it - I'll gladly send you $20.00, admit I was wrong, and publicly apologize for the error - and even reconsider my position on all this cult stuff. If no one can do it (out of all the readers who write in to say I'm the one that's crazy) then you guys, maybe, should reconsider your assumptions about the world of cultish-thinking I say we're swamped in - and also think about sending me money. Don't forget: Cultish-thinking is usually about getting people to act on fixing a non-existent problem. Our government is now being pushed to raising our taxes, including putting taxes on roads and the like, and many other coming changes - basically turning our country into France - to fight all these supposed awful environmental catastrophes to come. I say they're lying - and cultish-thinking is behind it - and I aim to prove it. This is only the beginning of these kinds of offers if this idea works out as well as I think it will.
So that's it. The whole bargain. I'm sure, if we had all these "overflowing landfills" (which would indicate some need for us to recycle, change our ways, etc.) there'd be an article about them, right? (Many articles, actually, considering the "green" climate we live in.) So go to it, kids: Two overflowing landfill articles and you win $20.00 and a public apology from Mr. Big Mouth.
Get your environmental freak on,...or help a brother out at:
Google for a giggle:
ReplyDeletePhoto with a statement doesn't count as proof, I know.
Canada doesn't count.
Well-known NewAge flakes, the automobile industry, with special attention to the phrase (for the ose lightweights arguing that recycling isn't cost effective):
'“The auto industry says it costs $100 to throw away the garbage generated in manufacturing one car, so using returnable packaging makes perfect sense for them, especially in light of increasing landfill shortages,” said Diana Twede, a professor in the School of Packaging at Michigan State University.'
Oops, exorbitant cost of discarding packaging AND another mention of landfill shortages.
But could a ton of refuse per city dweller really cause a landfill shortage? What about a trillion plastic bags a year? The numbers don't look very good for one side of this argument.
How about twelve million disposable nappies [diapers] a day? Well yes it was the Council itself that said it was running out of dumping ground but think - spin, spin - That's in Britain, much smaller country, no wonder then eh?
So what anti-recycling message do you have for the limeys?!
Masses and masses of plastic, which doesn't break down for a thousand years. How could that be having an impact on the natural environment?
Finally, a balanced article that looks at the drawback of both landfill and recycling.
Don't thank me. All part of the service.
It's a test from Bruno in Belgium
ReplyDeletethis the biggest problem with this system, nobody really know where the garbage end, I mean most of then end in a recycle plant, other end in some river, other in forest and lakes, there's not a entity who charged to this problem.
ReplyDelete