Earlier this month I did a post called
"Recycling Is Wrong, Wrong, Wrong" because this dangerously silly woman in my hometown named
"Siel" (above, blogging for
The L.A. Times) was trying to goad the authorities into
punishing anyone who wouldn't go along with that long-standing, but ridiculously harmful, garbage collecting scheme. My post featured a link to a highly-informative
New York Times story,
"Recycling Is Garbage", which outlined the history of recycling, and the many reasons that it is
"the most wasteful activity in modern America: a waste of time and money, a waste of human and natural resources." So I sent Siel a link to my post and she wrote back:
"Feel free to email me when you put up a post with reasons why you think recycling's wrong, in conjunctions with other people's links. I like to read, you know, actual content."In other words, this snarky madwoman refused to even click on the
New York Times article that proved she was wrong and acting like a
Nazi - out to
punish anyone who doesn't agree with her wrong-headed obsession - because
I didn't personally write it. In other words, this so-called "smart" person willingly put her fingers in her ears and sang, "La-la-la-la-la", to ignore important
facts she didn't like - as she's actively trying to bring the power of the State of California down upon innocent people's heads. Like I said, a fucking
Nazi.
Now, today,
The San Francisco Chronicle's C.W. Nevius (above) wrote an article about a nuisance
recycling plant in my old Bay Area neighborhood, the Haight/Ashbury. This time I sent
him the
New York Times article, and this was the reaction:
"Huh. That's interesting. Thanks. CWN"That's all he said: "That's interesting." Remember, we're talking about
"the most wasteful activity in modern America" - billions of dollars of our tax money gone and
nothing for helping "the planet" - and he merely finds the information "interesting".
But will he report on the "interesting" news that (in a misguided effort to "Save The Planet") we're actually doing the
wrong thing to the earth and ourselves -
and on a massive scale? I seriously doubt it.
Sure, these (so-called) "journalists" will go on and on about the worthless
banning of plastic bags, and all the other counter-productive nonsense that's being proposed to
nanny state us into a Third World country. But, for some reason, they refuse to write anything that admits the direction we're all being aggressively
pushed into - the direction
they themselves are pushing us toward - is factually just plain wrong. Why?
Well, as anyone who regularly reads this blog knows, I say it's because they're
environmental cultists. Now, I know, many of you may not agree with the term but what do you call people, whose jobs it is to inform us of the wasteful uses of government and money, who refuse to do just that because it it makes them personally feel good to act like
assholes while believing in this
wrong-headed cause of blindly following
Al Gore? I can't find another name for them.
"Cultists" fits too well.
And, I swear, from where I sit, after all the betrayals these fascist
NewAge idiots are putting society through, the WWII idea of one day shaving their heads, and marching them through the streets as examples to us all, is starting to look better and better,...
To kill a man, Alejandro Gallegos García explains, all you need is a black cloth doll, some thread, a human bone and a toad. Oh, and you must ask the devil permission, in person, at a cave in the hills where he is said to appear.
"As for John McCain's supposed extra-marital "romantic" relationship a decade ago with an attractive lobbyist more than 30 years his junior, who cares?
Look, give me a break. This is even sillier than the Frank Rich column I just read that suggests Hillary's loss has parallels to the war in Iraq. (Rich, above, at least, correctly identified Bill Clinton as a major source of irritation, even if he failed to recognize Hillary Clinton as the main problem in her own right.) But what these three NYT columns show us - and it's the reason I love the smoke-clearing clarity of election years - is this:
The New York Times, our so-called "paper of record", plays favorites and, consequently, is completely out of touch with reality - and has been for quite a long time.
First of all, we are nothing like the French. I'm from South Central, Los Angeles. I have none of that (above) in me. I don't even feel comfortable speaking French because all that poo-poo, la-la, coo-coo, nonsense just sounds gay. If any Americans are really like the French, they look like this:
And if American sex lives were filled with adultery, and the other forms of selfish chaos the French excel at, they'd look like this:
And, seriously, that's no way to be at-all. Conclusion:
Fuck the New York Times. They're full of shit. If they think we're going to buy stupid crap like this, they really must be turning French themselves.
"In 'Conjur Woman,' a folk opera for a single performer, the venerable actress Sheila Dabney, working with three proficient musicians onstage at the La MaMa Annex, creates a potent spell seasoned with the power of myth.
Earlier this month I did a post called "Recycling Is Wrong, Wrong, Wrong" because this dangerously silly woman in my hometown named "Siel" (above, blogging for The L.A. Times) was trying to goad the authorities into punishing anyone who wouldn't go along with that long-standing, but ridiculously harmful, garbage collecting scheme. My post featured a link to a highly-informative New York Times story, "Recycling Is Garbage", which outlined the history of recycling, and the many reasons that it is "the most wasteful activity in modern America: a waste of time and money, a waste of human and natural resources." 
Now, today, The San Francisco Chronicle's C.W. Nevius (above) wrote an article about a nuisance recycling plant in my old Bay Area neighborhood, the Haight/Ashbury. This time I sent him the New York Times article, and this was the reaction:
But will he report on the "interesting" news that (in a misguided effort to "Save The Planet") we're actually doing the wrong thing to the earth and ourselves - and on a massive scale? I seriously doubt it. 
Well, as anyone who regularly reads this blog knows, I say it's because they're environmental cultists. Now, I know, many of you may not agree with the term but what do you call people, whose jobs it is to inform us of the wasteful uses of government and money, who refuse to do just that because it it makes them personally feel good to act like assholes while believing in this wrong-headed cause of blindly following Al Gore? I can't find another name for them. "Cultists" fits too well.
