"A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have." I love that quote. Don’t you? Let’s start there because this is a concept which is frequently lost upon the media savvy, narcissistic 99 percent within the 20,000 strong and shrinking Occupy movement. So short-term are the perceived benefits found within their list of audacious demands, so unanalyzed are the consequences of achieving the goals set forth with consensus building vigor, it causes this particular conservative to actually reconsider forgiving their student loan debt under my proposed Refund for Time Wasted In the Pursuit of Higher Learning Act of 2012. No-no-no. Hear me out. Washing one’s hands of 20,000 individuals who couldn’t facilitate their way out of a wet paper bag, let alone concoct a viable economic solution to our progressively worsening economic crisis – it would almost be worth it. Almost, but I do tend to shy away from rewarding Occupy’s Tom-Thuggery with a pay-off. It gives credence to my theory that progressives are just organized crime lords and we can't encourage that. Has anyone got an objection to doubling down on the student loan debt of Occupy at the same rate with which they propose redistributing my paycheck? Or is that too harsh?
No. You are right. Teaching a brand new set of 20,000 individuals that freedom and limited government are always preferable to an iPad – that’s probably the direction that we need to go with this. We could start by explaining to them the law of unintended consequences and kind of work are way up from there. Because “A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have” is the unintended consequence of a strong, unchallenged government. Take this, for example. And what young adult who has been force fed environmentalism from the day she entered preschool wouldn’t be thrilled to know that there is actually a law in the District of Columbia which requires individuals to separate recyclables from waste or face heavy fines. Failing to recycle is now a criminal act in DC. I mean, wow. Isn’t that amazing? I’m trying to remember how long recycling has been part of America’s waste disposal routine. Perhaps twenty years or so? It’s uncanny. It only took two decades of brainwashing to criminalize garbage. It just goes to show you… when liberals put their minds to something – even the heady task of abridging constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure, there really is nothing they can’t do. Remember that the next time they tell us that there is no way of stopping illegal immigration…but I digress.
Now watch what happens when environmentalists collide. Trust me, the display is spectacular. You see, there is a woman in Washington DC who thinks that it is more environmentally responsible to shred her discarded newspaper and use it in her cat’s litter box rather than buy the commercially available litter which often contains perfumes or dyes and always requires the disposal of packaging. For this, Patricia White has been fined eight times for a total of over $2,000. I know. You’re preaching to the choir. For me, it would have only taken one fine and I would have headed right back to the pet aisle to get my jumbo box of Tidy Cat. Ms. White, however, sways to the beat of environmental outrage and will not be deterred. She disputed the fines…and lost. Quoth the DC Department of Public Works:
“The overall goal of recycling is to reduce the amount of waste that goes into landfills.”And that is the justification for the government’s overreaction to homemade kitty litter. Yeah, I don’t actually know how forcing this woman to drive to the store, buy commercial brands of litter so that she can dump it along with the discarded packaging into the garbage instead of dumping her recycled and ammonia-filled newspaper particularly fulfills their department’s mission statement on reducing waste in the landfills. I’m sure there’s some government-produced rubric out there which unequivocally proves that wasting more means wasting less. I can never really decipher the great thinking of smarter-than-thou progressives, but I’m sure they know what they are talking about. They are the experts after all. I am also certain that the only thing that will come from this will be a district-wide ban on all house pets in the name of environmental purity.
Okay, but better than the kitty litter controversy itself is that the District of Columbia employs actual individuals to go through people’s garbage determining who has failed to comply with its strict recycling standards, and you may think that beyond being the grossest job on the face of the planet, that this would be a violation of individual liberty... but in the face of epic, uncontrollable, incalculable, undocumented climate change, you would be mistaken because the only entity that has any expectation of privacy at all when it comes to environmental impact is Mother Earth…oh, and perhaps China. Quoth Fox DC:
DPW recycling investigators are looking for evidence of co-mingling of trash with recyclables. We are finding contamination of the recyclables that is clearly coming from someone who lives or works in the building or in the trained perspective of our investigators, the problem is ‘systemic’ where poor receptacle placement, labeling and/or education have contributed to obvious contamination.
Commercial property owners, including owners of residential buildings with four or more living units, are required to provide trash and recycling collection services through a contract with a licensed hauler.We emphasize education and when that does not work, as shown by follow-up inspections, we will...more here
No comments:
Post a Comment