I'm not trying to proselytize - I realize I'm in the extreme minority on this point (and most any other that I might raise), and I have no expectation of winning converts to my way of thinking.
But there is a logical disconnect between the goals of these so-called idealists, and their actions. This is because people have been trained not to question truth of these things. Instead they are trained to recycle paper, even though it's ecologically worse that throwing it in the garbage or burning it; Trained to jump to conclusions without any evidence, based on the word of whichever news outlet agrees with them the most; Trained to not believe that it's not butter.
One might argue that no one fights paper recycling because it's not important on a day to day basis, but if it's so unimportant why do some people look at you like a you're a corpse molester if you even suggest throwing wastepaper in the garbage?
My whole childhood was nothing but ad campaigns with crying pseudo-Indians and not messing up Texas and owls hooting about polluting. I don't know if you were around for the '70s and '80s at all, but they really hammered home the concept of putting the garbage in the garbage. Got a wad of garbage? Throw that shit in the trash. Maybe say no to drugs, if there's time, but first and foremost, garbage has got to go into the garbage can. I can't oversell this enough, the '80s was full-on, balls deep, gung ho about throwing all garbage in a garbage can. There were cartoon characters and even some new symbols on the cans to remind people how to operate a garbage can. I can dig it. It took 20 years to clean up the mess left over after the 1960s (but enough about Vietnam).
Then suddenly, after 20 years of programming us to put paper in the trash can, they decide to change the rules. Now paper goes in the green bin, unless it's plasticized or waxed paper. Corrugated fiberboard should be cut into strips no larger that 1 foot by 3 inches, and placed in the brown receptacle, *unless* the fluting designation is rated E or smaller, in which case it should be rinsed and placed on top of the paper in the green bin. Rinsed unbroken glass goes in the white bin, while aluminum goes in the red bin. Plastic needs to be sorted into the 8 individually labelled beige containers, because you wouldn't want to mix polyethylene terephthalate with your polypropylene. Tin, bronze, brass, and steel go in the slightly smaller white bin. Batteries have to be driven to a special dump 30 miles North (but only during 9 - 5 on weekdays), and televisions have to be driven to a special dump 20 miles East. Both of those places are going to ship your junk to same the landfill 5 miles West of you, but THAT facility isn't open to the public. Recycling batteries is free, but for the television they're going to charge $60.
You know who doesn't require me to alphabetize my trash like I'm Howard Hughes, or charge me the price of a new video game to throw away a television? LITERALLY EVERY PLACE IN THE WORLD EXCEPT THE FUCKING DUMP. The gully out behind the big trainyard has a great policy. You just throw your shit in the ditch, and haul ass out of there before anyone can make out your plates. That nice creek with the cozy little overpass that feeds the aquifer and drains to the ocean doesn't care how much motor oil and paint thinner I pour in. The only people in the world who penalize me for taking my garbage to them, are the people whose job it is to take my garbage.
I'm no economist, but it seems like the municipal dump is failing the free market test. Which means anyone who values their money above the environment has a whole world of better options for garbage disposal. The more expensive and complicated the system gets, the more people will avoid taking dangerous waste to the dump.
We live in a world where the appearance of doing good is more important than the actual impact of that good. People buy their pink ribbon soup, and run "For The Cure" while ignoring the vast sums of money they're wasting on overhead. The two highest salaries at this "non-profit organization" (Nancy Brinker, and Liz Thompson) add up to $1,167,357. How many people did it take, wracked with the pain and isolation of losing a loved one, or the fear of being diagnosed with terminal cancer themselves - running in circles until their constitution gave out? How many times around that track does it take to raise $1,167,357? How many donors and participants, thinking they were making a difference had their contributions dumped directly into the pockets of these two vile harpies?
"You are missing the point! It's about raising awareness for a terrible disease! You hate women, and love Hitler! If someone you loved died of breast cancer you would understand..."
My mother died of inflammatory breast cancer, in October of 2014 - she was supposed to visit later that month, but we didn't have the time. The cancer spread rapidly to her lungs, bones, and brain. The doctor gave her 6 months. But she was an overachiever, and it only took her 5 months. By the time we knew she was on her way out, it was too late to say goodbye. There were no last words, no final wisdom passed to the next generation. There was nothing left of her. She was gone, and a week later her heart stopped.
Supporting exploitation because it appears to align you with a cause you support is still supporting exploitation. As for raising awareness?
Fuck you.
Name 5 kinds of breast cancer without resorting to google. Shouldn't be too hard with all that awareness that was raised.
Perhaps it is social media that has led to this. Our instant gratification selfie-culture which gives each of us the opportunity to present our lives in the most flattering light. No one is going to cheer for you if you quietly write a check to a research university performing experiments on tumored rats. But limp out a 5k Race for the Cure, and you can document every step of your brave struggle to personally end breast cancer on Facebook and in full view of the world. Voice your support for no kill shelters publicly, and ignore the sharp increase in abandoned animals at the pound, as the perceived detriment to the animal is lowered. Demand tolerance for gays while casually voicing Jim Crow levels of prejudice for Christians (ignoring the fact that an estimated 70% of homosexuals in the US identify as Christian). True goodness has been replaced with supporting whatever stance seems to support the oppressed and lash out at oppressors - be they real or perceived - without any serious investigation as to the ramifications of these viewpoints. Are some right-wing Christians homomisiacs*? Absolutely. Many of them aren't. Some homosexuals are hardline right-wing homomisiac Christians. Many of them aren't.
Any opinion which pins all the world's ills on a single group, be they Christians, homosexuals, women, Jews, or even white men is not only bound to be wrong - it is guaranteed to alienate good people who would otherwise support and promote your opinion.
I personally believe that all people have an inherent right to live their life as they see fit, and to hold any opinion that they choose to hold. Even the opinions I don't agree with. Someone choosing not to 'celebrate' someone's sexuality is not oppression. It is an extension of the same freedom of expression that allowed that person to proclaim their status in the first place.
Don't be so eager to erode the First Amendment. It protects the words of hateful people, but it also protects small segments of the population from the tyranny of the masses. Without the Bill of Rights, democracy really is two wolves and a chicken deciding what's for dinner.
* homomisiac: one who hates homosexuals. It isn't a phobia unless you scream like a schoolgirl in a spiderpit at the sight of Bruce Vilanch.
 |
| An understandable phobia |
