It's easy being green on my dime

Now, I'm really not against going green. Really. But sometimes I think that big business is simply using the idea as a tool, just to save their own green.
Have you noticed that virtually any company to whom you pay regular bills always wants you to go green by going paperless? But do they offer you a buck, even a quarter, off your bill if you do? They don't? Then I say, keep sending me paper bills, darn it. I'm not going to give millionaires, billionaires, something for nothing, solely because they're appealing to supposed popular sentiment.
In like fashion, hotels have begun asking guests, especially those staying more than a day, if they would like to go green by not requesting new sheets or clean towels every day. I've had cards on my pillow saying that I would help the environment if I made my own bed. But what's wrong with this picture? Will I get a few bucks off my room if I do all this and help Big Hotel Chain save money (I'm sorry, 'go green')? I won't? Then make my bed and give me clean towels. It's what I'm paying for. Or how about this: how about I bring all my own towels and linens, and a vacuum cleaner and cleaning supplies and toiletries, and take care of everything in the hotel room myself and then stay free (or for next to nothing). No? You won't allow that? Then all that talk about going green fails to impress me.
It's easy to do almost anything on someone else's dime. Further, there's nothing wrong with demanding a dime for yourself when you are asked to do someone else's job. You want me to make my own bed and reuse my old towels in a $100 a night hotel? Then knock ten bucks off my tab. Otherwise, you're just being smarmy. I don't appreciate that, especially done with my time on my dime.

Say NO to dumpster rentals

The Old Barn needs to be cleaned out; I've known that for years. We've been bad about letting clutter accumulate, and often for a very good reason: we've been busy working. But now that the clutter is interfering with the money making, the clutter's gotta go. So I began last night researching dumpster prices.

I hopped on the Internet. What better way to find out pricing, convenience, and availability than the good old World Wide Web? Yet after searching for over an hour I discovered that most companies (actually every one but one) didn't have their prices online. I was being told at virtually every website, 'Call our toll free number for a quote'. So much for convenience.

Damn your toll free number. Calling people was exactly what I wanted to avoid. Ain't I supposed to get information free and easy on the web? What's this with expecting me to interact with others? Why do you suppose I sit at the back of Church? If I want to in fact deal immediately with people, I'll choose when and how, thank you.

In the meantime, keep your dumpster too. I'll take my old boxes into recycling (as much as I don't care for that) and throw my junk out on bulk trash days afore I deign to call ya. You should make it easy for me to decide if I want to deal with you. That you do not, dumpster folks, tells me all I need to know about how much you want my business.

What are the hidden costs of recycling?

My wife and daughter are very into recycling, and that's okay. There's certainly nothing wrong with it, and they do it all themselves, so it doesn't even really affect me.

Still, our son while on leave from the Army commented on it in a way I had never considered. Watching his mother prepare tuna cans and milk jugs for recycling he remarked, as she was rinsing the items out and even putting the cans through the dishwater, "So we have to wash our trash?"

Which leads me to my point. Do we really need to recycle things for which there is no demand? Steel, aluminum, copper; these things all get paid for by people who have a real use for them. They're worth money, therefore they get recycled. Paper, plastic, even tin cans aren't worth anything and therefore do not get recycled so readily.

Unless the government encourages or demands it. Many recycling projects are underwritten by government or commanded by it through things such as curbside pickup. In short, they wouldn't exist without coercion. Things worth doing get done without any hint of force.

Think of that when you're washing your tuna cans, using extra water, or burning extra gas to take things to a recycling center. Are we really doing anything worth such effort?

I don't care about my carbon footprint

I have written several times about how unimpressed I am with the recycling fad which increasingly permeates our society. Today, I feel like writing a bit more.

Many of my conservative friends have latched onto the R-Train. "Conservative means conserve, right?" one asked me the other day. Another, holding out his plastic water bottle in demonstration, remarked that he "...didn't want to see this end up in a landfill." I fought the to urge to ask, why not? We were at a party to cheer up a sick friend, and I felt that good taste recommended not pursuing what can become a highly charged topic in such a setting.

But now I ask, why not? At our current rate we will have, in about 300 years, a total landfill area only about the size of Yellowstone Park. I see no landfills producing zombies or adversely affecting the water tables or local agriculture or industry or home life. Why not keep burying the trash?

A large part of conservatism certainly involves conserving various things and ideals. But that cannot mean that there isn't a necessary prioritizing of what we do. Fighting abortion, big government (which is, let's face it, greatly responsible for forcing recycling around our necks, which I think in itself makes the policy suspect), and the myriad factors of liberalism which threaten to tear our social fabric apart. To wit, the critical part of what we conserve must be our well being as a people along traditional lines. What we do with our garbage, while important, pales beside that.

So I say, screw my carbon footprint. There are more important things to worry about than whether we incinerate our debris or put it in a hole in the ground. Unless and until you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that those things are substantially harmful to the human condition, I can live with them. That's conservative environmental policy in a nutshell.

I said I'd recycle this post

Seeking something to write about, I decided that I would look up what I had written on previous 11ths of October. This is from October 11, 2009. I have fulfilled my promise. But I did add a word or two. You know, for freshness sake.

My wife and daughter are very into recycling, and that's okay. There's certainly nothing wrong with it, and they do it all themselves, so it doesn't even really affect me.

Still, our son while on leave from the Army commented on it in a way I had never considered. Watching his mother prepare tuna cans and milk jugs for recycling he remarked, as she was rinsing the items out and even putting the cans through the dishwater, "So we have to wash our trash?"

Which leads me to my point. Do we really need to recycle things for which there is no demand? Steel, aluminum, copper; these things all get paid for by people who have a real use for them. They're worth money, therefore they get recycled. Paper, plastic, even tin cans aren't worth anything and therefore do not get recycled so readily.

Unless the government encourages or demands it, or your friends and neighbors try to shame you into it. Many recycling projects are underwritten by government or commanded by it through things such as curbside pickup. In short, they wouldn't exist without coersion. Things worth doing generally get done without any hint of force.

Think of that when you're washing your tuna cans, using extra water, or burning extra gas to take things to a recycling center. Are we really doing anything worth such effort? Indeed, perhaps we are adding to the supposed problem in the name of feeling good, and nothing more?

Detroit Recycles! So what?

In many parts of Detroit, Michigan you can see them today: pretty blue containers which proudly announce, Detroit Recycles! They're very proud of themselves, those blue plastic cans. You can almost smell the conceit.

Yes, conceit. Detroit now has curbside recycling. The city has surely turned itself around. Now it's a part of the modern day feel good trend and underwrites the trash of those who want it so. That's what it is, trash, and nothing more.

It cannot be said enough that what is worth recycling gets recycled. Iron, copper, aluminum, they get recycled. In part, probably, we'll say, in the greatest part, because something tangible can be had from them: cash. The people with old scrap steel can get money for it from the private, unlike the people who get our tin cans and old plastic milk jugs. They only get money because their cause is underwritten by the government. Even then they need massive amount of plastic and glass to get by.

We will say it: we have no problems with incinerators and landfills. We see no verifiable spike in cancers due to burning our garbage and we do not see zombies walking stutter step out of landfills. Who ought to fear zombies anyway? They so slow that it boggles the mind how so many horror show victims fall prey to them. Still, from the cries of the no landfill folks you would think they were a real threat.

There would be little or no recycling without a government somewhere underwriting the process. There is further nothing wrong with individuals expecting something out of it which benefits them directly. If you want to recycle and can find a source for it outside the public sphere, go for it. We don't care. But we're just a bit tired of paying taxes for something simply not worth it. Recycling so far as we're concerned, Michigan, only takes money away from well, let's just say roads. If the state and the cities would spend less on feel good projects and more on what is really in the general interest, we think our roads would be quite fine.

Forget Your Carbon Footprint

We have written several times about how unimpressed we are with the recycling fad which increasingly permeates our society. Today, we're going to write a bit more just the same.

Many of our conservative friends have latched onto the R-Train. "Conservative means conserve, right?" one asked me the other day. Another, holding out his plastic water bottle in demonstration, remarked that he "...didn't want to see this end up in a landfill." We fought the urge to ask, why not? We were at a party to cheer up a sick friend, and good taste recommended not pursuing what can become a highly charged topic in such a setting.

But now we will ask, why not? At our current rate we will have, in about 300 years, a total landfill area only about the size of Yellowstone Park. We see no landfills producing zombies or adversely affecting the water tables or local agriculture or industry or home life. Why not keep burying the trash?

A large part of conservatism certainly involves conserving various things and ideals. But that cannot mean that there isn't a necessary prioritizing of what we do. Fighting abortion, big government (which is, let's face it, greatly responsible for forcing recycling around our necks, which I think in itself makes the policy suspect), and the myriad factors of liberalism which threaten to tear our social fabric apart. To wit, the critical part of what we conserve must be our well being as a people along traditional lines. What we do with our garbage, while important, pales beside that.

So we here at the Wayne County Conservative's Office say, screw carbon footprints. There are more important things to worry about than whether we incinerate our debris or put it in a hole in the ground. Unless and until you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that those things are substantially harmful to the human condition, society can live with them. That's conservative environmental policy in a nutshell.

Recycle the Bats

Michigan is among four states which have asked the federal government to delay listing the long-eared bat as an endangered species. The four states want this so that they can devise logging regulations that would protect the flying rodent but not harm the logging industry, as they believe that federal regulations are too strict and would hurt local loggers.

It would be easy to attack the feds on this issue as being too powerful and lording that power over the states. That is certainly true to a point. Yet the bigger point here seems to be the question of why any government at any level should have any interest in protecting bats.

First and foremost, the human need for wood and wood products far outweighs a natural habitat for any given animal, let alone bats. If it's their going extinct which worries you, consider that species have gone extinct for all of human and world history and we're none the worse off for it. Scare stories about such and such carrying an important gene or that the loss of any given creature would adversely upset the ecosystem are just that: scare stories. They should be ignored.

Have you ever noticed too that there is, oddly enough, a relationship between protecting endangered species and the recycling craze? An awful lot of recycling wouldn't happen without government support, exactly as many species might not survive without it either. But notice that an interesting converse is also true. As things which are worth recycling, iron, copper, aluminum and so forth, generally get recycled without any prompt from a government, so too animals which serve a real human need are helped to survive without government protection. Chickens, cows, and hogs survive because we have use for them as food sources. Horses survive mostly for recreation, a true human need also, as do the many types of pets.

There is no need to worry about what animals to protect; human need will see to it. As to what's left after that, if you want to use your money and keep a habitat for long-eared bats, go for it. But kindly keep your hand out my taxpaying pocket for your, shall we say, pet notions.

Conservatives and Recycling

Today is the day that we take our recyclables to the recycling center. As I've mentioned before I'm not particularly a fan of recycling. That does not, however, mean I am diametrically opposed to it.

Unless I miss my guess, I think the conservative position on recycling is akin to the conservative position on almost everything else: if it's necessary, truly useful, advances the safety of human beings or, quite frankly, if it pays without violating any moral norms, we are open to it. This list by no means exhausts the questions we might have about recycling or any other issue. It merely sets the table for discussion.

We are not, no matter what liberals may say about us, obstinately opposed to change. We only ask that the change is genuinely worthwhile or serves a greater purpose than what we were doing before. There's no point being fools about it: if recycling is what we have to do to keep planet Earth habitable for us, then we should do it. I am not convinced that it saves the planet all that much wear and tear. I am merely stating that if it can be reliably demonstrated that without recycling we, or our heirs, will die out due to our lack of proper stewardship, then we ought to recycle heavily.

The trouble is that I don't see that being the case, and the burden of proof must lie on the shoulders of those who think it is rather than on those of us don't. It is fair to ask: why must I change my habits because you think it good? Give me something concrete and we'll talk. Otherwise, I am well within my rights to wonder whether anything projected over a large scale is actually predictable. Telling me that without recycling we'll be piled with trash or run over with landfills within a couple hundred years is nonsense on its own face. Scare tactics merely scare. How about a little rationality, a little perspective? If you're right, the sanity of your cause will come through.

Why shouldn't I ask whether the process will pay me? It strikes me that we give away paper, plastic, glass jars and so on, solely for someone else to benefit from it. If it pays, why can't I get paid for it? The answer, essentially, is that these products don't really pay anyone unless given to them. They must be had in large quantities or they aren't worth handling; the true value of those products are virtually nil. Yet I can and have gotten cold hard cash out of my scrap iron, aluminum, and copper. Why? Because they hold a decent value even after their initial use. Even now I am willing to concede that if there is a greater necessity, something beyond monetary value which I ought to consider, then I should consider it. If we will die out by about 2025, or especially by next Tuesday, without recycling, then let's do it and forget about who gets paid what. Otherwise, it's just scare tactics again.

Is recycling truly useful? Certainly for a few, but for the general society? You're asking that a lot of people go to a significant effort to turn in garbage; again, where is the empirical proof or practical reason for it? I'm not all that interested in how recyclables are used outside of that context. So there are playgrounds where shredded old tires can soften a kid's fall: would there be no other ways of doing this, ways perhaps better, with new materials? I don't know the answer. I'm only asking. But I am within my rights to expect a good answer.

As it stands now, my attitude is live and let live. If you want to recycle, then recycle. Only don't force your preferences upon me without just cause. Your say so, no matter how heartfelt, is not good enough.

Elections 2011

Today is Election Day. Most areas of Michigan will have votes on this or that, from school boards to charter revisions. This is considered an off year election; there are areas which will have no voting at all. It is off year because there are no presidential or legislative races. In short, it's kind of the dull part of the cycle.

Many teachers in Michigan get the day off. That may be the biggest joke job perk in the world. It's done in order to help them vote and help others get elected. What that translates into is that it is assumed the teachers will work for the Democrats and liberal causes on the presumption that's where their passion lies. Quite frankly, they shouldn't get the day off without burning a personal or sick day. No one else does; there's no reason educators should get a free pass simply because of an election.

Let's be honest: no one's single vote really means that much. Few elections of any consequence are decided by such unimaginably slim margins, and those that are are probably so local as to be relatively meaningless. But vote anyway. The system won't work if you don't, and it goes without saying that there are worse systems which may creep in and take over if we don't use the ballot box for what we believe important. The slippery slope goes often unnoticed; treat your vote as though it means the entire election.

So speaking of elections, there are too many to comment on. We'll trust your judgment on your own local races. But in Detroit, we've decided to recommend a vote against the proposed Charter revisions, simply because they encourage city wide recycling. Yes, we mean that. Recycling is seriously overrated, and simply isn't worth the effort. It's feel good pulp which allows conservatives and liberals to appear to agree on something, yet it has no honest practical value. Vote against the Charter revisions on that issue alone.