Here in Seattle, they choose not to enforce laws against illegal immigration, corrupt police officers or vote-rigging. They occasionally try to enforce the laws against property crimes, but such crimes nevertheless increased 11% here last year [p. 12].
But don't let all of this apparent lawlessness worry you. Law enforcement is a matter of setting priorities and managing the most serious risks to public safety. And Seattle's top priority is to maintain law and order in its trash cans.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 03, 2006 09:37 AM | Email ThisStudies I have seen say that, except for newspaper, recycling actually uses more resources than producing from new.
But why let a few facts get in the way of a really feel good environmental movement?
Posted by: Janet S on January 3, 2006 09:54 AMPity seperating legal and illegal voters is not a priority....
Posted by: Karl on January 3, 2006 10:00 AMAfter all, Stefan, fish are more important than you are.
Posted by: swatter on January 3, 2006 11:17 AMYou only have to look at history to see that some of the world's most heinous individuals were non-recyclers. Stalin never sorted his trash. Genghis Kahn not only failed to recycle, but was a litterbug as well.
Besides, this new focus on curbside eco-terrorists gives SPD a good variety of motivational tools to encourage its officers to work harder. Put in 110% and you'll be rewarded with a spot on the lap dance law compliance team, screw up and you'll be tossing cans in the U-District and writing tickets for every single Pabst Blue Ribbon that lands in the garbage.
Of course, I think its only a matter of time before Jim McDermott is able to uncover that the recycling program is merely a ruse to let President Bush spy on everyone's garbage contents...
Posted by: Kevin on January 3, 2006 11:36 AMJust how big of a leap is it for these same authority figures to mandate use of alternative energy sources before they turn off the lights for non-compliance?
Unreal.
"Recycle or we won't pick up your garbage until you do."
And you think we've got an illegal dumping problem now? Just wait.
I don't live in King Co., however I have always put my garbage in the tall kitchen bags and when half-two thirds full then place it in a large black trash bag (tied)and then put it in my can. And I repeat that process thru out the week. Does that mean the garbage police will be untying my bags to see if I am complying with the law?
Posted by: Janet on January 3, 2006 12:08 PMThere's really no need to mingle completely separate city departments and governments in order to make your point about liberals in Seattle, is there?
Posted by: Mickymse on January 3, 2006 12:28 PMHow will they enforce this law at apartment complexes if one person puts recyclables in the bin, but the other 30 people living there do not?
Posted by: Jason Woodruff on January 3, 2006 12:44 PMWho do we believe? The writers on Law and Order or yourself who probably has the real answer.
Posted by: swatter on January 3, 2006 01:33 PMSo beady-eyed inspectors now snoop in our outgoing garbage, hoping to find recyclables. When they do, said garbage will be summarily dumped back on the senders until they learn their lesson - that they must conform to uber-mandated recycling behavior, regardless of their own wishes. How quickly the lefties jettison the concept of the right to choose.
But it can be worse - what ever happened to the right to privacy? We've been deluged by cries of alarm from the media about Federal monitoring of international phone calls from Al Quaeda sorts, as if our civil rights are irretrievably lost thereby. But City monitoring of our garbage is OK? If it is thought that failing to meet an arbitrary quota of 60 percent recycling exceeds the importance of failing to prevent attacks murdering thousands of innocent civilians, we need some less highly educated - and more practical - individuals among our media elites.
I thought there was some USSC decision (I think under Nixon) that threw out a decision against someone because the FBI went through their trash before the city picked it up. They were then required to let the truck pick it up and search the truck.
If it is the city's property at the curb, who will the city fine? If it is their property they would have to fine themselves. If it isn't a felony (which presumably it is not???) law enforcement would have to witness the "crime of placing recyclables into government property" being committed before they can ticket/fine. As trash is usually placed into the containers inside, they could never witness it.
It would also be interesting how they would prove you put it in there as opposed to someone else when it was sitting out on the public curb, but that is a different issue....
Posted by: fred on January 3, 2006 02:48 PMJust as Mick says, "There's really no need to mingle completely separate city departments and governments in order to make your point about liberals in Seattle, is there?" Under the liberal mandate, soon all departments will be equally busy spreading the misery and liberal stupidity.
Lazy a$$ liberals will be dumping garbage everywhere, parks, rural areas, conservative neighbors' yards, you name it, and the city/county/state governments will respond with more fines, penalties, and restrictions. Liberal city dwellers will bitch and moan because their rent is increased to cover the fines, and then demand rent control. With a little help from the MSM and propaganda paid for with our tax $ they can make a reeeel mess.
Just like a local version of what Bill Clinton said when elected in 91, "Let me show you what government can do." And then there was 9/11.
Sort-of like a snake eating itself . . . liberalism is truly a mental disease.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on January 3, 2006 02:59 PMWhen the viaduct pancakes, lets make it a community recycling project!!! Oh Joy!!
Motto of the muddled: If it doesnt work, lets do more of it.
IE: public school busing, recycling, San Fran gun control, govt intervention in health care, light rail, apartments for homeless alkys......why we could just go on and on, just like the never ending Mad Hatter's Tea Party....
Liberalism is truly a mental disorder, disconnected from fact, reality and history.
Posted by: THS on January 3, 2006 04:54 PMLink us please, I've actaully seen recycling businesses that are profitable without any grants or governmental funding.
From Swatter - "The funny thing is that 1/2 or more of the stuff you recycle gets put in the landfill anyway. They can't find uses for all those recyclables."
I call bullshit, spouting off does not make what you say true. There are always buyers for recycled paper, glass, plastics, and metals. If you are referring to the statistic that 5-15% of materials that people attempt to recycle are not recyclable (due to contamination or from TFA plastic food trays, plastic cups, stained pizza boxes and aluminum foil), then please learn how to make an appropriate point.
From BananaLand - "Imagine that - your house is robbed, so you call the police, and they show up and arrest you because you have a Coke can in your garbage."
It's disappointing that Stephan alluded to this in his post, however, please recognise that the enforcement is not done by the police. Comparing this to "setting priorities and managing the most serious risks to public safety" is rediculous.
From Janet - " have always put my garbage in the tall kitchen bags and when half-two thirds full then place it in a large black trash bag (tied)and then put it in my can. And I repeat that process thru out the week. Does that mean the garbage police will be untying my bags to see if I am complying with the law?"
RTFA Guys,
"They won't open bags, but if they can tell just by looking into the can that there's more than 10 percent that could've been recycled". I could actually throw all of my recycling in with my garbage and be in compliance since I doubt I reach 10%.
From TFA - "The real gap in local recycling lies with commercial properties and businesses. About 30 percent of that garbage is paper."
My security training has taught me that not only is this a waste, but this is also a major vulnerability. A good deal of corporate espionage is done via TRASHINT (trash intelligence) and is entirely legal. From this perspective local businesses should make it a policy to collect all paper waste and have it shreaded and recycled.
Posted by: Grog on January 3, 2006 06:40 PMDid you hear that ex-DC Mayor Marion Barry was robbed at gunpoint? (Though it may sound like a joke, I assure you it's true.) This occurred in DC, which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. And Hizzonr's solution? More gun control laws!
Liberal idiots (oops, need to turn on the redundant redundancy checker) - and they're not even useful - can't form a coherent argument. For example, they'll scream, cry, pout, and otherwise throw a tantrum when accusing President Bush of ordering legal wiretaps against foreign agents (but did you hear a peep from the same demented crowd when President Clinton ordered a warrant less search of a US citizen's HOME? I didn't think so). Their main argument goes something like this: because our founding fathers established the legislative branch in Article I of the Constitution the legislative branch has supremacy over the executive branch (established in Article II). But of course the judicial branch (Article III) has supremacy whenever it usurps the constitutional power of the legislative and executive branches to make laws consistent to the liberal's worldview.
But when it comes to gun control, the liberals wet themselves over the idea of banning guns, in violation of the 2nd Amendment, throughout the country, at which time the entire populace will spontaneously burst out in song, the words to John Lennon's "Imagine" filling the air. Why, even those nasty conservatives will be able to sing, for a miracle will occur and their cold little hearts will be filled with love for their fellow defenseless sheep, and the words to "Imagine" will be known to all. But I digress.
So, in the Constitution, the order of the articles matters, except when it doesn't. The same applies to the Bill of Rights. The 1st Amendment is of paramount importance, that's why it's first; except that liberals can suppress and censor conservative and religious speech because it fits their sense of "fairness." The 4th Amendment is inviolate, unless a democrat authorizes a warrant less search of a US citizen's home, and "unreasonable searches and seizures" means any search and seizure of the phone conversations of a non-US citizen plotting to kill thousands of innocent women and children (oops, I forgot, they're not innocents, they're evil, greedy, capitalistic imperialists). Then there's the 5th Amendment where "public use" means giving your property - your home, your castle - to another private party.
So in the liberal's fantasy world, 1 comes before 2, and 2 before 3, except when 3 comes before 1, and 2 comes before 1 when a democrat is in the White House. Furthermore, 1 comes before 2, which always comes after 4, and 5 goes to the end of the line after 10 (which doesn't exist when a democrat is in the White House), and it all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
That's why one should never argue with a liberal. First, you'll never win; they change the rules to fit their sense of fairness. Second, even though you'll never win, they'll never win either due to their lack of ability to formulate a coherent argument. The frustration that brings will cause the liberal to get flustered and start to bluster, at which point they'll "prove" their intellectual superiority by calling their opponents names and throwing food. At least we can take comfort in the fact that we won't actually be hit with projectile food products thrown by liberals. They throw like girls.
They are not our masters, we are their masters and when the hired help get uppity we can their fat asses.
We did not elect the Mayor and the members of the City Council to have them tells us to pick through the trash. That is their job. We pay them good money and it is about time we got something in return from them besides bitching and snooty lectures about recycling.
And when they're finishing sorting the trash they should do something about the goddamn potholes that are cropping up all over the place.
On second thought screw the recycling and fix the potholes.
Posted by: Bill K. on January 3, 2006 10:10 PMgrog, just what the heck were you complaining about? No, I am not going to start using my Sears catalog as toilet paper.
I am also a recycler, but come on, this law is ridiculous. And did you also read organization man? Common knowledge and a ton of news articles stating that there is no demand for the reclyclables does not require quotes or clicks to web pages. Just contact your local garbage collector.
Posted by: swatter on January 4, 2006 07:49 AMYou don't need to worry about your stupid sears catalog, throw it out, no one will do anything to you (as long as your can isn't 10% full of sears catalogs).
If your recycling company can't find a buyer for the materials they have collected, they need to learn to market them.
Are you telling me that there are no businesses that have a need for paper, plastics, metals, and glass?
Posted by: grog on January 4, 2006 03:18 PMI don't live in Seattle, but I recycle anyway. That is my choice.
Posted by: Palouse on January 6, 2006 07:56 AM