Use our landfills, or we'll sue!

More enviro news out of California. I heard the tail-end of this on "As It Happens" last night, so was intrigued to learn more. Eddie House of San Carlos, CA, has cancelled his trash collections service because he found that he could recycle or safely dispose of everything himself. Now the city is suing him, seeking a court order to make him not only reinstate weekly pick-ups, but also to reimburse the city for attorney and court fees. It doesn't get much dumber than this. Mr. House went so far as to propose bi-weekly collection as a compromise, but no, that wasn't good enough for the fat cats down in city hall.

I've been wondering myself for quite a while why we don't recycle more. At my house we have a huge trash can that, each week, goes to the curb accompanied by a much smaller bin for recyclables. Shouldn't it be the other way around? So much of the stuff we consider "trash" can be recycled - why not change "trash collection" into "recycling service." Shift the paradigm, people, and use the clutch! Even better, remove the onus of sorting from the customer - many a time I find myself wondering, can this go in the recycling? And as often as not, if I don't know, it goes to the trash. People are lazy, and there's empirical evidence that, when confronted with a decision and a shortage of information, people take the path of least resistance. Make it easier, and more people will do it.

Your dog drinks out of the toilet - why can't you?

Orange County, California is setting up a facility to recycle sewage as drinking water. "Toilet-to-tap" sounds gross, but this actually happens in nature already. Treated effluent typically is released to places where it re-enters the global hydrological cycle, either through evaporation, percolation into groundwater storage, or returning to rivers and lakes. In many cases the water that comes out of sewage treatment plants is cleaner than the bodies of water it enters. The OC facility is not going to take freshly treated water and pump it right back into drinking water supplies, though. The output of the plant will be put into area riverbeds where it will infiltrate to the groundwater and join the existing sources of drinking water. The cycle will take, at the very least, several months if not years to complete, so sewage that enters the plant now isn't going to be coming to a faucet near you for quite a while.

An orgy of cross-posting!

(Or, since Mel & I are the same person, would it be more like masturbation?)

She makes some excellent points about New Year's Resolutions. And, in the interest of repetitive redundancy, I'll repost some of my thoughts from the comment I left on her post.

I mentioned that I took to making lists of "to-dos" between semesters with the express purpose of not doing anything on the list. That made me wonder, maybe I should make anti-resolutions. It might include things like, "Do not buy every album released by Britney Spears and The Backstreet Boys."

Huckabee loses all remaining credibility

First some backstory:

Mike Huckabee is seeking the Republican nomination for the 2008 Presidential election. As Ben commented, the man does have charisma. Sadly, he lacks any concept of reality: he doesn't accept the scientific validity of evolution, but rather accepts as fact the mythology that an the Christian god created the world blah blah blah. That alone is enough for him to fall off my radar.

But he's also been entertaining, particularly in his ongoing partnership with Stephen Colbert. On numerous occasions, he has confirmed his intent to name Mr. Colbert as his running mate if he receives the Republican nomination. Now, if you've seen the Colbert Report at all, you have some sense of what Mr. Huckabee got himself into. But last night, watching the rebroadcast of the Jan 9th, 2008 edition of the Colbert Report, you can actually see the moment the Huckabee goes from legitimate presidential candidate to farcical impersonation of a presidential candidate. Check out the video labeled "Stephen reunites with his running mate, Mike Huckabee." (I have to admit, I love the visual image of a pneumatic tube shooting illegal immigrants into Mexico.)

Despite the fact that I have significant readership, and that I have no history as a political prognosticator, I'm going to forecast that Huckabee has pretty much eliminated himself from the running (not that I'm complaining - we don't need another Jesus freak in the White House.)

Do people still actually make New Year's resolutions?

I used to be one of those people who, when January 1st rolled around, would think, "What things can I set out to do this year?" Then I realized that putting together a list of resolutions or goals for the year is silly, because I'm going to forget them within a week anyway. I could write them down, but then I'd have to carry around a ratty piece of paper for 365 days. How inconvenient!

I realize that 2008 is well into its second week already, but I'm wondering - does anybody out there still make New Year's resolutions? If so, what have you set as your targets for 2008?

In the interest of playing fair, here are a few items that I might put on such a list if I were inclined to do so, and if I actually thought I'd follow through on them:

- Finish school (Actually, I will be doing this one, whether I like it or not, so it doesn't necessarily fit here. But it is something I'll be spending considerable effort on for the next 4 and a half months.)
- Get a job (see comment on previous item)
- Lose weight (Yeah, I know - I could stand to lose a few pounds, but I don't really see myself putting much energy into this right now.)
- Read more (aside from what is assigned in classes)
- Write (see previous comment)
- Draw/paint (see previous comment)
- Travel

Ack!

I searched Google for the phrase "lady with a hat" and although the first hit was fun, I noticed something more interesting near the bottom of that first page...

[edit]
FWIW: I had to get to page three of the search results before finding ladywithahat.com.
[/edit]

Life is horrible

...but despair.com makes it fun!

I especially like this line: "Clothes make the man. These clothes make the man sad."
Need a 2008 calendar? Build your own!

Dear Jesus and the G.O.P.

Here's a little story for my Xian and Republican friends.

Once upon a time there was a couple who'd been together for many years. We'll call them B1 and B2. In every respect but the legal one, you could say they were married. B1 decided to return to school for a graduate degree, and gave up gainful employment to do so. Naturally, this sacrifice of income was accompanied by a loss of health insurance benefits as well. Fortunately, B2 had a job that offered health insurance for both of them, and so all was well. B2's employer, however, was bought out by a company less inclined to offer insurance coverage to the euphemistically-termed "domestic partners" of a particular subset of their employees, but agreed to continue the coverage for employees who had received it in the past.

This situation went on until the final year of B1's education, when B2's employer decided that they would no longer pay any portion of the insurance premium for B1. While the opportunity still existed to receive coverage through the employer, the cost for B2 would increase by almost 400%. Seeking a more acceptable alternative, B1 decided to enroll in the school's insurance plan, which was much cheaper and offered good coverage. The catch was that for 21 days at the beginning of the calendar year, before the school term began, B1 would be without insurance. B1 ordered enough of the necessary prescriptions to remain sane until the new coverage kicked in, and carefully scheduled medical appointments after the 22nd day of the new year.

But this stop-gap measure would prove inadequate. On the 7th day of the new year, B1 received a letter, dated the last day of the previous year, indicating that B1 was not eligible to use the prescription drug service at the time the order was placed, 5 days before that year ended. B1 was confused - B2 had been paying the same premium for insurance coverage throughout the year. Why would coverage be terminated in the middle of the year, and why would they not have been notified? There was obviously an error, and although B1 anticipated a fight from the insurance company, it would not be difficult to rectify - or so B1 assumed.

As it turned out, B1's coverage had been terminated, according to the insurance company, on the first day of May in the previous year. This was ridiculous - B1 told the representative that claims had been paid and prescriptions filled through November, no questions asked. After putting B1 on hold, the representative returned to state that B2's employer had been slow turning in the paperwork to update their records - instead of notifying the insurance company in May, they waited until the 4th of December to do so. As a result, the insurance company continued to cover B1 up to the point that update was made, despite the fact that the employer didn't want B1 to receive benefits after April 30th.

My question for the Jesus-fucking Republicans out there is this: do you think that couples like B1 and B2, who are currently denied the right to legal recognition of their relationship, ought to receive the same treatment that legally married couples receive, vis-a-vis said relationships?

Answer carefully, and stay tuned to find out how this situation is resolved.

Happy New Year!

I just realized that I've only made one post this year so far, and that was a "poll results" post. Man, I'm boring. To rectify the situation, here's a post where I wish all my "bitches" a happy and healthy 2008! (bitches!)

Poll results

Q:
Do these shoes make my ass look fat?

A:
What ass? 0/5
Yes. Stop putting them in there. 2/5
No, they have no effect. 0/5
No, they make your ass look skinny. 0/5
No, your fat ass makes your ass look fat. 3/5