The fallacy of American recycling

There you go, like a diligent little prole, taking time to separate out your oil, your plastic, your rubber, your paper, your metal, your cans, your glass, placing them with care and love into the applicable bins in your recycling glee. You do the recycling dance. You wear recycled clothes. Hemp ain’t temp.

Like a puppy, you absolutely know it’s going to a good home.

Except that it really isn’t going anywhere. Not then. Not now.


Recycling Chaos In U.S. As China Bans ‘Foreign Waste’

by Cassandra Profita

Like many Portland residents, Satish and Arlene Palshikar are serious recyclers. Their house is coated with recycled bluish-white paint. They recycle their rainwater, compost their food waste and carefully separate the paper and plastic they toss out. But recently, after loading up their Prius and driving to a sorting facility, they got a shock.

Stop. You know me. You know I can’t resist. How typical is it that Leftists recycling in Oregon Leftist Central, Portlandia, have recycled paint on their house, recycled rainwater, possess a compost pile and thirty different recycling bins. They’re damned near a parody of themselves.

But when they all piled into their Toyota Prius — clearly one of the most damaging cars on the planet when it comes to toxic materials, danger posed to emergency responders and overall ground rape — I knew they were more (of course) naive little GOWPs.

A Prius damaging to the environment? From


The Toyota Prius, the flagship car for the environmentally conscious, is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America, and takes more combined energy to produce than a Hummer, says the Recorder.


  • The nickel contained in the Prius’ battery is mined and smelted at a plant in Ontario that has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the ‘dead zone’ around the plant to test moon rovers.
  • Dubbed the Superstack, the factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist’s nightmare.
  • Acid rain around the area was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside, according to Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin.
  • After leaving the plant, the nickel travels to Europe, China, Japan and United States, a hardly environmentally sound round the world trip for a single battery.

But that isn’t even the worst part, says the Record. According to a study by CNW Marketing, the total combined energy to produce a Prius (consisting of electrical, fuel, transportation, materials and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime), is greater than what it takes to produce a Hummer:

  • The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles — the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.

  • The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles.

  • That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use almost 50 percent less combined energy doing it.


Go Green — Buy a Used Car. It’s Better Than a Hybrid

Chuck Squatriglia

DITCHING YOUR GAS guzzler is a great way to reduce your carbon footprint, but if you really want to do something about global warming, get a used car. You’ll be putting less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

As Matt Power notes in this month’s issue of Wired, hybrids get great gas mileage but it takes 113 million BTUs of energy to make a Toyota Prius. Because there are about 113,000 BTUs of energy in a gallon of gasoline, the Prius has consumed the equivalent of 1,000 gallons of gasoline before it reaches the showroom. Think of it as a carbon debt — one you won’t pay off until the Prius has turned over 46,000 miles or so.

There’s an easy way to avoid that debt — buy a used car. The debt has already been paid.

Earlier Prius models use NIMH batteries — nickel-metal hydride. You may choose now between NIMH and Lithium-Ion in 2017. Tesla is running off Lithium-Ion batteries.

Lithium-ion batteries just won’t store the amount of energy required to be as useful as Musk promises, says Milnes: “Personally I think the Tesla factory producing hundreds of thousands more lithium-ion batteries is really short sighted because those batteries are just never going to hold the amount of energy we need them to.”

But wait, there’s more.

But even as Tesla’s batteries promise to reduce tailpipe emissions, more direct environmental concerns surround the current boom in lithium-ion batteries. As hundreds of thousands more of these batteries hit the market, the problems that come with lithium mining, battery lifecycles and recycling loom large.

In a 2013 report, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Design for the Environment program concluded that batteries using nickel and cobalt, like lithium-ion batteries, have the “highest potential for environmental impacts”. It cited negative consequences like mining, global warming, environmental pollution and human health impacts.

You might want to consider this as well:

Effects of Mining Lithium

Even though you will not be individually mining the lithium used in your batteries, you should still be aware of the environmental concerns of this process. The U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a study on the materials and production of a lithium-ion battery. The study concluded that mining these chemicals can cause the following:

  • resource depletion
  • global warming
  • ecological toxicity (Kaiser, 2013)

Some chemicals used in lithium-ion battery production are very rare and exist in tiny quantities. Rare metals are mined in China by passing bags of dirt through several acid baths, leaving behind the rare materials. “Those rare earths amounted to 0.2 percent of what gets pull out of the ground. The other 99.8 percent-now contaminated with toxic chemicals-is dumped back into the environment” (Wade, 2016).  Overall, almost every stage of the lithium mining process can lead to harmful environmental effects.

California says it wants to ban all but electric vehicles by 2040. One teensy-weensy problem: California doesn’t want to build any electric generation stations. Oopsie. And not everyone with an electric car can move to Texas.

Back to the desecration. How odd. GM stopped manufacturing the Hummer brand in 2009. The Prius and all other hybrids are still raping and plundering the environment. Leftists and dupes happily buy them.

Back to the original story.

“The fellow said we don’t take plastic anymore,” Satish says. “It should go in the trash.”

The facility had been shipping its plastic to China, but suddenly that was no longer possible.

Whoa whoa whoa. Hold up on that car wash. Did I just see that our recycling materials aren’t being taken locally — much less the United States — but are instead being shipped to China? Do you know how much more toxicity that one act adds to the environment? The cost of diesel? The cost of shipping? The cost of storage and transportation? The cost of additional ships?

And “trash”? All that must now go “in the trash”? I’m sure the Palshikar family envisions months of therapy in order to quell those horrific visions.

Check this:

The U.S. exports about one-third of its recycling, and nearly half goes to China.

For decades, China has used recyclables from around the world to supply its manufacturing boom. But this summer it declared that this “foreign waste” includes too many other nonrecyclable materials that are “dirty,” even “hazardous.”

That’s rich. After China having shipped dog food to the US “fortified” with, well, dog-killing melamine. But what the hell. Just good filler.

In a filing with the World Trade Organization the country listed 24 kinds of solid wastes it would ban “to protect China’s environmental interests and people’s health.”

Beijing, China, 2016. On a good day. This is an actual photograph.

Right. Because China is so terribly concerned with pollution.

The complete ban takes effect Jan. 1, but already some Chinese importers have not had their licenses renewed. That is leaving U.S. recycling companies scrambling to adapt.

“It has no value … It’s garbage.”

Wait wait wait wait wait wait. That cannot be. This is Utopia. How could possibly have been overlooked?

Rogue Waste Systems in southern Oregon collects recycling from curbside bins, and manager Scott Fowler says there are always nonrecyclables mixed in. As mounds of goods are compressed into 1-ton bales, he points out some: a roll of linoleum, gas cans, a briefcase, a surprising number of knitted sweaters. Plus, there are the frozen food cartons and plastic bags that many people think are recyclable but are not.

Right. Average stuff people throw away. Wait. Are you saying.  .  .

For decades, China has sorted through all this and used the recycled goods to propel its manufacturing boom. Now it no longer wants to, so the materials sits here with no place to go.

“It just keeps coming and coming and coming,” says Rogue employee Laura Leebrick. In the warehouse, she is dwarfed by stacks of orphaned recycling bales. Outside, employee parking spaces have been taken over by compressed cubes of sour cream containers, broken wine bottles and junk mail.

Are you saying that the American Recycling Utopia is a falsehood?

And what are recyclables with nowhere to go?

“Right now, by definition, that material out there is garbage,” she says. “It has no value. There is no demand for it in the marketplace. It’s garbage.”

For now, Rogue Waste says it has no choice but to take all of this recycling to the local landfill. More than a dozen Oregon companies have asked regulators whether they can send recyclable materials to landfills, and that number may grow if they can’t find someplace else that wants them.

Again I say: wait. This makes no sense. Weren’t and didn’t the Leftists all along tell us that recycling will save us? And by dint of that, as good little proles ourselves, didn’t we think it was going somewhere — other than the general trash heap?

Seems it isn’t it all.

Or: it went to China. China? You mean to say the Leftists weren’t in full control of the recycling chain in the first place, from collection bin to final recycled product? They certainly made us think so.

This made me wonder, of course: is recycling even viable? Does it even work? Or is simply another Leftist myth hammered into the skulls of those susceptible to this mush and/or bulled by local agencies to do so?


Why Recycling Is A Waste of Time

by Bre Payton

“People who recycle should be ashamed of themselves for acting like scavengers when so much is possible to them under capitalism.”

The secret is out: recycling isn’t working, because it was never really supposed to.

The Washington Post reported that more recycling companies, including Waste Management, are turning away from recycling, as the enterprise has ‘become’ totally unprofitable. They place the blame on the (well-meaning) masses who acted like apes when they were given larger recycling bins.

The article explains:

By pushing to increase recycling rates with bigger and bigger bins — while demanding almost no sorting by consumers — the recycling stream has become increasingly polluted and less valuable, imperiling the economics of the whole system. . . Residents have also begun experimenting, perhaps with good intentions, tossing into recycling bins almost anything rubber, metal or plastic: garden hoses, clothes hangers, shopping bags, shoes, Christmas lights. That was exactly the case last year, when the District replaced residents’ 32-gallon bins with ones that are 50 percent larger.

While many are throwing shade at those big glue bins, the truth is, much of consumer recycling has been a waste of time all along. The article goes onto explain that glass probably shouldn’t have ever been recycled. It’s heavy and breaks easily, contaminating the rest of the materials in the pile. Most of it has no value, and often costs money to haul away. The stuff that is valuable is “trucked to landfills as daily cover to bury the smell and trap gases.”

There are numerous other articles on the subject. I was amazed that most of them said: “meh.”

The people above are part of what I term the Religious Left, an insular group taking all their environmental beliefs on faith, unwilling to budge or compromise on facts, trends and statistics, brooking no disagreement with their views and by which those in disagreement must be met with all remedies ranging from belittling to outright violence. Disbelief makes one an apostate and a heretic — not unlike the Borg or Islam.

Now you know where your trash is really going. To the dump.

Blue bins, here we come!



Three California states a tad closer?

First, this from

Plan to divide California into 3 new states clears first hurdle

A plan to split California into three separate states has cleared its first hurdle. Supporters are set to begin collecting signatures to qualify for next year’s ballot.

The plan is being funded by Bay Area tech billionaire Tim Draper, who previously funded a similar proposal back in 2014 to divide the state up into sections.

That plan failed.

Draper argues that citizens would be better served by three smaller state governments, rather than one large one.

The three-way split goes like this: Northern California would include the Bay Area all the way to the Oregon border, Southern California would begin in Fresno and cover most of the southern state.

A new California would begin in Los Angeles county and cover most of the coastal areas.

Initially, on its face, a good idea or not?

Also, from

3 Californias? Billionaire’s Plan to Split California into 3 Separate States Clears First Hurdle

by Riya Bhattacharjee

The proposal would split the Golden State into three: Northern California, Southern California and a new California

Remember that widely-joked about plan to break California up into six states that died before making it to the ballot for the 2016 state elections? It’s been reincarnated – by the same billionaire who flouted the original plan – but this time, except for six states, the proposal is to split the Golden State into three: Northern California, Southern California and a new California.

The proposal has cleared its first hurdle, and its proponent, billionaire bitcoin enthusiast Timothy Draper, can now begin collecting signatures to qualify for next year’s ballot.

There’s only one problem.

Draper doesn’t understand the total dynamics.

The state “California” would have to expand because the following counties would demand relief from association with “Northern California.” Meaning: Northern California is too far to the right for them.

Santa Cruz, San Mateo, San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Napa and Mendocino counties would all insist they be admitted into the mostly-coastal state of “California.” Trust me on this. And I would gladly let them do so.

Leftists don’t realize — should they decide to actually push the issue — that these divisions are pure political and not geophysical (I don’t know necessarily why I’m showing all my cards now but, hell, I am).

Because, should these lines (with my revisions) be drawn, California and Southern California would be primarily without water. They would lack agricultural status. They would lack resources. Northern California wouldn’t care in the slightest.

Conservatives would flock to Northern California. Leftists would be drawn to the primarily coastal California. And Mexicans would soon demographically blow out Southern California.

Southern California is desert and more desert.

California would be beautiful but packed with an even more massive striation of massively-wealthy “haves” vs lowly “have nots.” Just look at San Francisco if you want a picture of street pissing and defecation. Let’s remember that Leftists in Fornicalia want to remove dams, as insane as that may be.

Northern California would have the resources including the bulk of the producing Sierra Nevada mountain range, cooler temperatures, forests, lakes, reservoirs, and the ability to create even more and greater water projects. In California, water and resources are king. All else subsumes.

Most folks outside California are saying “bring it on.”

I too, with my iteration, am saying “bring it on.”

Let’s just SEE if that social experiment would be truly viable.



Parents, you’re paying for this

Ever wake up one morning and ask yourself: “I wonder what new and moronic idea some Social Justice Flower will unleash upon the US today?” Wonder no more.

First play the video. Then read the article. You’ll howl out loud with larfter at the ridiculous inanity of both. The sad thing: they’re both true.


Texas State seeks math profs with ‘social justice’ commitment

by Toni Airaksinen

  • Texas State University has two new job openings for Math Education professors, but wants applicants to have a demonstrated commitment to social justice.
  • For one of the professorships, the university would prefer a candidate with not only a commitment to social justice, but “evidence of research” on the subject as well.
  • Campus Reform reached out to the school for additional information, but it still remains unclear how such qualifications are expected to benefit the department.

Texas State University is hoping to hire two Math Education professors with a demonstrated and longstanding commitment to “social justice.”

According to the job postings on Inside Higher Ed, the two new professors must not only share TSU’s commitment to “education equity” and “social justice,” but should preferably also have a demonstrated record of engagement or academic research on the issue.

Right. Because demonstrated academic research on “social justice” has, as demonstrated in the video above, everything to do with mathematics.

Among the preferred qualifications for the Assistant Professor rank is a “demonstrated knowledge and engagement” with issues including “social justice, equity, access, and multilingual learning,” while the Associate and Full Professor ranks prefer “evidence of research and practices” on such topics.

You’ll love the kicker:

While the job application specifies that TSU is a “Hispanic Serving Institution,” it is unclear how exactly a background in social justice is expected to benefit the department, since it currently offers no social justice programming or classes.

“One of those things is not like the other.”

My, how degeneratively-stupid we’ve become as a nation.



Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of sociopathy

As David Clarke said, “her ethics elevator has no bottom floor.”

  • She can lie nakedly in public and no one calls her on it. She can support and promote Margaret Sanger, an advocate of black genocide — which by dint of extension makes Hillary Clinton a racist — and no one calls her on it.
  • She can “stand by her man” while he places his penis down the throat of a young female intern and no one calls her on it.
  • She can take millions and millions of dollars of dirty cash from the enemies of the United States, sell our precious minerals to foreign hateful foreign governments, and no one calls her on it.
  • She can co-opt her own party by deceitful tactics enabling her to be the front-running for the Demorats and no one calls her on it.
  • She can lie to the FBI and no one calls her on it.
  • She can conduct business over illegal email servers for years — emails that likely got into the hands of US enemies — and no one calls her on it.
  • She can throw away every thread, every vestige of humanity for nothing more than political power and lie about every moment, every detail, justifying it in her mind with such easy readiness that I can only conclude sociopathy is at work.

Wait. One journalist calls Hillary Clinton out. Of course, it’s not an American Media Maggot. It’s a foreign journalist who, instead of a loving softball, throws an actual question.

Let’s be honest. Hillary Clinton couldn’t care less about anyone but herself. As far as she was concerned she was forced to have a child in order to further Bill’s political goals so as not to appear unapproachable and to mimic a family.

Do not think that, deep down, Chelsea isn’t aware of the fact.

Demorats and Leftists keep petting this animal, not realizing that one day it may well and truly bite back.



The mayoral candidate who wants to disarm the police

First, the background to the headline, in terms of the predicating event prompting mayoral candidate Raymond Dehn’s statement about disarming the Minneapolis Police Department, first from

Minnesota cop who fatally shot Australian woman was ‘fast-tracked’ into the force

The Minnesota police officer who fatally shot Justine Damond was put on an accelerated police cadet program that required only seven months of training, a nontraditional route that aims to help those who have a college degree enter law enforcement.

Mohamed Noor, 31, shot Damond, 40, after she called 911 to report a sexual assault behind her home. When she approached the driver’s side of the squad car, Noor fired from the passenger side, across his partner, killing Damond.

The Minnesota Police Department has been under fire since the July 15 shooting. Many have questioned Noor’s experience and training after only graduating in 2015. However, former Police Chief Janeé Harteau, who resigned last week, stood by Noor’s training.

That’s a story in and of itself.

A female chief. A lesbian chief. Gone in 60 seconds.

That tells me one quite important thing. An innocent Caucasoid Australian woman and a Somali Muslim magically trump a lesbian chief of department, politically. Color me shocked.

Boom. Gone. Good to know. The hierarchy of politics. What I told each and every Patrol trainee of mine: “If it is fiscally or politically expedient, you will be sacrificed.”

There is truth here. You have to dig it out one or two or three major chisel strikes at a time.

“We have a very robust training and hiring process,” Harteau told reporters at a news conference last Thursday. “This officer completed that training very well, just like every officer. He was very suited to be on the street.”

No political correctness here or there, eh wot? That would never occur in a job as critical as peace officer, would it?

But others believe the fast-track program could leave officers ill prepared to handle real-world police scenarios.

Wait. Are you saying there is Opposition Theory?

“The cadet program is rigorous, no doubt,” James Densley, a criminal justice associate professor at Metropolitan State University in St. Paul, told the Star Tribune, “but it is also an immersive paramilitary experience, taught by practitioner faculty without advanced degrees, and I suspect it leaves students with a limited view of the profession.”

Right. They’re well trained but they’re not well trained? Taught by great staff or taught by inadequate staff? Which is it?

But wait. Read this.

Nate Grove, the head of the State Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (which controls police training and sets objectives) said that the nontraditional routes are no less rigorous in Minnesota than the traditional ones. The Peace Officer Licensing Examination includes 275 questions and takes about two to three hours to complete.

The suggestion here is that, in lieu of full training, Noor instead took a paper test which he was able to pass. Otherwise, why include the intimation that he was “fast tracked”? And if Noor was “fast tracked” by having passed only a paper test instead of a full training venue, well, a serious slight was committed in training. Perhaps, now, a deadly slight. But I don’t know because the articles do not so definitively state.

This much is true.

Damond’s shooting death has been ruled a homicide by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s office.

And this much is true as well. We know the body cams were not activated at the time of the event but, truly, that’s an internal issue with regard to whatever policy the Minneapolis PD has immured with regard to operation. The dashcam was also off. Same thing with regard to policy. And let me state that would fall under the umbrella of internal policy and not law.

MPD policy does indicate that body cams should be activated if force is used but, of course, one seldom if ever gets to accurately predict when force must be utilized. The priority should be safety and response rather than the activation of equipment.

This, in and of itself, is a massive issue with which, in my estimation, law enforcement agencies have yet to sufficiently grapple. There is yet no “one size fits all” policy with regard to body cam and video equipment. Much less the issues of storage and costs.

Then there is this puzzler from the

Australian woman shot by cop ‘did not have to die,’ Minneapolis police chief says

by Ami Forliti and Steve Karnowski

The fatal shooting of an Australian woman by a Minneapolis police officer responding to her 911 call “should not have happened,” police Chief Janee Harteau said, adding that the officer’s actions “go against who we are in the department.”

In her first public remarks since the death of Justine Damond, a 40-year-old life coach and bride-to-be, Harteau on Thursday defended Officer Mohamed Noor’s training but criticized his actions.

Wait, wait wait wait wait. He was well-trained but he screwed up? Just what are you saying here, former Chief Harteau? What are you trying to justify? His training or his actions? Because training, or lack thereof, does have a good deal to do with reactions in the field.

Oh right. She’s a former chief of police.

“He was well trained but we don’t act like this,” is what you’re saying Harteau? It would seem to me, at first blush, that you’re attempting to justify something — a Somali Muslim cop — that many would say needn’t be justified. Just what are you saying?

I’m sorry; were saying. Past tense.

Harteau faced several questions about her absence in the days following the shooting, which sparked anger and a demand for answers in the city and in Damond’s home country. She said she had been backpacking in a remote area, it was “challenging” to return and that she had been in touch with her command staff.

Priorities. Please see above.

Damond had called 911 twice late Saturday to report a possible sexual assault in the alley behind her house on Minneapolis’ southwest side. Noor, who was in the passenger seat of a squad car, shot at Damond through the driver’s side window.

Noor has declined to speak with the state’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, which is handling the investigation. His partner, Matthew Harrity, told investigators he was startled by a loud sound right before Damond approached the police vehicle.

Perhaps his right in Minnesota, but not his right in California. When I was in Homicide, I happened to be tasked with investigating OIS, or Officer Involved Shootings. I had to be well versed in OIS investigations as well as POBR — the Peace Officer Bill of Rights. Officers had the right to determine not to speak to me in detail but they didn’t have the right to not tell me the basics, such as firearm, place, position, backstop, number of rounds fired, location of suspect and the like.

It was a long way to get here, yes, but we can now get to the point: add a Minneapolis mayoral race.


Minneapolis Mayoral Candidate: Maybe Cops Should Just Leave Their Guns In The Car

by Matt Vespa

Is this guy high on drugs? That’s the only explanation for this nonsensical policy proposal regarding law enforcement coming out of the Minneapolis area. Mayoral candidate Raymond Dehn pretty much put forward a policy that would disarm police, requiring them to leave their firearms in their car.

The most striking proposal came from Raymond Dehn, a state legislator who finished first in the Minneapolis DFL’s no-endorsement convention on July 8, beating out Hodges, Council Member Jacob Frey and Tom Hoch and attracting more than a third of the support from party insiders.

“We must divest resources, disarm officers, and dismantle the inherent violence of our criminal justice system,” Dehn said in a statement Friday.

He later elaborated on what sounded like a call to take guns from cops, adding he is not advocating against police officers having access to weapons when they need them.

“Officers don’t need to carry guns on their person all the time,” Dehn said Tuesday. “Currently, officers carry all sorts of assault weapons in their cars. So why can’t one of those weapons be the side arm? It’s important that we begin to have a conversation, and I would say that all things are on the table.”

Look. I’ll be honest. Quite a number of persons have asked me to weigh in on the initial shooting involving Noor. Having served not in the military but instead 41 years in law enforcement, I have something of a perspective from the front lines.

And that is this.

No matter how Noor was trained or whatever his reputation may have been or not been, an individual who, sitting in a vehicle shared by a partner, deigns to reach across and in front of said partner crank off rounds within the unit is one of two things:

  1. Brilliant in terms of officer safety, or
  2. Massively problematic, bordering on unhinged or insane.

I suspect a bit of the latter. And most everyone in that department now knows just about everything regarding Officer Noor. There are few secrets when lives are on the line.

I also suspect this. Due to his incomplete training regimen — that is to say, the “fast tracking” the department admits to having done — much was known about Noor before he even opened his first Crown Vic door.

That said, I highly suggest each and every Leftist Urban Rat Cage eschew their police and disarm them completely. Take their guns. Give them short truncheons. Whistles. A nice dark hat like Scotland Yard. Give them Smart cars or bicycles and tablets and social media. And sarcasm. Sarcasm can be a weapon. But not too much sarcasm. You wouldn’t want to offend.

In terms of this Great Disarm the Police Experiment, I suggest these cities first:

  • Minneapolis
  • San Francisco
  • Chicago
  • New York
  • Detroit
  • Baltimore
  • Los Angeles
  • DC

It’s already been suggested, for example, that Chicago defund its police department. No. I’m not kidding.

I think the best summary is this:

But the head of the police union, Lt. Bob Kroll, says there’s not a chance this idea would fly with any cop.

“I don’t think the people in Minneapolis are logically ready for anything like this,” said Kroll. “Who would ever do the job of policing again? It’s absolutely an absurd thought.”