Grocery chain Winn-Dixie sells a reusable grocery bag with two sturdy handles, pictures of cute baby faces and enough toxic lead to alarm health experts.
I love the irony.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Don't Drone Me, Bro!
About Me
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(201)
-
▼
November
(14)
- Getting What You Allow
- Living Old
- On Racial Profiling
- for those who may be of knowledge:if you know how ...
- I'm thinking that President Obama would do wondero...
- Something Cool...
- Back To "Paper, Or Plastic?"
- Are We Winning?
- Unwrapping The Silliness
- The WTF Years
- Hah!
- Pig Out
- It's Been A Long Hard Campaign
- Get a Grip, Not A Grope
-
▼
November
(14)
The List
!
My Little Friend
11 comments:
Ha ha ha! Awesome.
I like reusable bags because paper bags just don't cut it for frozen foods, and those plastic bags rip like crazy. However I prefer cloth and olefin over those annoyingly trendy plastic reusable bags with the stupid decorations. You can't mend those if they rip, you can't wash them, and they are full of lead.
With that said, nothing beats paper for drying herbs and crafts. Plastic disposables can't be beat as garbage bags. I also am not overly afraid of lead.
Practicality: It's Vas's game.
Ya know, betcha could melt down dose Winn-Dixie bags for bullets for muzzleloading season.......
Some industries are still dumping thousands of metric tons of known pollutants in the air and everybody's issue is what kind of bags we take at the checkout counter.
Shell game anyone?
I live in the city and I have a dog...I bring home as many plastic bags as I can and reuse every single one. When Seattle gets around to banning them I will buy plastic bags that will still go into landfills but will only have been used once.
The sad by-product in the "global warming v global warming is hack science debate" is that legitimate reasons to take care of the environment on a very basic, Teddy Roosevelt level, are being ignored. As if whether or not global warming is a cabal or not has anything to do with right stewardship.
Sad country.
right stewardship was pushed aside by those who where supposed to champion it in exchange for the whacked out bullshit that seeks to dictate lower living standards for the rest of us, for our own good, of course.
MOST folks, i beleive, are 'right stewards' most of the time in their daily lives... even if we do believe al gore and his minions are crooks and liars.
oh, and the day this article made news, los angeles county voted to ban plastic and paper bags.
but, this is CA, after all.
Maybe.
But I think the "global warming" issue they have a problem with provides a good cover for people who are just too lazy to actually give a shit.
You mean like Al Gore and Dr. Pachauri, RW?
Sorry, but if I started driving 100,000 miles a year, I could scarcely start to do damage even approaching what those two do in their personal lives.... :^)
No that's not what I mean. I mean it's one thing to discuss whether global warming is real or not, but it's quite another to think that this means ALL efforts to do the right thing by the environment can just be ignored.
Sorry, but I wasn't trying to make a political statement.
The trick is that if your science is bad--say the models have never predicted climate reliably (true)--how do we determine what is doing "the right thing by the environment"?
For example, what if the climatologists have the feedback model wrong (as they do) and it actually turns out that burning a lot of coal stabilizes our climate?
Being an engineer, I'm all about efficiency and reducing waste, but I'm also very interested in whether their models work. In this case, they don't, and hence we really don't know--at least not from the climatologists--what "doing the right thing" means in this case.
Right.
Post a Comment