Good Life Lessons for Liberals!!!

[Pogo]

Obamanation -

Can you show me where I called "that" liberalism?

In the name of this thread.

Strangely enough, one of the last places on earth where aluminium cans have rarely been used (for beer) has been Denmark, where left-wing politicians fought for decades to have them preserved on environmental grounds. The right wing won in the end, but not before an entire generation of Danes had enjoyed the benefits of recycling glass.

What "benefits?" You mean like having stacks of used bottles sitting around attracting bugs and germs? You mean like paying more for beverages than other countries?

(a) you don't wash out your cans and bottles?? Slob.
(b) Bullshit. Unless "other countries" means, I dunno, Sweden? I've never been to a country where beverages are as cheap as they are here. And that's not related to recycling anyway.

 

[mmmjvpssm]

The story is obviously fake. The woman goes on for far too long

 

[mmmjvpssm]

in this version here the cashier was promoted to assistant while the woman was saying “We didn’t have this green thing back in my earlier days.”

Grumpy Old Woman?s energy tips | SmartPlanet

 

[mmmjvpssm]

One of those nostalgic laments for the good old days, full of finger-wagging chastisement for ungrateful whippersnappers, popped up in my in-basket the other day.

This fable begins with a young cashier snippily telling an older woman she should bring her own grocery bags because the plastic ones aren’t good for the environment. The older woman replies with a crabby catalogue of how much greener the cashier’s elders were back when they “didn’t do the green thing.”

At risk of being declared a traitor to my (age) class, I thought I’d deconstruct it. So here are the self-congratulatory fable’s main points followed by the facts in italics:

1. A wise elder generation returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to be washed sterilized and refilled. Inference: irresponsible young people like our symbolic cashier hypocritically sacrificed sustainability for recycling by lazily embracing disposable plastic jugs and cardboard cartons while complaining about plastic bags.

Fact: Milk bottles were phased out by the same generation that in this case criticizes disposable containers. This began in 1964 as a public health measure amid mounting concerns over sanitation and the difficulty of mass sterilization of bottles by dairies. You can still have your milk delivered in a re-usable bottle today but it will cost you about twice the price of a disposable container. There is a movement calling for a return to refillable containers for milk and beverages. It is driven largely by young people — like the metaphorical cashier dissed in the fable.



Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Hume+Go...dsters+think/7246140/story.html#ixzz2WJJqZY7u

This guy addresses all of them

 

[asaratis]

Regarding the cans v. glass bottles comparison, there are advantages (over the other) to both.

Bottles can be reused after sterilization. Cans cannot.

Bottles can be broken in mishandling. Cans would simply become bent out of shape.

The thin walls of cans allow more product to be packaged in equal volume containers. This reduces the cost of shipping.

Aluminum conducts heat faster than does glass, reducing the energy required for initial refrigeration.

Cans keep all light and oxygen away from the beer. Bottles do not.



Some connoisseurs will say that cans affect the taste of beer. Glass does not.

As for which is better for the environment...I leave that discussion to those more enlightened. It appears from this link that bottles win that battle.

The Great Canned vs Bottled Beer Debate 2.0: Craft Brewing Weighs In


I prefer scotch....in corked bottles.


Incidentally, I see no reason to make this a partisan issue. Liberals and conservatives alike take part in efforts to MAKE MORE MONEY!

 

[Pogo]

One of those nostalgic laments for the good old days, full of finger-wagging chastisement for ungrateful whippersnappers, popped up in my in-basket the other day.

This fable begins with a young cashier snippily telling an older woman she should bring her own grocery bags because the plastic ones aren’t good for the environment. The older woman replies with a crabby catalogue of how much greener the cashier’s elders were back when they “didn’t do the green thing.”

At risk of being declared a traitor to my (age) class, I thought I’d deconstruct it. So here are the self-congratulatory fable’s main points followed by the facts in italics:

1. A wise elder generation returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to be washed sterilized and refilled. Inference: irresponsible young people like our symbolic cashier hypocritically sacrificed sustainability for recycling by lazily embracing disposable plastic jugs and cardboard cartons while complaining about plastic bags.

Fact: Milk bottles were phased out by the same generation that in this case criticizes disposable containers. This began in 1964 as a public health measure amid mounting concerns over sanitation and the difficulty of mass sterilization of bottles by dairies. You can still have your milk delivered in a re-usable bottle today but it will cost you about twice the price of a disposable container. There is a movement calling for a return to refillable containers for milk and beverages. It is driven largely by young people — like the metaphorical cashier dissed in the fable.



Read more: Hume: Good old days not as good -- or green -- as oldsters think

This guy addresses all of them

mmmm... don't think so. The consumer didn't get the choice; it was forced on us.

 

[Pogo]

Regarding the cans v. glass bottles comparison, there are advantages (over the other) to both.

Bottles can be reused after sterilization. Cans cannot.

Bottles can be broken in mishandling. Cans would simply become bent out of shape.

The thin walls of cans allow more product to be packaged in equal volume containers. This reduces the cost of shipping.

Aluminum conducts heat faster than does glass, reducing the energy required for initial refrigeration.

Cans keep all light and oxygen away from the beer. Bottles do not.


Incidentally, I see no reason to make this a partisan discussion. Liberals and conservatives alike take part in the efforts to reduce costs and MAKE MORE MONEY!

Some connoisseurs will say that cans affect the taste of beer. Glass does not.

As for which is better for the environment...I leave that discussion to those more enlightened. It appears from this link that bottles win that battle.

The Great Canned vs Bottled Beer Debate 2.0: Craft Brewing Weighs In


I prefer scotch....in corked bottles.


Incidentally, I see no reason to make this a partisan issue. Liberals and conservatives alike take part in efforts to MAKE MORE MONEY!

You would think this would go without saying. Not only isn't it partisan, it isn't even political. The OP has severe stretch marks.

 

[asaratis]

....

You would think this would go without saying. Not only isn't it partisan, it isn't even political. The OP has severe stretch marks.

It may get moved....I dunno.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Plastic bags replaced paper bags to save the trees. Now plastic bags are being replaced by fabric bags to save the environment. Now it seems that people aren't washing their fabric bags enough so people are getting cross contamination from their groceries (say hello to salmonella). Of course our fabric bags (made by Big Fabric who's bags are made by third world starving limbless children) will be replaced by human skin duffle bags. I think it would be neat to have a duffle bag made from the epidermis of Lance Armstrong (talk about recycling! LOL! Get it?).
Anywho, that paragraph took an odd and dark turn and I for one will tell a moderator about this and get this thread moved to the badlands! I'm disgusted!
Obviously, what I"m trying to say is that legitimate recycling got replaced by liberal dogma requiring a wider diminishment of our freedoms long ago. We now have to endure the man made global warming faux science from the same "scientific" models that described the second coming of the ice age, depletion of food, overpopulation and any number of the-sky-is-falling-scenarios which always demands us to extinguish the free market system and curtail that nasty freedom stuff we enjoy.
I already know the nonsensical knee jerk reactionary religiously impassioned cacophony of poo-pooing that's going to attempt to rebut what I said. So let me get rid of at least one of the straw men arguments that will be used. I do believe in a clean world. I have no problem with recycling. When, however, science is stolen by political agenda and the cure is worse than the disease and every "cure" for a cleaner planet involves some sort of authoritarian response creating less personal freedoms (i.e. plastic bags, mercury filled light bulbs, etc) and costing an exorbitant amount of other people's money... I tend to get wary.

 

[Pogo]

Plastic bags replaced paper bags to save the trees. Now plastic bags are being replaced by fabric bags to save the environment. Now it seems that people aren't washing their fabric bags enough so people are getting cross contamination from their groceries (say hello to salmonella). Of course our fabric bags (made by big fabric who's bags are made by third world starving limbless children) will be replaced by human skin duffle bags. I think it would be neat to have a duffle bag made from the epidermis of Lance Armstrong (talk about recycling! LOL! Get it?).
Anywho, that paragraph took an odd and dark turn and I for one will tell a moderator about this and get this thread moved to the badlands! I'm disgusted!
Obviously, what I"m trying to say is that legitimate recycling got replaced by liberal dogma requiring a wider diminishment of our freedoms long ago. We now have to endure the man made global warming faux science from the same "scientific" models that described the second coming of the ice age, depletion of food, overpopulation and any number of the-sky-is-falling-scenarios which always demands us to extinguish the free market system and curtail that nasty freedom stuff we enjoy.
I already know the nonsensical knee jerk reactionary religiously impassioned cacophony of poo-pooing that's going to attempt to rebut what I said. So let me get rid of at least one of the straw men that will be used. I do believe in a clean world. I have no problem with recycling. When, however, science is stolen by political agenda and the cure is worse than the disease and every "cure" for a cleaner planet involves some sort of authoritarian response creating less personal freedoms (i.e. plastic bags, mercury filled light bulbs, etc) and costing an exorbitant amount of other people's money, I tend to get nervous.

Big hand for John's Juan Williams impression, everybody

I envy your imagination. Cross contamination and salmonella
I thought you were a babyvore anyway. Going on a diet?

As your editor (I just hired you, what didn't I tell you?), I'm cutting everything after the first paragraph. That one will sell.

But it's really not necessary to try to fit this square peg thread in the round hole of partisanship, just because the OP was careless. Science really doesn't relate to this. Nor is it an infringement of freedoms.

 

[boedicca]

Obamanation -



In the name of this thread.

Strangely enough, one of the last places on earth where aluminium cans have rarely been used (for beer) has been Denmark, where left-wing politicians fought for decades to have them preserved on environmental grounds. The right wing won in the end, but not before an entire generation of Danes had enjoyed the benefits of recycling glass.

I said this was a life lesson for libs --- wow Sai, you just made one huge leap there...

Good Lord! Who is that in your avatar?

Thelma and Louise from the Alternate Universe where they didn't drive over a cliff.