Be a "Freegan" And Eat Trash! LOL

[-Cp]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136091,00.html

Trash Holds Culinary Delights for Freegans
Wednesday, October 20, 2004



NEW YORK — One person's trash is literally another person's treasure, if that person happens to be a freegan (search). They’re not vegans who refuse to eat meat or animal products; these people eat out of the garbage.

Freegans generally are activists. They believe we live in a capitalistic society gone mad where food, like so many other items, is needlessly tossed out.

Adam Weissman and some freegan friends, none of whom are homeless or destitute, dig through garbage for food in Manhattan's trendy Upper East Side (search). They refuse to economically support companies that make or sell the items, because they equate doing so with encouraging further exploitation of our natural resources.

"I'm saying we're too materialistic and it's ruining our lives,” Weissman said. "We're wasting enough food to literally feed every starving hungry person on the planet."

But one supermarket manager says the companies are not the ones being put out. "My first impression is personally I feel sorry for them because I don't think anyone would want to do that,” said store boss James Massari.

But the freegans aren't looking for pity, in fact they're sympathetic to the people who actually paid money for food they take home for free.

"It irks my sense of justice that things are getting thrown away that people can use," said Alexis Cole. Cole not only provides freegan food for her roommates, but has furnished most of her apartment through dumpster diving.

Do the freegans ever get sick? They say no, primarily because they take precautions like washing the fruits and vegetables and not eating anything that's spoiled.

 

[Mainframe]

a FREEGAN...hahahahha! hahha



hahhhahahah

 

[Merlin1047]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136091,00.html
Do the freegans ever get sick? They say no, primarily because they take precautions like washing the fruits and vegetables and not eating anything that's spoiled.

Unfortunately many stores refuse to donate perfectly edible food to the poor or to the organizations which support the poor. The reason for this is the risk that people may get sick from eating these groceries and then go out and hire the likes of Edwards to sue the socks off the company that donated the food.

Now there was some movement during the Clinton administration on this subject :
http://www.cnn.com/US/9710/13/gleaning.growth/
"CLINTON, Maryland (CNN) -- One year ago, President Clinton signed a bill limiting lawsuits against businesses that donate food in good faith, even if the food spoils and makes someone sick.

The law has proved a big boost for a growing movement that can trace its roots to the Bible's Old Testament.

But some in government believe more can be done. A bill before Congress to increase the tax deduction for donated food could encourage more farmers and companies to give away food instead of tossing it out."

But notice that Clinton, in true shyster fashion, only moved to "limit" the liability. The current law is here if anyone wants to read it: http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/gleaning/appc.htm


http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/article.php/15185
Local representatives and charity organizations said that potential donors have abstained from donating because of a fear of lawsuits.

"Restaurants wanted to donate food but were advised not to by their attorneys because of liability exposure," said Rep. Jamie Hagood (R-Knoxville)."

And there's this:

http://santorum.senate.gov/columns/991122.htm
"Americans are generous and compassionate in remembering the less fortunate in their communities especially during the holiday season. The challenge before us is to meet these needs every day. For example, our food banks rely on the generosity of individuals and businesses to provide food to the needy every day of every week of every year. It is important that we in Congress work to empower charities, individuals and businesses to work effectively together to address the human needs in our communities.

Unfortunately, legal complications often get in the way of good intentions, making individuals and businesses hesitant to donate goods and services. For example, a company asked to allow access to its parking lot to a nonprofit for a special event was advised to deny access by its attorneys. Though the company supported the efforts of the nonprofit, it could have been found at fault, and therefore vulnerable to lawsuits, should anything have happened on the parking lot during the event. Over the past thirty years, courts have consistently expanded the definition of what it means to be at fault for physical or other injuries to individuals. The result is that a business or an individual can be sued even when they are not directly at fault. This has had an impact on charitable giving, causing individuals and businesses to be wary of giving food, goods, services and time out of fear of frivolous lawsuits.

The new bill, which also received support from some members of the Knoxville Bar Association, is seeking to alleviate fear of lawsuits. It continues to allow lawsuits against a donor if the donor is grossly negligent, reckless or acts with intent to harm.

Rep. Hagood believes that the criminal and civil immunity should increase food donations to organizations such as Second Harvest Food Bank.

Elaine Machiela, Executive Director of the Second Harvest Food Bank, is skeptical that the new law will increase food donations to organizations such as hers. "As much as I'd like to see them increase, I don't think they will," said Machiela.

Machiela said that national laws already exist that grant immunity to charitable food donors. Despite this protection many businesses are still afraid to donate their excess food."


So while there is some progress being made toward protecting good samaritan corporations from frivolous lawsuits, it will take some time for donations to reach previous levels.

Damn shame. People go hungry because shyster lawyers want to suck some more blood out of corporate America. They could care less that the very clients they represent are the ones who will eventually suffer the fallout.

 

[Said1]

Unfortunately many stores refuse to donate perfectly edible food to the poor or to the organizations which support the poor. The reason for this is the risk that people may get sick from eating these groceries and then go out and hire the likes of Edwards to sue the socks off the company that donated the food.

Now there was some movement during the Clinton administration on this subject :
http://www.cnn.com/US/9710/13/gleaning.growth/
"CLINTON, Maryland (CNN) -- One year ago, President Clinton signed a bill limiting lawsuits against businesses that donate food in good faith, even if the food spoils and makes someone sick.

The law has proved a big boost for a growing movement that can trace its roots to the Bible's Old Testament.

But some in government believe more can be done. A bill before Congress to increase the tax deduction for donated food could encourage more farmers and companies to give away food instead of tossing it out."

But notice that Clinton, in true shyster fashion, only moved to "limit" the liability. The current law is here if anyone wants to read it: http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/gleaning/appc.htm


http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/article.php/15185
Local representatives and charity organizations said that potential donors have abstained from donating because of a fear of lawsuits.

"Restaurants wanted to donate food but were advised not to by their attorneys because of liability exposure," said Rep. Jamie Hagood (R-Knoxville)."

And there's this:

http://santorum.senate.gov/columns/991122.htm
"Americans are generous and compassionate in remembering the less fortunate in their communities especially during the holiday season. The challenge before us is to meet these needs every day. For example, our food banks rely on the generosity of individuals and businesses to provide food to the needy every day of every week of every year. It is important that we in Congress work to empower charities, individuals and businesses to work effectively together to address the human needs in our communities.

Unfortunately, legal complications often get in the way of good intentions, making individuals and businesses hesitant to donate goods and services. For example, a company asked to allow access to its parking lot to a nonprofit for a special event was advised to deny access by its attorneys. Though the company supported the efforts of the nonprofit, it could have been found at fault, and therefore vulnerable to lawsuits, should anything have happened on the parking lot during the event. Over the past thirty years, courts have consistently expanded the definition of what it means to be at fault for physical or other injuries to individuals. The result is that a business or an individual can be sued even when they are not directly at fault. This has had an impact on charitable giving, causing individuals and businesses to be wary of giving food, goods, services and time out of fear of frivolous lawsuits.

The new bill, which also received support from some members of the Knoxville Bar Association, is seeking to alleviate fear of lawsuits. It continues to allow lawsuits against a donor if the donor is grossly negligent, reckless or acts with intent to harm.

Rep. Hagood believes that the criminal and civil immunity should increase food donations to organizations such as Second Harvest Food Bank.

Elaine Machiela, Executive Director of the Second Harvest Food Bank, is skeptical that the new law will increase food donations to organizations such as hers. "As much as I'd like to see them increase, I don't think they will," said Machiela.

Machiela said that national laws already exist that grant immunity to charitable food donors. Despite this protection many businesses are still afraid to donate their excess food."


So while there is some progress being made toward protecting good samaritan corporations from frivolous lawsuits, it will take some time for donations to reach previous levels.

Damn shame. People go hungry because shyster lawyers want to suck some more blood out of corporate America. They could care less that the very clients they represent are the ones who will eventually suffer the fallout.

I used to work at the Bay, they keep ALL their garbage locked up, even the food!

 

[musicman]

Forgive me for belaboring the obvious, but this is just another example of how the quality of life for EVERYONE goes down in direct proportion to the increase in the number of lawyers.

An attorney's license to practice law should come up for renewal every year. That renewal should be contingent on his being able to show that he has done ONE CONSRUCTIVE THING for mankind during the course of that year.

Who am I kidding, though? He'd find a loophole.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Y'all are seeking to place blame where it only partially belongs. Society as a whole shares the blame...not just the trial lawyers. For the situation to change, the paradigm must change. But, by and large, we're too self-centered for that to happen.

 

[Said1]

Who am I kidding, though? He'd find a loophole.

 

[Merlin1047]

Forgive me for belaboring the obvious, but this is just another example of how the quality of life for EVERYONE goes down in direct proportion to the increase in the number of lawyers.

An attorney's license to practice law should come up for renewal every year. That renewal should be contingent on his being able to show that he has done ONE CONSRUCTIVE THING for mankind during the course of that year.

Who am I kidding, though? He'd find a loophole.

Well, that's certainly a good idea. Personally, I think putting a bounty on the sleazy bastards would be even more effective.


:dev1:

 

[musicman]

Y'all are seeking to place blame where it only partially belongs. Society as a whole shares the blame...not just the trial lawyers. For the situation to change, the paradigm must change. But, by and large, we're too self-centered for that to happen.

I don't entirely agree, Bully. Americans are a big-hearted people, when allowed to be. But, when you can be sued into ruin for good samaratnism, as has often happened, it becomes dangerous and self-defeating to be kind. If that constitutes self-centeredness, it is self-centeredness of an understandable sort. THAT needs to change.

 

[musicman]

Well, that's certainly a good idea. Personally, I think putting a bounty on the sleazy bastards would be even more effective.


:dev1:

A hell of a lot less paperwork, for one thing.