Ignorance is not Bliss By David Bock

Posted on by Sarah A. Hoyt

Ignorance is not Bliss By David Bock

For those that think high school students protesting things they don’t understand is anything new, back in the mid-1980s I experienced my fellow students protest the forming of a military history club. This happened at one of the most prestigious science high schools in New York City.

We were called vile names, our meeting posters were vandalized or destroyed, and the other members of the club and I were harassed on and off school grounds.  All of this was based on ignorance of what our club was about.  Not, as they would have had you believe, in the glorification of war, but in the exploration and preservation of military history.

However, after the first few meetings, the protesters lost interest and the “Military History Enthusiasts Club” met without incident for the rest of my time at that school.

Keep in mind, nothing happens in a vacuum.  Today’s ignorant high school students become tomorrow’s ignorant voters and next week’s ignorant politicians.  These ignorant politicians, supported by those ignorant voters, pass ignorant laws.  Perpetuating the cycle of ignorance and further marginalizing law abiding gun owners.

In the mid-1990s I attended a lecture at Sienna College discussing the proposed federal firearms ban.  The presenter who supported the ban was smooth and charismatic and pushing the same false facts we all know so well now.  He used talking points like “a pistol grip makes it easier to shoot from the hip” and “these weapons serve no purpose but to kill children.”  The college students attending ate it up.

Back then, there was no internet to check facts.  These were new talking points and clear counters for them were still being developed.

The pro-gun rights presenter, on the other hand, arrived late, was unprepared, flustered, and made a hash of the whole thing.

Not our finest hour.

The late-1990s were kind of interesting as a gun owner in New York.  With the burgeoning hysteria about Y2K I had some mildly anti-gun friends come to me for advice on buying their first gun so they could defend themselves when the system collapsed.

I did not ridicule them or dismiss them.  I wasn’t even tempted to do so.  I gave them the best advice I could and offered to take them to the range with my guns before they decided on what to purchase.

Of course, most of them never followed through and the world didn’t end on January 1 2000.  However, a few did become gun owners and after their experiences with the New York legal process, some of them even transitioned to the pro-gun position.  So learning is possible.

Fast forward to early-January 2017.  I was at a wedding reception for a lesbian couple I know.  They had decided to get married because they were concerned that President Elect Trump was going to ban gay marriage after he was sworn into office.

During the reception I was sitting at a table surrounded by good friends.  Some of whom I had known for many years.  Suddenly, one of them called me out as a member of the NRA, implying that this was somehow something shameful.

She then went of a several minute, fact free, rant about “assault weapons” and the need for more and stricter firearms laws.

My response was to tune her out, let her rant, and when she was done I started a conversation about movies or food or something equally innocuous.

Could I have handled this differently?  Of course I could have.  Would it have been productive? I don’t think so.

I could have countered each of her statements with facts.  I could have referenced data from the New York State Department of Criminal Justice Services, the FBI, the CDC, or some other reputable source. 

However, considering the Gish Gallop of misinformation, false data, and CNN talking points, I would have needed a page or more of notes so I could address each point in turn.

Had I done this, I would not have changed her opinion, nor the opinions of others at the table who were nodding sagely in agreement with her statements. What I probably would have done was set some of them off and caused anger and bad feeling around the table.

I have more respect for the newlyweds then to cause that, so I kept my mouth shut and let it wash over me.

To quote Doctor Thomas Sowell “It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.”

Assorted Calibers Podcast

Brena Bock Stories

David Bock Stories

95 thoughts on “Ignorance is not Bliss By David Bock”

  1. It is a hard lesson to learn, good for you! Proverbs tells us that there are three kinds of fools 1) Childish fools, 2) Misinformed fools, and 3) Willful fools. Children don’t have the capacity to know better and should be ignored – they generally don’t do much damage anyway. Misinformed fools can be reached with patience. They can be talked out of their foolishness (I am sometimes a misinformed fool). Willful fools are dangerous and damned. They know better but wallow in their foolishness and take others down. They should be actively fought to prevent them from killing us all!

    Like

  3. Been there done that!
    Also lived through that chit show resulting in the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that to no one’s surprise was proven to have no measurable effect on gun crime or public safety as it was based almost entirely on cosmetic features of certain “scary” firearms.
    One positive effect though, it was a major contributor to the Dems losing both houses of Congress in the ’94 midterms. Of course it’s been long enough that the DNC and our Fearless Leader have forgotten that lesson.

    Like

  4. Any more, my response would be along the lines of how rude they were to try to cause dissension at such an occasion; that they were disrespecting the hosts by trying to start a fight at their time of joy. Then suggest they sit down, shut up, and let people continue to celebrate the occasion.
    These people are filled with hate and ignorance, so use that against them.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “Did you come here to celebrate this joyful occasion? Or to dump on me with your petty ignorance? If you’d like to discuss this further, I suggest we step outside where I can knock that foolishness out of you.”

      Like

    2. That’s a good way to handle it. Throw the onus back on her for being a viscous, obsessive, small-minded, insensitive, and humorless vulval cleft.

      Like

  5. I don’t argue with lefties anymore. I don’t see any point to it. Basically, they’re infected with a mind-virus and there are only 2 cures that I can see. 1. Give them what they want, gooder and harder, like SF only even more so. 2. An overwhelming conservative takeover – 70% of all institutions and govt – in other words, a fantasy – so maybe going Galt makes more sense.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yes. Absolutely. I don’t even talk about guns or gun control on my blog anymore. Its pointless.

      Everyone with a clue knows they’re lying and always have been. Everyone without a clue at this point is either terminally, willfully stupid or working for the liars.

      I’m saving up popcorn for when the willfully stupid get what they’ve been asking for. Mm, popcorn.

      Like

      1. I’m just saving for more ammo. And more guns.
        One thing is pretty certain, presenting facts in a blog comments is less effective than talking to a brick wall. At least with a brick wall there’s the chance that Wilson will be on the other side.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. I remember doing a persuasive speech back in high school, basically saying that banning guns wouldn’t work. As part of a demonstration—and something that would never be allowed today—I had my brother’s Laser Tag setup and set off a couple of the shot alarms during the speech, to show how quickly someone could shoot in a crowded room. (Yes, this was about not banning guns, it made sense in context.)

    Afterwards, the teacher said, You don’t really believe that, do you? Instead of answering directly, I just said the speech wasn’t very persuasive, then. (Private girls’ school, and I was both a teacher favorite and known for doing a bit of boundary pushing on assignments, so she honestly didn’t know.)

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Once upon a time I presented my findings from the medical literature on gun control to a group in a Masters program. Which findings were that the research was utter garbage.

      Watching them scramble through the handout trying to refute the points being made was so much fun. You tell a statistics prof that their favorite gun control paper didn’t even use incidents per 100,000 to control for changing population, and then they see that you’re right? That’s a beautiful thing.

      But then seeing the truth make no difference to their opinion, that was kind of sad. They -see- that the paper is a lie, and they understand how the lie works, and they realize that all the papers are the same… but then they don’t care and keep believing anyway.

      Because changing what they believe will have consequences, and they don’t want that. They’ll be kicked out of their little church of gun control. Its quite evil, really.

      Like

      1. Uhhh…WHY is there ‘medical literature on gun control’ in the first place? Why are medical bureaucrats meddling in issues of crime and law enforcement? They are about as useful in that role as the police and district attorney would be in treating cancer.
        ———————————
        There are forms of stupidity that businesses can’t indulge in. There are no such limitations on the stupidity of government.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Short answer, because the CDC had grants for public health studies on guns. The various big Liberal foundations like TIDES and the Hewlett endowment also offered grants.

          The CDC grants ended with the Newt Gingrich purge, wherein the CDC was asked why they were handing out public money for such bad science. The Liberal foundations kept going.

          I read all the studies from the first around 1968 up to ~2000 or so, at that time there were around 100-ish. Of which six (6) met the basic requirements for a scientific paper, two of those found against gun control, four showed no effect. It wasn’t good news to the prof, let’s just say. ~:D

          The rest fall under the usual “correlation equals causation” falacy, and/or outright fabrication of both data and analysis. They just freaking lie.

          Fast forward to 2023, there are plenty more papers in the medical literature because you can still get a grant from TIDES or some other Lefty charitable trust. All the same, really, and all finding gun control is the greatest thing evar. All you have to do to refute them is to see if the conclusions match the data. They never do. My favorite of all time is the one where owning a dog is just as positively correlated to gun violence as owning a gun.

          Like

          1. And the problem with the CDC sponsored studies is that they were not performing research, they were looking for validation of their position. And in those cases, truth is irrelevant.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. People understand at a conscious level. But they know and believe at a subconscious level. And it gets even more tightly bound to the subconscious the longer they live. Unfortunately, that means that it’s very difficult to change an adult’s mind unless it’s truly open (which is rare).

        Otherwise, it requires a long process of acclimating them to a viewpoint before they finally adopt it, or a very sharp shock.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. When you’re in a masters program at a medical school, people are supposed to be following the data. It even has a name: Evidence Based Medicine.

          Watching the beeotch who’s been preaching evidence based medicine at me for a year reject the evidence was… enlightening, shall we say.

          Liked by 1 person

  7. I remember the “Gish Gallop.” A name coined by Michael Shermer, IIRC, in honor of Duane Gish to describe a sleazy debating technique much favored by zealots. Spout 100 questionable “facts” or half-truths knowing that refuting even a few will take more time than it took to spout the lot of them. When any are debunked, claim the remainder invalidate all opposing arguments. I encountered it a lot during my time on Talk.Origins.

    Like

    1. See also “Brandolini’s Law” (also called the bullshit asymmetry principle ), is the adage that “the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it”.

      The Wikipedia version leaves out the Order of Magnitude part….

      Like

  8. I am a lousy debater in general, let alone at a celebration where I wouldn’t expect the topic to come up. So I too would have ignored the conversation and changed the topic. Hubby would confront them directly, oh not contradicting the points ranting about, because what is the point? But about the appropriate venue. Would have stopped the rant before it got going. He is very good that way. Very good at debating. Debating in a way that gets people laughing. If I’m pressed the best I can do is state “Idiot”. Which is never the correct response.

    Like

  9. Larry Correia, the International Lord Of Hate, puts it thus:

    “It takes an order of magnitude more effort to refute bullshit than to spew it.”

    Then he proves it with his epic Fiskings. Sure enough, his refutations are about 10 times as long as the bullshit he’s refuting.

    In the end, though, gun-banners do not care about facts, logic and reason. They hate guns and gun owners because it is ‘good’ to hate them. It is also ‘good’ to hate fossil fuels, logging, plastic, basic biology and America. Their opinions are the Absolute Truth of their existence and nothing else matters.
    ———————————
    Facts do not depend on opinions. Unfortunately, for far too many people, opinions do not depend on facts, either.

    Like

  10. I believe you did the right thing considering the circumstances – a wedding is not the place to pick fights. There is a time and place for such discussions (if allowed), although the ignorant also seem to be ignorant of the rules of civility and etiquette.
    Sadly, being polite (and self-censoring) has not served us well (I’ve done it, too, but as I look back it feels more and more like appeasement, and these crocodiles will never be sated.)

    Like

    1. ” ….as I look back it feels more and more like appeasement…”

      Eh. It’s easy to look back and say ‘woulda-coulda-shoulda’ but your reactions at the time were probably the right ones.

      There’s nothing to be gained from arguing with these people. I sometimes do it anyway, because I’m an argumentative bastige at the best of times, but I know going in I’m going to get nowhere.

      Besides, why should you self-identify for them? Sun Tzu says, make them self-identify for you. >:D

      Like

      1. sometimes do it anyway, because I’m an argumentative bastige at the best of times, but I know going in I’m going to get nowhere.
        ………………..

        You and my husband would get on like gang busters. He does this too. In fact middle sister and I have to pre-sit on each of our husbands to prevent them from political topics during family gatherings involving littlest sister. We’ve shortened it to “Do not make mom cry. Do. Not.” Now if little sister starts it. Sigh. All bets are off for the liberals he golfs with. I guess they’ve been really, really, quiet. Bidenomics has hit all of them a lot harder than the non-left (might be in the > $400k annual income brackets, plus the other BS).

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I have a minder. ~:D I’m not allowed to start with people in public, on pain of pain.

          With some, age brings wisdom. With others, we just get more attitude.

          Like

          1. not allowed to start with people in public, on pain of pain.
            ……………..

            Not in control of what happens in golfing circle. They are on their own. But anywhere else, short of family, he is pretty well behaved and ignores them. Unless of coarse for some reason they see me as a target (it takes some really clueless people looking for a fight because I don’t put myself front and center, ever). Then verbal gloves are off. He doesn’t even have to raise his voice. At 71 1/2, two artificial hips, and needing knees replaced, he isn’t getting physical. But he can flay them fine verbally. He isn’t allowed to start either. But he is allowed to finish if he must. I believe I’ve mentioned before that he’s a keeper.

            Liked by 1 person

  11. What can you do, this is an age of mass psychosis. There really ain’t no arguing with outright crazy.

    Me, my, as I know facts won’t even confuse you, you’ll just ignore them anyway, replies to such as, “Everybody knows guns have killed fifty thousand innocent children and seventy two puppies in the last month alone, yet you’ve that box of 209 primers, they’re more evil than blood diamonds.” plus and additional 27 minutes of ranting, is a simple if you say so.

    If you say so.

    You can take that any way you want to.

    Like

  12. “I could have countered each of her statements with facts.”

    In New York? Bwahahahaha!

    No. You did the right thing. Nod, smile sweetly, change the subject. If they become raucous, get up and walk away. If they follow you (which has happened to me) get out of earshot from the rest of the party before letting them know how it’s going to be. They’re less brave when nobody else is there.

    I must say, that after living in NY (Lake Carmel, then Tarrytown) for 4 years in the 1990s, IMHO there is nothing more pointless than introducing facts into an argument with an anti-gunner. Research, training, life experience, even physics are not relevant to the conversation.

    They are celebrants in a religious fervor. Enraptured by their own holiness, if you will.

    A similar argument has grown up regarding self defense in general, not just with firearms. Learning martial arts is -bad-. Teaching men not to rape is -good-. (Hi, Bonnie!) You can’t have a rational conversation about it, because they’re not rational. At all.

    When we speak to these idiots, it helps to understand that they’re not pursuing a solution to a problem. WE are doing that, but what they are doing is signaling their virtue to a wider audience. The details of what constitutes “Virtue” change from week to week, but the virtue signaling does not.

    Just the same as the “trans-issue” lately. The facts are not at issue. Indeed, the facts are utterly ridiculous. You’re being bullied into complying with a repugnant fantasy. If you resist, then the flying monkeys come for you.

    Personally, I like a nice flying monkey now and then. Delicious when pickled, and served on toast.

    Like

    1. The only thing you can do with a religious zealot determined to destroy you is to kill them. The only way for them to be converted is by God on the road to Damascus. You’re not going to be able to do it.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. “When we speak to these idiots, it helps to understand that they’re not pursuing a solution to a problem. WE are doing that, but what they are doing is signaling their virtue to a wider audience. ”

      When I was younger I would hear feminists complain passionately about male violence against women and how pervasive it is because of “rape culture” and “patriarchy ” or whatever and I would enthusiastically mention that I know of a government program that once eliminated 90% of rapes in an entire city-Orlando. In response I was usually called a liar or given blank, uneasy stares and told we just need to teach “men not to rape”, “smash the patriarchy” or some other vague, unworkable platitude. That’s when I realized that no matter how passionate they sounded they didn’t actually CARE about preventing violence against women and I stopped bothering to listen to them.

      Liked by 2 people

        1. Offered free firearms training classes to women in 1966 in response to wave of sexual assaults.

          Like

      2. This is exactly what happens when you tell people that states which enacted “shall issue” concealed carry permits ALL experienced a double-digit drop in gunshot fatalities in the following year, as measured by the FBI crime statistics.

        Which is true. Happens every time. Average of 12-15% drop, sometimes more. Its one of the only things governments do that actually reduce crime. Nobody cares.

        Because its not about human safety and never was.

        Like

  13. There has to be some sensible middle ground between “someone on the Internet is wrong; I must correct him” and “yeah, whatever.” If anyone finds it, be sure to let me know.

    We really do need some sort of fact-checking service, but I can’t even imagine anything that would work. Wikipedia is probably the best we can hope for.

    Like

  14. Years ago, had a chance to do a guest lecture at my son’s (private) high school.

    Brought a couple of graphs – total estimated ‘civilian’ gun stock, from BATF figures, and homicides, by year. The first was monotonically increasing (wasn’t over 1:1 yet) and of course the murders were quite variable. “You guys already know enough statistics to see that it’s pretty unlikely that ‘number of guns’ is related to ‘number of murders’, right?”

    No idea how much of an impression I made. They’d all be in their 40s now.

    Like

    1. If you updated those graphs, the first would be rapidly approaching 2:1 and the second would show a massive increase starting in mid-2020 after decades of semi-steady decline.

      Like

  15. Not related to the post. Oregon fires.

    Hwy 242 is closed.
    PCT is closed between Hwy 58 and Hwy 20/126 (Santiam Pass summit)
    Hwy 126 is closed between McKenzie Bridge and Hwy 242 western junction (take hwy 20 through Sweet Home from Sisters).

    Due to the big fires that have been burning since July 2023. Plus a whole lot of little lightening caused fires.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Is that loon still a thing or is he ranting into the abyss with no one giving a rat’s hienie what he types?
        I recall an argument on Elf Life/Winger/Shadowfall that the links the arguer used were all Kos and Mother Jones, linking each other or a Huffpo Opinion piece or two as “Facts” and proof they were correct.

        Like

        1. 10+ years ago, when I decided to gather all the facts about guns and the dangers thereof so’s to make up my own mind about it (I had bought a couple and wanted to know if I truly was putting myself & family in great danger), that’s exactly what I found on the “guns are bad” side: a bunch of publications pulling slick, emotion-stirring claims out of their nether regions and citing each other as authorities. The pro-gun side, by contrast, was uncoordinated and unpolished, but actually tended to use logic and cited third-party sources I could actually check. So it goes in most subjects, I’ve found.

          Liked by 1 person

  17. I’ve short-circuited several rants on various topics (especially climatology) with, “Really? That’s fascinating! What are your sources?” Listen to splutter or list, then, “Thank you. That’s very different from what I found in my reading/research/observations so I will certainly look those up. Thanks!”

    They either preen like a peacock, full of pride, or they realize that maaaaaybe something they said was in error. Either way they have gone quiet long enough for a graceful topic change. (“Do the burgers smell overdone to you, or is it just me?” “What do you think about [band name]?” “What’s good at the farmers’ market?” “That color really looks good on you!”)

    Liked by 1 person

      1. I work very hard to look and sound very sincere and truly curious. Because sometimes I am. Sometimes it’s hiding the thought bubble of “Daaaang. What had did you pull that rabbit out of?”

        Liked by 2 people

    2. “Really? That’s fascinating! What are your sources?”

      Reminiscent of the old joke, whose punchline is approximately “I went to a charm school where they taught me to say ‘fascinating’ instead of BS.”

      Liked by 2 people

      1. taught me to say ‘fascinating’ instead of BS.
        …………….

        I didn’t go to charm school. I went to the school of Star Trek. “Interesting” works too.

        Like

  18. “Your effort to pick a fight, here and now, is a shining beacon of your shitbaggery. ”

    “Bless your heart! You almost sound intelligible.”

    Like

  19. What an excellent opportunity to absent yourself from that table, and go find one with people who didn’t have their heads rammed up their own asses. Which could be done with cutting politeness, and no disrespect to bride or groom.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. That’s an “everybody knows,” thing. They believe, quite firmly, they are a persecuted minority saved from right-wing pogroms only by the eternal vigilance of the Democrats. (Sadly, some of them have unpleasant family/church associations that reinforce that belief). It’s an article of faith. All their friends “know,” this, it’s self-evident truth. To them.
        Then add in left-wing “influencers,” preying on that perceived vulnerability to reinforce their loyalty to the Left. And telling them anyone who says otherwise is untrustworthy, bigoted, or at best misinformed. (I’m not sure where we fall with our gay friends. Probably as the “nice,” Christians).

        Like

        1. “They believe, quite firmly, they are a persecuted minority saved from right-wing pogroms only by the eternal vigilance of the Democrats”

          Asking why, if that is true, aren’t they arming themselves to protect themselves against the hordes of evil right wingers just itching to kill them all produces interesting responses.

          Liked by 1 person

          2. Because part of the conditioning is they are victims, utterly helpless without strong friends/authorities to protect them.
            In the case I know of, both ladies are pretty darn formidable, but they are also native urban/suburban Northeasterners. Some things, like gun ownership, are just not done.

            Like

      2. That’s how I ended up finally getting my concealed carry permit when I was in Denver. Several gay friends thought Trump was going to (try to?) put them in concentration camps and they wanted guns. It was on my “todo” list, so I went to the class with them despite their derangement.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Yeah, well, my gay friends are old enough that they thought BUSH was going to put them in camps.
          Like catastrophic global warming, it’s always “camps tomorrow”. Argh. have they no memory?

          Like

  20. Nope, I wouldn’t be able to resist.

    “You ARE aware those are all lies, right? Most folks have known they’re lies for the last 20, 30 years. Unfortunately, there are still dumbshits that keep repeating them.”

    I would finish with:

    “If you would rather believe lies than the truth, there’s not much I can do for you.”

    Liked by 1 person

  21. For what it’s worth, I applied and was accepted to Siena College for their pre-med program in 1977. Unfortunately, funding fell through, and I ended up enlisting in the AF. Life throws some real curveballs.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. “Y’know, a well-mannered person doesn’t bring up politics, religion, or medical matters in polite conversation. I’m quite impressed that you managed to bring up all three in one topic.”

    /Put-downs you only think of later.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. /Put-downs you only think of later.
      …………….

      Well there is one gesture I learned at my mother’s knee. I think grandma used it too. (Adjust glasses with middle finger. “What? I just adjusted my glasses!” Looks around innocent.)

      Like

  23. I’m outnumbered and not good at arguing so I keep my mouth shut around my lefty relatives. Nothing I could say would ever change their minds anyway.

    Like

  24. I have had similar experiences, where the conversation is started in an inappropriate setting. Including a “lady” who dissed me in my house during a party because I didn’t have a recycling can. Always said as if EVERYONE agrees. I didn’t argue, because after all, it’s a party (at my house no less!) and who wants to start a fight? I’m starting to rethink that impulse. I think leftists count on our sense of propriety to push that everyone always agrees, and we are the outliers. Maybe we shouldn’t let it go, no matter where the conversation starts. Sort of the way people put on masks, so no one felt bad, but maybe we should just start arguments, and fight on whatever hill they start want to start it at. Polite isn’t getting us anywhere good…..

    Liked by 1 person

      1. This is exactly why Trump will win, and the Republican Party will die. The party animals’ instinct for civility is wholly inappropriate when dealing with evil assholes that want us all dead, we the people know it, and the Party thinks getting Trump off the ballot will somehow make things all better.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. I’ve gotten in soooo much trouble for telling people the recycling truck pulls up next to the garbage truck at the town dump. Which they do.

            I also often get in trouble for mentioning that the shipping cost per ton is more than the value of the recycle material, and that’s why it all goes straight to the landfill. Which it does.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. At least for plastics and paper/cardboard, recycling does tend to be pretty nasty. Alas, I feat making that point successfully would just result in the ecoweenies banning them outright.

        Last I looked into it a decade back, I think aluminum and glass recycling were actually ok.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Locally glass has been crushed down to be used as roadbed foundation (part under asphalt or concrete). So it is still not co-mingled with rest of recycling.

          Like

        3. Depends on the venue. Places that ship glass to be made into insulation or ingots are doing the right thing (they even have optical sorters to pull the clear from the various colors), but some places mix it all up.

          Like

    4. I like to point out that paper is made from trees planted to make paper, not from the rain forrest. If you stop making paper there’s no need to plant those trees so recycling paper means you want fewer trees. Under those trees are some of the worlds largest reserves of coal and other minerals. So, the only other economic use of the land would be strip mining for minerals. Why are you in favor of strip mining? You hate Gaia!

      Liked by 1 person

    5. I had a similar experience with masks. Party at my house while we were all supposed to be hiding. One guest said, “Trump should have locked everyone inside”. I responded, “the President doesn’t have that authority and if it was such a good idea, why are you here?”

      I never saw him again. Darn.

      Liked by 1 person

    6. We have the big green recycling garbage and the yard recycling cans. Just means the regular blue garbage can be the smallest offered for weekly pickup. Yard debris does not go to the landfill. We can even recycle food and bones in the yard debris now (not a chance in heck, that stuff is bagged twice, don’t want the raiding critters around). But the “recycling” stuff does go directly to the landfill. No *market anymore. Costs are about the same, or a little less, as if we’d just have the largest blue garbage can. Not my fault if people like described are idiots and don’t know what is really going on now.

      (*) Sign of sub-market for recycled materials dying when it didn’t pay for troops to have newspaper and cardboard recycling drop off boxes throughout the neighborhoods. Used to be decent year round money for troop funding for equipment.

      Like

      1. They replaced all of the bins in the city a year or so back, and finally went to a sane color system. Black for garbage, blue for recycling, green for green waste. Before it was something crazy—and yes, I have trouble when I visit my MiL up north of you because of that blue GARBAGE can.

        Like

        1. It isn’t the same for each company.

          Lane Apex – Blue = Garbage, Gray/Black = Yard Debris, Green = Recycle, Red (Box) = Glass
          Sanipac – Olive Dark Green = Garbage, Gray/Black = Yard Debris, Dark Midnight Blue = Recycling, Royal Blue (Box) = Glass.

          We could have either service.

          Like

    7. I only get upset when the local school doesn’t have recycling boxes or ANYTHING at events, because what with selling sodas, that’s free money. Hey, PTO, you know aluminum is almost $2 a pound around here? FREE MONEY.

      (Taking my aluminum cans in a couple of times a year nets some pretty nice cash for summer camps, just saying—and that’s with only one person in the house drinking fizzy waters.)

      Like

      1. Don’t know what the state does with them but after prepaying $0.10/can, bagging, returning to bottle recycling for counting ($0.10/bag + $0.35/bag) = net return * $0.20 (use in store coupon VS straight cash back) usually means $25 – $45 off grocery bill. Sure it is just money I am getting back. But, one doesn’t see anything with a deposit alongside roads (if nothing else, the homeless grab them up). Note, you can donate refunds to non-profits too. Don’t, but it is an option.

        aluminum
        ……………….

        Newspaper/paper/cardboard used to be worth turning in by the pickup load too. Paid for a lot of summer camps. Until it wasn’t worth the gas needed to haul it all down.

        Like

  25. Before I might have been willing to help a lefty who had a change of heart (read: they felt their ass was on the line) and decided to believe in the Second Amendment, but after the past few years? No. Its not likely to inspire any empathy towards me or my beliefs. It might come back to bite me.

    Like

Comments are closed.