 |
| https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/12/ starbucks-straw-ban-will-see-the-company |
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
The problem with the liberal left is that when something becomes a problem, they don't seek solutions, they instead seek authoritarian ways of forcing the population to comply with their big-government version of dealing with the problem. For example, in California, water is constantly an issue, especially during a drought cycle. Rather than work on a solution like building more water retention facilities (which the voters voted on a bond to do so, but then the money went to pensions and a high speed rail project), looking into projects like geo-water, or taking into consideration building desalination plants, the liberal left solution in California has been to begin taxing water (which failed to get out of committee, but I am sure the attempt will emerge again), chase environmentalist pipe dreams that actually steals water for unnecessary environmental schemes, and using legislation to force the population into limiting their use of water with a law that will limit each Californian to an unreasonable goal of 55 gallons of water per day beginning in 2022, followed by a reduction to an impossible to accomplish for the average person 50 gallons per day in 2030.
In other words, rather than figure out a way to make sure we have enough water, they wish to force individuals to reduce their use of water by threat of the penalty of law while stealing water for environmental lies and while stealing the money for water storage to pay their other failed programs and rising pensions costs. However, the reduction in water use will also reduce the revenue for water companies, so water rates will rise so that, while each of us by law will be forced to use less water, we will not be paying any less in dollars in return.
The schemes are nothing new, and they go way back, and way beyond, merely water. One of the other totalitarian schemes involves plastic.
I remember when I was a kid in the seventies, the leftists decided that paper products were a great sin. We were killing trees, so the solution was to begin banning certain paper products. Then, the free market grabbed a hold of the problem, and began to offer plastic alternatives, of which, once the liberals realized they could find a way to claim the solution as being their own, they embraced plastic products with caution.
Plastic grocery bags became the norm, and it turned out they were better in many ways. They were stronger, and had handles, so we could carry more groceries at once. And, as it turned out, they fit nicely into our little trashcans in our bathrooms, bedrooms, offices, or under the sink, so we used them for that, too.
However, they didn't necessarily ban paper bags, back then, they just encouraged us to use the plastic kind. Personally, I used the paper bags as book covers for my text books (and I would then draw designs on them with made up logos for "History", "Algebra," or whatever other subject the book was about). I also would unhinge the seams and lay them out flat so that I could use them for drawing various things like maps, and so forth. I used the maps for my own personalized RISK game war scenarios, including the American Revolution, the War Between the States, the World Wars, and so forth.
Life was good. The grocer would simply ask, "paper or plastic?"
Now, the liberal left has decided that plastic is bad. But, rather than seek an alternative, they have gone into "ban" mode. Here in California, when they decided to ban plastic grocery bags, they realized after it was pointed out that they were being hypocritical if they went back to paper. They considered the cloth reusable bags, but they pose a health hazard, and were more expensive to produce and purchase. So, they opted for thicker "reusable" plastic bags, and then attached a ten cents tax to them. The new "reusable" thicker plastic bags take 26 times the energy to produce, and take 26 times the time to decay in landfills (data based on a verbal conversation I had with someone in the plastic bag production industry), but that doesn't matter to the liberal leftists. The liberal left Democrats really don't care about the environment. They only wish to appear they are doing a good thing. In politics, perception is everything. The fact that the liberal left option is actually not a better solution in terms of the environment does not matter, and they are figuring most people won't be astute enough to notice. The truth is, they think we are too stupid to know what they are up to. All that matters to them is that their base thinks they have the good intention of saving the world with their hair-brained idea.
Since California has passed their law that has outlawed single-use plastic bags statewide (which was voted in by the people through an elaborate scheme of smoke and mirrors, misdirection, and deceptive wording of the title and summary of the proposal of the proposition on the ballot), the use of plastic bags has not changed much. While the use of plastic bags has dropped, in order for the law to have a significant impact, either the use of bags would need to drop to 1/26th of the previous usage (which it has not) or people would need to reuse their bags at least 26 times (and they aren't). However, California is getting a ten cents tax for every bag purchased, and that was what the whole thing was about, anyway. The environment was never truly the real reason for the plastic bag scheme, it was simply just another way to squeeze money out of us, while simultaneously adding a new level of control over the population. For the Democrats, it was a win-win.
There has been an unintended consequence, however.
The homeless used the single-use plastic bags to take a crap in. They would use the bag, tie the top, and then drop the plastic encased excrement into a nearby public trash can. They used to dispose of their drug needles the same way. Now, the bags cost a dime apiece, a fee the homeless cannot afford to pay. So, without having no-cost bags to use, and if no public facility is available, they simply crap where they stand. Now, in the cities where the homeless number the highest, and along the Golden State's highways, human feces and needles litter the public right of way, largely because of California's plastic bag ban.
Now that the Democrats have targeted plastic bags, and have successfully spread their campaign across the country like a disease to phase them out, straws are next. The goal is to eventually end the use of all single-use plastic products.
The consequences for getting rid of drinking straws may be even more fatal than that of plastic grocery bags. In the case of Starbucks' ban of straws, like the plastic bag problem in California, the alternative uses more plastic than the straws do. But, once again, we know that deep down this isn't about plastic, it's about squeezing money out of us, and creating new ways to control society.
For some people, drinking out of a straw is not a choice, it is a necessity. Some people are simply unable to lift a glass and drink out of it in ways that other people can. According to TIME Magazine, "some disabled people can take a longer time to drink, leading paper straws to get soggy or even disintegrate, potentially increasing the risk of choking. . . metal straws are usually inflexible, making them more difficult to use for people who have a mobility-related impairment."
In other words, rather than figure out a way to make sure we have enough water, they wish to force individuals to reduce their use of water by threat of the penalty of law while stealing water for environmental lies and while stealing the money for water storage to pay their other failed programs and rising pensions costs. However, the reduction in water use will also reduce the revenue for water companies, so water rates will rise so that, while each of us by law will be forced to use less water, we will not be paying any less in dollars in return.
The schemes are nothing new, and they go way back, and way beyond, merely water. One of the other totalitarian schemes involves plastic.
I remember when I was a kid in the seventies, the leftists decided that paper products were a great sin. We were killing trees, so the solution was to begin banning certain paper products. Then, the free market grabbed a hold of the problem, and began to offer plastic alternatives, of which, once the liberals realized they could find a way to claim the solution as being their own, they embraced plastic products with caution.
Plastic grocery bags became the norm, and it turned out they were better in many ways. They were stronger, and had handles, so we could carry more groceries at once. And, as it turned out, they fit nicely into our little trashcans in our bathrooms, bedrooms, offices, or under the sink, so we used them for that, too.
However, they didn't necessarily ban paper bags, back then, they just encouraged us to use the plastic kind. Personally, I used the paper bags as book covers for my text books (and I would then draw designs on them with made up logos for "History", "Algebra," or whatever other subject the book was about). I also would unhinge the seams and lay them out flat so that I could use them for drawing various things like maps, and so forth. I used the maps for my own personalized RISK game war scenarios, including the American Revolution, the War Between the States, the World Wars, and so forth.
Life was good. The grocer would simply ask, "paper or plastic?"
Now, the liberal left has decided that plastic is bad. But, rather than seek an alternative, they have gone into "ban" mode. Here in California, when they decided to ban plastic grocery bags, they realized after it was pointed out that they were being hypocritical if they went back to paper. They considered the cloth reusable bags, but they pose a health hazard, and were more expensive to produce and purchase. So, they opted for thicker "reusable" plastic bags, and then attached a ten cents tax to them. The new "reusable" thicker plastic bags take 26 times the energy to produce, and take 26 times the time to decay in landfills (data based on a verbal conversation I had with someone in the plastic bag production industry), but that doesn't matter to the liberal leftists. The liberal left Democrats really don't care about the environment. They only wish to appear they are doing a good thing. In politics, perception is everything. The fact that the liberal left option is actually not a better solution in terms of the environment does not matter, and they are figuring most people won't be astute enough to notice. The truth is, they think we are too stupid to know what they are up to. All that matters to them is that their base thinks they have the good intention of saving the world with their hair-brained idea.
Since California has passed their law that has outlawed single-use plastic bags statewide (which was voted in by the people through an elaborate scheme of smoke and mirrors, misdirection, and deceptive wording of the title and summary of the proposal of the proposition on the ballot), the use of plastic bags has not changed much. While the use of plastic bags has dropped, in order for the law to have a significant impact, either the use of bags would need to drop to 1/26th of the previous usage (which it has not) or people would need to reuse their bags at least 26 times (and they aren't). However, California is getting a ten cents tax for every bag purchased, and that was what the whole thing was about, anyway. The environment was never truly the real reason for the plastic bag scheme, it was simply just another way to squeeze money out of us, while simultaneously adding a new level of control over the population. For the Democrats, it was a win-win.
There has been an unintended consequence, however.
The homeless used the single-use plastic bags to take a crap in. They would use the bag, tie the top, and then drop the plastic encased excrement into a nearby public trash can. They used to dispose of their drug needles the same way. Now, the bags cost a dime apiece, a fee the homeless cannot afford to pay. So, without having no-cost bags to use, and if no public facility is available, they simply crap where they stand. Now, in the cities where the homeless number the highest, and along the Golden State's highways, human feces and needles litter the public right of way, largely because of California's plastic bag ban.
Now that the Democrats have targeted plastic bags, and have successfully spread their campaign across the country like a disease to phase them out, straws are next. The goal is to eventually end the use of all single-use plastic products.
The consequences for getting rid of drinking straws may be even more fatal than that of plastic grocery bags. In the case of Starbucks' ban of straws, like the plastic bag problem in California, the alternative uses more plastic than the straws do. But, once again, we know that deep down this isn't about plastic, it's about squeezing money out of us, and creating new ways to control society.
For some people, drinking out of a straw is not a choice, it is a necessity. Some people are simply unable to lift a glass and drink out of it in ways that other people can. According to TIME Magazine, "some disabled people can take a longer time to drink, leading paper straws to get soggy or even disintegrate, potentially increasing the risk of choking. . . metal straws are usually inflexible, making them more difficult to use for people who have a mobility-related impairment."
In my case, I have a rare health issue regarding swallowing. My esophagus does not operate properly. When I eat solid foods, I must wash the food down with big gulps of liquid, which is made much easier and more possible by the use of a straw. Without straws, I experience difficulty eating solid foods. Sometimes, I drink so much liquid so that I may be able to swallow that I often eat slower than most people, and I tend to consume in one setting less than half the volume of food as my companions. Due to my slowness in eating, and consumption of large quantities of liquid during my meals, I have experienced that paper straws tend to get too soggy to use when I use them. Also, I have this weird thing about paper and wood products, and some metal, when it comes to eating. If an ice cream, for example, is on a wooden stick, once the wood is exposed to my mouth I have serious trouble eating the item. For that reason I tend to try and find the products that use a plastic stick, rather than a wooden one. I can only use certain metal eating utensils, otherwise the metallic taste becomes too strong for me to be able to handle my food. Therefore, for the most part, paper and metal straws are out of question for me. The medical world has yet to figure out why I have trouble with some metal, most wood, and most paper with my food.
Outlawing plastic straws places me in a very precarious situation. The ban would force me into a position where I would experience greater difficulty eating, and would possibly cause me to have to give up eating solid foods since I would not be able to use plastic straws to generate the force of liquid needed to swallow.
I have been informed that in Seattle, the liberals did attach to the plastic straw ban a medical exemption. Great, thanks for the consideration. But, then that means I will be required to carry papers or some kind of special identification card (or code on my license) in order to obtain the use of a plastic straw in public. I would also need the identification if I wanted to purchase plastic straws at my store (if they would even continue to carry them as a result of the new law).
Wait, that can't be right. I thought, from the liberal left's point of view, forcing people to carry proof of identification is racist, oppressive, or creates a suppression of the vote.
And, I thought, from the liberal left Democrat Party's point of view, it is wrong to ban marijuana, it is wrong to not allow illegal aliens to vote in our elections even though four times in the U.S. Constitution it states one must be a citizen to vote in American elections, but it's okay to ban straws even though it might cause hardship for some people with disabilities, and possibly even kill people.
The logic reminds me of last year's California S.B. 349, which was a proposal by the Democrats in Sacramento for State Regulation of Kidney Dialysis Clinics. It would limit charges for patient care at kidney dialysis clinics, which would ultimately result in the shutdown of dialysis centers, which would result in the death of those who require those services. The idea was that it would force these centers to unionize, a scheme they were willing to kill dialysis patients to pursue. The Democrats don't care if they kill people, as long as their agenda moves forward.
But, let's just say that somehow I do get the exemption for my plastic straws. Must I prove to them that the ban would cause me undue hardship in order to achieve the exemption? How long must I go without straws before the red tape gives me my approval? Will the department I must deal with regarding the straws be a new one? How can the Democrats justify the increase of the size of bureaucracy, and the increase of government spending so that the new agency may exist, for the sake of making sure people can receive an exemption to a law the forces a ban of straws down the throats of citizens? Would the potential of my death by choking because I can't swallow without drinking from a straw be considered a great enough hardship in order to receive the exemption? Or would they deny my request? Why should my ability to swallow be in their hands?
The interesting side note of it all is that I have had four surgeries regarding my condition regarding my ability to swallow. However, the procedures stopped when Obamacare went into place. We could no longer afford insurance due to the increase of insurance premiums as a result of the mandates in place by Obamacare, but we made too much money for any subsidy so we have had to exist without health insurance since 2010. A friend told me the bronze plan wouldn't have covered my continuance of surgeries, anyway.
My condition is at its worse point of my life right now as a result of me being unable to afford further procedures thanks to Obamacare. I am also, now, unemployed. I was injured on the job in 2014, but Worker's Compensation denied my case. My injuries are too severe to enable me to hold a daily job, but was not severe enough to ensure that I received any kind of compensation for those injuries.
My wife said that if I had taken her Spanish maiden name as my last name, I would have been a shoe-in when it came to approval.
My conditions, both the injuries from over four years ago that took my job from me, and my ability to swallow, have worsened. In both cases, the policies of the Democrats have made my life much worse, and our ability to survive a severe challenge. Now, they want to take away my plastic straws that I must use to swallow, after they took away my opportunity to be able to swallow without them through continued medical procedures paid for by my old insurance plan.
It turned out that after Obamacare I couldn't keep my doctor, as Obama had promised, after all.
One wonders about it all. Are they trying to kill off those who they do not believe fits into their master race? Did I lose my Worker's Compensation case because I am white? Do they now wish to phase out certain people who have medical difficulties? The truth is, they are already targeting the handicapped while they are still in the womb, so why not try to take out the rest of us who are still walking the Earth through various bans of the things we need in order to survive - be they dialysis centers, or plastic straws?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Outlawing plastic straws places me in a very precarious situation. The ban would force me into a position where I would experience greater difficulty eating, and would possibly cause me to have to give up eating solid foods since I would not be able to use plastic straws to generate the force of liquid needed to swallow.
I have been informed that in Seattle, the liberals did attach to the plastic straw ban a medical exemption. Great, thanks for the consideration. But, then that means I will be required to carry papers or some kind of special identification card (or code on my license) in order to obtain the use of a plastic straw in public. I would also need the identification if I wanted to purchase plastic straws at my store (if they would even continue to carry them as a result of the new law).
Wait, that can't be right. I thought, from the liberal left's point of view, forcing people to carry proof of identification is racist, oppressive, or creates a suppression of the vote.
So, it is wrong to ask someone to have an ID to vote, but it's okay to force someone to have a special ID to show that they are exempt from the straw-ban ... am I understanding that correctly?
And, I thought, from the liberal left Democrat Party's point of view, it is wrong to ban marijuana, it is wrong to not allow illegal aliens to vote in our elections even though four times in the U.S. Constitution it states one must be a citizen to vote in American elections, but it's okay to ban straws even though it might cause hardship for some people with disabilities, and possibly even kill people.
The logic reminds me of last year's California S.B. 349, which was a proposal by the Democrats in Sacramento for State Regulation of Kidney Dialysis Clinics. It would limit charges for patient care at kidney dialysis clinics, which would ultimately result in the shutdown of dialysis centers, which would result in the death of those who require those services. The idea was that it would force these centers to unionize, a scheme they were willing to kill dialysis patients to pursue. The Democrats don't care if they kill people, as long as their agenda moves forward.
But, let's just say that somehow I do get the exemption for my plastic straws. Must I prove to them that the ban would cause me undue hardship in order to achieve the exemption? How long must I go without straws before the red tape gives me my approval? Will the department I must deal with regarding the straws be a new one? How can the Democrats justify the increase of the size of bureaucracy, and the increase of government spending so that the new agency may exist, for the sake of making sure people can receive an exemption to a law the forces a ban of straws down the throats of citizens? Would the potential of my death by choking because I can't swallow without drinking from a straw be considered a great enough hardship in order to receive the exemption? Or would they deny my request? Why should my ability to swallow be in their hands?
The interesting side note of it all is that I have had four surgeries regarding my condition regarding my ability to swallow. However, the procedures stopped when Obamacare went into place. We could no longer afford insurance due to the increase of insurance premiums as a result of the mandates in place by Obamacare, but we made too much money for any subsidy so we have had to exist without health insurance since 2010. A friend told me the bronze plan wouldn't have covered my continuance of surgeries, anyway.
My condition is at its worse point of my life right now as a result of me being unable to afford further procedures thanks to Obamacare. I am also, now, unemployed. I was injured on the job in 2014, but Worker's Compensation denied my case. My injuries are too severe to enable me to hold a daily job, but was not severe enough to ensure that I received any kind of compensation for those injuries.
My wife said that if I had taken her Spanish maiden name as my last name, I would have been a shoe-in when it came to approval.
My conditions, both the injuries from over four years ago that took my job from me, and my ability to swallow, have worsened. In both cases, the policies of the Democrats have made my life much worse, and our ability to survive a severe challenge. Now, they want to take away my plastic straws that I must use to swallow, after they took away my opportunity to be able to swallow without them through continued medical procedures paid for by my old insurance plan.
It turned out that after Obamacare I couldn't keep my doctor, as Obama had promised, after all.
One wonders about it all. Are they trying to kill off those who they do not believe fits into their master race? Did I lose my Worker's Compensation case because I am white? Do they now wish to phase out certain people who have medical difficulties? The truth is, they are already targeting the handicapped while they are still in the womb, so why not try to take out the rest of us who are still walking the Earth through various bans of the things we need in order to survive - be they dialysis centers, or plastic straws?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
1 comment:
Good plastic VS bad plastic: Straws are bad, hypodermic needles all over the street are "OK" though.
Post a Comment