The law was clearly drafted with a given intent that the plaintifs want the court to ignore
The problem with interpreting the intent is that it is unreliable.
While the law itself is well-documented, the actual thoughts and plans the legislators had while crafting, discussing, and voting for it can not be reliably determined. The men involved often would not even be able to recount it themselves — and there is no way to verify, if their opinions have changed since the vote.
It is for this reason, that legislative intent is only supposed to be used, when the official language of the law is unclear:
When a statute is clear and unambiguous, the courts have said, repeatedly, that the inquiry into legislative intent ends at that point. It is only when a statute could be interpreted in more than one fashion that legislative intent must be inferred from sources other than the actual text of the statute.
when you look at the full bill, or heavens forbid, talk to the drafters of the law, you can see that the intent was to provide the credits either way
Says who? Have they said it in court and under oath? Nope... It is all speculation — yours and the court majority's — and is not reliable. The language of this particular part is unambiguous and thus any references to the "intent" are political and not legal.
I will defend an individual's right to do so, even if I vehemently disagree with their reasons for doing so.
That's a fine sentiment, but you may be too busy to help barc001, because Pamela Geller's need for support to exercise her right to mock Mohammed is in even graver danger...
availability of the credits is required to "avoid the type of calamitous result
In other words, the majority's decision was based not on the law itself, but on its effects and/or would-be effects.
that Congress plainly meant to avoid
Not one Congressman has read the law in full — not before it was passed, not after. It is too long and too complicated.
Though it is acceptable for courts to turn to legislative intent sometimes, that's specifically reserved to cases, where the laws language is unclear.
That was not the case here — as written, the law clearly only allows subsidies for residents of those states, that have set up "health exchanges" of their own. Whether that was the intent of the law-makers or not is irrelevant. The court's decision is wrong.
Me and Rush Limbaugh are both wondering, just how is the American flag any better? It, likewise, flew over slavery, the subsequent racism, and was (still is!) used in imperialist wars. It covered — still does at times — sexism and parochial bigotry.
Whatever you can say against the Confederate flag, can also be said about the American. Yeah, the latter may have been used for some good, but the sheer period of its usage (over 2 centuries and counting), makes it much worse than the former, whose country only existed for what, four years? Five?
Can it get any worse? Yes it can! A recent study has shown, that simply seeing the flag can cause a hitherto innocent victim to vote Republican! And even a single exposure can last for up to 8 months!
As soon as we are done with KKKonfederate rag, we must turn our energies onto the AmeriKKKan one.
The word "Socialist" is no longer a dirty one in the US and at least one presidential candidate is openly running under the label expecting nomination from a major party.
Your own country is one of those, that is part of humanity's unwitting experiment of the 20th century, when identical (or very similar) peoples lived under Socialism and Capitalism in parallel.
Would Linux have been created, had Finland fallen to the Red Army as Estonia did in 1940, and lived under USSR-imposed Socialism until the 1990-ies?.
That's a nice rant against pre-packaged foods, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the study. According to them, the still-quivering lard from a freshly-killed pig will, if you eat enough of it regularly, diminish your cognitive ability as well as "pre-packaged" margarine.
Oh, and there is no mention of "salt" in TFA either. Off-topic much?
It certainly is up to the reader (myself include). The study offers the following finding: people with plenty of fats and sugars have lower cognitive ability than those, who do not. Whether
the latter is "normal" and the former — "decreased", or
the former is "normal" and the latter — "elevated"
is a debate as sensible, as arguing about a half-empty/full glass.
conflate sustenance with "eating what we want" when the dialogue here is healthy vs unhealthy
That the study makes no distinction between the two vastly different classes of foods — sugars and fats — leads me to the conclusion, that the key here is the total caloric intake, not the particular foods.
Third, It's amusing to think that super-thin idols "wouldn't have survived" in the 19th century when the vast majority (i.e. the peasant class) had to do just that
Yes, they had to do that, and perished periodically from famines.
The revolution in eating habits for proletariat didn't really occur until the 20th century for most of the world, mind you this happened quicker in the U.S. than, say, Italy.
Of course — because the US is a vastly richer (and better governed) country, which maintained a far better standards of living than others throughout its history.
But maintaining health into old age, and avoiding "lifestyle" diseases, is part of the reason I work out and try to eat healthily.
Very good. Now, can you identify, where in my post above have I said anything against this commendable practice?
That FranTaylor is part of the 70%, who can not read proficiently, is already clear. Are you a fellow victim of America's public school system, or you just didn't pay attention today?
Healthy food is tasty as hell once your palette has had a chance to get used to it again
No, when your palette gets used to it again, it becomes bearable ("as hell" is quite an apt a metaphor, actually) — but not especially tasty. Ice-cream or chocolate will still trump "healthy" and an ongoing effort of will is required to stick to broccoli.
I'd say, the results of the study show, that we increase cognitive abilities, when experiencing shortages, rather than decline, when eating, what we want. Which makes sense from evolutionary stand-point — if you are starving, you better think harder about finding sustenance...
But, however one spins the same facts, we better adapt to the 21st century of plenty. All of our evolution to day was spent with starvation constantly looming and occasionally hitting whereas today — and only for the last few decades — "starving" became a synonym for "dieting". And that we view the thinness as beautiful today is not a result of some evil conspiracy, but simply a reflection of what is healthy today — for a never-starving Westerner. Our super-thin ideals of today would not have survived even in the 19th century... The still-hungry Africans, for a counter-example, still think "fat is beautiful" and Mauritania even has a concept of "wife-fattening".
It is not "cultural" — they just still remember famine, whereas the "golden billion" has blissfully forgotten it.
Using 3D printed aluminum 'nodes' in strategic manufacturing
Does not seem like there will be many quality jobs for the ordinary workers there, does it? Worse, they are ready to spread it to the established companies:
also making technology available to any other companies interested
Of course, it is not only the rent control. It is the whole attitude, that landlords are guilty (of wanting to make profit) and must be punished...
Well, median incomes differ by only a quarter, but median house costs differ 5 times... But is it a a house or residential unit (which may be a house, but also an apartment)?
As for population density — that's not really relevant. Because building a tall multi-story building is not remarkably more expensive (per square foot of the resulting living space) than building a smaller one — if you can get a permit for one. And the permits, which owners of existing houses hate giving out to protect their own views and property-values, are a direct result of Statism...
The government, pressed to do something, does something. Whatever they do, it is always against the landlords and/or builders — who are a minority. As a result, rents on existing and/or costs of building new apartments rises
The unhappy complain
(There is no PROFIT — except for the politicians in power.)
It was not always so — the problem in NYC, for example, started during the WW2, when rent control was introduced as a temporary measure to protect families of servicemen from rent-increases. 70 years later, the program still exists and the rent-controlled units are subsidized by other tenants of the same building. Like lottery-winners, only participation in lottery is voluntary...
Before dismissing this post as "a troll", observe, that the problem is highest in the Left-controlled cities: San Francisco, NYC says TFA. I may add Boston based on personal experience... Meanwhile, in Houston, TX or Atlanta, GA, for example, the prices seem about half as much as in San Francisco, CA.
Can you provide some citations to back up your claims, please? I'm talking about reputable sources, too
Nope, sorry, but the burden of proof is on you. It is you, who want other people — myself included — to change our ways. So you have to prove, that it is necessary.
Start by putting together a list... Each entry is to contain a link to a (falsifiable) prediction made by "Climate Science" and another, separate one — to a confirmation of it coming true within, say, 80% of the predicted value(s). The two texts in each entry must be a few years apart. The graver the prediction, the better, of course. Of course, you can find celebratory "we told you so" lauding "predictions" after they materialized — such articles are a dime a dozen, but they aren't convincing. Given a group of 1000 "climate scientists", one can get a 1000 predictions from them about anything and then publicize the one "prediction", that happened to come true. So, now, to count your entries must have separate links, identifying predictions prominently published years before their due date.
All three of my earlier challenges of this nature resulted in ample name-calling (and down-modding), but no list. One can only conclude, no such successful predictions have been made (there are plenty of failed ones). Ergo, "Climate Science" either is not really a (useful) science, or its findings do not really support, what the Statists would like us to believe.
Meanwhile, if, as TFA states, the government of Netherlands — a country, 26% of which is below the sea level and surviving thanks to numerous dikes since long before the "hockey stick" — does not care about the warming, it is pretty clear, the rest of us don't need to bother either.
In St. Paul, people who don't want to pay for garbage collection still produce garbage, so it goes into other people's cans or gets dumped illegally somewhere.
So, in order to prevent a few miscreants from illegally dumping their garbage somewhere, you force the entire city to use a government-run monopoly... Makes sense, sure.
Like I said, "progressivism" — like your own — is the problem. Funerals of your kind don't happen often enough.
Not until the misdeeds of the parochial and bigoted past are properly atoned for. Which, of course, means "never".
The only way to argue against the obvious sexism here in the current political climate of the USA is by saying it is ineffective — appeals to fairness will not get you past the establishment raised by the educators like Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers.
It has been observed, that "marrying down" costs a woman as much as $25K per year so, instead of saying it is unfair to men, try arguing that the women will be better served by there being more educated men for them to marry...
And hurry, because — with the ancient definition of "marriage" rapidly evolving nationwide — even that argument may become obsolete within a generation.
Ah, well, our choice is easy then. Do not vote for the guy.
Making the country's citizenry suffer for the sake of solving a non-existing problem — well, thank you for making it so easy to dismiss you, Mr. O'Malley.
Yes, I said it. It is a non-existing problem. And until you can find and post here a set of materialized predictions of the Global Warming "scientists", it shall remain non-existing. To qualify, each entry of your list must have two separate links: first to the prediction, the second — to the confirmation of it materializing within 80% of the predicted value(s). The texts must be dated at least a few years apart — predicting tomorrow's weather does not count.
Don't undertake this lightly — my past requests for the same list have resulted in a shit-storm of denunciations, name-calling, and down-modding (just watch the fate of this post), but no list... Somehow, nobody is able to find a link to a prediction published before it materialized. And some resident climate researchers on/. have even grudgingly admitted of being unable to fulfil the request — blaming the deficiencies of my pitiful mind for their failure, of course.
(To avoid overexposing myself to the downmodding haters, I shall not respond to any follow-up, that does not contain the list in the format requested. Sorry.)
The i stands for imaginary. Which is really telling about your world...
And if you insist that 1+1=2
Ah, yes, how bigoted and parochial of me...
The wikipedia page on homosexuality in ancient rome and the same for Greece.
That's not how it works — you make a claim, you cite evidence — offering links and the relevant quotes from the linked-to pages as appropriate.
This is the third time you claim evidence exist, but do not quote any. Full of shit much? I think, we are done here...
You quoted a line from one
One is enough, because it was a counterexample. You claimed, ancients did not "rigidly" define homosexuals nor considered the practice wrong. The quote I provided destroyed both of these claims and your only defence was to accuse of me "cherry-picking" — a line patently idiotic. You made a falsifiable statement and I managed to falsify it... Case closed, you were wrong.
Had you claimed, that, for example "all odd numbers are prime", would it have been "cherry-picking" of me to offer 9 as the single counterexample? Would that too have been "ignoring context"?
"Obviously..." was in fact yours alone and not a citation.
Yes, "obviously" was my own statement — because the fact, that some Greeks (and Macedonians) considered homosexuality "unseemly" is obvious. Were it not so, there would've been no need to defend these men...
It is rather stupid of you to lie — what I wrote is still posted above in clear text. I never stated my own opinion, I merely quoted that of others.
In the real, nuanced world, both play a part.
I suppose, in some "nuanced" world 0 may equal 1 and result of cos() may reach as high as 5. But in the silly world in which I type this none of that is possible. Nor is it possible for a trait to be both imposed by society and inborn at the same time.
No, they ridiculed sub/bottoms
Citations?
And you massively cheery picked and ignored context
I offered two citations from the top of my head — which is two more than you did. Put up or shut up.
Then recycling needs to be subsidized by the government.
Government first needs to confiscate the monies from the taxpayers to be able to do this.
I would hate to see landfills fill up with recyclables.
"See", huh? When was the last time you, actually, laid your eyes on a landfill? But if recyclables being there are such an eye-sore for you, then you pay for it.
Trying to encourage conservation, progressive lawmakers and environmentalists have made matters worse
Surprise... Where I live, the town, thankfully, does not involve itself in picking up regular garbage — so competing little companies do it. The phone book lists over 15 of them... Our choice comes twice a week early in the morning, get the junk out of the bins themselves for the cost of $25 month. We never even see them.
On contrast, the recycling is done "for free" by the county employees — so everybody must drag their recyclable refuse to the curb the evening before and it only happens bi-weekly, so you have to hold your plastic and cardboard. Oh, and more often than not, it is still there at 8 or even 10 in the morning — "beautifying" the neighbourhood. Adding to the "beauty" is the requirement that the bags be fully transparent...
"Encourage" my tail — it is illegal to throw recyclables into regular garbage here, as is not separating them cardboard/paper and from the rest categories...
"Progress" is supposed to mean improvement, but the assholes, who hijacked (and sullied) the name "Progressives" (as they did with "Liberals" earlier) would — if given an opportunity — have us regress into Stone Age... For the Greater Good[TM].
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with interpreting the intent is that it is unreliable.
While the law itself is well-documented, the actual thoughts and plans the legislators had while crafting, discussing, and voting for it can not be reliably determined. The men involved often would not even be able to recount it themselves — and there is no way to verify, if their opinions have changed since the vote.
It is for this reason, that legislative intent is only supposed to be used, when the official language of the law is unclear:
Says who? Have they said it in court and under oath? Nope... It is all speculation — yours and the court majority's — and is not reliable. The language of this particular part is unambiguous and thus any references to the "intent" are political and not legal.
That's a fine sentiment, but you may be too busy to help barc001, because Pamela Geller's need for support to exercise her right to mock Mohammed is in even graver danger...
In other words, the majority's decision was based not on the law itself, but on its effects and/or would-be effects.
Not one Congressman has read the law in full — not before it was passed, not after. It is too long and too complicated.
Though it is acceptable for courts to turn to legislative intent sometimes, that's specifically reserved to cases, where the laws language is unclear.
That was not the case here — as written, the law clearly only allows subsidies for residents of those states, that have set up "health exchanges" of their own. Whether that was the intent of the law-makers or not is irrelevant. The court's decision is wrong.
Me and Rush Limbaugh are both wondering, just how is the American flag any better? It, likewise, flew over slavery, the subsequent racism, and was (still is!) used in imperialist wars. It covered — still does at times — sexism and parochial bigotry.
Whatever you can say against the Confederate flag, can also be said about the American. Yeah, the latter may have been used for some good, but the sheer period of its usage (over 2 centuries and counting), makes it much worse than the former, whose country only existed for what, four years? Five?
Can it get any worse? Yes it can! A recent study has shown, that simply seeing the flag can cause a hitherto innocent victim to vote Republican! And even a single exposure can last for up to 8 months!
As soon as we are done with KKKonfederate rag, we must turn our energies onto the AmeriKKKan one.
In fact, why wait? Let's act NOW!! .
Maybe, those misunderstood ISIS warriors destroying the symbols of defunct states that practiced slave-ownership are onto something, huh? I for one have always doubted Pythagorean Theorem — what can a long-dead White slave-owner possibly know about any hypotenuse?
The word "Socialist" is no longer a dirty one in the US and at least one presidential candidate is openly running under the label expecting nomination from a major party.
Your own country is one of those, that is part of humanity's unwitting experiment of the 20th century, when identical (or very similar) peoples lived under Socialism and Capitalism in parallel.
Would Linux have been created, had Finland fallen to the Red Army as Estonia did in 1940, and lived under USSR-imposed Socialism until the 1990-ies?.
That's a nice rant against pre-packaged foods, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the study. According to them, the still-quivering lard from a freshly-killed pig will, if you eat enough of it regularly, diminish your cognitive ability as well as "pre-packaged" margarine.
Oh, and there is no mention of "salt" in TFA either. Off-topic much?
It certainly is up to the reader (myself include). The study offers the following finding: people with plenty of fats and sugars have lower cognitive ability than those, who do not. Whether
is a debate as sensible, as arguing about a half-empty/full glass.
That the study makes no distinction between the two vastly different classes of foods — sugars and fats — leads me to the conclusion, that the key here is the total caloric intake, not the particular foods.
Yes, they had to do that, and perished periodically from famines.
Of course — because the US is a vastly richer (and better governed) country, which maintained a far better standards of living than others throughout its history.
That's what they tend to claim about America in general, not just our food. "Sour grapes", I say...
Well, thank Lord for America then — where tomatoes (and potatoes, and chocolate, and red peppers) originated.
Very good. Now, can you identify, where in my post above have I said anything against this commendable practice?
That FranTaylor is part of the 70%, who can not read proficiently, is already clear. Are you a fellow victim of America's public school system, or you just didn't pay attention today?
Let's see... How about blocking the roadways? Very illegal. Even worse are the violent assaults.
And, unlike Uber's own illegality, the blockings and assaults are malum in se whereas Uber is guilty of merely malum prohibitum.
Welcome to Bill Maher show. Save your class warfare rhethoric until 2017, for the centennial celebrations of the Great October Socialist Revolution.
The "idle rich" don't care, whether a ride costs €20 or €40. It is the rest of us, for whom such trifle sums matter.
Wow. So even merely thinking like me can cause people to drool and moan? Serious stuff...
Uhm, yes, one of us here is hysterical...
So, you expect the broccoli will let you live forever? Or just drop-dead some day without a need for anyone to change your diaper?
No, when your palette gets used to it again, it becomes bearable ("as hell" is quite an apt a metaphor, actually) — but not especially tasty. Ice-cream or chocolate will still trump "healthy" and an ongoing effort of will is required to stick to broccoli.
I'd say, the results of the study show, that we increase cognitive abilities, when experiencing shortages, rather than decline, when eating, what we want. Which makes sense from evolutionary stand-point — if you are starving, you better think harder about finding sustenance...
But, however one spins the same facts, we better adapt to the 21st century of plenty. All of our evolution to day was spent with starvation constantly looming and occasionally hitting whereas today — and only for the last few decades — "starving" became a synonym for "dieting". And that we view the thinness as beautiful today is not a result of some evil conspiracy, but simply a reflection of what is healthy today — for a never-starving Westerner. Our super-thin ideals of today would not have survived even in the 19th century... The still-hungry Africans, for a counter-example, still think "fat is beautiful" and Mauritania even has a concept of "wife-fattening".
It is not "cultural" — they just still remember famine, whereas the "golden billion" has blissfully forgotten it.
Does not seem like there will be many quality jobs for the ordinary workers there, does it? Worse, they are ready to spread it to the established companies:
Where are the usual concerns for workers? If only six months ago we were denouncing Amazon for using robots in warehouses (including highly-moderated threats of armed uprisings), why are we commending TFA today?
Of course, it is not only the rent control. It is the whole attitude, that landlords are guilty (of wanting to make profit) and must be punished...
Well, median incomes differ by only a quarter, but median house costs differ 5 times... But is it a a house or residential unit (which may be a house, but also an apartment)?
As for population density — that's not really relevant. Because building a tall multi-story building is not remarkably more expensive (per square foot of the resulting living space) than building a smaller one — if you can get a permit for one. And the permits, which owners of existing houses hate giving out to protect their own views and property-values, are a direct result of Statism...
Citations?.. Citations??
For each "fairly accurate thing", please, post a link to the prediction and a separate one to it coming true in due time. That's all I'm asking for...
I'm sure, the "scientists" (or most of them) are sincere. They are just wrong...
This is how it happens:
It was not always so — the problem in NYC, for example, started during the WW2, when rent control was introduced as a temporary measure to protect families of servicemen from rent-increases. 70 years later, the program still exists and the rent-controlled units are subsidized by other tenants of the same building. Like lottery-winners, only participation in lottery is voluntary...
Before dismissing this post as "a troll", observe, that the problem is highest in the Left-controlled cities: San Francisco, NYC says TFA. I may add Boston based on personal experience... Meanwhile, in Houston, TX or Atlanta, GA, for example, the prices seem about half as much as in San Francisco, CA.
Indeed — all governmental subsidies are.
Nope, sorry, but the burden of proof is on you. It is you, who want other people — myself included — to change our ways. So you have to prove, that it is necessary.
Start by putting together a list... Each entry is to contain a link to a (falsifiable) prediction made by "Climate Science" and another, separate one — to a confirmation of it coming true within, say, 80% of the predicted value(s). The two texts in each entry must be a few years apart. The graver the prediction, the better, of course. Of course, you can find celebratory "we told you so" lauding "predictions" after they materialized — such articles are a dime a dozen, but they aren't convincing. Given a group of 1000 "climate scientists", one can get a 1000 predictions from them about anything and then publicize the one "prediction", that happened to come true. So, now, to count your entries must have separate links, identifying predictions prominently published years before their due date.
All three of my earlier challenges of this nature resulted in ample name-calling (and down-modding), but no list. One can only conclude, no such successful predictions have been made (there are plenty of failed ones). Ergo, "Climate Science" either is not really a (useful) science, or its findings do not really support, what the Statists would like us to believe.
Meanwhile, if, as TFA states, the government of Netherlands — a country, 26% of which is below the sea level and surviving thanks to numerous dikes since long before the "hockey stick" — does not care about the warming, it is pretty clear, the rest of us don't need to bother either.
So, in order to prevent a few miscreants from illegally dumping their garbage somewhere, you force the entire city to use a government-run monopoly... Makes sense, sure.
Like I said, "progressivism" — like your own — is the problem. Funerals of your kind don't happen often enough.
Not until the misdeeds of the parochial and bigoted past are properly atoned for. Which, of course, means "never".
The only way to argue against the obvious sexism here in the current political climate of the USA is by saying it is ineffective — appeals to fairness will not get you past the establishment raised by the educators like Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers.
It has been observed, that "marrying down" costs a woman as much as $25K per year so, instead of saying it is unfair to men, try arguing that the women will be better served by there being more educated men for them to marry...
And hurry, because — with the ancient definition of "marriage" rapidly evolving nationwide — even that argument may become obsolete within a generation.
Ah, well, our choice is easy then. Do not vote for the guy.
Making the country's citizenry suffer for the sake of solving a non-existing problem — well, thank you for making it so easy to dismiss you, Mr. O'Malley.
Yes, I said it. It is a non-existing problem. And until you can find and post here a set of materialized predictions of the Global Warming "scientists", it shall remain non-existing. To qualify, each entry of your list must have two separate links: first to the prediction, the second — to the confirmation of it materializing within 80% of the predicted value(s). The texts must be dated at least a few years apart — predicting tomorrow's weather does not count.
Don't undertake this lightly — my past requests for the same list have resulted in a shit-storm of denunciations, name-calling, and down-modding (just watch the fate of this post), but no list... Somehow, nobody is able to find a link to a prediction published before it materialized. And some resident climate researchers on /. have even grudgingly admitted of being unable to fulfil the request — blaming the deficiencies of my pitiful mind for their failure, of course.
(To avoid overexposing myself to the downmodding haters, I shall not respond to any follow-up, that does not contain the list in the format requested. Sorry.)
The i stands for imaginary. Which is really telling about your world...
Ah, yes, how bigoted and parochial of me...
That's not how it works — you make a claim, you cite evidence — offering links and the relevant quotes from the linked-to pages as appropriate.
This is the third time you claim evidence exist, but do not quote any. Full of shit much? I think, we are done here...
One is enough, because it was a counterexample. You claimed, ancients did not "rigidly" define homosexuals nor considered the practice wrong. The quote I provided destroyed both of these claims and your only defence was to accuse of me "cherry-picking" — a line patently idiotic. You made a falsifiable statement and I managed to falsify it... Case closed, you were wrong.
Had you claimed, that, for example "all odd numbers are prime", would it have been "cherry-picking" of me to offer 9 as the single counterexample? Would that too have been "ignoring context"?
Yes, "obviously" was my own statement — because the fact, that some Greeks (and Macedonians) considered homosexuality "unseemly" is obvious. Were it not so, there would've been no need to defend these men...
It is rather stupid of you to lie — what I wrote is still posted above in clear text. I never stated my own opinion, I merely quoted that of others.
I suppose, in some "nuanced" world 0 may equal 1 and result of cos() may reach as high as 5. But in the silly world in which I type this none of that is possible. Nor is it possible for a trait to be both imposed by society and inborn at the same time.
Citations?
I offered two citations from the top of my head — which is two more than you did. Put up or shut up.
Government first needs to confiscate the monies from the taxpayers to be able to do this.
"See", huh? When was the last time you, actually, laid your eyes on a landfill? But if recyclables being there are such an eye-sore for you, then you pay for it.
Surprise... Where I live, the town, thankfully, does not involve itself in picking up regular garbage — so competing little companies do it. The phone book lists over 15 of them... Our choice comes twice a week early in the morning, get the junk out of the bins themselves for the cost of $25 month. We never even see them.
On contrast, the recycling is done "for free" by the county employees — so everybody must drag their recyclable refuse to the curb the evening before and it only happens bi-weekly, so you have to hold your plastic and cardboard. Oh, and more often than not, it is still there at 8 or even 10 in the morning — "beautifying" the neighbourhood. Adding to the "beauty" is the requirement that the bags be fully transparent...
"Encourage" my tail — it is illegal to throw recyclables into regular garbage here, as is not separating them cardboard/paper and from the rest categories...
"Progress" is supposed to mean improvement, but the assholes, who hijacked (and sullied) the name "Progressives" (as they did with "Liberals" earlier) would — if given an opportunity — have us regress into Stone Age... For the Greater Good[TM].