The attachment to City Council Agenda item 8e for tonight's City Council meeting asks the City Dictator to create an anti-plastic bag ordinance...
To wit: "ORDERED: That
The City Manager be and is hereby requested to draft a local ordinance banning the use of plastic bags by retailers and grocery stores."
What's wrong with plastic bags? After all, the city makes a sizable chunk of change every year with the sale of plastic bags.
Besides, the overwhelming majority of any plastic bags that you might see wafting their way through any neighborhood in the wind were tossed by litterbugs, not the retailers who provide them for their customers. The bags that get tossed were acquired at small stores, convenience stores, by people on foot or in transit.
The bags obtained at grocery stores get brought into the house.
In the end, banning plastic bags will only change the material that gets tossed by litterbugs from plastic to paper. And for those who would point out that paper will biodegrade, and that the intent is to be more "green"... then why is the city selling tens of thousands of plastic trash bags every month?
I'll answer that: To do so would cost more.
So, let's not have the city impose this unfunded mandate upon retailers in the City of Worcester, okay?
Update(5:35am): The T&G is apparently voting in favor of instituting Prohibition for plastic bags.
This, by the way, is an example of how a large corporation can spend its money to spew propaganda regarding some political issue. The Supreme Court ruled last week that this is Constitutionally protected free speech. If they had ruled otherwise, it would have made the publication of this article today, written by Nick Kotsopoulos, a felony.
Afterthought: If the City Council really wants to do this right, they should institute a complete ban on all disposable plastic AND paper bags of any kind at retailers, and force them to offer non-disposable, re-usable bags for sale to their customers. That way, retailers would get a new product to sell to just about everyone, and the change would actually mean something.
A simple ban on plastic bags, especially when the city sells tens of thousands of plastic bags every month for the sole purpose of trash, is not only simplistic and solves nothing, it's short-sighted, obtuse, and, ultimately, hypocritical.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I'm one of those people who doesn't take a (plastic) bag if I just have one bag's worth of stuff.
But I also *like* getting plastic bags at the supermarket, etc., because I volunteer at a food pantry and, well, we need bags in order to give people bags of food.
Whenever I read these proposals about banning bags, I always worry about what food pantries are going to do for their bag supply. (Yes, I know it's small in the long run, but I'm nothing if not self-involved
"This, by the way, is an example of how a large corporation can spend its money to spew propaganda regarding some political issue. The Supreme Court ruled last week that this is Constitutionally protected free speech. If they had ruled otherwise, it would have made the publication of this article today, written by Nick Kotsopoulos, a felony."
Balderdash. Hogwash. Poppycock.
First of all, newspapers and other media outlets themselves have ALWAYS been exempt. (Look it up. And I must ask you- what would you say about it if the T&G made a similar false claim? Hah!)
But more importantly, I don't think you have thought this one through, Jeff. And it is a position I bet you will change your mind on.
The real issue here, is *corporate personhood*, which I believe it the greatest threat to Our Way of Life today. I believed this even before this tragic Supreme Court ruling. I really like the United States Constitution. I have read it many times. I have studied it. I find it interesting. And I can tell you- the word "corporation" isn't in there. Nor is the word "shareholder". The Constitution grants ZERO rights to corporations. Yet, this ruling cements a concept that has been creeping into our lives and causing all kinds of trouble, namely that corporations have the same rights as human beings.
This is a disaster. I am quite convinced that twenty years from now, America as you and I know it will have vanished unless something is done about this. We no longer will have any choice as to who we get to vote for- the corporations will decide for us now. They will give us a choice between Corporate Stooge A, or Corporate Stooge B. Because the amount of money that citizens will be able to raise for a candidate will pale by comparison to what the corporate giants will come up with.
Imagine for example if you Jeff, were running for congress as someone opposed to mining for coal in Worcester, Massachusetts, after a large deposit of coal was found there. The coal companies want to take the street you live on, and all the others in a five mile radius, by eminent domain. They want your house. They know it would be worth it to buy your house and all your neighbor's houses, and strip mine for coal. So you are running for Congress to stop it. What sort of chance to you think you would ever have of winning the election after this SC Decision? Not going to happen.
What if Toyota wanted a law passed that all taxis in Worcester must be replaced with a Prius? Who's going to defeat the candidate they pick? What are you going to do- hold a bake sale?
Corporations can now just pick who they want for Congress. What chance would any candidate have if Exxon-Mobil or Archer Daniels Midland wants them to lose? Roughly zero.
Don't like bank bailouts? Imagine the power that Big Banks have now to sway any election they want. Ditto the Pharmaceutical and Insurance giants.
Nothing less than The American Way is in danger here. I know you always admonish people to vote here. Rightfully so. But what has just happened, whether everyone has figured it out yet or not, is that *everyone's* ability to "vote" has just been taken away. We will now have choices like, "Do you want to be A.) hit in the head with a two by four, or B.) take a poke in the eye with a sharp stick?" Sure it's still a choice, but they both suck, and suck badly.
.....continued
.......(more).......
Look, Thomas Jefferson did not want corporations to have the same rights as human beings did. Ditto James Madison. In fact, they explicitly warned against it. So much so that I am certain the Supreme Court is aware of it. They must be. So I smell a rat here. Something very, very bad just happened.
------------------------------------------------
Vote for one from the list below:
1.) The candidate paid for by the company that wants to replace all the police with private security guards
2.) The candidate paid for by the company that wants to install video screens in all taxis- that play commercials, very loudly on a loop, over and over and over
(Pick one- this is Democracy. You get to chose.)
-George Washington Hayduke
I'd take option number 3, George, and write in the name of a candidate whose platform included an aggressive reform of corporate law in the United States.
I've already addressed this whole thing in a previous comment and the post above it.
As regards the legal fiction of "corporate person-hood", it's like "death panels"... a fictionalized perception of something that, in fact, has no basis in reality. There are individuals with rights, and there are groups of individuals who, whether you like it or not, also have the same rights. The size of the group of individuals has no bearing on the right to free speech. And if you insist that it does, then where, exactly, are you suggesting that the line be drawn? Any group of individuals larger than two?... three?... a hundred?...
"I'd take option number 3, George, and write in the name of a candidate whose platform included an aggressive reform of corporate law in the United States."
And your candidate would lose. Badly. Thus, your vote would not count. You would feel better of course, but your candidate would get trounced by the one (s) paid for with corporate funds. NO candidate without corporate funds could win when faced with an opponent with such backing.
You are confusing a corporation with a group of human beings. They are not the same thing. I think you're great, I'm a big fan- but you are dead wrong on this one. They are pulling the wool over your eyes.
--------------------
Show me where in the Constitution it says corporations get to vote in an election? Show me where it says they have any sway whatsoever. Seriously. Show me where it says a corporation has ANY rights whatsoever.
Here it is, for your convenience. Knock yourself out. -------> http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm
(Note that it does not start off by saying, "We the corporate entities...")
------------------
"I hope we shall...crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan, November 12, 1816
-GWH
If they really cared for the environment and our health without compromise they would instead ban all "Factory Foods" mandate all stores sell as much locally produced organic products as possible, get rid of busing school kids, mandate all car dealerships sell hybrids,exchange city hall building for an up to code energy efficient building. Mandate all the colleges give free tuition for all medical students ( to cut the cost of health care at it's core), Etc. This issue is simply B.S. top rated.
George: "Show me where it says a corporation has ANY rights whatsoever."
Amendments 9 and 10 would be the short answer to that.
The longer answer, from me, at any rate, would be that I really wish there HAD been some language in the Constitution dealing specifically with corporations. The current situation is, in my view, quite bad. But the partisan noise over this decision is clearly not focused on the case at hand. It's focused on peripheral issues of how badly corporate law needs to be reformed in this country, but obfuscates even that very important issue with partisan blather about "corporate personhood"...
That's why I shift my focus in this particular case to the specific case at hand: some political appointees took it upon themselves to censor a Michael Moore style of movie, only in this case it wasn't a left-wing sponsored propaganda movie, it was a right-wing sponsored propaganda movie.
If the ruling had been made in favor of the Federal Election Commission, it would have left the door open for future political appointees from the right wing to pull the same shit on Michael Moore, and many others, at their slightest whim.
Lastly, I have to point out that the foundation of your arguments appear to be tacitly based upon the assumption that Americans are too stupid to not be completely overwhelmed and bowled over by propaganda... a premise that, unfortunately, I might have to grudgingly admit may be true at some fast approaching point... But I hope not.
"Lastly, I have to point out that the foundation of your arguments appear to be tacitly based upon the assumption that Americans are too stupid to not be completely overwhelmed and bowled over by propaganda... a premise that, unfortunately, I might have to grudgingly admit may be true at some fast approaching point... But I hope not."
Absolutely. Today people are swayed almost exclusively by sound bites. We vote for one of two candidates- based on attack ads on television.
And with corporations now free to entirely fund those ads, citizens themselves have lost their voice. This is the exact opposite of what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.
From the very beginnings of our Nation, the constitutional protections available to living persons and corporations have been fundamentally different.
While James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights to protect the "great rights of mankind" corporations did not have ANY right to exist, let alone the same fundamental rights as "We the People."
From the founding on, as Chief Justice Marshall explained, corporations were "artificial being[s], invisible, intangible, and existing only in the contemplation of law" and "possess[ing] only those properties which the charter of creation confer . . . . "
To be sure, corporations received a host of special privileges that enabled them to succeed in business and some limited constitutional protection for their property rights, but these corporate attributes subjected them to greater government regulation, not less.
And consider this simple fact:
Obama's 2008 fundraising records could easily have been dwarfed by a single mega-corporation willing to divert a tiny fraction of its profits to the election of its preferred candidate.
And you would have Sarah Palin "a heartbeat away" from running the United States.
"Amendments 9 and 10 would be the short answer to that."
How did you come to that conclusion?
(Couldn't resist. :-)
-GWH
The principle behind amendments 9 and 10 is that rights aren't "granted" by the Constitution, but rather that they we are endowed with our rights, and that if certain rights aren't enumerated in the Constitution, this doesn't mean we don't have them. Consequently, your insistence that just because there is no specific differentiation in the Constitution for groups of individuals versus single individuals, nor any language defining their exercising of rights as a group, this doesn't mean the principle of free speech is null and void for groups of people... and only "certain" groups (as you'd apparently prefer), at that. And it most especially doesn't mean, as you seem to think, that those rights don't exist. ("Show me where in the Constitution it says corporations get to vote in an election? Show me where it says they have any sway whatsoever. Seriously. Show me where it says a corporation has ANY rights whatsoever.")
Corporations operate upon the basic legal requirement that they must only choose the path that results in the best return for stockholders. This principle has been established by civil actions and the precedents that were set in the courts over the past century. And this has cast corporations into positions where there is no balance between what might be best for the society at large, and what is best for the stockholders. This needs to be reformed... But the "evil" nature of corporations in America has absolutely nothing to do with this specific case. To stress this side of the "ramifications" is merely partisan bullshit, as opposed to seriously considering what the alternative would be if SCOTUS had gone the other way on this decision.
I agree that the situation with American corporations is horrible, and that the fallout from this one case is not to society's benefit within those terms.
But you've not addressed the question I posed to you in my first reply to you (above). Based upon the principle of "silence is consent", therefore... I have to assume that by ignoring that central issue entirely, you simply agree that's the way it is.
All of our rights are still in tact, pursuent to the constitution, however, in the instance, for example, of free speech, and campaign financing, Capitalism creates a system where the privilaged rich will easily overwhelm the voices of the majority, as they blanket the airways, which are controled by corporations ( Capitalist elite), with mis-information or, at least, the corporate agenda or the oligarchy's propaganda. This happens daily on crappy local Worcester "talk" radio. As we find regulatory controls that once provided the people with access to cable ,airways and so the internet are being closed out, our voices, especially the poor, have less chance to be heard. Government is becoming less participatory and more under the control of the top capitalist elite. This is not a democracy by any means. It is a sham. What is happening with our government is going against all rational sense of ethics and good faith. Certainly against every religious aspiration. Those who are awake are not surprised at the extreme hatred religious fundamentalist obviously have toward the USA. BTW plastic bags are easily recycled, if not repurposed.
"The principle behind amendments 9 and 10 is that rights aren't "granted" by the Constitution, but rather that they we are endowed with our rights, and that if certain rights aren't enumerated in the Constitution, this doesn't mean we don't have them."
Not exactly.
While I'll admit that watching commercials for any candidate does indeed constitute "cruel and unusual punishment", (which what the 8th Amendment is all about), it is the People who are protected, not corporations. And while one can buy "stock" in a corporation- it would be possible to say, put Coca-Cola or Nike in the "stocks" in the public square.
With the 9th Amendment, you are more accruate, but again- there is one simple principal you are missing. It all comes down to just *who* these rights are being granted to under the Constitution. And the answer is that they are being given to the People, to private citizens. NOT to corporations. To afford corporations the same rights as human beings is what this is all about. And by construing corporations as simply "a group" of human beings, is to lead yourself astray here. It just ain't so.
-GWH
"But you've not addressed the question I posed to you in my first reply to you (above). Based upon the principle of "silence is consent", therefore... I have to assume that by ignoring that central issue entirely, you simply agree that's the way it is."
Cute. (You could never use that in court, BTW. It would be disallowed.)
But, okey-doke...
"There are individuals with rights, and there are groups of individuals who, whether you like it or not, also have the same rights. The size of the group of individuals has no bearing on the right to free speech. And if you insist that it does, then where, exactly, are you suggesting that the line be drawn? Any group of individuals larger than two?... three?... a hundred?..."
"
No, no. I'm saying your question itself is a red herring. Because corporations are NOT "groups of individuals". I did answer the question. I pointed out that the heart of the question is a false premise. To whit: "The size of the group of individuals has no bearing on the right to free speech. And if you insist that it does..." No, I do not insist that even a little bit.
-gwh
... some political appointees took it upon themselves to censor a Michael Moore style of movie, only in this case it wasn't a left-wing sponsored propaganda movie, it was a right-wing sponsored propaganda movie."
I don't think it was the style of movie, I think it was the content. If Micheal Moore had made a movie like that about John McCain during an election, that wouldn't be right either.
"But the partisan noise over this decision is clearly not focused on the case at hand."
Of course not. It never is. It's always the implications, the fallout if you will. For example, let's say someone was driving in your cab and they robbed you, they got caught, and then hauled into court- but the court ruled in favor of the person who ripped you off, saying they needed the money. Sure you'd be mad, but the real uproar would come from all the other cab drivers, and all the other citizens who feared what would come next. The problem there would be the *next* thing, which would be people going around robbing cab drivers, siting your case as precedent why it would be OK. It's never the case at hand that worries people. Thus, all those loonies protesting against Planned Parenthood don't really care about Roe or Wade per se, just the precedent which was set in 1973.
With this decision, as Sandra Day O'Connor astutely pointed out yesterday, the problem is that it may very well swiftly lead to most judges in the Untied States being appointed by corporations, among other evils.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/us/politics/27judge.html
And you know what happens the more you let corporations run our lives, what happens when they usurp the power granted to We The People?
You get guys who are obviously highly intelligent, can make really good intellectual arguments, who are very well spoken- who order to survive, are forced to drive cabs in crumbling Post-Industrial cities. If you want proof of the evils of living in the oligarchy that America is rapidly becoming- look no further than the street corner where a guy like you is sitting behind the wheel of a cab powered by oil from Exxon-Mobil, waiting for the call to take some old lady to CVS for her prescription from Eli Lilly.
"Corporations operate upon the basic legal requirement that they must only choose the path that results in the best return for stockholders. This principle has been established by civil actions and the precedents that were set in the courts over the past century. And this has cast corporations into positions where there is no balance between what might be best for the society at large, and what is best for the stockholders. This needs to be reformed..."
Ding! Ding! Ding! Spot on. Exactly. Consider the CEO of a publicly traded company that manufactures widgets here in Worcester. The company employs thousands of workers. Someone comes to him and shows him, as a matter of record, how the corporation could make more profits by moving the factory to China. If he does move the factory, thousands of people in Worcester will be unemployed. But if he DOESN'T move the factory to China- he personally can be sued. Or at very leased, ousted by the shareholders- and now HE'S unemployed. This is insane. The whole system is set up to f_ck over society at large.
"But the "evil" nature of corporations in America has absolutely nothing to do with this specific case. To stress this side of the "ramifications" is merely partisan bullshit, as opposed to seriously considering what the alternative would be if SCOTUS had gone the other way on this decision."
I disagree. But with this statement, it seems we are of the same mind, just arguing about the ramifications. Which would seem to make the larger disagreement a paper tiger.
Post a Comment