ok, i found some numbers after all.

it's all #1 or #2.

i want the company to tell me that it's going to recycle these items rather than burn them, or i'll bring them to detroit.

i think that the following is probably the best way to do it:

- put glossy or painted cardboard, metal and glass in this blue bin

- compost any unmarked paper with your compost

- if your plastic has a number on it, save it and get it to a recycling facility

- otherwise, throw anything with this "how2recycle" label on it in the garbage to get it into a landfill instead of an incinerator.

after realizing that the province has decided to let plastic producers collect waste plastic and convert it into diesel, i made a conscious decision to not participate by trying to find an actual recycling facility that will at least take plastics 1-4.

i haven't found one yet. i was going to take it across to detroit.

i just realized they took the numbers off. those numbers determined what would get accepted by independent recyclers.

they obviously did that intentionally.

there's now no way for a citizen to know what plastic mcdonalds and loblaws are recycling, and what plastic they're converting to diesel. a good guess is that almost none of it is going to get recycled, and there's now no way to divert it.

i'm considering throwing it in the landfill instead. it's probably the lesser evil, at this point.

instead of wasting our time, money, resources, property, breath and efforts trying to save drug addicts, we should just designate camp site areas in unusable spaces (areas too close to the city dump to live in, land that can't be built on due to industrial hazards (lebreton in ottawa), etc), relocate them there and tell them to kill themselves off. this will cost us nothing, get them out of the city and allow us to refocus our social services on people that better deserve it.

drug addiction is an endless, unsolvable problem.

addicts are a waste of time.

about a year ago, the ontario government shut down the supervised injection sites. i didn't even know that they did that. i did know that the premier's brother and former mayor of toronto was a notorious drug addict, and doug ford is, unusually for a modern post-thatcher conservative, bent on saving the souls of the lost drug addicts.....and getting them jobs. it's not clear how much of this is rhetoric.

the truth is that the government probably foolishly thought it could save money by shutting the supervised injection sites down.

now, a year later, it's dealing with public drug use in libraries, on subways, in parks and other places where the drug addicts are causing a nuisance. well, they shut the sites down.

contrary to ignorant conservative argumentation, the reason these sites were set up was to offset the web of social costs created by drug addiction, from higher policing to higher health costs.

predictably, ontario is now exacerbating a paramedic shortage, due to having to send ambulances out all over the place for overdoses and is considering setting up an expensive special police force with unique powers to act without a warrant that threatens everybody's civil liberties.

drug addicts are not worth the costs. they aren't worth the financial costs and they aren't worth the social costs. we can't be squandering such a high number of resources on drug addicts if we want functional health care, housing and policing resources.

it's not worth it.

if there's an aversion to putting these sites in specific areas, find more acceptable sites, perhaps out of urban cores. 

the alternative is skyrocketing costs, attacks on civil liberties and, eventually, putting them in jail, instead.

we know bill's words are worthless. what about hillary?

well, it's not like this is the first time hillary's been through this and the general picture is she had a pretty clear understanding of what bill was up to, even if he wasn't sending her progress reports, and the basic deal was she could work on her own flings. the general understanding is that hillary may have liked women better anyways.

the open question - and we don't have the evidence for hillary yet - is if hillary liked young women as much as the rest of them.

well, there are a few photos of epstein and hillary, if not yet any pictures of hillary with young women. 

it's curious that hillary denied going to the island. did anybody ask her? i wouldn't imagine most people would have thought to think she might have.

i take it that genuis, as in garnet genuis, is how you spell genius in the retardspeak dialect of american english.

cuba is not a socialist country, it's an agrarian monarchy in need of modernization.

i'd like to encourage chelsea to come forward, if she has anything to say.

bill clinton did not have relations with that woman.

she was just sitting on his lap because there weren't enough chairs.

what's hard to believe about that?

donald trump has a habit of saying things out loud that you don't expect to hear.

we learned on tuesday night that the tariffs are not anything that any economist has imagined, but rather a corollary of an old debate in american history. trump is really holding pretty hard to this idea of trying to bring back the gilded age, which featured a longstanding opposition to the idea of income taxes. income taxes are a relatively new idea in the united states. 

what did the united states use to generate revenue before it had taxes? the answer is tariffs.

the tariffs are a shift in taxes from income taxes to import taxes. step two is a massive tax cut for the ultra rich and he doesn't even attempt to generalize it. he said in his address that the tax cuts were intended for him and his family.

it follows that donald trump is literally increasing taxes on the people that voted for him in order to cut taxes for himself.

the tariffs are not a negotiating tactic, they're a permanent tax, but it's not to raise revenue.

the trump tariffs are little more than a tax cut for donald trump.