From You
Nov 27, 2002
Letters
WHY BARS DON'T
"Is there something more difficult about recycling that I just don't understand?" [Inside Out, Nov. 13] Yes, Ingrid, there is, and I will try to explain it to you using small words so as not to confuse you.
First of all, I would like to applaud you on the laziness of your "research" as you called it. If you actually talked to any bar owners regarding this matter, I would be quite surprised.
Okay, that being said, I will explain to you why your article is a giant, steaming load of crap. Every bar owner I know (which is almost all of them) makes an effort (or at least used to make an effort) to recycle. You demonstrated your economic genius in figuring out the "blue bags cost more than clear bags" formula, but you failed to include a very important variable. One cigarette butt in the bottom of one beer bottle will contaminate an entire bag of recycling. Don't believe me? Get off your couch and go to the landfill. You will see truck load after load of recycling go straight into the ground. It is quite simply impossible to insure that a drink straw, bottle cap, or a cigarette butt does not accidentally slip into a bag of bottles. However, if you would like, you are more than welcome to come to The Firehouse any night you wish and decontaminate our recycling after we separate it. I suppose we could hire someone to go through our trash every night, but instead we choose to use that money to pay Flagpole's advertising rates so you have a place to put your liberal arts degree to use.
The fact of the matter is, the bars I am responsible for used to make an effort to recycle. We agree that it's better for the environment and it should be more cost effective for us. However, three weeks ago, I had the pleasure of waking up bright and early to go down to the courthouse and pay a big whopping fine for improper recycling. What does that mean? It means that on a home-game Saturday a few miscellaneous items had been placed in the recycling bags. After my court appearance, I spoke with a representative of the Athens-Clarke County Solid Waste Department who told me directly to "place all of our garbage, including recyclables, in blue bags at the end of the night." Not because they don't want us to recycle, but because they also accept that's infeasible.
The city's recycling program is simply too fragile to handle any miscellaneous items that appear in a recycling load. It should be obvious to anyone that has ever been in a high volume bar that it is inconceivable to think garbage will not get mixed in more often than not. I commend The Roadhouse in their valiant recycling effort, but the sad reality is that the majority of their carefully separated items probably end up at the landfill. So here's the answer to your question, Ingrid. "Why don't bars recycle?" Speaking for the bars I own, it's because the city doesn't provide us with a reasonable method. You quoted Sharyn Dickerson (ACC Solid Waste Department) in saying, "Bars are given much incentive to recycle materials." The truth is that we are given more of an incentive not to recycle due the imposition of a $150 fine for the smallest mistake. We don't recycle because we're fined by the city every time a customer puts a drink straw or a cigarette butt in a beer bottle. We don't recycle because we don't want the carefully sorted and uncontaminated items from our houses, the Flagpole office, and every other low waste producing business downtown to end up in Area Six of the landfill (Area Six is the general waste area for those of you who have never had the pleasure of visiting the Athens dump).
In conclusion, we would love to be able to participate in a recycling program, but with the current methods available, it just isn't an option. Also rest assured that after reading your article I immediately placed it in its proper recycling container.
Chris Springfield, The Firehouse
Athens
RAPE RESPONSE
This responds to the article "Rape Crisis Team Kept on Defense," by Lillia Callum-Penso, which appeared in Flagpole on November 13.
While I sympathize with the plight of victims of rape and admire those who speak in their defense, the article is seriously flawed.
Referring to the recent acquittal of a UGA athlete, the article claims that the "task" of anti-rape "[a]dvocates and activists" "becomes more difficult when an accused rapist walks free" [i.e., is acquitted by a jury]. "Just as damaging is the effect on the victims of rape, who are less likely to go to authorities following a headline-grabbing acquittal."
The only valid reason for criticizing a jury acquittal in a rape case (or any other criminal case) is on the grounds that the jury acquitted a guilty person whose guilt had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt at the trial. Yet the article makes no such claim. (Even if it did, its author would have to explain why she was in a position to know more about the case than the jury which heard both sides and all the evidence.) To criticize a rape acquittal solely because rape acquittals harm the interests of actual rape victims implies that innocent persons should be convicted in order to protect the interests of rape victims.
The article features a photograph of a woman protesting the recent acquittal of the UGA athlete; she is holding a sign saying "A Pack of Rapist Dawgs" (apparently referring to the acquitted athlete and the other untried UGA athletes against whom rape charges were dismissed by the District Attorney). She has a First Amendment right to protest the verdict, of course. But on the merits, how does she know the acquitted defendant was in fact guilty? Why should we believe her judgment is better than that of the jury that tried the case? And how does she know for sure that the other athletes were guilty? Has she ever heard of the presumption of innocence? Or does she think there is an exception for accused rapists?
The article also states: "Very few rape trials result in convictions." I challenge the author to prove that statement. I am confident that the evidence shows that over half the persons tried for rape are convicted. (Of course, even if the author's claim was true, it might well be the case that the high rate of acquittals was due to the innocence of the defendant, and it would be her obligation to prove that the acquittals were erroneous.) At any rate, most rape convictions, like most convictions generally, result not from trials but from plea bargaining.
According to the Georgia Department of Corrections website, there are currently 1,708 males and 5 females in prison for rape in this state.
Supporters of rape victims plunge into the abyss of fanaticism when they criticize a rape acquittal simply because it is a rape acquittal.
Donald E. Wilkes, Jr.
Athens
"Is there something more difficult about recycling that I just don't understand?" [Inside Out, Nov. 13] Yes, Ingrid, there is, and I will try to explain it to you using small words so as not to confuse you.
First of all, I would like to applaud you on the laziness of your "research" as you called it. If you actually talked to any bar owners regarding this matter, I would be quite surprised.
Okay, that being said, I will explain to you why your article is a giant, steaming load of crap. Every bar owner I know (which is almost all of them) makes an effort (or at least used to make an effort) to recycle. You demonstrated your economic genius in figuring out the "blue bags cost more than clear bags" formula, but you failed to include a very important variable. One cigarette butt in the bottom of one beer bottle will contaminate an entire bag of recycling. Don't believe me? Get off your couch and go to the landfill. You will see truck load after load of recycling go straight into the ground. It is quite simply impossible to insure that a drink straw, bottle cap, or a cigarette butt does not accidentally slip into a bag of bottles. However, if you would like, you are more than welcome to come to The Firehouse any night you wish and decontaminate our recycling after we separate it. I suppose we could hire someone to go through our trash every night, but instead we choose to use that money to pay Flagpole's advertising rates so you have a place to put your liberal arts degree to use.
The fact of the matter is, the bars I am responsible for used to make an effort to recycle. We agree that it's better for the environment and it should be more cost effective for us. However, three weeks ago, I had the pleasure of waking up bright and early to go down to the courthouse and pay a big whopping fine for improper recycling. What does that mean? It means that on a home-game Saturday a few miscellaneous items had been placed in the recycling bags. After my court appearance, I spoke with a representative of the Athens-Clarke County Solid Waste Department who told me directly to "place all of our garbage, including recyclables, in blue bags at the end of the night." Not because they don't want us to recycle, but because they also accept that's infeasible.
The city's recycling program is simply too fragile to handle any miscellaneous items that appear in a recycling load. It should be obvious to anyone that has ever been in a high volume bar that it is inconceivable to think garbage will not get mixed in more often than not. I commend The Roadhouse in their valiant recycling effort, but the sad reality is that the majority of their carefully separated items probably end up at the landfill. So here's the answer to your question, Ingrid. "Why don't bars recycle?" Speaking for the bars I own, it's because the city doesn't provide us with a reasonable method. You quoted Sharyn Dickerson (ACC Solid Waste Department) in saying, "Bars are given much incentive to recycle materials." The truth is that we are given more of an incentive not to recycle due the imposition of a $150 fine for the smallest mistake. We don't recycle because we're fined by the city every time a customer puts a drink straw or a cigarette butt in a beer bottle. We don't recycle because we don't want the carefully sorted and uncontaminated items from our houses, the Flagpole office, and every other low waste producing business downtown to end up in Area Six of the landfill (Area Six is the general waste area for those of you who have never had the pleasure of visiting the Athens dump).
In conclusion, we would love to be able to participate in a recycling program, but with the current methods available, it just isn't an option. Also rest assured that after reading your article I immediately placed it in its proper recycling container.
Chris Springfield, The Firehouse
Athens
RAPE RESPONSE
This responds to the article "Rape Crisis Team Kept on Defense," by Lillia Callum-Penso, which appeared in Flagpole on November 13.
While I sympathize with the plight of victims of rape and admire those who speak in their defense, the article is seriously flawed.
Referring to the recent acquittal of a UGA athlete, the article claims that the "task" of anti-rape "[a]dvocates and activists" "becomes more difficult when an accused rapist walks free" [i.e., is acquitted by a jury]. "Just as damaging is the effect on the victims of rape, who are less likely to go to authorities following a headline-grabbing acquittal."
The only valid reason for criticizing a jury acquittal in a rape case (or any other criminal case) is on the grounds that the jury acquitted a guilty person whose guilt had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt at the trial. Yet the article makes no such claim. (Even if it did, its author would have to explain why she was in a position to know more about the case than the jury which heard both sides and all the evidence.) To criticize a rape acquittal solely because rape acquittals harm the interests of actual rape victims implies that innocent persons should be convicted in order to protect the interests of rape victims.
The article features a photograph of a woman protesting the recent acquittal of the UGA athlete; she is holding a sign saying "A Pack of Rapist Dawgs" (apparently referring to the acquitted athlete and the other untried UGA athletes against whom rape charges were dismissed by the District Attorney). She has a First Amendment right to protest the verdict, of course. But on the merits, how does she know the acquitted defendant was in fact guilty? Why should we believe her judgment is better than that of the jury that tried the case? And how does she know for sure that the other athletes were guilty? Has she ever heard of the presumption of innocence? Or does she think there is an exception for accused rapists?
The article also states: "Very few rape trials result in convictions." I challenge the author to prove that statement. I am confident that the evidence shows that over half the persons tried for rape are convicted. (Of course, even if the author's claim was true, it might well be the case that the high rate of acquittals was due to the innocence of the defendant, and it would be her obligation to prove that the acquittals were erroneous.) At any rate, most rape convictions, like most convictions generally, result not from trials but from plea bargaining.
According to the Georgia Department of Corrections website, there are currently 1,708 males and 5 females in prison for rape in this state.
Supporters of rape victims plunge into the abyss of fanaticism when they criticize a rape acquittal simply because it is a rape acquittal.
Donald E. Wilkes, Jr.
Athens
Send your Letters to the Editor by clicking here.
Letters RSS Feed
Share This Page 
View the Paper in PDF
Past Issues
