This country is a complete disaster from top to bottom. Everyone has increasing debt because their jobs don’t pay enough, and yes I said jobs because having one isn’t enough to make it anymore. Even with two jobs the basic necessities are hard to grasp. That being said there are obviously different situations for everyone. A small amount of people are living well with just one job providing for them; these people are in a special class on their own because they probably don’t have any kids, friends or a social life because their work, is their life. Now, working multiple jobs is one thing. Maybe that person is trying extra hard to get out of debt, or make a few additional bucks to take their significant other on a much needed vacation, but most of the time it’s just for survival. Gas is higher than its ever been, food prices are rising, employers have always treated their employees with no respect, our veterans are made fun of on the streets, suicide rates are up and our government isn’t on the uptick either. Those were only the problems off the top of my head that I see everyday, but I’m not here to speak on any of those issues. Today I want to speak about something that we all are accustomed to. It’s a task we have to do once a week, and usually we don’t think about it because it’s such a mundane task our minds naturally skip over it. I want to talk about the trash problem in the United States. Of course, globally trash is a problem, but specifically looking at the United States will show us how far we have truly fallen.
This morning I got ready for work before the sun had risen. We were released after about two hours of being there just because of the companies “good grace”, and I will never say no to that because today happens to be Friday. Friday the day of a weekend, the first day of relaxation and comfort after five days of pure agony trying to make a living. Well when I got off this Friday I was driving through the neighborhood, and I noticed that all the trash had finally been picked up. Where I live sometimes the garbage men refuse to pick up trash, and will simply leave it there until the next week. This will continue on eternally until they decide to do their jobs. Anyway as I pulled up to our inclined driveway I seen our trash can, but to my surprise it was still full of trash. The first time we missed them, and that was our fault. The second week the trash was on the curb, but my significant other might have not put it close enough to the curb, and I can’t blame them for not walking four more steps to empty it, and next week for sure they’ll grab it is what I thought. Week three I set the garbage out the night before perfectly on the curb so it would be easier for them to grab; they grabbed every other persons garbage in the neighborhood besides ours. Firstly I wanted to reach out to their management and get someone fired, but a calm decision was made, and I decided to take my trash to a bin down the street and dump it myself (since it was overflowing). After reaching the trash bin I was met with not one but two police officers who had hands on their weapons the whole time. They asked me what I was doing. I told them about my situation, and then was met with verbal action. He told me that if I put my garbage in their trash can I would be committing a crime, and he would have to arrest me. He also informed me that if I were to put my waste in a neighbors trash can that also would also be illegal, and he would arrest me. Finally he told me that the city I live in has to buy special dark green bags so they can be thrown away. Lets run down the list of questions. Why can’t I throw my trash away in the police bin? If the police use funding from taxes to “protect and serve”, and I’m the one paying taxes don’t I own them to a degree? Are they not public servants? Here to help the community thrive and keep it safe from “bad guys’? Second major question why can’t I throw away trash wherever I want without it being illegal? The point of having trash bins and recycling bins is to keep litter off the streets which, they are supposed to be protecting. Final question why does the color of the bag matter in any of this? Trash is trash. Why would it matter what bag its in, how large the bag is or again the color? It shouldn’t, and this is just another way the United States bullies its citizens into submission.
Continuing forward I had to drag my filled garbage can all the way up two hills and back home to our curbside, and took the officers advice seeking out dark green garbage bags. When I found them I was astonished to find out how gouged the prices were. The bags come in packs of ten for about two dollars a piece (20 dollars) in total. Twenty dollars at this point in my life is nothing to sneeze at however, most garbage bags come in boxes of forty or more, and have a significantly lower price tag at around five to ten dollars depending on the size and strength. I had to buy two packs of these “special garbage bags”. After opening just one I realized the scam; these bags were thin, not large and didn’t come with a patented smell, they were just regular kitchen bags dyed dark green. Wouldn’t the point of having special garbage bags be that they were made from a special material, or maybe they held more space for wasteful material, or they make the whole towns garbage smell nice? Well the only reason to buy these bags is so the state can make money off it and upgrade their police cars. I took three of these amazing bags, and went outside to transfer our trash that was in light green bags to the beautiful dark green bags I had just bought. I dumped our trash that had been sitting out for three weeks in the street and the smell was of rancid feces and sewer water. The trash was covered with maggots, flies and other insects I couldn’t make out with the naked eye. As I was transferring these small, also green bags to the official green bag of the area I was thinking to myself “Man I smell really bad”, but I also thought about how ridiculous this system is.
The bags on the outside are dark green, but whats inside of them are smaller bags that are white, green and blue. Next week the garbage man will probably take those bags off the street because of their color. Only to take them to a landfill with the rest of the worlds trash. It makes no sense. They tell me trash days are Fridays and so we put the trash out Friday morning. They don’t tell us what color bags we need or where to find them. Then they tell me that getting rid of trash any other way besides the way they told me to is illegal. Then they wonder why people are always dumping things “illegally”. What do they want another plague to erupt? If people can’t get their trash picked up, and it’s to expensive to dump individually (because the discount only applies if the trash amount is over two tons) where are they supposed to leave their trash? In the streets? Let’s go over some quick numbers I found 52.5% of all trash in the US goes in a landfill, 25.8% goes to recycling centers, 12.8% of that goes to waste-to-energy plants, and the rest is made up of composte. The only percentage that’s unaccounted for is the “illegal” dumpers. The people that can’t afford trash bags that are triple the expense of normal ones because they have a large family their barely affording to feed. The people that have large items that can’t afford to get rid of them because of the fee for large objects.
When one animal corners another and the cornered animal fights for its life we don’t call it an illegal action. The same if someone is beating on another in anyway for weeks on end; we don’t call the person crazy for snapping if anything we mock them for not standing up for themselves. “Why did it take you so long to fight back”? How long are we going to sit back and just let things happen? We shouldn’t have to pay for garbage removal at all. Whether its monthly billing from a major corporation or just buying special bags. Why do we have to pay to live on this Earth we’re all attached to? We all live here, why are we charging ourselves to do what we’re supposed to do? Keeping the Earth clean should be rule number one of human ethics. Just like our house the Earth too is our home, but I digress. My hands still smell like I soaked them in a cesspool.
About the Creator
Tetrenius
I don't think life is worth living, but here we are. Enjoy.
Trump’s Plan to Own the Western Hemisphere and Greenland Is Not What Americans Want
Donald Trump’s foreign policy ambitions have always made headlines, but in early 2026, the conversation took a new turn — one that’s making Americans sit up and take notice. From proposals to dominate the Western Hemisphere to floating ideas about acquiring Greenland, Trump’s rhetoric has been bold, controversial, and, for many, out of step with what the public actually wants. While these ideas might energize parts of the political base, polls and public opinion suggest most Americans are skeptical, even alarmed, about using the military or U.S. influence to expand territory. Let’s break down what’s happening and why the majority of Americans are not on board. The “Don‑roe Doctrine” and a Bold Vision Trump’s team has revived the Monroe Doctrine — the 19th-century policy that told European powers to stay out of the Western Hemisphere — but with a modern twist. Some have jokingly dubbed it the “Don‑roe Doctrine”, emphasizing America’s supposed right to dominate the region and block rivals like China and Russia from gaining influence. In recent statements, Trump and his advisers have stressed that the Western Hemisphere should be under U.S. control, signaling a willingness to increase American power in Latin America. While rooted in history, this rhetoric goes far beyond traditional diplomacy, suggesting active intervention or oversight in neighboring countries’ affairs. Greenland: The Arctic Gambit If dominating the hemisphere wasn’t ambitious enough, Trump has also made headlines with Greenland, the world’s largest island and an autonomous territory of Denmark. Trump has suggested that the U.S. should explore acquiring Greenland, citing strategic national security reasons. The White House went even further, confirming that “a range of options” is on the table — including military involvement if negotiations fail. This statement made global headlines, sparking criticism not just from Denmark but from European leaders across the board. It’s an idea that would have seemed unthinkable a decade ago, and it raises serious questions about international law, diplomacy, and the U.S.’s reputation abroad. Why Americans Aren’t Buying It You might assume bold expansionist rhetoric would excite a nationalist base, but surveys and polls tell a different story. Only about 11% of Americans support purchasing or annexing Greenland. A majority of respondents oppose it outright, including many Republicans. Most Americans prefer a focus on diplomacy, domestic issues, and practical governance, rather than acquiring distant lands. There’s also a strong sense of military fatigue. After decades of overseas interventions, many Americans are wary of costly and risky military actions that may not directly protect U.S. interests. International Pushback Trump’s Greenland idea hasn’t just been controversial domestically — it’s caused outrage abroad. Denmark, the sovereign nation over Greenland, made it clear that the island is not for sale. European leaders have voiced strong support for Greenland’s autonomy and warned that any U.S. attempt to take control could strain alliances, including NATO. Even countries in the Western Hemisphere are cautious. Many Latin American leaders view heavy-handed U.S. influence as unwelcome, highlighting the risks of a foreign policy focused on territorial dominance. The Public Sentiment Gap The contrast between Trump’s ambitions and American public opinion is stark: Sovereignty matters: Most Americans recognize that countries, including Greenland, have the right to self-govern. Military intervention fatigue: There’s little appetite for new foreign conflicts, especially for reasons seen as symbolic or expansionist. Focus on domestic priorities: Healthcare, the economy, education, and infrastructure consistently outrank foreign conquest in Americans’ list of priorities. In short, the public is telling leaders that the future of U.S. influence lies in cooperation, not domination. Why This Matters Trump’s rhetoric has drawn global attention, strained alliances, and created diplomatic tensions. But beyond the headlines, it’s also a reminder of the limits of foreign policy that ignores public opinion. Americans want their leaders focused on practical issues — and most see territorial expansion or hemispheric control as a distraction at best, a liability at worst. The Greenland debate, in particular, highlights the potential clash between ambitious political theater and real-world consequences. While Trump’s ideas make for sensational headlines, they don’t reflect the priorities of everyday Americans. Final Thoughts Donald Trump’s vision of owning the Western Hemisphere and potentially acquiring Greenland is bold — some might even call it audacious. But boldness alone doesn’t win hearts and minds. In fact, Americans are largely rejecting expansionist rhetoric, favoring diplomacy, alliances, and domestic problem-solving over territorial ambition. In a world that is interconnected and wary of unilateral power grabs, the public seems to be sending a clear message: power is important, but consent, cooperation, and practicality matter even more. As Trump continues to push these ideas, he faces the reality that public opinion, international norms, and global diplomacy may be the real limits on his ambitions — not headlines or political theatrics.
By Muhammad Hassan7 days ago in Earth
BRICS Wargames: Why They Matter — And Why India Chose to Sit Out
BRICS — the economic and political bloc comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa — has long been seen as a counterweight to Western-dominated global institutions. Over the years, it has expanded its influence in finance, trade, and diplomacy. Yet, in recent times, BRICS has begun exploring another domain that grabs headlines and sparks speculation: military cooperation, including large-scale wargames. These exercises are designed to simulate joint operations, test interoperability, and send a signal of strength. For members like Russia and China, wargames serve as both a show of force and a tool to deepen military collaboration within the bloc. However, India’s decision to opt out of recent BRICS wargames has raised questions: why does this matter, and why is India taking a different path from its BRICS partners? The Rise of BRICS Military Exercises Historically, BRICS has been portrayed as primarily economic, focused on initiatives like the New Development Bank (NDB) and trade agreements aimed at reducing Western dominance. But recent years have seen an evolution. Military drills among BRICS members are increasingly prominent, especially in the context of global tension and regional conflicts. These wargames are about more than just tactical drills. They serve multiple purposes: Strategic signaling: By conducting joint exercises, BRICS countries demonstrate unity and military capability to the rest of the world. Operational readiness: Countries test their ability to coordinate in complex scenarios, from humanitarian missions to potential combat operations. Diplomatic leverage: The exercises send subtle messages to other global powers, indicating that BRICS members can collaborate beyond economic forums. For nations like Russia, recently facing sanctions and international scrutiny, these exercises are particularly important. They showcase the ability to maintain partnerships and project power despite global isolation. For China, it is a way to cement strategic influence in Asia and beyond. Why BRICS Wargames Matter Globally The significance of these exercises extends beyond the bloc itself. Analysts note several key implications: Challenge to NATO and U.S. influence: BRICS wargames signal that alternative power centers exist outside Western-led military alliances. Regional security dynamics: Countries bordering BRICS members, particularly in South Asia, Africa, and Latin America, must monitor these developments carefully. Economic-military linkages: Military coordination among major emerging economies could shape security considerations in trade corridors, energy supply routes, and resource-rich regions. In essence, BRICS wargames are not just about soldiers and tanks, but about the broader geopolitical landscape: signaling, strategy, and shaping perceptions of influence. India’s Calculated Decision to Opt Out While Russia, China, Brazil, and South Africa have shown interest in participating actively, India has strategically chosen to abstain from the most recent wargames. This decision may appear surprising, given India’s economic and political stake in BRICS, but several factors explain it. Geopolitical balancing: India maintains complex relations with both China and Russia. While it has defense and historical ties with Russia, its relationship with China has grown tense due to border disputes and regional competition. Joining a wargame with China could be politically and militarily sensitive. Alignment with Western partnerships: India has strengthened ties with Western-led coalitions, including the Quad (U.S., Japan, Australia, India). Participating in BRICS military drills could conflict with these alliances, potentially sending mixed signals. Strategic autonomy: India has long emphasized a policy of strategic autonomy — making decisions based on national interest rather than bloc pressure. Opting out allows India to maintain flexibility in foreign policy and avoid entanglement in exercises that may not align with its regional objectives. Domestic perception: Indian public opinion and political narratives favor cautious engagement with China and Russia on military matters. Skipping the wargames minimizes domestic criticism of appearing too closely aligned with either of the more assertive BRICS powers. What India Gains by Sitting Out Choosing not to participate does not mean India is disengaged from BRICS. Economically and diplomatically, it remains a key player in the bloc. By skipping the wargames, India can: Maintain regional credibility in South Asia while avoiding the perception of aligning militarily with China. Signal strategic independence, reinforcing its image as a nation that prioritizes national security over bloc politics. Focus on bilateral and multilateral exercises elsewhere, such as those with the U.S., Japan, and Australia, which are more aligned with India’s current security priorities. In short, opting out allows India to navigate the delicate balance between its BRICS commitments and broader global strategic interests. Implications for BRICS and Global Security India’s abstention also reflects broader trends within BRICS: the bloc is not monolithic. While economic cooperation is often strong, military integration faces political and strategic limits. Differing national interests, historical rivalries, and regional tensions prevent uniform alignment. For global observers, this is crucial. It shows that while BRICS wargames are important, they are not necessarily indicative of a fully unified military bloc. The exercises are as much about optics as operations, and India’s absence underscores the challenges of aligning countries with divergent security priorities. Conclusion BRICS wargames matter because they are a window into the bloc’s evolving strategic ambitions. They signal power, test cooperation, and demonstrate emerging global influence. Yet India’s decision to opt out highlights that even within this growing coalition, national interests remain paramount. For India, the choice reflects a calculated approach: engage where it benefits national interest, avoid where risks outweigh gains, and maintain strategic flexibility. For the rest of the world, it is a reminder that BRICS, while increasingly important, is not a military monolith. Ultimately, BRICS wargames are as much about geopolitics and signaling as they are about military maneuvers — and India’s careful stance illustrates how emerging powers navigate this complex global chessboard.Start writing...
By Muhammad Hassan3 days ago in Earth
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.