What happens when a citizen, concerned about the environment, reduces his trash output to nearly zero through recycling, conscientious buying, composting and feeding scraps to his dog?

Does he receive an award? A tax rebate of some sort? A high-five?

Nope. Mr. Eddie House gets freaking sued by his city for canceling his trash service. His city in CALIFORNIA, the second most tree-huggy state in the nation. (Oregon gets top billing from me on this, based on scientific data semi-ignorant stereotyping.)

The lawsuit, filed by San Carlos Deputy City Attorney Linda Noeske in San Mateo Superior Court on Jan. 22, seeks a permanent injunction forcing House to maintain garbage service. City officials are also seeking to recoup from House the costs of the lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims House broke the city’s municipal code requiring all residential, commercial and industrial properties to contract with Allied Waste for pickup at least once a week — a standard requirement in most cities, San Carlos Deputy City Manager Brian Moura said.

So let me get this straight. He saves landfill space, uses fewer resources since the trash truck doesn’t have to stop at his place or haul his rubbish to said landfill, increases the quality of soil and recycles prodigiously (not to mention makes his dog happy)- and for this he gets slapped with a lawsuit? For not wasting time, resources, and money?

Look, I understand that when big companies bid on services like this, they can only offer cheap rates if they can be guaranteed lots and lots of customers. I get that. And, it’s probably understandable if the city assumed he was just dumping his trash in neighbors’ trash cans to get a free service, but it’s pretty clearly not the case here.

It’s absolutely wrong for the city to punish Mr. House for violating this agreement. Shame on you, San Carlos!!

Several women in Springfield, Missoura, are - shockingly - feeling regretful about their decisions to receive tattoos from a door-to-door tattoo artist.

One of the women, Linda Falls, passed out the day after getting her ink and was hospitalized. Now all of the women have developed site infections and are being cautioned to get tested for hepatitis and HIV.

Tamra Eason agreed to her tattoo despite noticing this:

“It was wrapped with black tape, had a pin underneath it, had fishing wire going through it, you could tell it was a homemade gun.”

What the hay? Who in their right minds buys a tattoo from some dude going door to door? I’m having trouble wrapping my brain around this.

But perhaps the most stuperb part is that - rather than being afraid to admit to such stupidity - the ladies have vented their frustrations on television, perhaps hoping for one of those “5 on your side” crusades from the local news channel. This sort of implies that the women think of themselves as victims who were treated unfairly by the tattoo guy.

Yes. Because I can see how you’d be surprised when the transaction didn’t turn out well.

I sincerely hope these people haven’t contracted a horrible disease, mostly because I’m a nice person but also so that I can continue to mock them. I also hope they remember this unfortunate episode when the door-to-door breast implant guy comes to town.

Or this guy.

Usually when you hear about a politician trimming the fat, it’s a good thing. But Dean Hrbacek, a Republican former mayor of Sugar Land, Texas now running for the U.S. Congress, took the practice to a whole new level:

He photoshopped a picture of his head onto a picture of a slimmer man’s body and then slapped the modified image onto his fliers:

(Here’s a pic for comparison)

His PR people attempted to explain it away by saying that Hrbacek was so hard at work campaigning around Houston that he didn’t have time to sit for a full-body shot for the fliers.

We know how it is in the high-pressure world of politics. Forget the message - image is everything. It’s a sick, sick world. Politicans over the age of 35 and with a BMI higher than 17 are put out to pasture, discarded like so much trash.

Oh. Wait. Never mind.

Virginia may be for lovers, but it’s apparently not for people who hang fake testicles from their truck trailer hitches.

Lawmaker Lionel Spruill, best known for his 2005 attempt to ban baggy pants, is trying to outlaw the dangling decorations because “They’re offensive to some folks.”

Spruill says he’s acting on behalf of a constituent who says his six year-old daughter spotted a pair and asked what they were.

Spruill admits he’ll probably be a laughingstock, but feels strongly about this, especially because the truck nuts are getting bigger and bigger. “How big are they going to go?” he said. “When will it stop?”

Thank goodness Virginians have Mr. Spruill looking out for them. We certainly wouldn’t want little girls to ask about something as inappropriate as a part of the human body. I think we can all agree that balls are a gift best left as a mystery until she’s pleasantly surprised by them on her wedding night.

Lionel Spruill: protecting us from awkward questions.

UPDATE: This gets even better. Spruill decided not to go the “they’re offensive” route. Instead, he’s using public safety as his justification, saying that the testicles might be distracting to other drivers. Seriously. And, he’ll be bringing the pair he bought to the floor of the house as a visual aid.

“I’m going to do it,” Spruill told a handful of reporters after Tuesday’s House session adjourned. “I’m going to bring them out here and show them to you till they tell me to stop.”

Ok, now he’s starting to sound a little bit menacing.

Lionell Spruill: perhaps a bit too dogmatic about balls.