Recycling – to Sort or not to Sort

The recycling bin has become ubiquitous. It's a rare sight to find a trash can not accompanied by a blue bin close by. It's indisputable that we've made much progress on integrating recycling into the consumer side of things – we all do our best to avoid trashing whatever might have use elsewhere.

But what happens once you discard that yogurt carton or newspaper?

Based on some estimates, between 60 and 80 percent of recycling is actually recycled. This is significant, and these numbers are likely to bolster our confidence in America's recycling infrastructure: This might make us feel good when we roll out our stuffed recycling can, and place it next to the mostly empty trash can on the curb.

However, alongside these praises and affirming reports on the efficacy of recycling, we also encounter many damning accounts of recycling, some citing the emissions that recycling centers produce, and how the market for processed materials can directly affect what is recycled and what is simply passed on to the landfill.

What can we do then? If consumers are only improving; getting better and better at recycling our waste, the problem must lie elsewhere.

Ironically, the problem might be a result of a solution to another problem in recycling: As recycling technologies improved, many municipalities took the opportunity to switch to so-called single-stream schemes, which allow the consumer to simply place all recyclables in the same bin, to be sorted at the processing facility. Previously, many cities used multi-stream schemes, which required the consumer to sort out recyclables into bins for glass, paper, plastic, etc. The transition to single-stream is at least partially responsible for the increase in how much waste is passed to recycling facilities: With the introduction of single-stream, consumers need only to differentiate between recyclable and non-recyclable waste, as opposed to keeping and sorting separate collections of paper, plastic, glass, etc.

But at the same time, contaminants are more likely to show up in consolidated streams, as people are more likely to just chuck everything into the blue bin, assuming it'll be sorted out anyway later on. Additionally, the increased complexity of sorting through single-stream recyclables adds cost to the entire process.

So while the adoption of single-stream schemes has solved one problem – getting people to recycle – it has created other problems: Surmounting these issues is not impossible, it can be done only with increased expenditure on waste management. But we need to remember that recycling is a still a business in most cities, with the ultimate aim of making a profit.

And making money off recycling used to be an entirely feasible proposition. Last year, the Washington Post ran a high profile article on the introduction of "the blue bin". The requirement for facilities to sort through single-streams of recyclables is cited as the reason for the increased costs these companies face. These increased costs – combined with reduced demand for the goods these companies produce, due to increased recycling in other parts of the world, namely China – have forced recycling firms to either charge more to the municipalities they contract with, or to simply discard whatever waste is not economically feasible to process, defeating the entire purpose of recycling.

We're faced with a dilemma; what is effectively a very precarious balancing act. On the one hand, single-stream increases how much is available to recycle, but incurs increased costs for the processors, often making it no longer viable for these companies to actually process and sell off the recycled materials. While on the other hand, multi-stream systems can make it more economically viable for companies to process recyclable waste, increase the odds that what is recycled will be processed and reused, but at the same time, reduces how much waste is available to recycle.

Perhaps we can rely on increased awareness of the need to recycle to allow cities to shift the burden of sorting off the processors, back onto the consumer. However, we need to be wary of reversing the progress we as a society have made on prioritizing recycling in our lives.

Image credit: Randall Munroe, XKCD.com, under Creative Commons A-NC

Spider-Man and the Problem with Race in Comic Books

If you're surprised by the above photo, you probably haven't read a comic book in a few years. That's Miles Morales, a mixed race teenager who, after the death (yeah, right) of Peter Parker, the original Spider-Man, has donned the mask of New York's friendly neighborhood web-slinger. He was supposed to be a continuation of the classic Spider-Man motif: that great power comes with responsibility. He's a superhero for a new generation, one where diversity and voice matters. But in recent issues, writer Brian Michael Bendis has dropped the ball on his responsibility that comes with his power as a writer: connecting to his audience. 

Comic books have long been a bastion of progressivism and change. Just look at the original inception of the X-Men, created by Stan Lee to mirror the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. Superman is the story of an immigrant struggling for acceptance on an entirely new planet. Losing his parents to gun violence is what inspires Bruce Wayne to adopt the mantle of the Dark Knight. Even the upcoming Marvel blockbuster, Captain America: Civil War functions as a discourse on government regulation.

The character of Spider-Man is a golden opportunity to continue this tradition of bringing liberal discourse to the mainstream. But what we get instead is this page, from Spider-Man No. 2:

Miles doesn't want to be "black" Spider-Man. He just wants to be Spider-Man. It's the same old "colorblind" rhetoric that erases his importance to fans of Spider-Man. In effect, Bendis is sidelining a character of color's racial identity in an attempt to be colorblind. The vlogger girl who gets excited about representation in superheroes is turned into an annoying caricature of a social justice warrior. Its a strategy which alienates fans of the hero, and pissing off your fans isn't a great idea.

Case in point, tweets by J.A. Micheline:

heads up white writers: don't write characters of color whose take is "I don't want to be defined by my race" do not.

— J. A. Micheline (@elevenafter) March 2, 2016

Even if that is a feeling that some/many PoC have, think for a fucking second about the power dynamics involved in you doing that

— J. A. Micheline (@elevenafter) March 2, 2016

From you, it reads like "why do people care so much about race?"

— J. A. Micheline (@elevenafter) March 2, 2016

 The erasure of Miles' racial identity eliminates a fundamental aspect of his character, one that makes him distinctly powerful and gives him potential not given to any other superhero. And we're not just talking about spider-sense.

Think for a second about what it means to be Miles Morales. To be a mixed race teenager of color during the Black Lives Matter Movement. During the police violence against young black men across the country. A teenager who lives in New York, a city which experiences unbelievable rates of stop and frisk. To be the target demographic of the War on Drugs. This is not a kid who claims to be Hispanic instead of Latino.

Miles Morales has every justification to be one of the most radical figures in comic book history. Someone who not only has pride in their culture and their identity, but whose actions reflect this. Miles Morales has absolutely no reason to go after drug dealers or bank robbers, and no reason to have even one iota of confidence in any police officer, or as people are so fond of reminding us, "the real heroes".

The thing is, if Spider-Man started defending people from cops and helping people fight poverty, I'm not so sure whatever laws of comic books that exist would still label him as a 'hero'. Such an anti-establishment stance would label him as a villain or at the very least an anti-hero. He'd be an 'other' in the superhero community, just as he is in his secret identity.

Bendis has stated that Miles' opinions in Spider-Man No. 2 aren't set in stone, leaving there much growth for his character and his stance as a POC icon. But the current way he is written, with complete disregard for his place in comic book culture, doesn't seem to echo the progressivism and openness to discourse that the superhero genre has espoused for decades.

So, with that in mind, I leave you with this quote from an essay called "The Negro Artist and the Racial Mountain", written by Langston Hughes in 1926, 86 years before Miles Morales donned the mask of the Spider-Man on the pages of a comic book:

" One of the most promising of the young Negro poets said to me once, 'I want to be a poet--not a Negro poet,' meaning, I believe, 'I want to write like a white poet'; meaning subconsciously, 'I would like to be a white poet'; meaning behind that, 'I would like to be white.' And I was sorry the young man said that, for no great poet has ever been afraid of being himself. "

Seem familiar? 

References:

Hughes, Langston. "The Negro Artist and the Racial Mountain". The Nation, 1926. 

When Capitalism Won't Pass the J

According to Karl Marx’s capitalist theory, capitalism is flawed and therefore doomed. Because of the bourgeoisie, or upper class, holding control over the “free market”, the proletariat, or working class, is stifled. Eventually, monopolies are created within the market which ultimately cause a revolution of the proletariat class. Those in the bourgeoisie are those who privately own the means of production, separate from the proletariat, working class. Marx describes how the division of labor causes alienation: from the production, from the process, from other people, and from one’s self. He emphasizes the working class’s creativity being stifled, and the problems that causes within society. Ultimately, Marx believed that this leads to a revolution that will overthrow the market monopolies held by the bourgeois.

In the early 1900s in America, capitalism took hold of multiple huge markets essential to the economy and created monopolies that pushed out of these markets a little plant called cannabis. Before this, “cannabis hemp was one of history’s most widely used plants,” dominating large global markets such as medicine and textiles (Bud Fairy).

Some important markets growing and changing at that time were the fuel industry and the synthetics industry, both coming out with new and exciting products derived from fossil fuels. At the time, fossil fuel products were a promising new economic idea - not running out quite as fast as they are now. The elites who had control over this new industry wanted that to become control over the entire market, to completely overtake the means of production.

A man named William Randolph Hearst was the one who was eventually able to help his fellow bourgeoisie. He used anti-cannabis propaganda to get rid of the economic threat weed posed on their plans for monopoly. Another of these markets headed for a bourgeois monopoly, the paper industry, was changed by Hearst, a publisher with a huge investment in timber. He owned a bunch of land covered in trees, readily available to make lots of paper (and make Hearst lots of money), and felt threatened by the existence of hemp paper. Its cheap, highly sustainable growth could easily replace timber to make paper. But because of Hearst’s influence as a publisher, he was able to use propaganda to make his way to the top and create a monopoly of timber in the paper market. At the time, the cannabis plant was mainly harvested for its many uses in the form of hemp, though there were a few tokers here and there. Hearst knew he could take advantage of the multiple uses of marijuana to demonize it, creating ads talking about “reefer madness”, “drug-crazed abandon”, and “weird orgies, wild parties”.

one of William Randolph Hearst's anti-marijuana advertisements

Because Hearst's advertising worked so well on the American people, marijuana was a drug feared by society. It became an illegal substance, and later in the 70s when the War on Drugs was declared by the American government, it was highly criminalized. This benefited another market run by elites: law enforcement. We see the effects of this now with an almost military-like police force in so many places around the country, and the highest rate of incarceration in the world by a large margin.

Before the discovery of aspirin, and after that other heavy painkillers like opiates, cannabis was used often in medicine. As we see today with the huge growth in popularity of medical marijuana as it becomes legalized in more and more states, cannabis is a ‘wonder drug’ of sorts. It can be used in many different forms to treat a multitude of ailments, anything from chronic pain to mental illness to cancer, etc.

Back to Marx’s theory of the doomed nature of capitalism and the eventual revolution that will stop it: the anti-capitalism revolution is coming to the American economic system. And it begins with the legalization of marijuana. This versatile plant, with its uses as a fuel, as a medicine, as a textile, and even as a recreational substance, can solve so many problems created by the monopolizing of means of production by American elites.

Sources:

Fairy, Bud. "How Marijuana Became Illegal." Ozarkia.net. Accessed April 25, 2016. http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/pot/blunderof37.html.

Portland Dumping Homeless People Elsewhere

According to the last count made in 2014, there are approximately 4,000 homeless people including men, women, and children in Portland, OR.¹ During that same time period, a 10 year plan to end homelessness in Portland, was launched.² However, a decade later, homelessness is still a social issue in this very city. Although there have been great efforts to address homelessness, permanent housing remains a critical insufficiency. Portland is good about providing resources but the need for permanent housing is severe. Now, the city is turning to an alternative method: dumping homeless people elsewhere. 

Recently, Portland set aside $30,000 to pay for one way bus tickets for homeless people to leave the city.³ However, the requirements for their bus fare includes being able to prove they have secured housing with family or friends in a different city, and are medically fit. But is this really a solution? Are the the main causes for homelessness being ignored? Is this Portland’s way of cleaning off its streets to have a better city image?

The main and most common causes of homelessness include: mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence, physical impairments, HIV/AIDS, loss of employment, and lack of support for those emancipated from prison.² Often homeless people are stereotyped and seen as lazy, criminals, homeless by choice, and all are drug addicts for example.^4,5 Translocating them to another city does not necessarily help them gain permanent housing or health benefits. In speculation, it is most likely that the places they are staying outside of Portland are temporary. Additionally, one of the requirements for a bus ticket includes being medically fit, but if that is a person’s main cause for homelessness, they won’t be able to access this, so how is this helping them? Shipping them off to another city is simply clearing up the streets of Portland, and not directly helping them. It’s benefitting the city’s image but does not help the root problems of homelessness. 

During spring break of 2016, I embarked on an Alternative Spring Break Trip that focused on economic justice in Portland. A group of 6 of us explored the different areas of Portland to gain a better understanding of homelessness in our own backyard, learn about the different resources homeless people have access to, and hear some personal stories. We joined forces with multiple organizations aimed to help the homeless community and participated in an immersion program.

Alternative Spring Break Trip Group at JOIN Organization

Alternative Spring Break Trip Group at Right to Dream Too 

We learned about places like the Blanchet House and Sisters of the Road that help treat homeless symptoms of hunger, and although very beneficial on a daily basis, programs like JOIN provide homeless people with consultants and helps connect them to different long-term resources whether that is education, job training, health information, and applying to homes, which address more of the root problems. We were given a number of tours in various parts of the city and acknowledged the different resources that exist like the Salvation Army, Street Roots, Potluck in the Park, Right to Dream Too, Portland Rescue Mission, Oregon Food Bank, and places like Dignity Village. We also heard personal stories from people who experienced homelessness for years, and learned about what they experienced on the daily, such as being scared of getting stabbed or stolen from, or having to live under freeways and having to fight off raccoons and rats for food. Depression, anxiety, and dementia seemed to be a common result from being homeless for a long period of time. 

Rather than addressing the causes and effects of homelessness, Portland is willing to buy people who are homeless one way bus tickets to leave town. Rather than using the thousands of dollars for more effective programs aimed to get the origins of homelessness, they are simply evacuating them from Portland and making them another city’s social issue. Homelessness is a critical social issue, and can occur to anyone at any point. This is an issue I am passionate about, and I encourage you all to look into how you can help your community members, please feel free to explore these websites:

Right to Dream Too

http://right2dreamtoo.blogspot.com

JOIN

http://joinpdx.org

Potluck in the Park

http://www.potluckinthepark.org

References:

1. ”The City of Portland, Oregon." Ending Homelessness RSS. 2014. Accessed April 25, 2016. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/phb/60643.

2. Oregonian/OregonLive, Anna Griffin | The. "Our Homeless Crisis." OregonLive.com. 2015. Accessed April 25, 2016. http://www.oregonlive.com/portland-homeless/index.html.

3. ”Portland Offering Homeless People a One-Way Bus Ticket Out of Town." Fox News Insider. March 26, 2016. Accessed April 25, 2016. http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/03/26/portland-offering-homeless-people-one-way-bus-ticket-out-town.

4. "Myths about the Homeless - Preble Street." Preble Street. April 1, 2011. Accessed April 25, 2016. http://www.preblestreet.org/in-the-news/myths-about-the-homeless/.

5. "Common Stereotypes and Misconceptions about Homeless People." HubPages. February 10, 2016. Accessed April 25, 2016. http://hubpages.com/politics/homelessness-myths-misconceptions.

Are LGBT Rights a Global Right?

On June 26th, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage would become legal nationwide, lifting marriage bans for same sex couples in 13 states.  Growing up in Washington, D.C., I have had the privilege of attending two Gay Pride Parades and experiencing the court ruling first hand. To believe there were still over a dozen states that refused the right of marriage to same sex couples the year I entered college is hard to swallow and difficult for me to understand, living somewhere so liberal. As we approach the first anniversary of this momentous occasion, my curiosity surrounding the subject has grown tremendously, branching to how different countries in the world perceive and handle same sex marriage. Using this post, I am interested in looking at what same sex marriage looks like across the globe and what happens with a label of legal or illegal.

As of the United States 2015 Supreme Court ruling, there are 22 countries that allow same sex marriage. Of these countries, more than half are in Europe. In 2000, The Netherlands became the first country to legalize same sex marriage and by 2010, nine more countries had joined in legalization, including Canada, Spain, South Africa, and Argentina. It is important to note that many of these countries laws still allowed churches and religious groups to deny any marriage they did not want to preform. It is interesting to look at how Ireland gained its legalization. In 2013, Queen Elizabeth II legalized same sex marriage in England and Wales. Northern Ireland and Scotland, however, are semi-autonomous and have their own governing bodies. In April 2014, Ireland did not pass a measure to legalize same sex marriages, which lead Ireland to become the only country in the world to choose to allow same sex marriage by popular vote. This was such a huge moment in Ireland law and for all countries where same sex marriage is illegal as “the decision by the Irish people will encourage LGBT people in all those countries where they are still denied the right to marry.” (Gilmore) It showed these countries that the people’s voice is quite often as strong or stronger than the government. Although some religious groups in countries with legalization are still permitted to prohibit marriage between same sex couples, citizens of these 22 countries have incredible privileges over those in countries where same sex marriage is illegal.

Shifting our focus from Europe to the Middle East, we gain access to the other side of the picture surrounding global gay rights. In many countries where same sex marriage is illegal and LGBT rights are not observed, it is punishable by law to be found participating in intimate same sex activities. There are currently 80 countries in the world where being LGBT is a criminal offense and is punishable by law. Uganda enacted the Anti-Homosexuality Act in 2014, allowing officials to sentence people to life in prison for engaging in same sex activities and even supporting LGBT rights. In Iran, women are punished with 100 lashes for engaging in same sex relations, where men receive the death penalty. It is estimated that 4000 men have been executed since 1979. Grave acts of violence are enacted on LGBT members and supporters, with especially harsh realities in Iraq. Once an Iraqi has come out, they often face horrible violence from their families and communities. Often their only hope is to run and hide. Today, Iraqis must fear their lives if they wish to be openly homosexual, as there are many “religious militias and vigilante groups” (Alizadeh) who have set out to kill and scare any LGBT members from participating.

I would love to talk of the strides the world has made as a whole in accepting gay rights and I can for 22 of the 196 countries. But sadly with the reality or Iraq and many African countries, people live in fear for their lives and very little is being done and can be done to help ease their pain and suffering. Although it is becoming more accepted, it is key to remember that this practice is still highly stigmatized in many countries and is something that will be a continuous fight.

Works Cited

“Should Gay Marriage Be Legal?”

http://gaymarriage.procon.org/

“Gay Marriage Around the World”

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/06/26/gay-marriage-around-the-world-2013/

“Is Same Sex Marriage the Civil Rights Issue of this Generation?”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eamon-gilmore/is-same-sex-marriage-the-civil-rights-issue-of-this-generation_b_7467986.html

“When Coming Out Is a Death Sentence: The Rising Tide of Violence Against LGBT Iraqis”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hossein-alizadeh/when-coming-out-is-a-deat_b_6201210.html

International LGBT Rights: The Canaries in the Mine Shaft

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/warren-j-blumenfeld/international-lgbt-rights_b_5496992.html