Upload Girl, She's Been Living in an Upload World - Nikki Lorenzini

As I write this, I am logged onto Facebook. I check it in the morning before I go to work. I log on during my lunch break. I log on after work at least once. Depending if I am doing Facebook chat, I can be online anywhere from 5 minutes to an hour. I found my best friend from grade school and ended up deleting her. I had people who found me from grade school but I dont’t even remember them, and had mutual friends who tried to add me when I never met them. I immediately add people when I have just met them. It seems like everyone’s lives revolve around our Facebook accounts.

I remember when I first signed up for my account. That was approximately 6 years ago. (Yes, that long ago!) When I first logged on, I did it kind of hesitantly. I didn’t want to have one because I thought “everyone” had one. That makes me giggle now. At the time, it was only for college students, Facebook only allowed you to upload photos, and there was no chat and no applications. Facebook was the safe alternative to MySpace (remember MySpace?), which seemed always to be on the news for something along the lines of children being kidnapped.  

Now it seems that Facebook has taken over our lives. It’s on the news for its privacy settings (and when we have an oil leak that could take months to clean up). 7-11 is teaming up with Farmville, one of the more popular applications on Facebook, to promote a line of Slurpees. I heard a story about a person actually receiving a kidney transplant contact via their Facebook status update, another of people getting married after meeting on Facebook, and a father and son reconnecting on Facebook. I’ve heard of people getting fired over pictures and statuses that were posted. Companies have their fan pages to help spread word of store openings, and charitable organizations have pages to show where your money is going.  

I look back to a time before Facebook. Granted, I am only 27 years old, but I can still remember when the Internet was just starting to come into people’s homes. I remember my first AOL screen name. That was dial-up, now we have Verizon Fios. MySpace never existed, we just had creepy chat rooms where you talked to a 50-year-old pedophile without even realizing it. Sure, MySpace and Facebook are probably a step up. I just do not think that our Internet profiles really need all this attention. Are we really so bored that our lives revolve around Facebook? To get to it via on our phones, our TVs, and, oh yeah, our computers? I guess I’m not any better since I’m blogging about Facebook.

I wonder if Mark Zuckerberg thought that Facebook would be such a huge hit, that even the news would have report about privacy settings. I mean, is anything really private on the Internet?

The Pennsylvania Senate Race Follies - Ryan John

The Pennsylvania Senate campaign has gotten pretty interesting. First of all, it was surprising that Arlen Specter wanted another term after 44 years as a Senator. At 80, he’s pretty old, has battled cancer, and has taken enough criticism and praise during his public service to last ten lifetimes. I would think he might have wanted to enjoy his old age and success for a while. But apparently he wanted it so bad that he was willing to change his political affiliation again (he switched from Democrat to Republican while running for district attorney of Philadelphia in 1965, and then back to a Democrat last year) just for another potential term. He seriously jeopardized his political legacy in the process. Even though he received the White House endorsement, he still went on to lose last month.

There was a lot of buzz surrounding his primary opponent, Democrat Joe Sestak, whose navy career was called into question by the Specter camp. Sestak claimed to have received a job offer from the White House in exchange for agreeing not to run against fellow Democrat Specter in the primary. Sestak used the potential White House controversy to his advantage and went on to beat the veteran Senator.

Now people want to know the “who, what, where, when, and why” of the White House job offer. The people of Pennsylvania are rightly wondering about Sestak’s integrity before they go into the voting booth in November. And the American people should be interested to know their federal government may be secretly using such tactics to cherry-pick Senators. This is something that can’t be talked out or dismissed by, say, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs (shown above), who denies all these claims. Either Sestak fabricated the job offer to reclaim an honorable image that was potentially damaged over his Navy discharge; or the White House staff is trying to pull some strings they shouldn’t be pulling.

And was that part of the deal when Specter supported Obama’s stimulus package in 2008? We’ll never know if Specter was being an Obama puppet to gain his endorsement, but at least we should know if a job offer was made to Sestak. If it was, we have a serious problem in the White House when a man whose main campaign theme was Change is digging the political-credibility hole even deeper. My guess is, from now until November, this controversy will continue to brew, but that Sestak will not provide any further information regarding the alleged White House job offer and ultimate damage his credibility. Therefore he’ll lose in November to the very conservative, standing-to-the-right-of-Rick-Santorum, Republican Pat Toomey.

Memorial Day - Nikki Lorenzini

Memorial Day, formerly known as Decoration Day, commemorates the men and women who died while in the service for the United States. It was enacted to honor Union solders from the Civil war and celebrated near the day of reunification after the war. The first celebration was held by former slaves at the Washington Race Course in Charleston, SC, which was used as a temporary Confederate prison camp as well as a mass grave for the soldiers from the Union army. After everything had ended, freed slaves exhumed the bodies and reburied them properly in their own graves. On May 1, 1865, after the work had been completed, the local paper reported that a crowd of about 10,000 people went to the location and held sermons, singing, and a picnic.

Memorial Day was officially proclaimed on May 5, 1868 by General John Logan. However, the first state to recognize the holiday officially was New York, in 1873. By 1890, all the northern states recognized the holiday. The South refused to take part, and honored its fallen soldiers on separate days until after World War I. It was only then that the holiday changed from honoring just those who had died in the Civil War to include soldiers who died in any war. The name Memorial Day was first used in 1882, but didn’t become common until after WWII, and was finally made official in 1967. The following year, Congress passed the Uniform Holidays Bill, which moved three holidays to the dates they now occupy, and create three-day weekends, including Washington’s Day (now Presidents Day), Veterans Day, and Memorial Day.

Traditional observances include visits to cemeteries and memorials. There is a national moment of remembrance at 3 p.m. local time, as well as the practice of flying the flag at half-staff from dawn until noon. Members of the Veterans of Foreign wars take donations for poppies before Memorial Day. The significance of the poppies is from the John McCrae poem “In Flanders Fields.” The Indianapolis 500 is the longest tradition associated with Memorial Day, dating from 1911. The National Memorial Day Concert is held on the west lawn of the U.S. Capitol and broadcast on PBS and NPR. Memorial Day marks the unofficial start to summer.

Recycling, part 2: Indoor Scrounging - David Loftus

Portland is a proudly “green” city. We have a national reputation as being one of the most livable metropolitan regions in the nation – due, among other things, to (comparatively) progressive zoning regulations, a (comparatively) impressive array of green office buildings and alternative fuel use (in April, Oregon was chosen as an electric car test site, so charging stations will be installed across the city and up and down Interstate 5), and a (comparatively) high rate of recycling.

I inserted “(comparatively)” because, being an on-site observer, I’m less impressed -- more aware of how far we fall short than of how far beyond the rest of the country we may be. Familiarity breeds content, as a blogger would say.

First stop is the recycling and trash room down the hall from my apartment. It contains two upright blue plastic recycling bins, and a trash chute that feeds to giant dumpsters on the ground-floor loading dock.

There are signs on the door and on the wall above the bins that explain what should go in each bin and what should not. The rules are pretty simple: one receives glass only; the other takes paper, plastic, tin, and aluminum. Cardboard should not go into either bin but should be broken down, folded, and carried to a huge cage-dumpster on the ground floor loading dock. Food is also prohibited; bottles and cans should be rinsed out.

Some of my neighbors apparently can’t follow these simple instructions. I have run across:

· Glass bottles in the paper recycling

· Plastic and aluminum in the glass recycling

· Cardboard in both (including full-size boxes not even broken down and therefore taking up far too much space)

· Foodstuffs in the paper recycling, from residue inside tin cans to half-eaten slices of pizza

It looks like most of my neighbors never rinse bottles and cans after drinking the contents. Many of the “empties” I have retrieved still carry soda or beer. Often, my fingers grow sticky with sugar and alcohol.

Collecting the containers is a matter of taking the elevator to each of six floors, going to the recycling room, and rummaging in the blue bins. Sometimes the paper/tin/aluminum/plastic bin is so stuffed that I can only dig partway down to some of the loot and leave the rest. Sometimes the glass bins have busted bottles in them (slammed into the bin, or broken back in the apartment? hmmm . . . ) so I have to pick out the recyclables with care. Once, I cut the side of my hand and drew blood.

There are occasional windfalls that add joy on the hunt: plastic bottles or aluminum cans already sorted into a bag or box so I don’t have to pick them out one by one, for example; or empty beer bottles tucked back into the six-pack carrier in which they were purchased.

Less pleasing are plastic bottles and aluminum cans that have been crushed -- inadvertently by other trash, or purposely and carelessly by their consumers -- so that I have to pull, squeeze, or blow them back open in an attempt to make them presentable so the recycling machines can read the bar code on them. Worst of all are glass and plastic containers on which the code has been defaced, or the label completely torn off, which makes them a dead loss (for me, anyway).

Over the course of several weeks, I learned to take along a small metal shopping cart to organize and carry the weight of 30-40 glass beer bottles. A few relatively clean paper and plastic shopping bags -- especially the big boutique-style ones with handles from Nordstrom’s or Storables -- make the plastics and aluminums easier to carry, as do collapsible cardboard six-pack containers for the glass bottles. Except for the cart, I have scrounged all these carrying tools from the recycling barrels as well.

Repeated visits to the bins on the various floors of my building told me a little about my neighbors, as the study of any waste will do. Somebody loves those 24-ounce Beck’s “Super Size” beer bottles. I pick roughly a dozen of those out of the third-floor bin every week, and I have to think it’s just one person who drinks them, because I never run into any of those size and brand on the other floors. Somebody else on the third floor drinks a lot of bottled water.

And is it my imagination, or do the folks on the top two floors consume more wine and hard liquor as opposed to beer?

Read part 1, the overview

Read part 3, the loading dock

Our Parents Had It Easy - Shaun Hautly

Tonight, as Boston's “More Than a Feeling” came on in the restaurant, I realized that our parents (and grandparents, especially) had it WAY easier than we do. That’s because I had to DIVE into my pocket to check if my cell phone was ringing, because “More Than a Feeling” happens to be my ring tone. While this particular example is a little funnier, there are many pressures and expectations with which the previous generations never had to deal. We’ve become so connected and communication is instantaneous. Failure to communicate becomes a blot on your character: you get a reputation for poor response times, etc. Just as everyone has a friend who is “always late,” we also know which people never respond to text messages.

I was in a Frisbee game yesterday and there wasn't an e-mail sent out to inform us which field the game would be on. So I had to e-mail people at the last minute, and finally check the schedule on my phone, which was loading slowly. While this sounds like a stuck-up problem to have, it’s true that if I didn’t show up because I hadn't found the schedule online in my car, people would have been disappointed in me. The same rings true (haha) for a dead cell phone. People get ANGRY with me when my cell phone isn't answered because it’s dead. It’s almost scary. “What if we can’t get ahold of you?”

Lastly, the pressure to get spelling and wording right is higher than ever. A few generations ago, if you sent someone a letter, and the address was off or name was spelled wrong, they still got it. The mailman knew. However, today if one letter is off, MAILER DAEMON gets mad. Web sites won’t download if you don’t know how to spell them properly. My grandfather has NEVER asked the question, “Is that all one word?” Times have gotten complicated and pressures have risen to accommodate those complications. Our parents had it easy.

Homelessness in America 2; Doing the Numbers - Nikki Lorenzini

According to the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, an average of 700,000 to 2 million people are homeless every night. Who are the people these numbers represent? According to a December 2000 report of the US conference of Mayors, 44% of the homeless are single men, 13% are single women, 36% are families with children, and 7% are unaccompanied minors. Racially, 50% are African American, 35% White, 12% Hispanic, 2% Native American, and 1% Asian.

In 1996, the National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients did a study on the state of people who are homeless. They found that single homeless individuals that year reported an average income of $348 during a 30-day period, which is about 51% of the 1996 poverty level of $680/per month for one person. 44% of homeless people did paid work during the preceding month, and 21% received some type of income from their family and friends. 66% percent had problems with alcohol, drugs, or mental illnesses and 7% had been sexually assaulted. There were 38% who said they had had someone steal money or other things directly from them, and 30% had been homeless for more that 2 years.

There are two groups who might get lost in the mix of homelessness. One is children and families. According to America’s Second Harvest, 1 in 5 people in a soup kitchen line is a child. The U.S. Census Bureau found 1 in 5 children (more than 12 million total) living in poverty. The child poverty rate in the U.S. is higher than it is in most other industrialized nations. In 1999, there were approximately 12 million American children who were hungry or at risk of hunger, according to the US Department of Agriculture. Requests for emergency food assistance from families with children rose by 16% in 2000, the highest increase since the 1991 recession. Almost 9 million children that in working poor families.

The second group is homeless veterans. They have served in WWII, Korean War, Cold War, Vietnam War, Grenada, Panama, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq, plus the military’s anti-drug efforts in South America. Nearly half of all homeless vets served in Vietnam. Two-thirds served at least three years, and one-third in a war zone. There are an estimated 107,000 homeless vets on any given night. The nation’s homeless vets are predominantly male, with about 5% females. They mostly come from urban areas, are single, and suffer from mental illness, alcohol dependence, and/or substance abuse. Homeless veterans account for about 1/3 of the adult homeless population.

There are several factors for their homelessness, from a shortage of affordable housing, a livable income, and access to health care. A large number of at-risk and displaced vets live with the lingering side effects of post traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse, in addition to lacking a support network. According to Understanding Homeless: New Policy and Research Perspectives, most housing money is devoted to helping homeless families or homeless women with children, with not enough money to help the homeless vets.

According to a report put out by the USICH:

23% of the total homeless population are veterans
33% of the male homeless population are veterans
47% served during the Vietnam era
17% served post-Vietnam
15% served pre-Vietnam
67% served three or more years
33% were stationed in a war zone
25% have used VA homeless services
85% completed high school/GED, compared to 56% of non-veterans
89% received an honorable discharge
79% reside in central cities
16% reside in suburban areas
5% reside in rural areas
76% experience alcohol, drug, or mental health problems
46% are white males, compared to 34% of non-veterans
46% are age 45 or older, compared to 20% non-veterans

Service needs cited include:

45% in need of help finding a job
37% in need of help finding housing

A Mosque at Ground Zero - Ryan John

When I heard they were considering building a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero, I think at first I just dismissed it. I probably heard it, but I didn’t really look into it because I think I considered it nothing more than an inconsequential, exaggerated headline on some cable news show that was only used to get my attention.

I really couldn’t believe when I read that a New York City community board agreed to build a mosque and cultural learning center in an old Burlington Coat Factory two blocks from Ground Zero. The argument being made by mosque supporters is that a mosque presence reminds everyone that the true nature of Islam, which condemns the 9/11 attacks and fundamentally rejects the actions of the terrorist group that took down the World Trade Center, is of tolerance. Others argue that it is within historic Islamic culture, considered a sign of dominance or victory for Muslims when a mosque is erected at a particular location. I can’t help but agree with them regarding victory and dominance.

The attacks on 9/11 were considered acts from Islamic extremists over our occupancy in their holy land. It just seems far too ironic that a mosque is about to be placed on the American site where these hijackers are considered martyrs by other extremists in their religion. I’d venture to say that the majority of the 3,000+ people that died on 9/11 were Jews and Christians. Maybe a small percentage were Muslim. If America and our capitalistic values are sacred to us, then that location near Ground Zero is sacred ground.

The attack on the towers, and their collapse, was an attack on our national principles, specifically our military and economic ambitions. These hijackers weren’t political extremists. They were religious extremists. The literal translation of Islam is said to be submission. That a New York City community group agreed to place a mosque so close to the World Trade Center cite for any reason is what I call an American submission.

What Is a Hero, Really? - David Loftus

Too often, I hear the media and bereaved families refer to soldiers, firefighters, and police officers (alive or dead) as heroes.

But they aren’t, not by my definition. Mostly, they’re just doing their job.

To me, a hero is someone who performs an action beyond the call of duty, a person who commits an act of courage or self-sacrifice when he or she didn’t have to; or at least an act that is beyond what would normally be expected of an individual in that situation. When a firefighter rescues someone from a burning house, when a soldier charges into battle, when a police officer gives chase to an armed suspect, they’re all just doing their job.

Granted, it can be dangerous. Certainly, it takes a fair amount of courage and skill. But these people were trained to do what they do; they’ve been taught not only the best methods of performing difficult and risky tasks, but trained to suppress their fears, questions, and doubts while doing them. To some extent, instinct and reflexes take over.

In addition, it shouldn’t take much reflection to realize there must be venal firefighters, corrupt cops, and cowardly soldiers out there. Some of the rest of us perform only the bare minimum of our work responsibilities and get by on laziness and kissing rears, so why should things be any different among a certain percentage of law enforcement, fire suppression, and military personnel?

This week, the Public Broadcasting System television series “Frontline” featured a documentary titled “The Wounded Platoon” that illustrates my point. The film follows the fortunes of a single U.S. Army platoon of infantrymen from Ft. Carson, Colorado: 3rd Platoon, Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 506th Infantry. Since returning from Iraq, three soldiers have been convicted of murder or attempted murder, another for assaulting his wife, and another has attempted suicide.

Since the beginning of the war, 17 soldiers from Fort Carson have been charged with or convicted of murder, manslaughter, or attempted murder back in the U.S., and 36 have committed suicide. Whether their war experiences have driven them to such madness, or they were unstable to begin with, is immaterial. My point was, and remains, that nobody is automatically a hero simply due to his or her professional role.

This automatic tendency to refer to certain classes of trained workers as “heroes” simply by virtue of their position reaches the height of absurdity when soldiers in Iraq are killed by an anti-personnel device while patrolling in a HUMV -- or worse, shot by so-called “friendly fire” -- and identified in news reports as heroes. That’s as absurd as calling a dead policeman a “hero” because he was on duty and faithfully observing the right-of-way when an off-duty colleague, driving drunk, plowed into his cruiser.

It’s when a person has time to think about what he’s doing, when she isn’t obligated to step outside her daily routine, training, and duties, but goes ahead and chooses to act anyway, that a person becomes a hero.

Watch the documentary, “The Wounded Platoon” here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/woundedplatoon/view/

I Am Here - Nikki Lorenzini

Over the next month or so, I will be doing a four part series about homelessness in America.

I know that there are many faces and stories to the homelessness that is prevalent throughout our country. Often, these faces are ignored and just brushed away as drug addicts and alcoholics. However, I know that there is more to it than just that. I am sure if we just dig a little bit deeper that we can find more stories behind the faces that we so often just brush away. Here is just one.

Homelessness: the condition of a person who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate night-time residence.

• According to a study of the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, between 2.3 and 3.5 million people experience homelessness.
• According to a 2008 US Department of Housing and Urban Development report, about 671,888 were homeless one night in January 2007.
• The areas that had the highest rates of homelessness in 2007 were: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington state, and Washington, D.C.

I am sure if you go into any major city, you will find someone sitting on the sidewalk and panhandling. They rarely ever get paid any type of attention. They get ignored -- brushed off as drug addicts, alcoholics, losers, or lazy. Rarely do people invest in their lives.

Who can blame us for not wanting to invest in them? We do not know who we are giving out money to; we do not know how they got there. More often than not, we assume that if we give them money, the homeless will use it to get alcohol or drugs. However, there is an organization in Austin that is seeking to change how homeless people are helped.

The T3 agency and Mobile Leaves and Fishes have come together to form the “I am here” project. It focuses on one homeless man, Danny, by taking him literally off the streets. He was placed on a billboard catwalk, which is 50 feet above I-35, for 48 hours.

Danny and his wife Maggie’s story started when they moved to Austin because Danny got a job as an ironworker. That job eventually ended and they were low on money and decided to move into the Salvation Army. While their stay there, they were robbed, losing all their possessions, including their ID and what money they had left. They ended up living on the streets.

With no money, they couldn’t replace the IDs they had lost, and without ID, they couldn’t get any jobs. Without any family to reach out to for help, they were forced onto the streets. Things got worse five years ago when Maggie suffered a stroke. She has been wheelchair-bound since. They ended up living in a tent in North Austin, and their sole means of a living was panhandling.

Then Danny was temporarily located to a billboard, which was donated by the Reagan Outdoor, by the T3 agency, and by Mobile Loaves and Fishes Foundation. The billboards featured the declaration: “I am Danny. I am homeless. I am here,” along with a number to which drivers could text $10 to donate. Each text would contribute toward a home for Danny and his wife.

The house would be a park model that is offered as a part MLF’s “Habitat on Wheels” program. This billboard campaign also directs people to visit www.iamheremlf.org, in order to help other men and woman living on the streets to move into homes.

For every 1,200 texts, one mobile home can be purchased. Currently, both Danny and Maggie are both off of the streets and staying in a hotel until their home is ready for them to move into it.

Websites of interest:

http://www.mlfnow.org/site/PageServer

http://t-3.com/news/press_releases/i-am-here

http://www.good.is/post/i-am-here-billboards-against-homelessness/

Boycott Arizona?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Laura Bush is OK with Gay Marriage and Abortion?

Nikki Lorenzini

Recently Laura Bush did an interview with Larry King while publicizing her new book, Spoken From the Heart. During the interview she stated that she is now supports gay marriage and is pro-choice on abortion, both of which policies her husband opposed during his presidency. I think that it is ironic that she is finally coming out with her different stances now she has a new book, and not while George W. was in office.

I am really questioning whether these are her real viewpoints and instead of statements made only for publicity's sake. With her stance on gay marriage, she said, “I think that we ought to definitely look at it and debate it. I think there are a lot of people who have trouble coming to terms with that because they see marriage as traditionally between a man and a woman, but I also know that when couples are committed to each other and love each other that they ought to have the same sort of rights that everyone has.”

I feel that this topic has already been debated, has been debated since her husband has been in office, so I am not sure where she has been. My real question is: if she felt this way when W. was in in office, and if she is so passionate about it, why did she not take a stand during the 8 years she was in the White House? I might not particularly agree with Gay Marriage, but I sure do believe that people need to take a stand for what they believe in. She could have dramatically affected people’s lives if she had.

Now with her stance on abortion, I totally understand. I am not pro-choice, and I really haven’t come to terms yet with how I feel about abortions in medical situations when the lives of both mother and child are in danger. Bush said she did not want Roe v. Wade to be overturned -- "and I think it's important that it remain legal, because I think its important for people for medical reasons and other reasons."

Now, I do not know what her “other reasons” might entail. But I do know that there are two parts that came out of Roe v. Wade: That the right to abortion is determined by the stage of pregnancy, and states cannot prohibit it before viability, which is 28 weeks. The second part is where Bush is having her hang-up: the state cannot prohibit the abortion if it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother when used the appropriate medical judgment. Again, I am not sure why Bush couldn’t stand up for this cause when her husband was still in office.

I wonder if she knows how many people actually try to take a stand regarding this issue, and would loved for her to have taken a stand. Why should she feel like she has to sit quietly just so her husband’s policies wouldn’t have been challenged? Does she know that people mocked his decisions frequently?

Even if she did not do it publicly, I am sure she seen him daily, and could have pleaded her case behind closed doors. I just think that it is ironic that she has a point of view now that she has a book to sell.

Links of interest:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/13/laura-bush-gay-marriage-s_n_574731.html

Recycling: the Good, the Bad, and the Struggling

David Loftus

For the past month, our neighbors have been paying for some of our necessities. Sometimes it’s deodorant or shampoo, sometimes it’s half-and-half or eggs. More often, because we buy them most regularly, it’s cat food and kitty litter. I didn’t ask the other people in the building for their financial assistance; they don’t even know they’re providing it. But it is their money, all the same.

Far from a tale of good neighborliness (or theft), this is a story of how good public policy and “green” legislation have ended up (once again) benefiting business, due either to citizen unawareness or simply our laziness; and how I took a little time to skim from the middlemen. But to understand the process, we must follow the trail from the recycling room on my floor through the intermediate steps to the goods paid for by my neighbors -- not to mention the money trail before and after.

The State of Oregon was the first in the U.S. to pass a Bottle Bill, ’way back in 1971, when I was starting the seventh grade. Vermont had passed a law in the mid 1950s that banned non-returnable bottles but the beer industry killed that after just a few years; British Columbia passed a beverage deposit law in 1970; but Oregon’s was the first in the nation to pass and stick.

The law requires all cans, bottles, and other containers of carbonated soft drinks and beer -- glass, plastic, and aluminum -- sold in Oregon to be returnable for a minimum deposit (usually 5 cents each). In 2009, the law was extended to bottled water containers as well. About 90 percent of all the containers sold get recycled in Oregon, as opposed to an average of 28 percent in states that do not have such legislation.

This law has been credited with reducing roadside litter and increased recycling. Materials that used to create 40 percent of litter now make up only 6 percent. We are so used to this set-up in Oregon that it’s surprising to be reminded that only 10 other states (Vermont, Maine, Michigan, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York, Delaware, California, and Hawaii) have similar laws in place. Only Maine, California, and Hawaii also include bottled water containers.

Hundreds of people buy six-packs, twelve-packs, and “suitcases” of beer and soda and water at the supermarket on the ground floor of my apartment building every day. They have to pay a five-cent deposit on every single container at the cash register. The store passes all that deposit money on to the distributor who brings in those drinks by the case and pallet-load. Those five-cents-per-container deposits have to add up.

Back in mid April, while pouring trash paper in the bin at the recycling room on my floor our apartment building, I was struck by how many redeemable aluminum cans were in the bin, and glass beer bottles in the next one over. My neighbors who had drunk the contents of those containers could get that deposit money back just downstairs -- there’s a bank of bottle recycling machines at ground level, just around the corner -- but they weren’t doing it.

How many containers, how much money, could I amass if I scrounged them out of the recycling bins on all six inhabited floors of my building? Could I collect a hundred dollars from my neighbors by the end of the year? I decided to give it a try.

Read part 2, into the recycling bins

Read part 3, the loading dock

Nashville Flooding

By Jeff Weiss

There have been a lot of breaking news stories in the last few weeks, and a lot of it happened on or around the same time. There was an attempted terrorist attack in Times Square, the fallout of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the city of Nashville experienced a flood of Biblical proportions. I'm sure just about everyone has heard about the bomb scare in Times Square, and the news media has covered the oil spill so much that it seems as though they have spent at least one minute of air time devoted to every drop of oil that has spilled. But, what about the story of incredible tragedy and heartbreak in Nashville? It was covered on the news, but not as heavily as the other stories.

I'm not quite sure of the reason the Nashville flood didn't make headlines, but for those who may have heard about it but didn't get all of the details – here are a few bullet points:

* Nashville received 28% of its annual rainfall in two days between May 1st and 2nd.
* The Cumberland River 13 feet above flood stage.
* The estimated damage is at least $1.5 billion dollars (not including bridges and roads)
* 34 people lost their lives as a result of the flood

While local Tennessee television stations went live with wall-to-wall coverage of the disaster, the flood took a backseat on the major American television news programs, as the Times Square bomber and BP's Gulf Coast oil spill took center stage. Just when things started to quiet down about those others stories, coverage of the Nashville flood started to pick up – until the stock market tanked, and that became the story of the day.

Now, I understand that breaking news is urgent, and some stories will take priority over others. However, when human lives are in the balance – and our own neighbors and fellow citizens are suffering – that's when our country should come together to help. The easiest way to come together in this day and age in through information spread through television and the internet. In 2004, a telethon was organized for the victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami within days of the tragedy. A year later, another telethon was organized within days of Hurricane Katrina's destructive hit to the Gulf Coast. Earlier this year, the same thing happened after the earthquake in Haiti. Those telethons were aired simultaneously on every major television network and cable channel in America. I understand that the flooding in Nashville is not as catastrophic as the tsunami, the earthquake in Haiti, or Hurricane Katrina, but it is nonetheless a devastating American disaster. On May 16, there will be a telethon to aid the victims of the flooding in Nashville. It will air on The Great American Country Television cable channel, a channel I admit I've never heard of and doubt I have access to view. Additionally, Faith Hill & Tim McGraw are doing a concert for flood relief in June.

Will you help our neighbors in Tennessee? You can start by logging into The Community Foundation of Middle Tennessee's website, Second Harvest, or the American Red Cross and make a donation. Then, ask a friend to do the same.

All About Kagan

by Ryan John

It’s ironic that the policy Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan publicly refuted at Harvard will be the same concept that will get her elected to the highest court in the next couple of months. The Kagan nomination from President Obama creates an interesting dilemma. Biden set the tone when he supported Obama’s choice Tuesday while regurgitating the same talking points about Kagan she has during her career. But regarding her sexuality, I think Kagan is simply not telling, because nobody is asking. I think she has been a very strategic lesbian academic with political ambition who didn’t make her sexual orientation known because of its potential to be used against her.

I’m pretty convinced she is a closeted lesbian, but I don’t doubt that she supports the military.  It’s the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that had her so fired up at Harvard. I still think that a truly patriotic person wouldn’t sacrifice military recruits just to show her disapproval with “don’t ask, don’t tell.”  But hopefully that will be brought up at the hearings.

This leads me to question whether her sexual orientation should continue to be the non-issue it has been. We’re sure she is going to be super supportive of any gay legislation that comes up, but will she ever announce a girlfriend in the years to come? If so, by that time she’ll be on the Supreme Court for life. But will it be worthy of criticism then because of her lack of disclosure during her hearings in 2010? My guess is she’ll skate around that issue by saying, “well, I was never asked so therefore I didn’t lie.” By that time everyone will be too busy touting the historical significance of the first gay judge to sit on the highest court.

Then, I believe we’ll see a true victory for the gay and lesbian movement as democratic politicians reap the benefits from the typically financially well-off homosexual base. I mean geez, in Philadelphia one representative was “outed straight” by the lesbian incumbent who accused the young single guy trying to represent a predominately gay section of the city, of only saying he was a bisexual to win over the gay vote. Should Kagan’s sexual orientation be questioned during her confirmation?  Yes. But it would have to be done by a Senator ready to commit political suicide.

WE'RE BACK!

David Loftus

As Stan Freburg once said, we have received [ahem] many card and letter begging us to revive American Currents . . . to say nothing of countless phone call -- mainly from the same visitor, me . . . that we have decided to resuscitate the blog and put it on the Internet version of life support.

Seriously, several of our longtime commentators were interested in continuing to discuss the contemporary scene, but it would have to be on a somewhat looser basis. We will no longer -- or perhaps but rarely -- have several commentators address the same issue or piece of breaking news.

Subjects will probably be more free-ranging: we'll choose our own topics, and there will likely be a little more personal content than you have seen in the past, but we'll try to keep an eye on Jeff Weiss's original concept of a site that addresses the current American scene, whether in its political, cultural, economic, or social aspects. None of us wants to see a series of extended Facebook status updates or even FB notes pages.

Since we probably won't be cranking out quite as much copy on a daily basis, we're also willing to entertain the occasional guest essay, if it measures up to our (admittedly less than stringent) criteria of a modicum of thoughtfulness, relevance, and decent written English.

Send your proposals or finished pieces to me here, and I'll reserve the right to edit or clean them up, or reject them outright, if I see fit.

Goodbye

This is the last entry of American Currents. Instead of discussing politics or news headlines, we'd like to take this time to say goodbye and thank you to all of our readers.


Jeff Weiss
Last fall I decided to write a blog. Then I realized that I don't live a particularly exciting life and therefore I probably wouldn't write a particularly exciting blog. Because I keep up with current events and usually have an opinion just about everything, I thought perhaps a current events blog might be interesting. Then I thought, “Why would anyone care about my opinion on current events?” It was then that I came up with the idea of getting the opinions of several people from across the country about a different topic each day. That is when American Currents was born.

It's been a (mostly) fun six months since we first began putting together the pieces of the site. Thirteen bloggers have contributed at different times throughout the months; six of them have been around since the beginning.

So, to all who contributed their well written words and to all who took the time to read those words, I thank you!


David Loftus
Though I had doubts at the outset that this would last or go anywhere, I’m sorry to see “American Currents” come to an end. Even finding myself sweating out a quick handful of paragraphs after midnight (following a play rehearsal, say), I enjoyed it. Having to check behind the headlines and write something thoughtful nearly every night was a wonderful exercise in self-discipline -- sort of a cross between writing calisthenics and a kind of social prayer.

Having been a sometime columnist before (for a daily newspaper in a small Oregon town back in the late 1980s), I knew that a typical theme of my pieces would have to be: “it ain’t necessarily so.” Anyone who writes on a regular basis, especially on topical subjects or breaking news, will inevitably come to that refrain, because too many citizens (not to mention politicians!) rush to have an opinion -- no matter where or how they derive it -- before bothering to obtain the solid factual background on an issue.

A decent commentator should at least be sharp enough to see the holes in a developing story, if not offer a few alternative explanations for what might seem obvious … and usually does, to most people. Breaking news is too often another form of gossip, or at least an excuse for it, because it’s easier to bellyache about “those Muslims,” or “those right-wingers,” or “big government,” or “illegal immigrants,” or a thousand other boogey-men, than ponder the complex and sticky issues that truly govern our daily lives.

I don’t think I’ll be writing about breaking news on a regular basis again for a while, but if you’re interested in following my activities, watch my acting demo reel on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI22qjrRjN4

Read my in-depth book reviews at the California Literary Review:

http://calitreview.com/author/david_loftus

Go to the British Web site “Book Drum” to see my in-depth profiles of Ray Bradbury’s Something Wicked This Way Comes:

http://www.bookdrum.com/books/something-wicked-this-way-comes/9780575083066/index.html

and Milan Kundera’s The Unbearable Lightness of Being:

http://www.bookdrum.com/books/the-unbearable-lightness-of-being/9780060932138/index.html

Sometimes I even remember to update my own Web site:

www.david-loftus.com

Or if you want to be a Facebook Friend, drop me an e-mail and let me know how to link up with you.


Austin Lee
A Haiku:

A place to opine
On current national news
My dream had come true.


Shaun Hautly
It's sad to see a project like this come to a close. I own my own business and started it in the heat of a recession, and while it's amazing to have such freedom to start companies and projects in this country, it's also heartbreaking that no matter how noble a cause or good a product is, there's no guarantee of success. American Currents was (is?) a dedicated group of writers and thinkers who gave unique insight and reflection on hot topics in America. However, even with the drive and passion of all of us volunteers, the project did not succeed like we needed it to succeed.
It's been a fast 6 months, and a lot of pieces have been written by all of us. Sometimes under quick deadlines, and trying to balance writing with our jobs and careers. I will miss writing with these people. If you liked what I wrote and are interested in more, please check out my personal website: http://colonelshaun.com

Bye!


Nikki Lorenzini
I just want to thank everyone who came and read. Its been a great run, and I hope our paths cross again in the blog future!

Hawking Advises Against Alien Contact

If E.T. Ccalls, don't pick up. That's the advice from famed physicist Stephen Hawking. Hawking believes that life most certainly exists on other planets, but most likely consists of small microbes of animals. However, Hawking says in his new Discovery series “Into the Universe” that if intelligent life is exploring space, they are most likely nomads seeking to conquer and colonize.

Hawking compares this to Columbus' discovery of America, which he states, “didn't turn out very well for the Native Americans.”

Do you believe in Hawking's theories about life on other planets? Do you think we will ever make contact with aliens?

Nikki Lorenzini
I really do not believe in aliens. My theory is, if aliens do exist, why haven't we come in contact with them before? If they are like nomads, why haven't they already plopped themselves onto our planet already? And what makes us so important that they would colonize here, on earth. There are still 8 other planets that they can conquer and colonize. What makes us think that we're that great that they just have to colonize us now?

Also, he's saying that they will be small microbes of animals. So, what makes us think that they are not have not come in contact them already, and categorized them under some new species that we just discovered. If aliens are real, how would we really know what they look like? For all we know, they can be a new form of caterpillar they discover in some remote island off of Australia in a year or two.

I would like to see Hawking spend some time studying something more substantial, like how to save the planet from ourselves than from an impending doom of aliens that we have yet still to discover.

David Loftus
A little exposure to the mind-bogglingly massive numbers of galaxies and stars out there (and therefore, logically speaking, planets as well), and the similarly mind-boggling amount of time most of them have been in existence, should convince anyone that the odds of there being other life in the universe are so big that it’s more of a certainty than a question for debate. Why haven’t we heard from it?

If I may respond to the questions raised by Ms. Lorenzini, to ask why aliens have not contacted us before is perhaps not to consider (for one thing) the forbidding logistical challenges of space travel (tremendous distances, versus the amount of fuel and probably breathable atmosphere one must bring along), and (for another) the minuscule amount of time we inhabit and take for granted as being “the whole picture.” We are as mayflies, who live but a few minutes to a few days (looking them up on Wikipedia, I am charmed to learn their taxonomic Order is “Ephemeroptera”), wondering why Plato hasn’t called us on the phone. Perhaps aliens are on their way toward Earth, and have been for centuries, but they have a lot of ground (err, space) to cover and our planet is so tiny, such a dust speck on the vast canvas of the universe, that it will take them an unimaginable amount of time to get here, and they may just miss us (or may have already). Another possibility is that those forbidding distances and logistics tend to heighten the chances that life on other heavenly bodies tends to stay where it is until either its own mistakes or planetary cataclysm destroy it and make room for another iteration of life (as may happen to homo sapiens). In any case, we’re more likely to hear from them, sending electromagnetic messages across that great vastness, just the way we are with SETI (the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence project).

My suspicion is that in raising the issue, Hawking was mainly trying to start a little controversy among his colleagues and the relatively small circle of fans of his work and cosmology in general; and to remind everybody that he’s still alive and kicking -- no small matter, since he’s been thinking, writing, and living for decades with a neuro-muscular dystrophy related to ALS that has left him nearly entirely paralyzed. If I may toot my own horn in a small way, one of my favorite writers, Harlan Ellison, was commissioned by National Public Radio in 1994 to write a holiday story, and he composed a futuristic Chanukah tale called “Go Toward the Light” about a scientist who uses time travel to go back to the Maccabean Revolt (2nd century BCE in Jerusalem), when a mere 10,000 Jews out-fought 60,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry under the Syrian king Antiochus; and the men from the future are basically responsible for the “miracle of the oil” that inspires the menorah lighting of the Chanukah holiday. I had the chance to proof-read and fact-check the story before it was published in book form, in the collection titled Slippage, and I objected to a passing reference to a still-active Stephen Hawking in a story that clearly is set well into the 21st century. So in the version printed in the 1997 story collection, Ellison inserted a reference to a scientific advancement that has Hawking still going strong. Maybe not as cool as first contact with aliens -- or the fact that Hawking is still doing his thing today on his own steam -- but I was kind of pleased.

Arizona Immigration Law Controversy

Last week Arizona's Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed into state law the nation's toughest sanctions against illegal border crossings, which caused protests across the country along with harsh words from President Obama.

The new law makes it a crime to be in Arizona illegally, and requires police to question people about their status if they suspect they may be illegal immigrants. Supporters of the law say it will help stop illegal immigrants from entering Arizona.  Critics of the law say it will encourage racial profiling and may lead to hate crimes. President Obama has called the law “misguided” and called for lawmakers to work on immigration reform.

What do you think about Arizona's new immigration law?

Scott Hinkley:
I think Arizona's new immigration law is despicable. I am certain that many of the families who condemn the latest migrant population are the same families who exploited past populations rather than extending those job opportunities to the American citizens they now seem so concerned about protecting. I think that this ignorant law has its roots and strength married to the long-tired notion of white-entitlement. I have listened to too many complaints about how the Irish and the Italians had to make it as legal immigrants and struggle without help, but wasn't it the treatment of those waves of immigrants what sparked labor movements, not to mention the extensive help they received during the Great Depression?

I am all in favor of boycotting Arizona and it's products. I think America has become so vast and isolated in it's local politics that it is very important that States choosing adopt radically regressive policies feel the sting of our disapproval. Don't call it un-American just because you are too stupid or lazy to learn another language or share your civil liberties. If you made as little money as illegals do, you would demand tax exemption anyway.

Nikki Lorenzini
I have so many mixed emotions about this that I don't know where to start. I understand why people would want to come to the U.S. There is more opportunity here than there is in other countries. They can get fed, have a place to stay, get health care, the whole nine yards. They also know that even if they do it the illegal way, people will still help them out and give them jobs. I understand that we have it fairly easy here.

Everyone knows the saying, “one bad apple can ruin the whole barrel.” That is what is happening here. I am sure that there are plenty of immigrants that are coming here legally; filling out the proper paperwork and doing everything legitimately. I know that there are a lot of immigrants in my grandmother's apartment complex who are doing things the right way, and know more about their benefits and rights than someone who was born here. So why would I want someone here doing things illegally, stealing our money, stealing our resources, and leave us high and dry?

Yes, I am sure that this law will help with racial profiling, but don't blame the law for racial profiling. It has been going on for years, this law has only given the state a reason to do it legally. Is it right? No. Do I agree with racial profiling? No. I am sure that there is an easier way for Arizona to crack down on their immigration laws. Yes, they are misguided in their approach, but I do not have an answer on how to fix it.

David Loftus
The law is redundant and (unless Arizona plans to kick in considerably more funding for the U.S. Border Patrol or beef up its own state police) nearly useless as state policy. I doubt it’s going to make potential illegal immigrants pause about coming over the border; the only change will be that they’ll try to get across the state faster. I would contend that its only real effect -- and possibly the true, subconscious reason Arizonans wanted it passed -- was to give existing law enforcement officers more reason to hassle anyone who looks vaguely Hispanic.

Racial profiling is already a fact of life, I’m sure -- perhaps no more in Arizona than in any other state. As for hate crimes, I don’t think the perpetrators of such offenses are the type to take their cues from state legislation. Arizona is already feeling the heat: as of Tuesday, six groups have canceled meeting or convention plans in the state, and more calls for a boycott are coming in. The Obama administration is looking into challenging the law in court on constitutional grounds, and even a supporter of the restrictions, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, admitted that “good people in Arizona are so afraid of an uncontrolled border that they passed a law that I think is unconstitutional.”

Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City who helped Arizona draft the legislation, defended its constitutionality by saying, “the bill will withstand any preemptive challenge” because it reinforces existing federal immigration laws and creates no new immigration crimes. Well, which is it? Either it does something new that Arizona thought necessary, and therefore merits close legal scrutiny and possibly the outcry that has greeted it; or it does nothing new and therefore is little more than a political sop to the state’s white voters. In any case, Arizona has a long history of being the opposite of progressive: many have mentioned its opposition to the Martin Luther King holiday for three years after the rest of the country had adopted it, but few have recalled its bitter fight against the Equal Rights Amendment in the early 1980s. I think the state is in the process of falling flat on its face again.

Man Arrested for Encouraging and Assisting Suicide over the Internet

A Minnesota man was charged last week for helping two people commit suicide – via the internet. William Melchert-Dinkel, 47, a former nurse, is facing two felony counts of aiding suicide under a rarely used state law that could prove difficult to prosecute.

Police say Melchert-Dinkel logged into suicide chat rooms posing as a female nurse for the purpose of assisting people to commit suicide. However, the accused did not physically harm his alleged victims, but instead encouraged them and offered instructions as to how to end their lives. In fact the two victims did not live in the United States; one was from Canada and the other was from the United Kingdom.

Should a person who encouraged and offered instructions to commit suicide be held responsible for the deaths of those he assisted?

Jeff Weiss
I absolutely believe that a person who encourages and gives directions to a suicidal person that leads to that person's death should be held accountable for their actions. First and foremost, rational people are not suicidal – and if someone encounters an unstable person who wishes to harm his or herself, they should try to seek help in preventing the person from committing suicide – not to offer assistance in ending their life.

Another thing that I find shocking is how easy it is for unstable people who wish to harm themselves to find other people with the same tendencies in chat rooms. A simple Google search of “suicide chat” will bring up several chat rooms – not for talking people out of harming themselves, but for people to get together to chat about ways to off themselves. We live in a society that is already violent enough due to outside influences. We as a society need to do more to get help for misguided people who want to hurt themselves.

David Loftus
Wow. This presents a quandary. On the one hand, it’s more amazing evidence of how awful people can behave, based on the promptings of their amoral curiosity; but on the other, it’s hard to find a solid legal basis on which to punish this man for his wretched actions, without eroding the freedom of speech.

It’s not just that Mr. Melchert-Dinkel posed as a young female nurse, sometimes calling himself Li Dao, sometimes Falcon Girl or Carni D; it’s that he pretended to be contemplating suicide himself, and made pacts with other people in which both pledged to hang themselves in front of webcams and watch each other die. Of course, Li Dao’s webcam always seemed to malfunction, leaving Melchert-Dinkel free to watch the other person do away with him- or herself. He might never have been caught if a 64-year-old British woman named Celia Bray hadn’t become concerned about a teenage friend who told her about an online suicide pact with a female nurse. Bray and another friend, Kat Lowe, secretly gathered information and tracked Melchert-Dinkel down to his home in St. Paul, Minnesota. Neither British police nor the FBI showed any interest in the matter, but Minnesota police finally followed it up and arrested the man, who prosecutors say may have encouraged at least five people to kill themselves.

I’m not sure he can be held responsible for these deaths. The deceased persons might well have ended up killing themselves anyway, one way or another. I’m not sure there’s a firm legal basis to charge or convict him of anything, particularly since he acted across national borders via the Internet. He should be prosecuted anyway, even if it’s a losing proposition, because bringing what he’s done out into the light of day might be enough to shame him into stopping. People will certainly be more aware of him in the future. The solution here seems to be to deny him any further access to the Web. It seems to me that ISPs and other Web-based services, being private companies, can refuse service to anyone; maybe they can keep him from poking his despicable mind into other people’s tender psyches.

Sleeping Disorder Could Send Husband to Jail

Randi Kearns is used to being awakened in her sleep because her young son suffers from night terrors. However, on February 20 Mrs. Kearns woke up to something else – her husband Adam punching her. After Adam Kerns struck his wife in the face three times, he promptly rolled over and went back to sleep. Mrs. Kearns was taken to a hospital by paramedics after calling 911, and Adam Kearns was charged with assault. A judge has ordered the couple to live apart under a no contact order.
Randi Kearns insists that her husband is not a violent man, and does not want to raise her three children alone. Adam Kearns says he has no memory of assaulting his wife of ten years because he has an REM sleeping disorder which makes him act out his dreams.

Should a judge be able to force a husband and wife to have no contact with each other when there is the possibility of future violence occurring, or should the family be able to live together?

Shaun Hautly
I think in most cases where restraining orders are issued, the protected person is quite relieved to have the protection. However, in this case it seems that a judge has issued the sentence much to the dismay of both parties involved. If I am imagining this case like all others, there is a prosecutor and a defendant. The father is clearly the defendant, but who is prosecuting here? Who wants, so badly, to keep these people apart? If they were kids, if this was a routine occurrence, if the mother was afraid, if he had a history of violence, if he was hurting the children as well, then by all means, sentence him. However, the wife wants him back, he wants back, it just begs the question: who wants these people apart so bad?

It seems like the legal system should withdraw their sentence. The doctors, wives, and general public seem to side with this level-headed couple. Unless we hear a convincing case from someone who wants these people apart, then I don't see a need to enforce such a lose-lose situation for this family. Obviously the court has the authority to separate two people, but it seems like if they're not unhappy together than it's a little silly. This case is slightly more serious than my closing example, but if your bed-mate snores, and you can deal with it, then no one should come between you.

Jeff Weiss
I can actually see both sides in this situation. The couple has been married for ten years and have had no prior issues of domestic violence, and they raising small children together. They want to get past this one-time incident and move on with their lives. The judge, however, has a responsibility to maintain the law and there is no saying that if Mr. Kearns suffers from a sleeping disorder that causes him to act out his dreams, he may very well dream about taking on Mike Tyson tomorrow night. And then what?

If the Kearns are allowed to live together until the matter is settled and Mr. Kearns happened to have another sleep-punching incident that inflicted harm (or worse) upon his wife, just imagine the lawsuit that would follow. While I am sympathetic toward the family during this time, I can't say that I don't disagree with the judge. Let's just hope there is a speedy resolution to the case and Mr. Kearns finds medical assistance for his sleeping disorder.