"Attempting to Incite Insurection" Part I

Attempting to Incite Insurrection:

How the trial of Angelo Herndon ended the use of

slave law to suppress the spread of ideas.

In the documenting of Georgia's history, much has been said about the plight of African Americans. Before and after slavery, during and after reconstruction, through Jim Crow and segregation, and on into the Civil Rights movement and the modern subculture, we are inundated with information on the experiences of black men and women. Much have we learned of how vague laws have been used to arrest and imprison activists, writers, and protesters, prevent them from voting, holding office, pursuing legal action. How courts and authorities have upheld, even on the flimsiest of evidence, verdicts which were obviously incorrect, and how when courts did give into reason, mob rule reacted with lynchings and murder. But we have not learned so much, nor are we confronted so much in the present, with the way these same methods were simultaneously used to arbitrarily persecute, not on the basis of skin color, but on the basis of political ideology. We are not so often told of the use of vague law and high handed authoritarianism against the communists of the early 20^th century. Possibly because communism never took a strong hold in Georgia, this part of our history is mostly forgotten, but it does exist. So we should think now, what must it have been like in 1930s Georgia to be a black activist, fighting for racial equality, but also to be an open communist, fighting for class equality? Would the persecution be two-fold, and would the same nefarious methods apply? The case of Angelo Herndon is a shining, but sometimes overlooked, example, with national implications.

On April 26, 1937, in a case titled Herndon v. Lowry, the U.S. Supreme Court decided by a slim five to four majority, with the four ardently dissenting, to strike down a Georgia law which had been originated as a means to suppress slave revolt after Nat Turner's rebellion,¹ had been modified to counter insurrection during reconstruction, and was then being used as a means of suppressing class unrest and communist activism.² The law was one against “attempting to incite insurrection,” a vague notion which was utilized to imprison radical leaders and activists during the great depression of the 1930s, and which carried a maximum sentence of death.³ It said, “Insurrection shall consist in any combined resistance to the lawful authority of the State, with intent to the denial thereof, when the same is manifested or intended to be manifested by acts of violence.”⁴

By striking down the law, the Supreme Court put forth that a person cannot be charged for unforeseen actions which may be brought about by their words, that one cannot be tried for what is said, only what is done, while pointing out that “. . . the section forbids no specific or definite act . . . It leaves open, therefore, the widest conceivable inquiry, the scope of which no one can foresee and the result of which no one can foreshadow or adequately guard against.”⁵

The plaintiff was Angelo Herndon, a nineteen year old African American from Ohio who had days earlier participated in a march on the Fulton County Courthouse in Atlanta, demanding a resumption of recently suspended relief payments, much needed at this point in the Depression. Authorities believed the march was incited by communist organizers, arresting Herndon after a sweep of known communists, and charged him with “attempting to incite insurrection.”⁶ Herndon's case was extraordinary for several reasons, eventually drawing national attention, and was rife with inconsistencies. For one, the attempt to overthrow the Georgia state government, which he was eventually indicted with, was listed as being on July 16, 1932, five days after his arrest date of July 11.⁷ Indeed, at his original trial, it was the final opinion of the court that for him to be found guilty, “. . . it would be sufficient that he intended it (the combined and forcible resistance) to happen at any time.”⁸ Meaning that even if he were not making plans to the effect, he should be charged for hoping that such might occur, at “any time.”

The case serves a perfect example of how authorities in Georgia at the time could arbitrarily arrest any activist based on skin tone or political slant, or in this case both, with impunity through vaguely worded laws. To remove someone like Herndon, a man both black and communist, from the situation, all that was required was to accuse him of having made statements which could be construed as encouraging resistance to authority.⁹ Possession of literature promoting communism was also labeled illegal by the Georgia Penal Code, it being stated, “If any person shall bring, introduce, print, or circulate, or cause to be introduced, circulated, or printed, or aid or assist, or be in any manner instrumental in bringing, introducing, circulating, or printing within this State any paper, pamphlet, circular, or any writing, for the purpose of inciting insurrection, riot, conspiracy, or resistance against the lawful authority of the State.”¹⁰

These charges fell on Herndon as well, showing that by planning, intent, or even by sympathy with actions against the state government, one could be charged, as well as for owning literature which espoused an alternative political system. In essence, the charges blatantly contradicted the idea of free speech, as the Supreme Court would see, five years later, after much national attention.

2. 1Kuhn, Clifford M., others, Living Atlanta, An Oral History of the City 1914-1948, University of Georgia Press, 1990, 206

2. 2Hatfield, Edward A., "Angelo Herndon Case," New Georgia Encyclopedia. Retrieved [11/15/2009]: http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org.

1. 3“Any person convicted of the offense of insurrection, or an attempt to incite insurrection, shall be punished with death; or, if the jury recommend to mercy, confinement in the penitentiary for not less than five nor more than 20 years.” Georgia Code, 26-903, 1933, quoted in U.S. Supreme Court, Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, 1937, http://laws.findlaw.com/us/301/242.html

2. 4Georgia Code, 26-901, 1933, quoted in U.S. Supreme Court, Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, 1937, http://laws.findlaw.com/us/301/242.html

2. 5U.S. Supreme Court, Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, 1937, http://laws.findlaw.com/us/301/242.html

2. 6Hatfield, Edward A., "Communists," New Georgia Encyclopedia. Retrieved [11/15/2009]: http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org.

2. 7Moore, John Hammond, “The Angelo Herndon Case 1932-1937,” Phylon (1960-), Vol. 32, No. 1 (1st Qtr., 1971) 1932-1937: 60, http://www.jstor.org/stable/273598

2. 8U.S. Supreme Court, Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, 1937, http://laws.findlaw.com/us/301/242.html

2. 9“Any attempt, by persuasion or otherwise, to induce others to join in any combined resistance to the lawful authority of the State shall constitute an attempt to incite insurrection.” Georgia Code, 26-902, 1933, quoted in U.S. Supreme Court, Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, 1937, http://laws.findlaw.com/us/301/242.html

2. 10Georgia Penal Code, 26-904, 1933, quoted in U.S. Supreme Court, Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, 1937, http://laws.findlaw.com/us/301/242.html

Views On American Education Pt. 2

School is a tool used to build conformity. Simply put, this explains it in its entirety.

To the question, what brought enforced schooling about, the simple answer is industrialization. It is cheaper to build square holes than round ones, but some people are round, and some square, so the solution is to create a system to build square people, and at the same time put it under the auspices of "bettering" said people, so that no one can abolish the system, though they may criticize its particulars.

To those who are under the impression that school was created, or is perpetuated as a means to better people, to educate them, and that creating conformity is merely a pleasant side effect, this is a flawed view of the situation. The intended order is reversed. School was created as a means of building conformity and any "education," (whatever that arbitrary word might mean) that goes on is a side effect.

Industrialization needs conformity and compulsory schooling fills that role. Secondary schooling plays the role of weeding out those who are not dedicated to the system, or competent enough to fill the command positions. This has always been the case, but in the last century we have seen the construction of the consumerist system, which drove the extension of schooling over the lifetime. Children were continuously pulled into school at younger and younger ages and kept in school later and later in life, so that they may continue to be consumers while staying off of the job market.

Now, instead of a system teaching rudimentary education and religious ideas for a few winters in a child's life, we have a monstrosity that takes up to 14 years from a human being's development. And for what? In the words of Daniel Quinn,

“In societies you consider primitive, youngsters ‘graduate’ from childhood at age thirteen or fourteen, and by this age have basically learned all they need in order to function as adults in their community. They’ve learned so much, in fact, that if the rest of the community were simply to vanish overnight, they’d be able to survive without the least difficulty. They’d know how to make the tools needed for hunting and fishing. They’d know how to shelter and clothe themselves. At age thirteen or fourteen, their survival value is one hundred percent.”

The differences between this idea and that of modern schooling are glaringly obvious, and disturbing. Further to those who argue that school develops humans socially, the rates of substance abuse, depression, insanity, suicide, and murder in this country should serve as ample evidence to the contrary.

All this being said, it is not that all those working within this system are bad people, nor are they mindless automatons helping to churn out more mindless automatons. They are genuinely striving to do good as they see it, and since they are products of this same system their ideas of good tend to coincide with that system.

There are good and helpful teachers who help children grow socially and intellectually, but for every one who comforts a child from a broken home, or suggests a book like "A People's History of the United States," there is one who further traumatizes a child by making him feel inferior, or suggests students to to church on Sunday.

The American system of compulsory, standardized schooling serves a purpose, that of creating conformity. This was its original impetus for being, and it has been its driving force forever after, though it is portrayed in varying lights. At this point the system is a type of ogre which will probably never be brought down, but one which does have its advantages to all sides concerned. To say that "school" is inherently bad would be to grossly over simplify the issue, but it must be pointed out that it is rife with flaws in its very basic principles and has been since its beginning.

Views on American Education Pt. 1

"…there shall be compulsory education, as the saying is, of all and sundry, as far this is possible; and the pupils shall be regarded as belonging to the state rather than to their parents."
Plato (Greek philosopher), The Laws, 4th Century B.C.

The idea of compulsory, publicly funded education originated, as so many other American ideas, with the Greeks, but it has continuously been influenced, molded, and enforced by religious, governmental, and industrial forces throughout the history of the American Colonies, and the United States that came after. Originally proposed by the Puritans in Massachusetts, and further endorsed by industrial oligarchies through the ages, today it controls the lives of all people within the nation's borders from the ages of five to eighteen, by force and law. To fully understand our modern educational system, it is crucial to attempt to understand the origins and evolution of its governing ideas. Here I put forth a brief history of compulsory education in North America:

Compulsory Education in America was first enacted by law in the state of Massachusetts in 1642, and required that parents teach their children the principles of religion and the laws of the commonwealth. It specifically stated that all parents were obligated by law to teach their children to read and write, though no government provisions were made for such.

The first tax-funded, government supervised schooling came with the Law of 1647, also called the “Old Deluder Satan Act.” So called because of its wording, which began:

“It being one chiefe project of ye old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of ye Scriptures, as in former times by keeping him in an unknown tongue, so in these latter times by persuading from ye use of tongues, so at least ye true since & meaning of ye original might be clouded by false glosses of saint seeming deceivers, yet learning may not be buried in ye grave of or fathers in ye church and commonwealth, the Lord assisting or endeavors.”

It specified that any community of 50 households or more must have a schoolmaster who would teach children to read and write, and that any community of 100 or more households must have a Latin grammar instructor. The purpose of these instructors, and their teaching of literacy, was to enable the populace to read and better understand the bible and the commonwealth’s laws. This was its only purpose as laid down by the state government. This, however, was the original basis for all institutionalized American education systems to come in the next 400 years.

The next great influence on American education was the British author John Locke, who came up with the idea that all children started life as a “tabula rasa,” or blank slate, which must be filled. He advocated public schooling to help teach children a “good work ethic,” which would better help them function as workers.

In the 1730’s education was further influenced by Christian von Wolff, who originated the doctrine that the mind could best be developed through “mental discipline,” meaning tedious drill and repetition of basic skills. Later, Thomas Jefferson proposed a “two track educational system,” providing different schooling for “the laboring and the learned.” In 1787 the Constitutional Congress passed an ordinance which included: "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."

The first public high school was opened in 1821, and in 1837 Horace Mann campaigned for increased funding of public schools. By 1852 the first law enforcing mandatory attendance of schools was passed in Massachusetts, and by 1918, every state had such laws.

In 1913 Edward Lee Thorndike’s book, Educational Psychology: The Psychology of Learning, began to dominate American educational ideas. It put forth the theory that human learning involves habit formation, which is strengthened by repetition. Standardized tests entered American schools as an outgrowth of the First World War, as a means to screen potential soldiers, and in 1926 the SAT was first administered, itself a version of the “Alpha Army” test, which was developed to screen recruits.

After the launching of Sputnik by the Soviet Union, the National Defense Education Act was passed, which increased funding for scientific research ad science education, out of a perceived lack in the American populace.

In 1980 Ronald Reagan pledged to abolish the Department of Education, but instead it became a Cabinet level agency in the same year as his inauguration. There was a renewed “back to basics” movement though, which sought to realign schooling with the ideas of discipline and repetition.

In 1993, Massachusetts lead the nation again with laws requiring statewide common curriculums and tests, further enforcing the idea that all students should conform to a single teaching system. The idea of nationally standardized tests continued to gain ground from this point and was reinforced by the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002.

From reading between the lines of this history, one can come to several conclusions on the impetus and rationale of public education. Ralph Waldo Emerson, American thinker and transcendentalist of the 19th century, wrote in an essay on education and its institutionalized nature in Massachusetts:

"Therefore I praise New England because it is the country in the world where is the freest expenditure for education. ..., namely, that the poor man, whom the law does not allow to take an ear of corn when starving, nor a pair of shoes for his freezing feet, is allowed to put his hand into the pocket of the rich, and say, You shall educate me, not as you will, but as I will: not alone in the elements, but, by further provision, in the languages, in sciences, in the useful and in elegant arts. The child shall be taken up by the State, and taught, at the public cost, the rudiments of knowledge, and, at last, the ripest results of art and science.”

What Emerson puts forward is that public education is a kind of gift, a charity, of the wealthy classes, to the poor, which provides them the means to better themselves, but he also mentions, at the beginning of his essay that the wealthy refuse to give any man food when starving, or shelter when freezing, implying that rich are completely unwilling to provide any provision for the poor. At least any provision which would not in turn benefit themselves.

The law, as he says, provides no provisions for the cessation of starvation or poverty, but does for education. Why? Might it be that it does so, and from “the pocket of the rich,” because it benefits from the action? By teaching repetition, and work ethic, which benefit’s the students in their future industrial roles, and by teaching them the law so that they might better follow it, doe not the government and the industrial interests both benefit? The “gift of education” is no such thing then, but a system enforced by the powers that be to further enable the power they already hold. For this reason there has been opposition to public, compulsory schooling throughout its history, on the grounds of morality, personal liberty, and freedom of thought.

"I believe that school makes complete fools of our young men, because they see and hear nothing of ordinary life there."
Gaius Petronius (Roman philosopher), Satyr icon, Late 1st Century A.D.

“A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another: and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, a priesthood, an aristocracy, or the majority of the existing generation; in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body.”
John Stuart Mill (British philosopher and political theorist), 1859

“Take at hazard one hundred children of several educated generations and one hundred uneducated children of the people and compare them in anything you please; in strength, in agility, in mind, in the ability to acquire knowledge, even in morality--and in all respects you are startled by the vast superiority on the side of the children of the uneducated.”
Leo Tolstoy (Russian writer and philosopher), 1862

“That erroneous assumption is to the effect that the aim of public education is to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence, and so make them fit to discharge the duties of citizenship in an enlightened and independent manner. Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all, it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States, whatever the pretensions of politicians, pedagogues and other such mountebanks, and that is its aim everywhere else.”
H. L. Mencken (American journalist and essayist), 1925

"It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry... It is a very grave mistake to think that the enjoyment of seeing and searching can be promoted by means of coercion and a sense of duty."
Albert Einstein (Austrian-American physicist), 1951

"Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds."
Thurgood Marshall (U.S. Supreme Court Judge), 1969

Cicadas

Listen, I have a story to tell you about cicadas. I do not know if you have them were you live, so I will describe them. They are large insects which live and mature underground, dormant for years, but when it is their time, they come up from the earth and find a rough surface to cling to and climb out of their hard shells, in which they had lived underground, and cling there for hours while their wings, unfolded from within the shell, dry. They are by nature fragile creatures, as when they are in the ground, they are helpless, and can barely move, and when out of their shell and drying, are defenseless. But they are beautiful creatures in a wide range of colors, bright green early in life, leading to brown and dusky grey before their deaths. I have always had an incredible fascination with them, since I was a small child, searching for their intricate little shells, clinging to the sides of oak trees and barns. When I was young I had a wooden box full of the shells, and even now if I find one, I save it. When the cicadas dry after leaving their shells they mate, and as part of that, they sing. They sing loudly, and this time of year in the south they can seem deafening. It seems there are millions in the trees, and it is beautiful. It almost makes up for the heat and humidity of the season.

Today, I set out from my home, near dusk, on my bicycle, on the route I usually take for exercise--about six or seven miles. I ride to a point, turn around and come home. When I leave I am listening contently to the cicadas, a song I have heard all my life, every year, though it seems less now than when I was a child, I simply enjoy it. Less than a mile from my house, riding down a city street, I hear helicopters, coming in low towards me. They wash away all other sounds with their engines, loud raucous things, and it feels I am in a war movie, about to be gunned down, but these are not military helicopters. They are city helicopters, and they are marked "mosquito control." You see, in the southeastern United States, in the summer, it is very hot and muggy. The temperature is often over one hundred degrees Fahrenheit, and the humidity is very high as well, and so mosquitoes breed prolifically. That's where the city's "mosquito control" comes in.

The helicopters fly very low over the houses and businesses, back and forth, and as they fly they spray pesticides, chemicals to kill the mosquitoes. In a fine mist they fall, on everything, including me, riding on the edge of the road. When you ride through the mist, it falls into your eyes, and it burns, and so I have to stop, nearly falling off my bike, my eyes watering, my nose running, the burning making it so I cannot see. I have to stop until the tears wash it away, and I can at least squint my way onward. It seems I am the only person out on the streets when they do this, and so it seems to bother no one else. After all, why should it? They are all locked up in their hermetically sealed, air conditioned homes, or driving their air conditioned vehicles.

But for me on my bike, I have to turn around, to head back home, and before I can make it there, the helicopters come over again, and why not? Almost every city and even most small towns in this part of the country have mosquito control, a crop-duster, or helicopter. Aircraft fuel is cheap, this I know from experience, and the cities' taxpayers are in complete support of these actions--after all, no one likes mosquitoes. Again I have to stop, and cry and rub my eyes, and wipe my nose until eventually, I can ride on, my eyes still watering.

When I get home, it is just now dark, and I am running inside to take a shower. I can feel the stickiness on my skin, can smell the chemical tang, and taste it in the back of my throat, but as I'm running inside to wash the burn from my eyes, to scrub my skin, I stop, and I listen, and I do not hear a single cicada singing.

Yes. Welcome to America, 21st century. Is it any different from the last, from the days of Silent Springs, and DDT? Does any one but me care?

Subtle Suppression

I have been reading a novel titled "The Iron Heel," which you've probably never heard of, though you may have heard of its author. If you don't recognize the name Jack London, I'm sure you do recognize his other novels, "White Fang," and "The Call of the Wild," and while those books have remained classics, this one has slipped into obscurity. You also may not know that Jack London was an ardent socialist, some might say militant, and that during the very early 20th century he was a key figure in the socialist movement, he espoused a social revolution and was even arrested for his activism. "The Iron Heel" was a kind of culmination of those feelings.

Today the book would be called speculative fiction, but then it was probably billed as propaganda, and this is not be totally unjustified. The form of the book is an account by the wife of a key figure in the labor movement who dies in an insurrection that is brutally suppressed by what is called "The Oligarchy," which is basically the capitalist trust/government of the time. The book is depicted as a manuscript which has been found centuries after the eventual success of a social revolution and the creation of a kind of utopian “brotherhood of man.”

I do not suggest that you go out and attempt to find this book, as unless you have an avid interest in American socialism or the early 20th century, as I do, you will not likely find it compelling. The reason I mention it though, is because of certain thoughts it has given rise to. Thoughts about suppression of literature, and ideas. In the book itself there is a book that is brutally suppressed because it shows hypocrisies in the social order of the time, but the kind of suppression I have in mind is more subtle.

I am not implying that "The Iron Heel" has been intentionally forgotten in lieu of "White Fang" for political reasons. Undoubtedly any book which deals so much with the societal situations of the time is sure to be forgotten, where as books which are more timeless, and appeal to our emotions, are more likely to be remembered. Surely this is the reason why no one remembered "Das Kapital" 100 years after its publication.

It is often said that the winners write the history books, and there is much truth in that phrase, but it is also true that the winners (and those in power are definitely winners) influence what literature we read as well. Since the "oligarchy" or upper classes, or government, or whatever we wish to call those in power, control the school systems and forms of mass media, they also control what literature we ascribe value to. What is thought to be classic, and what is not. What books are remembered, and which are forgotten.

This brings to mind a man named Walter Duranty. Doubtless you've never heard of him, but he won a small thing called the Pulitzer Prize in 1932 for articles he had written the previous year about the then relatively new Soviet Union and its people. He was bureau chief of The New York Times’ Moscow branch for 14 years and highly regarded as an expert on the soviet people. Later though, he was discredited for the sometimes positive slant that he put on Stalin's programs, and was actually lambasted for not being critical of what was later called Stalin's "show trials," that is trials of his political opponents which were later shown to be pre-determined. Bear in mind that Duranty was a reporter, and that, theoretically, depicting things unbiased is a virtue in that field.

Of course, none of this criticism came until after World War II and the beginning of The Cold War. The trials were not even shown as frauds until Khrushchev came to power, but this was conveniently unmentioned, and Duranty was derided for other reasons as well. It was put forward that he glossed over the famines of the year of his Pulitzer, 1932, which were caused through what is now depicted as direct government action. The fact that the articles the prize was awarded for were written before the famine was conveniently overshadowed. My point is that when there was a need for public animosity towards Soviet Russia, a formerly highly esteemed literary figure was stripped of all credibility on flimsy evidence, and left forgotten in the annals of history.

I myself own a book by him titled "One Life, One Kopeck," which is derived from a Russian saying meaning roughly, "life isn't worth one red cent," implying that this was the way the establishment of the time viewed human life. The book was a novel used as an account of the Russian Revolution which was admittedly pro-Russia, and pro-socialism, but it was written in 1937, before the Cold War, and like Duranty’s other works, is largely forgotten.

Another example of how works which defy the establishment are remembered is "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair, written in 1906. A book that can only be described as a persuasive novel leading the reader towards socialism. Today though, that book is remembered for what served as its background, which was the horrendous conditions of the meat packing industry of Chicago. Conditions which were used in the book to illustrate the hellish conditions of the working class, but which instead brought the middle class's attention to the lack of food regulation. For instance the modern book "Fast Food Nation," by Eric Schlosser is often compared to "The Jungle," but Schlosser's book is a non-fiction documentation of food processing and marketing, while Sinclair's is a novel following the terrible conditions forced upon the family of immigrant Jurgis Rudkis by the capitalist system, and his eventual path to socialism.

One might also mention Jonathan Swift, who wrote scathing satires of 18th century English culture and government, but in modern interpretations is know for the Lilliputians from his novel, "Gulliver's Travels," which are deprived of all context and meaning.

John Steinbeck too could fall among these authors, having written strongly socialist books such as "In Dubious Battle," and subtly anti-capitalist books such as "The Grapes of Wrath." Today the books of his which are read in school though, are "The Pearl," and "Of Mice and Men." Simple, but emotionally wrenching books with none of the social import contained in his other novels, which are swept aside by conventional education. A prime example of how when an author becomes prominent enough that he cannot be discredited, he can at least be circumvented.

A kind of caricature of this would be George Orwell, a man who is well known today for his books "Animal Farm," a thinly veiled satire of the Russian Revolution, and "1984," an only slightly more oblique look at the post war Soviet state, as opposed to other, more Socialist friendly books such as "Homage to Catalonia." What is not as well remembered is that George Orwell was employed by the British Government in its "Information Research Department," an organization whose sole purpose was to disseminate anti-communist propaganda. "Animal Farm" was actually subsidized by the British government and distributed as a tool against the Soviet Union in its neighboring countries. Orwell also was engaged in the writing of the "Orwell Lists," which were commissioned to be lists of literary and entertainment figures who were not to be published, including Walter Duranty, and Charlie Chaplin. Orwell is however, not remember as a propaganda tool, but as a great author.

A more modern look might be placed upon figures such as Hunter S. Thompson, the Gonzo journalist, who was a harsh critic of the establishment and wrote biting commentary on the United States’ government and society as a whole, but is remembered for "Fear and Loathing in Los Vegas," a book dealing mostly with drug related experiences.

Another might be Alan Moore's "V for Vendetta," a graphic novel depicting a terrorist who attempts to demolish federal government and bring about an anarchistic state. The key theme of the novel is especially illustrated in the protagonist’s trademark symbol, a take on the anarchy symbol of a red A in a circle. When the book was made into a big-budget action oriented motion picture in 2005 though, while including gratuitous martial arts scenes, it never once included the word "anarchy."

All these examples may seem unrelated or may lead one to believe I am implying that some secret order decides what we read, but this is not the case. I am merely trying to illustrate that the books we esteem as classic are determined by those parts of our society controlled by those in power, specifically the primary schools and universities, and the major news organizations. The majority of my evidence being based around the suppression of pro-socialist work is only because this is the easiest example.

I have attempted to point out here how books which work against the established order are subtly circumvented, rather than suppressed, often by the simple act of holding up other works by those same authors as great, drawing attention from their more controversial books. I hope that this has provoked your own thoughts on the subject.

Your Lawn Mower Will Kill You

Do you have a lawn? Do you use a lawn mower, a leaf blower, a chainsaw? What powers it? Is it gasoline?

Over five million gas-powered lawn mowers are sold in the United States every year with the designs largely unregulated. The emissions standards which small displacement engines are required to meet are inconsequential compared to those of larger automobile engines, and as a result small displacement engines, mowers, etc. produce MORE pollution than automobiles.

How much more?

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says a traditional gas powered lawn mower in a year's use produces as much air pollution as 43 new cars each being driven 12,000 miles. Another source says that one mower running for an hour emits the same amount of pollutants as eight new cars driving 55 mph for the same amount of time. This means that if the exhaust from your mower was used in your car engine, it would actually exit the tailpipe cleaner than when it came in.

In all the EPA concludes that lawn mowers produce 5% of the nations total annual pollution.

Further, some chemicals found in lawn mower emissions are classified as probable carcinogens by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Emissions which are unfiltered from lack of regulation.

Electric mowers are available, but are usually more expensive than their gas-driven counterparts, while a "human powered" hand reel mower can be had for around 70-80 dollars online, with free shipping.

Sustainability

This word gets a lot of press lately. It’s become a political platform, a raison de’tere for books, magazines, television shows, etc. But what does it mean?

Generally it implies the idea of modifying our current culture in such a way that it might not depend on fast depleting natural resources, might not produce such gratuitous waste, and might not destroy the environment in ever increasing ways. But generally, it also means to modify our culture as little as possible to reach these goals, to keep the status quo as much as possible.

As of July 1, 2008 the world human population was 6,706,993,000, with every sign indicating its steady rise will continue.

Can this number of human beings be sustainable with the status quo that we currently live by? Under any circumstances, can this population, and its continued rise, be sustainable?

When we speak of building factories which produce one third the waste, or cars which produce one tenth the pollution, or products which last twice as long, are we not just indulging our own egos? Soothing our own consciences?

If we truly mean to embrace the idea of sustainability, we must recognize that its biggest stumbling block is our tremendous population. The only numbers, the only fractional decreases, we should be concerned with are those concerning the number of living, breathing, consuming, waste creating human beings.

Imagine a world with one tenth, one twentieth, one hundredth the current population, and imagine how easy it would be to sustain this current “standard of living,” and to increase it.

Mark Twain and War

Mark Twain said in 1905, on the subject of war,

"There has never been a just one, never an honorable one — on the part of the instigator of the war. I can see a million years ahead, and this rule will never change in so many as half a dozen instances. The loud little handful — as usual — will shout for the war. The pulpit will — warily and cautiously — object — at first; the great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, "It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it." Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity. Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers — as earlier — but do not dare to say so. And now the whole nation — pulpit and all — will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception"

Is change an illusion?

Book Review: Into the Wild

Into the wild is a strange book in many ways, and one is in that the first things it tells you is that the main character will die at the end of his journey. That it will be a sad and inglorious death, and will cause him disrespect and contempt.

It is also strange in the sense that it is hard to classify. Is it fact or fiction, novel or biography? As a novel it is poorly written, as a biography it's light on facts, heavy on speculation. It leaves itself somewhere in the middle, and strangely, this doesn't seem to hurt it.

I think it’s good of the author to start with the death of the protagonist, to help dissuade those who might become wrapped up in the romanticism of the character, and pursue the path he did. It is good to confront the reader quickly and harshly with the folly of the man. Not that his path was a contemptible one, but the book helps show where blind romanticism leads.

The man the book follows, Chris McCandless, is portrayed as a very intelligent, well read, and charismatic child of an upper class family, the father of which was a high government official. He played the good little student and went to college at Emory University to and graduated with honors, then disappeared off the map. From his college graduation and through the next two years to his death, he never once communicated with his family, pursuing a life of freedom.

When he left his family behind he also left his car, gave all of his savings (somewhere in the neighborhood of $25,000) to charity, and began a life on the road and off, but never with more than, in his words, "he could carry on his back at a dead run."

A romanticist and an existentialist, he was a lover of Tolstoy and Thoreau, and he always longed for the Alaska of Jack London, the uncivilized wild, and eventually set out there, where he lived in the wilderness for several months before succumbing to starvation. He died scared, alone, malnourished, and possibly delusional. His body was not found until several weeks later in a state of rancid decay.

What you might call the tragedy, or the folly, depending on your view, of Chris's death was that he was in fact only a handful of miles from civilization, only barely off the map. That there were numerous means of escape at hand, cached food and supplies, a government testing station, and a road nearby, but Chris knew of none of them because he went straight into the wild with no preparation but the clothes on his back, a bag of rice, and a rifle. No maps, compasses, knowledge of the area, or means of rescue. No one even knew where he would be. And so he died alone, and it might be said, for no reason but the fulfillment of a longing to remove himself from humanity and experience life un-fettered by the hindrances of society.

If this all sounds interesting to you, I suggest you read the book, Into the Wild. Even if it doesn't I suggest you still do. The character of Chris McCandless is a highly interesting and engrossing one, and you’ll likely have a strong opinion of him by the end, either contemptuous, admiring, or accepting. I personally am not sure how I feel about the man, but the book about his life definitely does kindle a wanderlust in me, as it likely will in you.

Anyway, Into the Wild, by Jon Krakaur, is a book I suggest, if for no other reason as a warning to those who might try to go "off the map” unprepared.

Tree Farms and Forests

I am pro-forests. . .at least the naturally occurring kind.

In my part of the United States lumber is a big industry and as a result there are many "tree farms." Tree farms are just another form of totalitarian agriculture, but receive lots and lots of credit as being "green," and good, and wonderful, because hey, they're trees!

If you've never been to one, this is what they consist of:

The owner of a large portion of land will use bulldozers to obliterate the forest and vegetation from the allotted land, and burn all the detritus. Then the farmer will plant pine seedlings, all identical, in long, long, very straight rows a short distance apart. Then fire trenches will be dug around the "tree farm" so that the underbrush can be burned off every so often. The trees grow until they're tall enough to harvest, and then the process starts over.

The end result is a forest consisting solely of canopy. No undergrowth, just pine needles, and sometimes those are harvested too, so sometimes just bare dirt. Not a very welcoming forest environment. Especially compared to the plethora of life it replaced--the variety of oak trees, pine trees, cottonwood trees, shrubs, etc. The local animal population is severely stunted as well, by the initial loss of their forest, and the continuing lack of hospitality given by the trees maintenance. A few species flourish in this new "forest," but no where near the abundance of variety that existed before. It is a sad and boring forest, a depressing sight, and while better than concrete, it is not something I am for.

The tress may be producing oxygen, which I'm all for, but I'd much rather have a natural southeastern rain-forest. Unfortunately, these tree farms are going up daily where I live, and will continue with our unceasing consumerism. I seriously doubt that 50 years from now any natural forest will exist in the southeastern U.S. except for those in parks.

I am against this type of forest.

I am for natural forests, diverse forests, inhabited forests. I grew up exploring them, forests where bears, bobcats, deer, turkeys, coyotes, owls, woodpeckers, tortoises, alligators, snakes, and many other species lived.

They're disappearing, and it is one of the most depressing things in my life. Most of the forest I spent my childhood in has been plowed under for a subdivision, the rest for cattle fields. The swamp behind my parents house where I once went fishing is choked with refuse from a local farm, and no one cares.

I love forests. I seem to be the only one.

Indian and European Ideas of Land Ownership

The argument I am about to make regarding Indigenous Americans and Europeans settlers runs a high likelihood of being dismissed as juvenile, or romantic. Of being called a glorification of a long gone lifestyle stemming from a dissatisfaction with current society. I say that is partly true, that my argument comes from a dissatisfaction with current society, and if it is called romantic, or distanced from the fact of the disappeared cultures, well, that is part of my point. There is no way now for either I, or the reader to view that culture, in action and determine what is fact or fiction. That culture is gone. Forever.

Edmund Morgan, in reference to the failures and starvation of very early English colonies in America as compared to these American Indian cultures, writes in his book "American Slavery, American Freedom":

"If you were a colonist, you knew that your technology was superior to the Indians'. You knew that you were civilized, and that they were savages . . . But your superior technology had proved insufficient to extract anything. The Indians, keeping to themselves, laughed at your superior methods and lived from the land more abundantly and with less labor than you did. . . . And when your own people started deserting in order to live with them, it was too much. . . . So you killed the Indians, tortured them, burned their villages, burned their cornfields. It proved your superiority, in spite of your failures And you gave similar treatment to any of your own people who succumbed to their savage ways of life. But you still did not grow much corn. . . . "

This is quoted from A People's History of the United States, by Howard Zinn, on page 25. In this book, he mentions how many years after those colonies eventually began to thrive, in the mid eighteenth century, large tracts of land which were occupied by poor farmers, sometimes by families which had been upon that land since it was vacated by Indians a hundred years before, were arbitrarily divided amongst the wealthy of the English colonies. The new "owners" of the land then began to charge rent to the farmers which had previously inhabited the land, and were ignored. As a result, the local government stepped in with arrests, and revolts followed. Revolts followed because people then still understood that terms of ownership of land are arbitrary and imaginary. That to say "I own this land, which I have never seen, and have no intention to inhabit," is to say nothing.

Unless backed by enough other individuals who believe your authority to make such arbitrary decisions. As eventually became the case. As is still the case, though today broad land acquisitions are not made so arbitrarily. Land is still held by the wealthy who do not inhabit it, though it is inherited, bought, or sold. The principles are the same--it is still an imaginary idea which only exists because of people's allowing it to.

In Native American culture there was no such thing as ownership of land, inasmuch as we know it today. One might be said to have rights to land if one inhabited it and lived from it, but to say "I own that land over there, and you must increase my wealth in order to inhabit it," would be to utter insanity. Such ideas were completely foreign. Might this be part of why, in colonial America,

". . . Whites would run off to join Indian tribes, or would be captured in battle and brought up among the Indians, and when this happened the whites, given a chance to leave, chose to stay in the Indian culture. Indians, having the choice, almost never decided to join whites."

Hector S. Jean Crevecoeur, the Author of Letters from an American Farmer in the 1700's, wrote, "There must be in their social bond something singularly captivating, and far superior to anything to be boasted among us, for thousands of Europeans are Indians, and we have no examples of even one of those Aborigines having from choice become Europeans."

Of course, the Native American cultures were decimated, completely destroyed, and so there is no way to verify these statements completely, no studies to conduct on preference of Indian to European culture. The Indians were wiped out in order to continue to propagate this idea of land ownership, yes, but might this act of genocide also have been conducted to remove all alternatives to that system.? To remove the close and available proof of the inferiority of the system?

Or was it, as indicated by the statement from Edmund Morgan, an act of contempt? Perpetuated in hatred of the success of "inferior" people, not in sustaining their food supply, but in sustaining their psychological well-being? Retaining the right of each individual to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and at least the capability to support himself?

I think these are all the causes, and I think they deserve more thought.

I Am Anti-Religion

I am anti-religion and I am anti-Christianity especially, because that is the religion that I come into contact with most often and it is a ridiculous religion.

I am anti-religion on a personal level because every religion I have ever come into contact with is based on a deep core of lies, and often silly, ludicrous lies at that. Lies which would not hold up under a passing glance of reason, much less heavy scrutiny.

But I am also of the mind that every person should be able to believe and do whatever they like, so long as they do not harm or limit the actions of others. This is another reason I am against religion, and Christianity in particular, because most of them strive to do exactly that. To convert, to chastise, to make others conform to their moral codes, which are often arbitrary and against human nature. Do not drink on Sunday, do not let men see your face, do not speak certain words, do not have certain ideas, etc.

I am against religion on a broader scale, because of it's affect on the survival of humanity as a whole, on the survival of the ecosystem, on the continuing evolution of humanity.

Religion tends to affect these things negatively, to decrease our survival chances, and the chances of the current ecosystem as a whole, and to retard our evolution as a species by several means.

Basically, I am against any religion that offers one of three things as its major tenants, and they are the main three tenants of Christianity and most other organized religions.

1. A Nice Happy Afterlife
2. Quick and Easy Redemption
3. Only Personal Actions Are Regarded As Sinful

These three facets tie in together in a way that should seem obvious, and they enable, almost encourage, people to act irresponsibly. Especially the thought of a happy little afterlife. Why worry about fucking up the planet for generations to come when you'll just be in heaven. Why care about this life, it's just a precursor to the big happy. I know this argument has been made before, but I think it is the best argument against organized religion, so it must be made until it is heeded.

By giving us the pie in the sky, religion encourages us to waste our lives on earth in the system propagated by religion and it's proponents, this is why it's often been a tool of governments and power. Waste your lives, waste the planet, god'll fix it, and if he doesn't, well, it'll all be good in heaven.

In as similar way the offer of a quick and easy redemption encourages people to slash and burn, murder species, ecosystems, consume, consume, consume, you can just say at any point, oh shit, I'm sorry, and it's get into heaven free day.

But really, with most religions, you don't even need to, because these things are not even considered bad. Not considered sins. Look at the ten commandments, look at most "do nots," do any of those apply on anything but a personal level?

Contributing to actions which cause the deaths or enslavement of people in another part of the world, contributing to the decimation of ecosystems, contributing to the eventual downfall of your very culture, your species, well, they're all pretty abstract, right? And religion only warns us against personal actions, thou shalt not PERSONALLY kill. Indirectly, it's fine!

And besides, god created all life to be the subjects of man, right? Fuck up the planet on which you depend for survival, who cares.

I am anti-religion because it affects me negatively every single day. On a personal level by hindering my actions through religion-influenced law, and on a general level by encouraging my fellow humans to destroy our ecosystem.

So I say, FUCK RELIGION.

Things Change, and then Change Back

So, I was thinking of how we have a new president in the White House, and he is supposed to be much more "green" than the last, and this is a good thing. Maybe he can, with congress's help, at least make a passing attempt at stemming our rape of the environment. Maybe not. Either way, I feel I should put everything into perspective with this historical reference that illustrates, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

In 1979, during a time of rampant inflation, what was then being called an "energy crisis," complaints about foreign oil dependency, and troubles in the middle east, President Jimmy Carter did what was, in its own way, a grand thing. He had solar panels installed on the roof of the White House. In a speech at the unveiling he said:

". . . and this dependence on foreign sources of oil, is of great concern to all of us. In the year 2000 the solar water heater . . . which is being dedicated today, supplying cheap, efficient energy, a generation from now this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be just a small part of one the greatest, and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American People."

Pretty stirring words, and one might say a step in the right direction, but, Carter would not be president forever, and the man who replaced him, Ronald Reagan, had them removed, for unknown reasons. Things change, then they change back. Politics in America will always be this way.

To further put things in context, let's follow the story further, and see that the bad guy is not always the bad guy, and the good guy not always good.

In 2003, George W. Bush, a decidedly not "green" politician, from a different party, and probably the farthest president from Jimmy Carter, ideology wise, had new solar panels installed on the White House, and did not announce it to the media, or make a speech, or have an unveiling. He just did it.

Now, my own loyalties lie with Carter above Bush, as I greatly admire the former, but it is worth mentioning that some politicians draw attention to the good they do, even what is mostly symbolic, and some do not, but no matter which way a thing is done, in a few years a new leader comes along, and things change again. Most times, they're merely changing back.

Secretary of Energy Choices

Well, I've recently been looking at the details of Barrack Obama's new presidency, and of course one of the first thing I looked at was who he chose for Secretary of Energy, which is a very important position, in my opinion, especially with all this new impetus to "go green." Now, looking at who Obama has chosen for this position, as opposed to the men who held it for the last eight years, gives a pretty good example of the differences between two presidents. But first, some background.

In case you're wondering, the position of Secretary of Energy is a Cabinet position that was originally developed in 1977 to focus on energy production and regulation, but during the 1980s shifted to development of technology for better, more efficient energy sources as well as education regarding energy, and later the department's efforts were more often devoted to nuclear waste disposal and maintenance of environmental quality. Today it seems to be focused on regulating (or not regulating during the Bush years) the energy sector.

When George W. Bush came into power in 2000, he filled most of his cabinet with people who were left over from his father's presidency, or held party favor, and with this position things worked much the same. He chose a man name Spencer Abraham, who was long active in the Republican party (he was Michagan state chairman from 1983 to 1990), and a republican senator from 1994 until 2000, when he lost his seat to a Democrat. Luckily for him, George W. Bush was coming into office, and was willing to appoint any loyal party member to those empty cabinet seats, and so gave it to Abraham. Now you might ask, what qualifications, besides his party connections, did this man have, to be the United States Secretary of Energy? Why, a degree in law from Harvard, or course!

Now, just in case you wonder where his loyalties might have lay, since leaving office in 2005, he founded "The Abraham Group," which is pretty much a lobbying group and adviser to oil and pipeline companies. Also, he has been named Chairman of the Board of Areva Inc., the US subsidiary of a French nuclear energy company.

We all know how much Bush learned after those first four years, though, and so for his second term he appointed a new Energy Secretary, and this one had a science degree! From M.I.T.! Okay, so Samuel Bodman had worked for over twenty years in the financial sector, but still, somewhere back there he had a degree in chemical engineering, and so was a better choice than before.

Of course, he had also served as CEO of a Fortune 300 chemical company, before being Deputy Secretary of Treasury in Bush's first term, and then as Deputy Secretary of Commerce after that, but he did go to M.I.T., and Bush was noted for appointing people with little or no qualifications, so at least there's that.

Obama, on the other hand, has chosen for this position Steven Chu, the winner of the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics. A Nobel laureate! Talk about qualified! He has been a professor of physics since 1976, both at Stanford, where he was also chair of his department, and the University of California, Berkeley. He is also of the opinion that technology must move away from fossil fuels, and is a member of the Copenhagen Climate Council, a force for momentum at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference. Also, he was an early member of Project Steve, an educational campaign for the teaching of evolution.

Now, who would you trust more, the man who chose a party favored lawyer, and a chemical company CEO, or a Nobel Prize winning physicist? I know who I'd choose.

Venezuela and Impeachment

So, I was just reading some propaganda about Hugo Chavez, and then to counteract the bullshit, I began reading some articles in favor of him, and of course most of the truth was found in the middle. No, he's not satan, or some despot, and no he's not going to help us all start a new socialist revolution, but he has done very good things for Venezuela, and he has pissed off the American government/corporate groups through his use of his nations oil reserves to actually profit his country, and it's people, at least half the time, as opposed to before when virtually all profits were going to the big oil companies.

Either way, he is a controversial figure, and I'm sure you're all aware of the facts, so I'll go on to other things. In my reading I came across something interesting. Evidently, in the Venezuelan constitution there is a clause that says this, "All magistrates and other offices (including the president) filled by popular vote are subject to revocation. Once half (their) term of office....has elapsed, 20% of (registered) voters (by petition may call for) a referendum to revoke such official's mandate. When a number of voters equal to or greater than the number of those who elected the official vote in favor of revocation (provided the total is 25% or more of registered voters), the official's mandate shall be deemed revoked...."

Now that is a damn interesting clause. I can't think of any parallel to it in our "democracy," one in which no president has ever been successfully impeached, not even ones so atrocious as George W. Bush or Andrew Jackson. Shouldn't, in a system where the majority elects its leaders, there be a way for the people to directly oust those leaders, if they so chose? Short of violence, anyway.

On closer inspection we realize that this idea involves some pretty big numbers, for instance 20% of the registered voters is bigger than it sounds, but let's look at an example, again from Venezuela, where 4.7 million signatures were gathered for the highly controversial (at least outside the country) referendum on extending consecutive term limits. In a country with only around 15.6 million registered voters this is more than a 20%, and if those signatures were gathered for this instead, would be more than enough to begin the process of ousting an elected official. So it proves it is at least possible, and provides more evidence that people in Venezuela actually like Hugo Chavez. It's worth mentioning that over 50% of Venezuela's population is registered to vote, but I digress.

Shouldn't we have something similar? In the most "free," "democratic" country on earth?
Shouldn't we at least be able to match this "totalitarian regime?"

It all leads to what I don't understand about the western press. Venezuela is usually referred to as nondemocratic. Authoritarian. Lumped together with China and Iran and North Korea and the like. But Venezuela IS a democracy. Hugo Chavez is ridiculously popular, and sweeps the elections whenever he runs. In 2006 he won 62% of the vote, in a country where, again, over 50% of the population is registered, with a 75% turnout, and a voting process performed under the auspices of international observers. Even if one might argue against his policies, hell even if we agreed he was satan incarnate, it wouldn't change the fact that he was democratically elected.

Isn't that supposedly all the U.S. government officially wants?

Coal Smoke & Mirrors

Often times numbers scare me. Numbers like "1.970 Tg of CO2 produced," which I mentioned in my video about so-called "clean coal." Sometimes, numbers just piss me off. Numbers like those in an article I recently read about the coal industry which pushes the propaganda.

Here's the numbers: In 2008 the "American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity," the mouthpiece for the coal industry, which is fully funded by coal companies, spent $45,000,000 ($45 million doesn't get the point across like all those zeros) on its "America's Power" campaign which touts the benefits "clean coal." What's more, the companies themselves spent more than $125,000,000 on lobbying against federal legislation promoting clean energy. That's quite a bit of money.

How much did they actually spend on new cleaner coal technologies, like carbon capture and storage? Well, over about three years, all those companies combined spent $3.5 billion. Well, you might say, that seems like a lot, but consider this, that figure is for the forty eight companies which fund the "American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity." The gross profits for those same companies in 2007 alone: $57,000,000,000. $57 billion. In profit. So, they put about 6% of their profits into research for this new technology. Somehow that doesn't mesh with the idea that they are fully behind the new tech, and fully behind the environment.

Just something to think about next time you see a commercial for "clean coal."

Trash and the Recession

So I was reading this article that a friend of mine forwarded about the decline in landfill waste since the beginning of the so-called "recession," and how in California, which traditionally has the busiest landfills, rates have dropped in some places by 30%! This naturally brought a smile to my face, especially when the article quoted people who were saying "finding second uses for oversized packaging such as cereal boxes and for disposable glasses and plates before tossing them in the recycling bin." SCORE!

The smile slightly soured though, when I continued the article and got the numbers, as it often does, for example with "clean coal." What exactly is this decline in real figures? Well, in one landfill, only 66,000 tons were deposited in the landfill...in December. Sixty six thousand tons. In one month. And this is what they are calling the biggest decline they've ever seen. Tons. Food for though.

Also distressing, at least for its showing how razor thin the edge is our economy sits on, is because of the lack of consumerism, recycled materials such as cardboard and plastic, have dropped in commodity prices, sometimes by up to 90%. So, many recycling operations are shutting down because of lack of profits to be derived from post consumer goods. Some cities that have curbside recycling programs have discovered that they can no longer profit from the sale of those recycled materials, and so have laid off their sorting crews, and now just dump all the recyclables in the landfill with everything else.

My city has just in the last two weeks started its own curbside recycling program. I wonder what they're actually doing with it all.