Saving the planet reading list

I wrote about science-related reading in June, mentioning that there were other books that were more environmental, but they had been going to go together.

The way that happened was that -- back in 2019 -- Congresswoman Suzanne Bonamici held a town hall with Betty Shelley of the Reduce Your Waste project.

So, yes, that has been a while. There are links that don't work anymore, though sometimes they have moved to other sites.

Regardless, there were two books that were added to the list that I knew I would get to:

Plastic: A Toxic Love Story by Susan Freinkel

Garbology: Our Dirty Love Affair With Trash by Edward Humes

As should surprise no one, there were some other books that had ended up on my reading list in other ways but that I thought would relate. 

More surprising was that when I looked up Garbology Humes had written two other books that seemed completely relevant:

Door to Door: The Magnificent, Maddening, Mysterious World of Transportation

Total Garbage: How We Can Fix Our Waste and Heal Our World

(He's also written some true crime books, so I may not be done with Humes yet.)

There was a common thread with all of them that relates to other books. I will get to that next week, but first a few things about waste.

The first thing was from Betty's talk. She mentioned them looking in a garbage dump and finding a hamburger that was very old but still looked... maybe "edible" is not the right word, but it hadn't decomposed. 

That makes sense; to avoid contamination of the soil and water table, dumps are set up so that the waste is not going to break down and return to the earth. That's as it should be, but if you are buying something biodegradable and then throwing it in the trash, you may not have accomplished anything.

If it was made with recycled materials or used less resources in some other way, that may be the better choice, but it requires some thought.

Part of the Shelley family's claim to fame was that they reduced their waste enough that they had to take a little bag to the dump about once a year. That's incredible, but it doesn't happen easily.

From the reading, there were three other things that were important.

Don't take things for granted:

It's easy to think that other people are doing the same things, but that may not be true.

Aluminum is remarkably recyclable and because of its source, there is a strong return on investment with recycling. The US still doesn't recycle nearly as much as they should, so much so that to make new cans from 70% recycled material, we need to import used aluminum from other countries. 

That is different in states with a bottle bill. Oregon's was enacted the year before I was born, so I have never known anything else.Those ten states do great, but it's only ten.

It's similar to the issue with plastic bags. I am so used to taking reusable totes that I don't even think about it, but it's not like that everywhere. Part of that is... 

Companies fight those laws hard and they lie:

I remember seeing things saying that one reusable bag does more environmental harm than X amount of plastic bags, except that it was assuming you used the bag once (as if it were not reusable), except there were still other problems with the math.

It appears that law that deals with trash or recycling or saving the Earth is similar to laws about tobacco or really so many things. If it might add to some corporate obligation, they don't want it, no matter how much good it could do.

A lot of it comes down to transport:

Door to Door was especially strong in this area, though it wasn't the only place it came up. 

A lot of recycling does work well, but if it is not affordable it is because it is costing more to send it to other countries where they pay people low enough wages to make the sorting worthwhile and transportation costs are going up. It could be done here with decent wages, but then that would affect corporations who are subsidized by our throwing things out and paying for trash pickup, but we don't think of it that way. They make the waste, sometimes more than necessary, but at an advantage to them that everyone else pays for.

You can bet they are going to lie about that.

The lie is mainly that things can't be any better. We can't do any better.

It is a lie. Don't fall for it.

And all four of those books are really worth reading.  

 

Fine, let's talk about "woke"

I put a note on the original post, but since writing about Sydney Sweeney and jeans, Rachel Bitecofer has called her a "butterface" and Chris Cuomo has reacted badly to a deepfake of AOC trashing Sweeney.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/aoc-roasts-chris-cuomo-for-believing-obvious-deepfake-of-her-trashing-sydney-sweeney/ar-AA1K2T1g? 

It all seems to undermine my point about Sweeney not really being attacked by the left, though the article confirms that no Democrat officials or lawmakers have commented on Sweeney. 

I suspect if Cuomo called Sweeney ugly, those defending her would interpret it as an attack from the left. With a defense for the fake attack by someone more clearly left, does that make Cuomo not left, or neutral, or do you have to quibble about the defense to maintain the sense of being attacked by the woke?

Which one is more woke?

(Mostly kidding there; that's probably AOC.) 

There is a part of me that finds this all ridiculous and irritating, but another part of me that really wants to get some definitions out there.

As it is, I did post about two years ago on "woke" and how people were using it. Ironically, it happened because of a person on the right who wrote a whole book criticizing wokeness but then couldn't define it, which meant that the journalist who asked was mean.

Journalists and their questions, right?

I think there could be an interesting post about what various political terms have historically meant and how they are being used and how Republicans have become such psychopaths that there is a pretty broad range of what constitutes "left" of that. Maybe someday.

Right now, I didn't even post yesterday because the reading for the section I am working on his heavier than usual and things are so stupid with so much to react to that I can't even. However, I am going to say this:

Currently, the people who are using "woke" the most are primarily using it to mean "I don't like this."

Whether that dislike is a vague sense of discomfort or an informed anger, it comes from a challenge to white supremacy, so does not bear close scrutiny, leaving them to use the word as just meaning stupid and bad.

This is why I don't take people using "woke" as an insult seriously; I don't know where you fall on the spectrum between ignorant and malicious, but I know you are there.

Here's the really important thing, though, and it cuts to the heart of the disagreements between progressives, leftists, liberals, socialists, third-party voters. and Democrats.

If you do become aware of the structural racism and colonialism and all of the problems with all of the suffering they have led to... if you have become aware of that and your response is not to focus on healing and repair, but to focus on directing your anger to everyone you blame for not fixing it, you are definitely not woke. 

You should try getting that way. 

If you believe something fake, criticize someone because of it, and then when called out on it just continue the criticism as if you were correct, you are not woke and your unwillingness to learn from your mistakes is going to be a serious impediment to becoming so.

You are part of the problem. 

Please, if you find it possible to care about anyone other then yourself, get woke. 

Related posts: 

https://sporkful.blogspot.com/2023/03/waking.html 

https://sporkful.blogspot.com/2023/04/dunking.html

Don't go with the flow

I'm apologizing in advance because this post has a lot of quote marks. It feels excessive, but is a combination of some wordplay and that I can't take "woke" being used as an insult seriously.

If you have not heard, there is some controversy about a recent American Eagle jeans ad featuring Sydney Sweeney. 

While conservative-leaning men had been calling her "mid" for quite a while, the tables have turned. Now that they see her as under attack by the "woke mob", Trump has called Sweeny "hot" unlike Taylor Swift (whom he is apparently still obsessed with), Vance has defended her, Watters is fantasizing about her marrying Barron, and American Eagle stock has risen. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/08/04/american-eagle-stock-trump-sydney-sweeney/85515756007/ 

It seems like an overreaction, but that's just how things go now. 

From what I saw, the "woke" attack on Sweeney was pointing out the optics of an ad with a blonde woman talking about "jeans" but punning about "genes".

Discussion about Sweeney herself on the "woke" side at its meanest was that some people pointed out that she has been kind of marketed as lower class, taking any kind of ads without looking for prestige. They thought this could affect her career longevity but attributed it to her parents' bankruptcy. That's not really vicious, though I think it could correlate with why the right was calling her "mid" before and with her being embraced so quickly by them now. 

So let's get back to that pun. 

First of all, I would like to say that back in 1991 I drew a cartoon showing an approaching sperm being asked by an ovum if those were Bugle Boy jeans, spoofing an ad series that was everywhere back then. It was rejected because the editor thought it was pointless, so I submitted a much less sophisticated one about taxes and that was printed. It was at this point that I kind of understood where the literary magazine staff who took themselves too seriously in high school went next, though also that they would think I did not take them seriously enough. I digress.

As homophones that are spelled very differently with very unrelated meanings, that pun is low-hanging fruit. 

Beyond the lack of originality, the real criticism was that we are in the middle of a eugenics resurgence -- to the extent that eugenics and Nazis ever went away -- and are we going to just combine "blonde" and "good genes" as a marketing tool?

The common denials you will get in cases like this is that it's not that deep; American Eagle says they were only talking about jeans, not genes.

Maybe, but part of running successful ad campaigns is having your finger on the pulse. You can take advantage of bad trends, but it is reasonable to call that out. 

Remember, I just wrapped up Disability Pride Month. I focused on positive articles, but I knew some really negative stories for most of them too. For most of those people, there are other people who say their lives have no value and are gleeful imagining their deaths.

I was also writing last week about valuing people. The trend is away from that now. 

The trend is away from valuing people in business and government and health care. Some of it is more in  your face than others, but there is a constant bleating. If you do not make the effort to be aware and actively reject it, you may find yourself cheering and defending it, sure that it's not that big a deal.

Don't go with the flow. 

ETA: A few hours after I posted this, a leftist did make a response (not to me) with a fairly stupid but yes, mean, joke about Sweeney's face. Still not a mob attack, but also not worth making. It did not clarify or edify and now the right is all going on about how fat she is. 

Disability Pride Month 2025

I saw that July was Disability Pride Month on July 1st and had to do it. So, I started with Judith Heumann, whose book is on my to-read list but whom I see referenced frequently when reading about disability rights.

Then I started thinking.

I am afraid there are a lot of actors. There's anything wrong with being an actor, but it's so much easier to know about them that it almost makes me feel shallow. I nearly included Gary Burghoff (Radar from M*A*S*H) too, but all of the articles that referenced his polydactyly were kind of click-baity.

Some things felt more personal than others. I learned about Temple Grandin in a Psychology class really early in college and it made a strong impression.. I have interacted with Alice Wong (and spotlighted her books) and Keah Brown through Twitter, and participated in a Kickstarter for Tee Franklin. I actually know Barry Wilcox from church, though I haven't seen him for ages.

Kevin Kling was from a film we saw when visiting the Mill City Museum in Minneapolis. I started following Halli Thorliefsson when he was feuding with Elon Musk (that's a good story there). And of course, Serge Kovaleski is the Pulitzer Prize winner mocked by Trump.

I know about Shane Burcaw and Hannah Aylward because of an article about people sending them hate. That happened this month. 

Obviously I knew about Rene Kirby from seeing Shallow Hal, but there was no knowing that he would die a day after I posted about him. 

I suppose my biggest achievement is that after five of these months, there are still no repeats. Two months left in this year, unless there is something else that is going to surprise me. (That is completely possible.)

The most important thing about this list is probably the variety. Besides differences in how they present, these conditions are congenital, or from accidents, or from illnesses, or issues where the roots may have been there earlier but they did not show up for a while. Some conditions come with age.

One of the things the article on Adam Pearson discusses is how the same condition presents differently in his twin brother. 

You being completely without disability now is no guarantee it will stay that way. 

That is worth keeping in mind.

7/1 Judith Heumann: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/disability-rights-activist-judy-heumann-dies-at-age-75-180981752/

7/2 Temple Grandin: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/as-autism-ignites-a-national-conversation-temple-grandin-has-something-to-say/ar-AA1EWZjs

7/3 Louis Braille: https://www.icoe.org/news/story-louis-braille-inventor-braille-code

7/4 Harriet Tubman: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-asylum/202411/harriet-tubmans-disability

7/5 Alice Wong: https://www.kqed.org/arts/13965935/alice-wong-san-francisco-disability-advocate-2024-macarthur-genius-grant-winners

7/6 Sudhaa Chandran: https://www.bollywoodshaadis.com/articles/sudhaa-chandran-opens-up-on-losing-her-legs-in-1981s-accident-24633

7/7 Helen Keller: https://www.afb.org/about-afb/history/helen-keller/biography-and-chronology

7/8 Daryl Mitchell: https://hollywoodmask.com/entertainment/daryl-mitchell-motorcycle-accident-in-2001-wheelchair.html

7/9 Thomas Davila: https://csulauniversitytimes.com/spina-bifida-essay/

7/10 Marlee Matlin: https://apnews.com/article/marlee-matlin-documentary-not-alone-anymore-e94e58db30b4ce27c3187aa629e44ea2

7/11 Kevin Kling: https://onbeing.org/programs/kevin-kling-the-losses-we-grow-into/

7/12 Michael J. Fox: https://www.michaeljfox.org/michaels-story

7/13 Laura Hillenbrand: https://phoenixrising.me/myalgic-encephalomyelitis-chronic-fatigue-syndrome/laura-hillenbrand-on-mecfs-her-formerly-athletic-life-and-how-she-gets-by-the-si-interview/

7/14 Mitch Longley: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-apr-18-ca-20670-story.html

7/15 Keah Brown: https://www.elle.com/culture/books/a32983436/my-joy-is-my-freedom-keah-brown-essay/

7/16 Beethoven: https://www.californiasymphony.org/composer/beethoven/the-whole-story-of-beethovens-deafness/

7/17 Tee Franklin: https://disabilityvisibilityproject.com/2023/07/17/disabled-creatives-in-comics-interview-with-tee-franklin/

7/18 Stevie Wonder: https://www.redsharknews.com/production/item/1283-stevie-wonder-s-brilliant-electronic-soundtrack-to-an-almost-secret-film

7/19 Christopher Reeve: https://www.biography.com/actors/christopher-reeve-horseback-riding-accident

7/20 Shane Burcaw, with Hannah Aylward: https://evoke.ie/2025/07/16/life-style/couple-narrative-disability

7/21 Halli Thorliefsson: https://www.bosshunting.com.au/hustle/elon-musk-firing-halli-thorleifsson-twitter-100-million-mistake/

7/22 Serge Kovaleski: https://www.wm.edu/news/stories/2009/serge-kovaleski-84-earns-pulitzer-prize-123.php

7/23 Rene Kirby: https://www.sevendaysvt.com/arts-culture/rene-kirby-84-2291401

7/24 Stephen Hawking: https://hiehelpcenter.org/2018/03/19/stephen-hawking-normalized-disability-spoke-not/

7/25 Millicent Simmonds: https://variety.com/2021/film/features/quiet-place-2-millicent-simmons-john-krasinski-1234977160/

7/26 Adam Pearson: https://brightside.me/articles/the-journey-of-adam-pearson-an-identical-twin-with-a-rare-disease-who-rose-to-stardom-819760/

7/27 Barry Wilcox: https://www.usparacycling.org/news/2025/june/09/a-world-cup-sweep-has-barry-wilcox-riding-high-now-with-an-eye-to-the-world-championships

7/28 Disability representation in dance: https://dancemagazine.com/disability-dance-representation/

7/29 Murderball: https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/they-call-it-murderball-wheelchair-rugby-isn-t-for-the-faint-of-heart/ar-AA1pDigq

7/30 Invictus Games: https://salish-current.org/2025/02/25/invictus-games-a-celebration-of-inclusivity-in-sports/

7/31 Paralympics: https://www.paralympic.org/ipc/history

Keeping in contact

The subtext to the last post was that earlier this year I was trying to figure out social media alternatives.

This was largely because there were some people expressing frustration with social media. That is a common occurrence, but I get it.

For one thing, the engagement algorithms are getting more aggressive. I had been watching Reels a lot then took a break; suddenly they are offering completely different content. A suggested item came up about Star Trek that I read and now my timeline is flooded with more suggestions relating to science fiction television shows. I clicked on one bat item because I was trying to share it with a friend; bat merchandise is being thrown all over my feed.

I am on social media to keep in touch with people, so it failing in that would be reason enough to consider alternatives. As it is, it has gotten so much worse about trying to dominate my attention and package and market me that it ratchets up my irritation.

Back at the beginning of the year my goals were still mainly thinking about how to keep in touch with people who were not going to be on social media. That vision probably included me staying, but I did not rule out leaving because of how much I hate Mark Zuckerberg.

I was thinking about things like round robin letters or e-mail chains. 

One of the great things about Facebook is that despite the increase in effort required to see how your friends are doing, updating how you are doing is incredibly easy. That would not be true with other forms. You have to think about what you want to say and then say it, a process that has caused anguish for many people with annual Christmas letters.

The way a lot of round robin letters work is that each person puts in a letter of their own, reading others and then sending it on. When it gets back to you, you remove your old one and then write a new one.

I have gotten a lot better, but I signed up for many pen pals in school, who all eventually faded due to neglect. That was usually mutual -- we were kids -- but if the success of the round robin is only as strong as the most procrastinating member, that can be a problem.

It was also complicated by some concerns about the end of a functioning society. 

I had read things about how Trump could turn off the internet. I didn't think it was likely, but there are in fact ways to do that. 

I was also worried about mail. So many conservatives have wanted to kill the postal service, turning it over to for-profits like UPS and FedEx, not thinking what that would do to rural areas. For now, our mail is still reliable, but it did just get more expensive.

Ultimately, I did not start anything, though it is still something I think about. As it is, the person I thought most likely to leave Facebook is still there and still posting so far.

I suppose that's anticlimactic, but there are two reasons that I write about this.

If you want to try and make changes, you need to be willing to lose. Things can go terribly wrong because you miscalculated or because the timing wasn't right or because other people suck or the government collapses, but you have to be able to know that you can't control everything and still be willing to try and do good things.

The other reason is that people matter. 

There are so many forces fighting against that one, but it's still true. 

Forms of direct action: Building community

To be fair, "building community" might be more indirect action; sometimes the definitions get fuzzy.

There are three primary influences on me in this area, and things I have read continue to have an impact.

One was recently reading about George Manuel. Yes, he did things like holding offices in existing organizations, founding new organizations, petitioning government, and things like that, but early on he realized that there was a need for community. He started by organizing some sports teams and beauty pageants.

Now, you might be thinking that beauty pageants are sexist. That's possible. I remember watching a documentary, Between Resistance and Community in Long Island (2002). The local punk community was trying to exercise DIY principles, and that included organizing kickball games for free entertainment. It seemed like a good experience for everyone, but as they delved a little deeper, sexism was a real issue (a theme that kept popping up in my emo exploration). 

People are imperfect and their efforts tend to reflect that. I don't know how Manuel's beauty pageants went, so that's a possibility. I also know the Miss Navajo pageant involves demonstrating knowledge of Navajo customs and sheep butchering. The pageants Manuel started might not have conformed to what we would expect after watching the Miss America pageant or Toddlers & Tiaras. 

Another influence was recently reading The Next American Revolution: Sustainable Activism for the Twenty-First Century by Grace Lee Boggs.

There was a lot more philosophy than I expected, but that was part of what made sense. Marx was writing during the Industrial Age, when scarcity was the driver. Grace and her husband Jimmy Boggs were in Detroit at the time of automation. It's not that none of the points were the same, but there were significant changes that required adaptation. As it turns out, a lot of her work ended up involving community gardens and multi-generational youth projects. That might not even seem that revolutionary, but if you are looking at building a better future, and something sustainable, that sort of building and filling of needs is essential.

Of course, Boggs was also influenced by my third influence, Martin Luther King's aspiration to "the Beloved Community".

I can't actually see that he used the phrase a lot. I know it was mentioned at least twice, but then when he was speaking of integration and union and brotherhood, it was all tending toward that. In addition, the phrase is so wonderfully evocative on its own that it resonates, even as it remains not very well defined.

I mean, we know that we are not there, and we have ideas of what it might be like, but there is a large chasm that can make it hard to visualize.

When I think about the activism that I want to do, it is always centered around that.  

I care about connection and healing. If I seem to have an aversion to protests, I guess it's because I don't see those getting us there. That would not be a problem if I was sure how to get us there. 

So I just have thoughts.