What and how I recycle (August 31, 2007)

Current mood:hopeful

Each week, I put a single very light, very empty looking bag out for the trash. Most of its weight is cat litter. Here is what is NOT in it:

Aluminum and steel cans and glass bottles go out in the blue recycle bin, to be picked up by the recycle truck.

Plastic bottles of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 type plastic, also go in the recycle bin.

Newspapers I could put in the recycle bin, but do not. Instead, I gather all office paper, newspaper, and pure paperboard items like cereal boxes, place this in brown paper grocery bags, and take them to the green-and-yellow Abitibi paper recycling dumpsters that are all over the place. Nearly every school and library has one, as do many churches.

Vegetable matter, including coffee grounds, I gather in an old Cool Whip tub, and every couple of days, take it down to the garden, where I bury it. If I had a composting bin, I would use it.

Meat trimmings, bacon drippings, etc., I gather after each meal in a used but usable Ziploc bag, and place in the freezer. This will go in the regular weekly trash when I take it out, but will be odorless.

Of significance is what else does NOT go in the trash. Most of these can be recycled only in special places at limited opportunities,
* Compact fluorescent bulbs. These contain mercury and MUST be recycled properly. Currently I am gathering these in a small box, and keeping my eye open for where to take them. This site shows no facility near Pittsburgh.
* Alkaline dry-cell batteries. I put them all in a box, actually two boxes, one for the ubiquitous AA size, one for everything else. The Sierra Club is one organization that can get rid of them properly.
* Cardboard. I pull off as much tape and other decoration as possible, bust up the boxes, and every once in a while take the pile to a cardboard-only dumpster.
* Raw metal, such as steel, copper and aluminum, brings a good price at a scrapyard. I gather these in one corner of the basement, and once or twice a year, call someone to come get it.
* Styrofoam egg cartons and meat trays. Less that I recycle them, more that I stockpile these for some art project that comes around from time to time. If I had a good way to recycle them, I would. [Update, 2001: I can now also put styrene (#6 plastic) in the recycle bin.]

Well, that's a start. I will add to this as I think of some of the lesser items, of which there are many.

I did not at all cover how I don't generate much trash in the first place. OK I will: I don't shop much, I repair rather than pitch, I only buy stuff that lasts, and if something outlives my need for it I give it away via Pittsburgh Freecyle and The Freecycle Network.

If everyone else did what I do, though, there would be a lot less trash generated.

* * * End original post * * *
* * * Original comments from 2007 * * *

Michele James-Parham

At IKEA you can take:
- all your compact fluorescent bulbs or any light bulbs for that matter
- batteries
- packaging from IKEA products
- and the usual cans, glass and plastics

I realize that you probably don't get to Robinson Township !regularly!, but if you are ever heading down towards the airport or know someone who is or who is headed to the shopping conglomeration that is Robinson Township (we make that jaunt about once every 6 months), you could drop off your light bulbs and batteries at IKEA.

Oh and kudos to you for helping to lighten the load on our landfills -- have you tried switching cat litter to a flushable/biodegradable variety? It would mean that you'd have to order online or shop at stores such as Target, East End Food Co-op, Whole Foods or a few others in the city and I know you only shop at a few places.

Taking the 54C quiz (August 24, 2007)

This week's (August 22-29) Pittsburgh City Paper cover story concerns Pittsburgh's famous bus route, the 54C. It is, in fact, a 27-item quiz.

A year or so ago, some of the ACTC regulars suggested putting together a tour guide for various bus routes. This is essentially that same suggestion, but taken to an extreme I had only dreamed of.

Try the quiz. I couldn't answer all of the questions myself, if for no other reason than that I do not now and never did go to bars. I did get quite a few of them right, though, some by trivia knowledge, some by good guessing.

* * * End of original post * * *

* * * Original comments from 2007 * * *


Pittsburgh Storm
I read this article today. I read the first few questions of it and then tossed it.

The Port Authority is a respectable transit agency. It does offer service to and from bars, however, it not a party bus system. I felt sick that the whole quiz pretty much was about drinking.


Stuart Strickland
Good point. Given the choice, though, I'd rather be seated next to someone intoxicated ON A BUS than DRIVING A CAR -- assuming, of course, that they're not going to do something horrible (like hurl) or stupid (like punch someone).

I lost a friend to a drunk driver once, a long time ago (12/1979), and can still vividly recall the feelings that caused in me and those close to me and him. In two other situations, I was in a car driven by someone intoxicated, and cannot recall ever being more in fear of my life.

The anti-litterbug (August 17, 2007)

Attention: *"gross" alert* If you have a really queasy system, get someone else to read this blog for you. You're not off the hook, though.

This concerns litter, everything from torn newspaper pieces and 3/4 empty drink bottles, all the way down to cigarette butts. It's everywhere. Why are people such slobs? Even when there are multiple trash cans right there?

Being a bus rider, I do not appreciate having to stand in squalor when waiting for my ride. But I'm not helpless, either, so I do the next best thing: I pick it up. All of it. All the torn newspaper pieces, all the drink bottles, and yes, even all the cigarette butts. If the ride is late enough, I will gather every last gum wrapper, and stick it in whatever's handy -- a pretzel bag, a paper cup, a trash can if available.

Yes, I pick it all up with my bare hands. Yes, it's sometimes yucky. I also always carry a paper towel (often damp) with me to wipe my hands on when done. I started that habit when the kids were tiny and someone was always making a mess, but even today, I daily find a use for that damp paper towel. I also usually have a plastic grocery bag folded in one pocket, so if there isn't a trash can handy, it all goes in the bag until I find one.

What I'm saying is that everyone else should do likewise. If you're at a bus stop and have two or six or 15 minutes, then spend one or five or 14 minutes and pick up around where you are.

The bus stop in question today was at Forbes and Stevenson, right next to Duquesne University and Mercy Hospital. In my case the bus was late and I had 15, most of which time I was alone, so that stop was devoid of litter by the time the bus came along.

It's amazing just how much difference a couple of minutes of anti-littering can make. What's equally amazing is how long it stays looking nice. True, someone can trash it in minutes, but it might be days before that happens. At any rate, when I caught that inbound 67F a few hours later, which took me right past that spot, I got a nice warm fuzzy feeling seeing how neat and tidy that little piece of city looked.

* * * End original post * * *

* * * Original comments from 2007 * * *

Pittsburgh Storm

Great job, Stu! I wish there were more people like you out there!

I would still like to get a group of us together and do some cleaning. Perhaps we could leave a leaflet up saying "Cleaned by Stu and The Pittsburgh STORM" with links to our MySpace pages or "Cleaned by -ORGANIZATION NAME-".

Let me know, and keep up the great work!

My first blog since my mother’s passing (Aug. 8, 2007)

Current mood: melancholy

It's been a little over a week since my mother passed away. Here I sit, two-thirty in the morning, unable to sleep, and it's pretty clear that this is why. To date, I have yet to burst into racking sobs -- I don't know why -- seems everyone else does when a loved one passes. It's not that I didn't love my mother -- I did -- just that I seem to handle grief differently.

Several times a day, I'm overcome with waves of "coulda-shoulda-didn't", i.e., lost opportunities. Examples: I never asked her about those faces in the photo albums. I never got that recording restored which her brother sent from the Korean War shortly before he died. I don't remember if I ever apologized for that stupid thing I did 20-some years ago. The list is seemingly endless. I am heartened that, yes indeed, I did tell her I loved her.

At other times I feel a sense of emptiness, not exactly loss, more a "why-am-I-here". There no longer seems to be a mainspring in me at some points during the day. The only thing to do then is lie down, for to pursue anything of importance is an effort in futility. I might be out for 15 minutes, maybe an hour, maybe more. I can't see it coming, either. I'm working along just fine, then the emotional floor falls out, and I'm jelly. No warning, no pattern. It started the day she died, and has been a daily occurrence since.

Finally, there's this insomnia, something that started around the time of the funeral (last Wednesday) and has been getting steadily worse. Tonight also happens to be the warmest night so far this summer, which doesn't help. I took a shower before bedtime, hoping that would help. It hasn't.

Anyway, I sure hope this all flushes out of my head soon. I don't mind the memories, but all this side-effect stuff has got to go if I'm to be of any value to anyone.

Anti-TOBACCO vs. anti-SMOKING (July 23, 2007)

[Note: I am copying this old post more for historical purposes than action. Much has occurred on the legislative front in four years. Still, the philosophical distinctions and approach to the topic in general remain sound. --me, May 3, 2011.]

Current mood: hopeful

When talking about smoking, here's another important distinction to make: Someone who is anti-smoking is one who wants to reduce the amount of tobacco smoke he/she has to deal with, i.e., on a personal level. Someone who is anti-tobacco wants to eliminate use of tobacco products on a different level, typically societal rather than personal.

That distinction forms the basis between Wyoming senator Mike Enzi's anti-tobacco legislation, and Massachusetts senator Ted Kennedy's FDA regulation bill which claims to be anti-smoking.

Enzi's is better, plain and simple. Kennedy's bill would cause virtually nothing to happen to reduce tobacco use, which is exactly what the tobacco industry wants, which is why they are for it. Enzi's bill would come at the problem a whole different way, and over the course of a generation, reduce markedly the amount of tobacco used by Americans.

All I can say is, it's about bleeping time something like Enzi's came along. It points out the serious distinctions between What Sounds Good versus What Will Actually Work.

Remember, absolutely every time that the tobacco industry likes something, it's a damn good idea to shoot it down, and conversely, anything they oppose should be passed. They like Kennedy's bill. They even helped draft it.

See details of Enzi's bill here.

'Nuff said.

getting 30mpg out of a 20mpg car (July 14, 2007)

Current mood:surprised

My car is a 1999 Mercury Sable station wagon with a 3.0L V6. I've been keeping track of every fill-up since I bought the car (actually I have logged every fill-up going back to 1981, but that's another story), and averaged over the last couple of years, have gotten roughly 20, maybe 21 mpg.

This week, I had to make a trip to Buffalo NY, about 220 miles distant, and for once did not have to take the whole family with me. I just went, and decided to see just how far I could get on a tankful of gas. About a half hour this side of Buffalo is the Seneca Indian Reservation, which always has gasoline for far less than anyplace else around, and it's always a good feeling to have one tankful make it at least that far. With a 15-gallon tank, the low-fuel idiot light comes on at about 200 miles, so I usually tank up there, and again on the way back.

Not being pressed for time, I not only held it to the old national 55 mph limit, I pretty much held it to 50 mph. Actually, I was holding to 2,000 rpm engine speed. I've noticed in the past that the less time I spend on the high side of 2Krpm, the better the mileage. So, most of the time going up Interstate 79, then NY 5 and US 20, I was going 51, maybe 53 or 54. It was a Monday evening, so traffic was light, and though everyone was passing me, I wasn't going so slow as to be an obstruction.

When I got to Irving NY and the reservation, I still had a third of a tank, so passed up getting gas until the return trip, a day later. On the way back from my destination, I was even less in a hurry, so stayed off the numbered roads and took Old Lake Shore Road, between NY 5 and the lake, which is posted 35 or 40.

Upon tanking up, I found I got an astounding 33 mpg! That's far beyond what I'd ever gotten in the 90,000-odd miles I've had this car.

Taking that one further, since I was returning in the middle of the night, I stayed off the interstates altogether and returned on PA 8, holding to 40 or 45 mph. When I got home, I'd managed 27 mpg, even with Pennsylvania's hills. Much of Western NY, by contrast, is fairly level, and since I grew up there and bicycled everyplace, knew the flattest ways to get around my somewhat hilly home town. But even if there's no way to avoid hills around Pittsburgh, to get 27ish miles per gallon on a normally 20 mpg car is doing pretty darn good.

The point is, I slowed down and saved gas. Lots of gas.

I have a hunch that we will sometime, again, see a mandatory national speed limit, but this time, it might be lower than 55 mph, it might be 50. I'm not advocating for that yet, as it's barely been 15 years since "I can't drive 55" was lifted. But if for some reason we are forced to conserve gas, big time, this will have to be one of the ideas to be seriously considered.

* * * End of 2007 post * * *

* * * Original 2007 comment by me * * *

How to really annoy the hell out of people: Pull away from a traffic light NOT in a hurry. In my case, I tried not to exceed 2,000 rpm even as I accelerated from a stop. Yeah, zero to 50 in maybe 20 seconds instead of 12.

Worse still for the idiot who laid on the horn at the last light because I started off too slowly, I sometimes catch up with them at the next light, sometimes passing them in the left lane because I anticipated the next stop light and was already going 15 mph while they waited the full cycle. They probably used twice the gasoline as they left me in the dust, then burned up a substantial amount of brake pad lining stopping for the next light, while I just puttered merrily along.

Can you say "tortoise and the hare"? Can you say "the majority of drivers out there"?

On a Stack of Bibles (July 3, 2007)

Current mood: contemplative

Over the years, I've come to believe that it is not good enough to read The Bible. Sure, I read it. I've read it cover to cover. I consult it often. What else I've learned over the years is that each translation of a work in a foreign language takes on a character different from every other. This is not a bad thing; one must only realize it, accept it, and comprehend their differences. The Bible is no different in this regard.

Each Bible translation, each such characterization, both adds some value to the original as well as loses some. You've heard the saying "It lost something in the translation"? What is it that got lost? What got added? The latter first: The needs of the moment, at the time of translation, colors in some way the manner of the translation. Who is the intended reader? Royalty? Children? It matters, as the nature of the education of both those who will be expected to use the translation, as well as that of the translators' manner of preparation and means of approach, define that color. This is not wrong, it just is.

As to the former, what gets lost, or can get lost, or more importantly, has been long lost, is the tone of the original. The Bible writers, whose divinely inspired work has come down to us in translation, had an audience whose culture and language differed greatly from those of the scribes and translators centuries and millenia later, and different from our own. Each original writer's shared understanding with his audience flavored that original text, resulting in thoughts and ideas that were embedded and implied, hidden thoughts that would not have been understood and conveyed by the generations of copying scribes and translators over the centuries whose work we rely on to obtain the text of the holy word we think we understand so well. Hence, we may know and understand the words used, but we cannot know all that was meant and implied by those words.

Every new translation takes on at least two additional very important aspects. First is the language of the current time. Words and phrases in our own language change; implied and understood meanings evolve with each passing decade. With practice, a reader of an older translation can begin to understand and appreciate these distinctions, but a great leap of faith and a major error occur when one merely expects the average person to have the same understanding of a passage, with little context and no explanation. Second, with each passing decade, scholarly research and archaeological discoveries allow us to understand more the language and culture that defined the age and writing style of those original authors. Not to use that information, by denying that the knowledge exists or matters, is to do ourselves a disservice in our would-be understanding of Scripture. If that in turn casts new light on certain long-held beliefs, then too bad for them! for we did not fully know what we believed. Our understanding was erroneous, however deeply held.

Given this, when I read The Bible, I employ several translations, each a different attempt to get at the full meaning of that original text. Even with four translations in hand, the task of understanding fully what was said two to three millenia ago is difficult. Allow me to illustrate:

* First, I read through one translation of a passage in order get a sense of what is going on at a high level.
* Second, I read through a second translation, glancing to the footnotes and cross-references, to get a sense of what specific terms mean, and to understand how that passage ties to others in the Bible.
* Using a third (or fourth or fifth ...) translation, I read sentences and paragraphs at a time, referring back to the first two translations for differences and similarities among them.
* Fourth, I seek to understand what was going on in the original recorder's mind. I must sift through all the language differences, peeling back the colors and flavors from the translators. I use my education in having studied literature, history, linguistics, and the history of words and languages, to arrive at some ancestral idea, that first telling that got recorded.
* Fifth, even that ancestral telling is not the full story. As I said before, that too had a setting and an audience, a language and a culture, a historical context upon which it was based. Using again my education, as described above, I try to place the passage into that setting, looking for hooks linking one to the other the original author would have used.
* From all that, understanding the whole point of what the story was originally telling in its original context, I can finally approach the idea that the speaker had in mind when so divinely inspired, and apply it toward the betterment of my own life.

It is not good enough to read The Bible. If we would truly know the holy word, we would employ a stack.