“Recycle” has become somewhat of a buzzword in our society. Movements have moved, political platforms have been formed, and debates have debated; all over the necessity of recycling. The fairly recent societal focus on a “greener”, more environmentally friendly solution has made itself present. A variety of stances on the topic have been taken up by most people, ranging from “Recycling is our planet’s one and only hope” to “The government puts recycling in the water to spy on me!” The real problem with this is that for (most) of these stances, there is a grain of truth to be had. Obviously, there is no simple black and white solution to “going green”, or we would have most likely put it into motion by now. For each possible recycling plan, there usually is a counterbalance, which takes the form of cost and efficiency. Efficiency put aside (for now), cost is an incredibly serious problem to take into consideration, especially with the way things are right now. One thing does fall into the simple, black and white category, though: Our current recycling situation cannot remain the same.

            So what is the problem, anyways? Why can’t we stay the course? We’ve been doing pretty well with what we’ve got going, right? Continuation of the norm is only a short-term solution; eventually we will have to deal with the problem. The overall population is rising and resources are being consumed at about the same rate. When that fact is added to the fact that our resources are finite, a problem does make itself apparent: We need to make what we’ve got last us. When viewed on the surface, this makes recycling seem like the ultimate solution to our problems. If we are worried about finite resources, then recycling trash to glean material should work, right? Unfortunately, we cannot just view a problem from the surface to solve it. Upon closer inspection, it turns out that black and white is actually a full complement of shades of gray. A good example of one of these gray areas is exactly how much energy is actually saved through recycling? The answer usually will vary with the different kinds of material being recycled. For instance, a paper mill uses (about) 40% less energy (according to the Energy Information Administration) making recycled paper as opposed to making fresh paper from new lumber. However, this is not taking into consideration the energy used collecting recyclables with a second trash truck, or the energy required to sort paper from other recyclables. Nor is it taking into consideration the fact that less new lumber means fewer trips required from logging vehicles. It is also not mentioning how there’s a limit to how often paper can be recycled; after about 5 uses, the fibers in the paper degrade due to the manufacturing process of pulping. Think of it this way: Wal-Mart is able to offer several products and services at low prices, but the true cost (when production, shipping, and other various expenses are taken into account) is different than the one customers pay. This is because Wal-Mart externalizes the prices; saving costs by offloading indirect costs onto a third party. The true energy cost is usually higher than what is stated because “indirect costs”, or unexamined energy consumption, isn’t taken into consideration. On the other hand, aluminum is far less expensive to recycle than to produce. The Environmental Protection agency says that recycling aluminum cans saves about 95% of the energy that would be used making aluminum from bauxite. In his 1994 article “Wasting Away: Mismanaging Municipal Solid Waste” (probably outdated in the face of newer problems and solutions), James V. Delong said that “MSW (Municipal Solid Waste) presents a minor national housekeeping problem, not a crisis”, and that “The responses are for the most part pointless, wasteful and both environmentally and economically destructive.” So you can see how we, as a whole, have not reached a sound conclusion on exactly where we lie on the recycling issue. This goes to show how much of the problem resides in a foggy gray area.

            Alright, Luke, you have complained about the state of things for a bit now, what is a solution? In my opinion, a solution to the recycling problem would be to start at the beginning of the problem. A large portion of the issues surrounding recycling stem mostly from difficulties in recycling the actual material. Therefore, if a new standard was created for making recyclable-friendly materials the first time around, then the system could progress with far less inefficiencies, and, as a bonus, less materials would be needed for creating the original materials. By creating a “closed loop”, the materials could either biodegrade, or be recycled with no problems. Of course, the inherent differences between materials would need to be noted beforehand so as to avoid any vagueness. Cardboard is easier to recycle than plastic, for instance, but is heavier, which would result in more expenses in shipping. This step would be an investment for a smoother running, more efficient and therefore less expensive, system of recycling. The less materials get wasted in recycling, the longer the resources would last, and the less we would have to pay to replace said materials. However, the fact that it would cost a large amount of money to overhaul the way we make the materials, the laws we create, how we enforce the laws, and dealing with materials outside of our new system (imports from another country, for instance) is a serious matter.

             As stated before, cost is usually the biggest impediment to reaching a solution to our recycling problems. When our economy is in a slump and our money is on fire, a plausible yet expensive solution to an issue is about as useful as a wildly implausible yet free solution. So what would some (more) cost effective solutions be to our recycling issues? This is where the terms “Reusing” and “Upcycling” come into play. Recycling is when an item is broken down into a material that can then be processed into a “new” product. However, Reusing and Upcycling skip the re-processing step. Reusing something is, as the name suggests, when a item is simply used over again for the same purpose. An example of this would be how my parents turn plastic Ziploc bags inside out and wash them after they are used, and just use the bags again after they dry. Upcycling, on the other hand, is when an item is used again to make something new. For instance, the use of rectangular glass beer bottles to make a wall would be an example of upcycling, or using pieces of a mirror to make art. Of course, this is a lot dirtier and more time consuming than people are usually willing to put themselves through, but some sort of change needs to take place, and they might not all be entirely pleasant at first. Perhaps some easier ways would be to re-use the same water bottle(s) instead of purchasing new ones, or using the back of paper you’ve printed off for scrap paper instead of tearing off a whole new sheet to use.

What am I trying to accomplish here? What am I arguing about? I am arguing that people’s view on recycling is not enlightened enough. They need to look a little bit below the surface, and find out for themselves the inadequacies of our current recycling system. I have not even nearly listed the massive problems that come with running such a big system, with so many different factors to take into consideration. I have to specifically drop my recycling off at a place I know it will be taken to the recycling plant, because if I put it in the recycling bin outside of my current apartment, it will just be thrown in with the rest of the trash and just result in more labor than was apparently necessary on my part. There are also issues in sorting that are quite expensive and result in materials that could be recycled being thrown away, like plastic bottles with caps on them. Am I saying just stop recycling; it is a total waste of time? No, I’m not trying to say that; I’m just saying that the system is not good enough yet, and needs improvement to become an efficient, worthy system.

Private Eddie D. Slovik, executed on January 31^st, 1945 in Saint Marie, France

Private Eddie D. Slovik was the only American soldier that was executed for desertion since the Civil War. Even though 49 other soldiers charged with desertion were given death sentences during WWII, only Private Slovik’s sentence was carried out.

Why was Slovik the only one who was executed for desertion? A little back-story would probably help to put this deed in perspective. During his younger years, Slovik gained somewhat of a lengthy arrest record. His first arrest, when he was 12, occurred when Slovik and some of his friends broke into a foundry to steal brass. Later, after several more arrests, a couple of stints in jail, and being married, he was classified as “fit for duty”, and drafted into the U.S. Army. He quickly found out that he “wasn’t cut out for combat”, and tried to request reassignment to a rear area unit from his commanding officer. He was denied this request, so he deserted and went to Headquarters, which was several miles to the rear. He wrote down a note that he would run away again before being sent to combat, confident that he’d only get a dishonorable discharge and jail time, and was court martialed and sentenced to death. His final words before death by firing squad were “They’re not shooting me for deserting the United States Army – thousands of people have done that. They’re shooting me for that bread I stole when I was twelve years old.” Why did the U.S. military break their standard of not executing for desertion in this case of Private Slovik? Apparently, around the time that he was executed, desertion was becoming a problem in France (where Slovik was stationed at the time), so it’s probably that the U.S. Military killed Slovik to set an example, and to try to prevent further desertions. General Eisenhower confirmed Slovik’s execution order, noting that it was necessary to discourage further desertions.

Although some details were glossed over, that’s all of Private Slovik’s backstory that one would need when closely reading the sonnet Jill McDonough wrote about him (page 34). A sonnet, strictly speaking, a fourteen line poem that follows a rhyme scheme and structure. “Private Eddie D. Slovik” is fourteen lines, and does follow a certain structure. However, there’s a unique rhyme scheme that runs through the sonnet. The first eight lines follow an “A B A B A B” rhyming scheme, although the rhyme for the fifth and seventh line is only partial. The next four lines have no discernable rhyme, and then the last couplet rhymes. This could support the feelings of the 12 members of the firing squad, or Private Slovik, through the whole affair. The rhyme scheme starts out steadily, perhaps stunned, like the members of the firing squad. Then, as it draws closer to the conclusion, the end of the poem, the rhyme scheme dissolves, until the end, of the poem, where the deed is done and the poem is finished. The final couplet rhyming after the previous lines could be mimicking the moment of clarity felt at the moment of the execution, the feeling that what is happening is very real, and is actually happening. To make this point clearer, the parallels between what the rifle squad felt and the way the rhyme scheme goes needs to be pointed out: A member of the firing squad first hears that he’s going to be executing a member of their own. He first dismisses it, thinking that he’ll just be let off with prison time. Then, as the time nears, he’s stunned, and in disbelief that he’s actually going to be killing a fellow countryman. Then, at the final moment as he’s firing, the immensity and reality of the situation hits, creating a moment of clarity at the very end. First, his feelings are steady, then they’re stunned and in disbelief, and finally, at the moment of action, he reaches a moment of clarity upon realization that this is happening. This possible scenario does match up with the rhyme scheme, and could reflect the feelings felt by people involved with that tragedy. The words in the sonnet also support this conclusion. The fourth line has “shocked in the sun”, which could refer to Private Slovik or the twelve riflemen; the eleventh and twelfth line mentions that the riflemen picked “never thought they’d really kill him”; and the fourteenth line of the poem specifically points out that the firing squad was “too stunned to hit his heart”.

Another scenario that could be drawn from the sonnet is a criticism of the government. Twelve is accepted as a “perfect number”, and biblically can signify the “perfection of government”, because twelve is a product of three, which signifies the divine, and four, which signifies everything earthly. The government has refused Private Slovik a posthumous pardon, because as far as they’re concerned, the execution was legal and justified. Perhaps the prevalence of twelve in the sonnet is significant of the government’s involvement and refusal to admit any error. 

It seems that everyone (except the officials in the government) acknowledges the injustice inherent in executing a fellow countryman for desertion, both in that time period and the present. Despite everyone feeling this, however, there still has been no movement towards a posthumous pardon. This is reflected in the sonnet by the rhyme scheme mimicking the surprise and disbelief the rifle squad and Slovik felt, as well as the presence of the number signifying governmental perfection, the number twelve.

Found an article online about the words that get confused the most (ex: Affect/Effect). I’ll be honest, I’ve been guilty of mixing up some of these words before.

http://wsuonline.weber.edu/wrh/words.htm

Also, since it seems that we’re entering an online era, here’s a website with some bad blogging:

http://www.practicalhacks.com/2008/03/02/bad-blogging-i-there-goes-the-english-language/

Luukas Pekkala

English 190-001

Fields

Cultural Event # 1

What qualifies as a Cultural Event? Is it ambling through the halls of an art gallery, sharing one’s opinions on the postmodern movement? Or perhaps the answer lies deep within the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, between the Ancient Egyptian exhibit and the Jurassic era exhibit? Well, the Smithsonian and the Art gallery could both be considered cultural events in a “fine arts” sense. But from a more sociological perspective, a cultural event could also be something that has meaning to members of a certain culture. Visiting the Pyramids would be a cultural event for anyone, but for an Egyptian, the pyramids would have a deeper meaning, due to the Pyramids’ deep roots in Egyptian history. For this reason, I attended the A. Wolfe Davidson exhibit in the Cooper library. What better way to get in touch with the rich Clemson University culture then to learn about an important figure from Clemson’s history?

The “A. Wolfe Davidson: The Man Behind The Sculpture” exhibit was, as one could easily derive, all about the life’s works of Abraham Wolfe Davidson, better known as the man who created the statue of Thomas Green on campus, or the man who created the iconic Littlejohn Tiger statue. Originally born in Virebsk, Russia in 1903, Davidson suffered many hardships during his childhood, stemming from the oppression against Jewish people in Russia. He attended art school at the Russian National Art School, before one of his brothers smuggled his mother and Davidson out of Russia and into Greenville, South Carolina. After studying art in New York and becoming an American Citizen, Davidson created a bust of Thomas Clemson in exchange for room, board, and tuition. He also created a bust of President Sikes for the library, a bust that still remains there for all students to see. The two cannons near Bowman Field are also his creation. After the completion of the Littlejohn Coliseum, Davidson created the famous Littlejohn Tiger statue, perhaps one of the most well known statues on campus.

What is the importance of all this? What does it matter that Davidson made a few statues on campus? Davidson had an enormous cultural impact on Clemson University.  A Clemson student was able to influence the ebb and flow of Clemson’s history, creating the most recognizable artworks on Clemson to this date. Davidson left his footprint in Clemson’s rich culture, leaving behind works for future generations students to enjoy, a tradition that continues to this very day.  Davidson passed away in 1981, having lived to the age of 78. His artwork can be seen in several museums, not just in Clemson. Clemson was lucky to have had him during the University’s earlier years.

It’s hard to pay tribute to a man who has become intertwined with Clemson’s culture, a man who now has English students writing 500 word papers on him. His artwork remains behind, though; a memorial to both Davidson and his impact on Clemson University.