Where I live


I live in a suburb called Observatory. Suburbs are less about Nancys with lemonade and lawnmowers and more about the distinct sections of living situations that surround the city. Cape Town and all its suburbs are built in a circle around the big and beautiful Table Mountain, and inside the curve of the mountain lies the city bowl. Further on the outskirts are townships, designated black areas to which people were forced to relocate during apartheid, which ended less than 30 years ago. Apartheid is “over” but the economic and social disparities are very much alive and kicking, largely because of the city’s purposeful spatial planning that keeps white real estate climbing and black communities hidden. Langa, for example, is a square mile surrounded by road and rail. Population is between 50,000 and 80,000, which qualifies as a town in the U.S. As the population continues to grow, the area gets more dense with nowhere to go.

The areas bordering the ocean are all inhabited by wealthy white people. Sea Point is where the rich Jews live, Green Point is for the gays, Observatory is for the Muslims and the pot smokers, a quirky Venn diagram with no middle pocket. What I love most about Obz is that it feels like a cozy town. I know Paul and Ross that run their vegan cafe, Cliff who makes tarts, and Johno who explained 5 different kids of fabric blend to me on a slow afternoon. In the mornings, I walk past the homeless couple whose dogs remember me. The liquor store owner has a parrot name Jody that likes to bite people.

this would be me, but I don’t get close enough

I started off sharing a home with a roommate, then halfway through decided it was time for me to experience living alone. I asked Paul if he knew any places available in the area, and he reached into his pocket, handed me some house keys, and told me to let myself into a house his friend was renting. It was such a gesture of trust and care that I have never experienced from someone at my local Starbucks. I also feel I’m surrounded by real people making an honest attempt at starting their own businesses, their own art galleries, their own recipes for their restaurants. It’s an engaging and interactive place to live.

I live far from the gym, and unfortunately close to the world’s best Ferrero Rocher milkshakes. I and 7 minutes from Langa and 10 from town. There’s beer pong on Thursdays, pressed juices for two dollars, and a cafe that has bout a million books for sale crammed into the walls top to bottom.

The issue of homelessness is very jarring and heartbreaking in Cape Town, and largely in Observatory. The city issues PSAs to not give to homeless people, since there is guaranteed food, water, and showers for any and all that are in need.

On a daily basis, it can be desensitizing as it isn’t uncommon to be approached half a dozen times in a day. But in the bigger picture, living in Cape Town will never ever let a person forget about their privilege. The history of ZA segregation is bare faced in the present, with evidence in every street, restaurant, or house you point to. Minibuses can take you anywhere, and my friends who’ve spent their entire lives in Langa will say they’ve been to the beach once. Older white South Africans I met at the Waterfront will have spent 60 years in the city without having been in a township once.

I will be honest in my struggle between the balance of being empathetic and maintaining my own level of comfort and sanity. My home got broken into while I was gone. They stole $600 worth of Isaac’s music equipment, which he was using to help teach youth in Langa songwriting and music engineering (more on that later). More heinously, they stole a jigsaw puzzle I didn’t get to start yet. While feeling shaken at the lack of security and the huge financial loss (to Ikes), I also couldn’t help but understand the desperation that poorer people feel here. I attended with my Langa friends a lecture on intergenerational trauma, where the lecturer spoke about how an incident like apartheid or even domestic abuse continues to pass down trauma from parent (or lack/neglect of) to child, creating a vicious cycle of violence, need, and crime. It is impossible to distinguish the criminal actions of a person from the South African context from which it comes from. The political system spent decades disenfranchising the majority of the South African population, and its replacement has done little to help in reconciliation or access to wealth and health. People aren’t stealing puzzles to ruin my day; I live in a community where someone needs to take a puzzle to survive. It doesn’t make it right and it doesn’t cheer me up, but I believe the understanding of the “why’s” behind crime, at least in this environment, is something that I will take home with me.

On a separate and lighter note, living alone is awesome. Two days ago I baked 30 biscuits inspired by the Red Lobster appetizers at midnight and ate 10 of them. I spend my afternoons painting or reading. My smaller living space makes much harder for me to decide not to cross the room and get a glass of water. I’m more hydrated than I’ve been in years. I listen to Kelly Clarkson (2004) without headphones. And I get to use the whole entire table for the new puzzle I bought. Sometimes I dream about living here for ten more years. I try to ignore that I have three and a half months left.


Fish out of water, except the fish is Cape Town

“The government cautions that the Day Zero threat will surpass anything a major city has faced since World War II or the Sept. 11 attacks. Talks are underway with South Africa’s police because “normal policing will be entirely inadequate.” Residents, their nerves increasingly frayed, speak in whispers of impending chaos.

A family negotiates their way through caked mud around a dried up section of the Theewaterskloof dam near Cape Town

I’ve been putting off writing about this to give me time to organize my thoughts and research about how this managed to happen and what’s largely to blame… but, considering that today we have advanced (or devolved) to level 6b water restrictions, it’s a good a time as any. This means that residents are required to use less than 50L of water a day (yesterday it was 87L). For us imperial system Americanos, consider the fact a toilet flush is 6 liters, a 2 minutes shower is 20 liters, and washing your face and hands in the morning is 3L. It can add up for people that aren’t paying attention. And despite the public service announcements, interactive graphics, persistent urgent warnings, and now international news coverage, many Cape Tonians are still not listening. It’s been revealed that under the 87 L restriction, 67% of residents were still overusing their daily quota.

The rest of them have it down pat. To flush the toilet is to commit the deepest sin. The bucket in the shower is a household staple. To emit a slight funk is a badge of honor. Some are literally diagnosed with “bucket back” due to their commitment of saving grey water.

But I will say despite statistics, I have been very proud of the way I have seen residents in my neighborhood and Langa come together to do what’s necessary. Many people believe that low income neighborhoods have bigger problems to worry about than the environment, but I have found the exact opposite to be true. Each Langa homestay has finished a SMART living training program that had them put signs in their bathrooms and make moves towards solar and energy cutting appliances. But go to Constantia, Hout Bay, Camps Bay, the 1% garden cities of Cape Town, and I don’t doubt you will find green manicured lawns and pools still full of water. And yet, last week, the DA leader Mmusi Maimaine sparked outrage by posting a picture handing out 25 L buckets to Constantia (think Bel Air) residents to encourage them to save water.


When you consider the context — a very economically and racially stratified post-apartheid social environment, and the guy is handing out buckets to white people at the black taxpayer expense — it’s not a super good look. Hundreds of pissed off South Africans put it to words better than I do:

Screen Shot 2018-02-02 at 12.18.02 AM

It is very important to see how the government will handle this problem. When Day Zero comes in April, residents are to queue in one of 200 water collection points throughout the city with armed guards making sure people don’t get more than 25L per day. As the Times put it, we’re truly going Mad Max. But the question I’m interested in seeing is the placement of these points. Townships are extremely dense with people, but don’t have the wealthy vote for the next election cycle, which could very well incenstivize the placement of these points. It’s politics that largely got the water crisis to be this exacerbated in the first place. With the ANC party holding the national government and the DA holding the regional government, budgets have been handed off from one election cycle to the other with each budget focused on getting short term votes. This means funds have long been dedicated to short term poverty alleviation to long term infrastructure projects. When Cape Town should have been listening to the dooming weather patters and shocking population increase, officals should have been allocating funds to desalination tanks and a better dam system much longer ago.

The city centre business are already exempt from the water cutoffs in order to keep business running. Informal settlements are also exempt. But what about those living in townships that are formal settlements? What about people in Muisenberg, who my Uber driver tells me wait for over an hour at collection points already? What about lil ol me in Observatory?

Time will tell. Commnuication from up top has been unreliable from the start. Every day was a changing percentage of how full the dams were, and statements about the current state of water is geared more towards political pats on the back than actually dessimating important information to citizens (I just read an article celebrating the fact that we pushed Day Zero back to April 16… when the Times reported it was to be April 22. Go figure.) But desalination plants from the Waterfront should be online by March, and until then, hospitals, clinics, informal settlements, and clinical points will still have access to water.

This is the first major city in the world to run out of water, but it is most definitely not the first city. Cape Town has many rural groups to turn to to gain valuable protips on how to last without water. If they take some proper notes, they could rise from this political embarrassment as a decent case study on how to survive when other countries inevitably run into the same problem. Maybe by that point we’ll have no need for our buckets and back braces.

The coming weeks will be interesting, to say the least. But to those wondering if we’re flopping like dried fish out here, we are okay. The water crisis is as bad as it sounds, but people will adapt and adjust to do what is necessary to make push through Day Zero, or, in a perfect world, make sure the day doesn’t have to come.


The burst of the blue bubble

I have felt useless contributing to the conversations following the election of Donald Trump last week. I haven’t felt the fire in my chest to protest, to take a stand, to sign the petition in the hopes that a loophole will bring Clinton into office. I don’t feel that those are actions helping me get closer to reality.

If there’s anything I’ve learned from the social media discourse, it’s that it is an echo chamber. I have taken comfort in my blue bubble for many years, believing that the country was collectively rolling forward in progress. I take comfort in it now in remembering that in the light of electing a white supremacist, my circle of diverse friends and allies will continue to exist and advocate for each other in the face of the doom that marches forward on January 20. But alas.

The Wall Street Journal released an interesting interface called Blue Feed, Red Feed, a project that shows how Facebook reveals an entirely different set of articles and news sources depending on the political alignment of the user. To a red user, posts about “reverse racism on the rise as black Americans beat an old Trump supporter” hit headlines, while a blue user reads about “Hijabi woman gets robbed and beaten by racist Trump supporter.” Clicking through this site makes it clear just how different the world is shaped and seen by people interacting with different corners of the internet.

Back in journalism class in high school, I was asked by my teacher, “What is the most important part about being a journalist?” I replied that it was to tell the truth, and was immediately corrected. “The most important thing is to make money.”Part of the reason this is so is because nobody is paying for good journalism anymore. Smaller scale newspapers and magazines are underfunded and have to rely on sensationalist drama to catch a reader’s eye.

Seeing the effect that this sort of news bias has had on our election, I now believe it is imperative to spend the money to get good journalism. No matter what the cost. I would be willing to pay to hear the truth if it means that I never have to feel the shock that the majority of the country is speaking an entirely different language when it comes to the conversations around choosing our next president. Of course, election articles and polls are merely speculative until the votes start rolling in. CNN was wrong. BBC was wrong. Even Nate Silver was wrong.  Over at Carreon Thinking, she says “this era of weakened trust in mainstream outlets and in poor media literacy is troubling considering that Balkan teenagers can run pro-Trump websites full of inaccurate or misleading information that nevertheless generates hundreds of thousands of engagements on social media.” But I no longer want to be in my blue echo chamber. This is the time for Americans like me to switch to Fox News every once in a while. For Republicans to have conversations with their Muslim and Latinx colleagues. For the bubble to burst.


The new Ellis Island




With the announcement of the new President of the United States still ringing in America’s ears, some are left speechless. Others are left scrambling through the soundbites of the campaign’s promises, trying to see what sort of laws he will implement that could hurt their families, their citizenship, and their sense of inclusion. And even 6,000 miles away, a broken nation of people are seeing the lock bolted on the door of the country they hoped they could have called home. The escapees of the Syrian civil war, 80% of whom are women and children, find themselves now in the crux of a psychological war in the American mind, caught between those who sympathize with their genocide and those who simply don’t want to be involved.

“Because they’re coming into the country, they’re being put where nobody even knows where they are,” guesses Trump, president elect  of our country. “We don’t know where they are, where they’re coming, you’ve them all over the place. And for all we know, this could be the great Trojan Horse.”

This depiction of these fleeing families, much like the story of the Trojan Horse, is a tired myth with no roots in reality or lived experiences. The reality is that out of 800,000 of the refugees accepted into American borders since the rise of terrorism in 2001, not a single one has been convicted of terrorism. Yet every last of these new Americans continue to be feared and attacked on the grounds of their otherness.

As a result of this stance of inaction, Americans have watched and balked at President Bashar al-Assad’s systematic massacre of his people. The degree of this engagement is limited to exclamations of lukewarm sympathy on social media, feelings of sadness at the circulation of images of bloody and drowned children, but never a stirring of emotion to the point of action. Instead, the reflexive instinct of our country has been to point right back at the Middle East, insisting that Syrian neighbors aren’t doing their part to shoulder the immigrants. But two of Syria’s neighbors, Jordan and Lebanon, host more refugees per capita than any European country. On the Western side, Canada has a tenth of America’s population, yet has resettled double the amount the States have. Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister, has even volunteered to accept 250,000 refugees from the States, Syrians and undocumented Mexicans included, if the ban on immigration holds water this coming January.

The fear that drives Americans to push refugees out of our borders is not new-founded: In 1939, the U.S. turned away 900 of them, fearing that they may be conspirators or puppets from their oppressors. These individuals were Jews, and after they were forced back into Germany, a quarter of them were killed in the Holocaust. This is not to say that these two tragedies are comparable in scale or in atrocity. The point is not to play Oppression Olympics, but to say that the opportunity for the United States to intervene in the face of human rights abuses was present in both cases, and in both cases, the fear of the foreigner caused the country to turn its cheek.

This issue has often been split down partisan lines. Yet traditionalists and constitutionalists above anyone shouldn’t find it difficult to boast in the land of the free, the resurgence of the legacy of Ellis Island. But it seems that for many Americans, the lines of distinction seem to blur the farther the victims seem to be from the West. Suddenly, it’s not a human problem, it’s an Arab problem. This issue has been exacerbated every time media fails to delineate between ISIS and Muslim, between Islamic radicals and the peaceful followers of Islam. Thanks to this discourse, an entire religious group has been painted with a broad stroke of suspicion and mistrust, one that blankets the compassion for a nation of dying women and children that just want to live somewhere safe.

Pulling the welcome mat from our doors may ironically be the strike of the match that destabilizes our national security. Our compassion and accordance with global community in resettling refugees not only strengthens alliances, but also acts against the image of Islamophobia that jihadists use to justify their hatred against the States.

Regardless, such fear of ramification should not even be the basis for deciding to open our doors. Compassion, decency, and the practice of liberty and justice for all should be more than enough. Our country is only enriched with every new spice, every new addition to the melting pot of its demography. To go safe would be to be sorry.


America’s Employees of the month are behind bars


This holiday season, I finally got to enjoy the free time that I use to kick back and watch troubling documentaries about the state of our civil society, as I like to do. I was most looking forward to watching 13th, the documentary about America’s relentless incarceration of people in color. The movie is explicit in its message, which is lays out in a linear, chronological fashion, starting with slavery. As it moves through the decades, the director points at the ways that this institutional dominance persists through different means, from chain gangs to the war on drugs to the three-strikes policy, and finally to police brutality of black bodies.

Racism is an ugly streak on the track record of humanity, an example of the human race turning in on itself on very frail bases of beliefs. It has always been difficult of me to understand why discrimination and bigotry exists.

First reason: Once a pattern and worldview has started, it can be hard to stop. 13th defines incarceration as an extended pattern from slavery (though doesn’t necessarily explain my black men were targeted for slavery).

Second reason: This is one that we’re told as international relations students: in human society, it there must exist in a given moment a dominating class and a group being dominated. This is often used to explain why often dominating groups attempt to pit minorities against each other. In the 60’s mainstream media began defining Chinese and Japanese Americans as the model minority, by classifying black Americans as the “bad minority.” By doing this, America was able to wave away accusations of racism by using Asian Americans as case studies in “working hard to be successful.” Again, this is touched upon by 13th in the context of the war on drugs, during which Reagan racialized cocaine as a white drug and crack as a black drug, and criminalized them each to extremely different degree. Again, it doesn’t explain why black men are targeted as the minority in the crosshairs.

Third reason: I began to understand this one as the most convincing argument after finishing the documentary. Ultimately, evil begets evil, and the impulse for subjugating races of people is fed by the ever-present evil of … you guessed it! Capitalism. The need for profit, as we have learned (and learned again form the outcome of this presidential election) has always been held in higher regard than the liberties of historically oppressed people.

Companies have reaped huge benefits from this imprisoned labor force, some of whom get paid as little as 12 cents an hour to work for corporations like Victoria’s Secret or Walmart. The same size corporations are part of ALEC, the American Legislative Council, that works with politicians and lawmakers to create templates for laws. This undercover council is to blame for the “three strikes laws,” “truth in sentencing” laws, and mandatory minimums for non-violent drug offenders. Even when mainstream media is pressed to pay more attention to the human rights of these prisoners, the corporate proposal is to allow prisoners to be imprisoned in their own homes, under surveillance of leg braces off of which they could profit from once more. No matter which way you see it, there is money to be made off of putting people in cages. As long as there is a hunt for money, there will always be a manhunt for bodies to fund it. This documentary helped me understand the logic behind it all, though I found there to be no sense at all.


Australia: A horrific case study in closing borders

The question of resettling Syrian refugees has been a major talking point in our presidential election. Images of injured and hungry Syrian women and children are combated with questions of our national security that fuel American anxieties about letting them in. Trump has said many a time that the immigrants will undergo “extreme vetting” and that he’s going to be “so tough” on letting them in.

“We have no idea who these people are, where they come from,” Trump said of Syrian refugees during his speech in Phoenix on Wednesday. “I always say, Trojan horse. Watch what’s going to happen, folks. It’s not going to be pretty.”

This kind of rhetoric and the historical images that it evokes taps into the fears of the “others” and the “unknown” that Americans feel towards immigrants, especially those of Arabic-speaking countries. The Trojan Horse, as some may forget, is a myth. It was a story from centuries go that never actually happened. If one were to base the implications of extreme vetting, however, on situations that are actually taking place right now, perhaps the American people would think twice about turning Syrian refugees away. I’m talking about Australia and its use of torture on immigrants.

Yes, torture is an extreme word, one which happens to be perfectly suitable for the measures that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and head of immigration Michael Pezzullo have taken in ensuring the boats go elsewhere. Their policy thus far has been to capture boats heading to Australia and send those aboard to camps in Nauru or Papua New Guinea indefinitely. Many who are stuck on the island have died or are suffering from medical inattention. Their acts have been listed as violations of the Convention Against Torture. Little of the Australian public is speaking out against this because the discourse is more more centered around how the refugees aren’t there and less around where they’re actually going. The sort of blissful ignorance is almost certainly what’s going to happen if we leave vetting to the hands of Trump or other administrators that do not have the refugee’s best interests at hand.

This thought would be incomplete without my saying that Syrian refugees aren’t the only refugees that we should be talking about, despite the focused rhetoric of the election. As Emily points out in Refugees Aren’t From Syria, a massive amount of refugees are forgotten in countries in Africa, where 17 million are displaced within the African continent. Of course, there must be a line drawn for the sake of America’s capacity for aid. But must that same line be drawn for our recognition and attention paid to crises beyond our shores?


Voting for Trump isn’t always black and white

Many of friends on Facebook have garnered up the guts to publicly denounce friends and family who support Trump as bigots, racists, and women-haters, largely backed by the knowledge that the majority of their circles will choose to hit them with a like or keep their opposing opinions to themselves. This group of silent readership, of course, always excludes an uncle Al or Auntie Helen who will unleash a tone deaf tirade about crooked Hillary, sparking a back and forth that I find myself simultaneously drawn to and repulsed by until I turn off my laptop and go for a walk.

My point is, Trump has said enough remarks about minorities, POWs, women, and immigrants to make the case against bigotry a harder and harder one to crack for his faithful supporters. As a Muslim, a woman, and an ally/friend to many of the groups he targets, I myself have found myself noting Trump supporters in my networks in a mental blacklist of “people I can’t trust with my rights and liberties.”

That was before I watched this Guardian video about McDowell County, West Virginia. McDowell is the poorest country in one of the poorest states, virtually forgotten except for the fact that during the primaries, they surfaced as the county with a higher percentage of people voted for Trump than anywhere else in the U.S. The video shows a grassy, gloomy landscape shrouded in silence and dust. Once a population of 100,000, the country now is home to 18,000, all who suffer from a life expectancy rate par to that of Ethiopia.  In the video, a woman, swinging on her destitute yet charmingly cozy porch, explains that she walks the road in search of aluminum cans, which earn her 45 cents a pound. “It’s not easy,” she says, with more defeat in her voice than complaint.

McDowell was once considered the coal capital of America, before technology and cheaper energy alternatives took work opportunities from miners one by one. In a town where everyone’s father, grandfather, and great grandfather was a coal miner, the residents are no sons and daughters that sit around, waiting for a deus ex machina that didn’t look like it was coming. Until, of course, Donald Trump announced that he was running for president.

“Hillary said, I’m going to put the mines and the miners out of business. That’s a hard one to explain, isn’t it? We’re going to put the miners back to work. We’re going to get the coal mines back open.”

Upon hearing these words, in the midst of their economic tragedy, it’s absolutely no surprise that 5 days later, Trump emerged with 91.5% of the republican primary votes from the county.

For the record, Hillary’s words were taken out of context. Her full quote:

“I’m the only candidate which has a policy about how to ring economic opportunity using clean, renewable energy as the key, into coal country”We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”

Regardless, it’s easy how that could be misinterpreted by a community that has proved itself on being the spearheads of the same industry for decades. Change is frightening. What they are not told is that the platform that Trump feeds them is built on false promises. Needless to say, reintroducing coal as the primary energy source for the U.S. is both environmentally destructive and economically unfeasible. Coal is becoming obsolete, and pretending that the transition is not happening is serving as instant gratification to these families that is soon to be replaced by monumental disappointment.

My big takeaway from this video is that there is so much more to politics than the shocking sound bytes, the scandals, the personal vices of the candidates. For some people, it is a matter of life or death.
“They’ll do anything for a job,” says Sharon in the video. “They’ll do anything to feed their families. “They’re getting tricked, manipulated, and they believe that things are different than they really are.

Yes, the people in the country are overwhelmingly white. This county doesn’t boast the diversity, the color spectrum, the melting pot that the United States boasts in the coasts. They’ve likely not met a Mexican, a Muslim, a POC.

Paw Paw, Sharon’s grandfather, echoes this in a tone deaf yet somehow still endearing explanation. “I voted for that black guy two times. I’m a democrat.”

But in the context of the election (and I struggle to say this) I don’t think it matters. Ignorance is not their driving force of voting for a president that has the capability to harm many groups of people. The people of McDowell county are zoned in on one line, one promise of hope, one they haven’t heard in years.



Improving Nutritional Outcomes in the City of Dreams

Los Angeles: home to the fifteen dollar pressed juice, empire of Kalerribean smoothies, motherland of kombucha. The food culture of the city is certainly cultivated in a way to promote the health and beauty of its residents who strive to set the standards of health and beauty. But beneath the facade of the City of Dreams lies a nightmare for the 1.2 million Angelenos living in food insecurity (LA public Health Report). In Los Angeles County, approximately 17% of residents are food insecure, with seniors and children in particular being most at risk. In fact, a study found that out of all cities in the United States, Los Angeles has the largest population of food-insecure children, with a whopping one in four children unable to find enough to eat (Goldberg). The problem is exacerbated in the low income neighborhoods in South LA and East LA, where the lack of fresh produce and dense concentration of fast food chains has deemed both regions as food deserts and food swamps (Warshawsky). While hunger and malnutrition would be considered troubling social issues on their own, research finds strong links between food insecurity and countless other afflictions, including increased odds of hospitalization among children, greater prevalence of depression and suicidal thoughts among adolescents, and increased levels of stress and depression in women. Furthermore, people with limited money that are forced to choose between purchasing food or medicine may suffer exacerbated effects of their existing medical conditions (LA health report). This epidemic is a rumble in Los Angeles’ belly that it can not afford to ignore. Nevertheless, the government is trying its best to turn the other cheek.

Efforts to ameliorate the food gap in Los Angeles have largely been taken up by civil society organizations (CSO’s) that gain funding through donors, faith groups, and grants. However, considering the public officials Los Angeles County tout their commitment to welfare and their “many programs to protect, maintain and improve the health and mental health of its residents,” (LA County Website)  it certainly could put in some overtime. In areas like urban planning and education, two spaces in which the government has space to affect change, the city of Los Angeles has greatly dropped the ball in its efforts to fulfill the basic health needs of its citizens. The numbers of hungry residents have risen to such devastating amounts that it is impossible for the city not to acknowledge that not enough is being done. To what extent, then, are existing government efforts affecting or ameliorating the food insecurity crisis in Los Angeles, and why does it persist? Through investigation of current initiatives and an assessment of each’s impact, I have found that the persistence of hunger and malnutrition is largely due to the government’s framing of the issue as a simplistic problem with simplistic solutions, its failure to address the underlying mindset perpetuating LA’s food culture, and its neglect of acknowledging a peripheral yet powerful byproduct of this food culture— monumental food waste.

For the purpose of consistency, food security will henceforth be defined under the terms of The American Institute of Nutrition, as “access by all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life.” This includes not only the requisite of nutritious, safe foods on shelves nearby to these people, but also means to acquire them in socially acceptable ways. This terminology, I suppose, clearly draws a distinction between living near dumpsters of high end vegan markets and living in a place where such products are financially feasible. Furthermore, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) classifies these food insecure households as either coping with “low food security” or “very low food security,” which distinguishes between “diets with reduced quality, variety, or desirability” and “diets with disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake,” respectively (LA Public Health Report).

To begin with, the city Los Angeles faults by constructing simplistic policy to address food security, a highly complex byproduct of the social, racial, and economic makeup of the city. For several years, Los Angeles’ efforts in promoting better nutritional outcomes for its residents have been limited to opening more grocers and supermarkets with a produce section in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. On the surface, this would seem like the sensible solution to combating food insecurity. After all, if food security is defined as safe and socially acceptable access to nutritional foods, putting them in an aisle seems like the easy, breezy antidote. On the contrary, a study conducted by RAND Corporation revealed that there was virtually no link between the type of food and drinks that Los Angeles County adults consume and the proximity of fast-food outlets, grocery stores and convenience stores to their homes, and adjusting these variables actually bore no increase of food security for its residents. This, upon further thought, proves more logical than the formerly held belief. For one thing, putting a Whole Foods in the center of Downtown Los Angeles and hoping that it enables healthy shopping is just as ineffective as putting a SoulCycle on Skid Row and expecting a slew of enthused bikers lining at the door. Lining streets with amenities of a different class is the flawed logic of believing gentrification benefits everyone. Replacing existing food supplies with upscale, expensive fruits and vegetables, conversely, may push more consumers into big fast food establishments that are more affordable and familiar than the introduced foods. Richard Sturm, the RAND researcher that spearheaded the study, submits that the food environment is not that important to the fate of a city’s food security, especially in a highly mobile society such as Los Angeles, where the city is spread out and people travel great lengths every day (RAND). Additionally, the plan failed to realize that such supermarkets offer unhealthy, processed foods and snacks in equal abundance. RAND researcher Strum showed that the cheaper, high caloric foods like chips and instant noodles, were more heavily marketed and thus more in line with consumer knowledge. In another example of misguided well intent, Los Angeles rolled out an ordinance in 2007 that prohibited new fast food chains from opening in the city of Los Angeles. Strangely, a study published in 2015 found that from 2007 to 2012, the percentage of people who were overweight or obese increased everywhere in L.A., but the increase was significantly greater in areas covered by the fast-food ordinance (RAND). The reason for this uptick is unclear, but one fact remains true: attaining food security and promoting health are complicated steps with no easy solution. Other programs that focus on actually providing free nutritional meals to needing families are proven more effective at providing food security, but exacerbate a system of unsustainable dependence. The LA Regional Food Bank, which works with 680 local agencies to feed 280,000 people in Los Angeles each month, is undoubtedly impactful in their efforts to ameliorate hunger. However, despite having the facilities and the volunteers willing to distribute food, the LA Regional Food Bank reports that 41% of its partner agencies reported not having enough food to meet the demand and 43% reported turning people away because they ran out of food (LA Public Health.) In another example, the Summer Meals program offers meals during the summer for students ages 18 and under who depend on the reduced price or free lunches offered during the school year to secure a balanced meal in their daily diet. Efforts like these, though immeasurably impactful, depend heavily on donations that can’t be promised with each coming year. Generally speaking, with initiatives like the Food Bank and Summer Meals, one sees that government programs are geared to flail at the branches of food insecurity, while none are constructed to identify the source at the root.

This root, this fundamental issue that keeps stomachs empty even if shelves are full, is the issue of education. The truth is, 12 percent of the food insecure people in Los Angeles are living above the poverty line, according to Feeding America (Goldberg). This speaks to two findings. First, the cost of living in Los Angeles is unmaintainable for many residents, even those making enough to pass over the line. Secondly, and more importantly, it shows that it would be naive to say that the lack of nutritious foods in diets is strictly a financial issue. Sure, LACHS results indicate that food insecurity increases as household income decreases. Sure, food insecurity is a greater issue among populations that are unemployed. Sure, food insecurity disproportionally impacts African American adults, a demographic with a longstanding history of being socioeconomically disadvantaged in the United States. On the other hand, a look at the data also reveals a prevalence in food insecurity among those who are not U.S. citizens and those with less than a high school education (LA Public Health).

Let’s look at those separately. Firstly, food insecurity among non-U.S. citizens hints at nutritional outcomes being tied to cultural barriers. A family from an ethnicity and a culture tied closely to its food may be predisposed against the introduction to five servings of fruits and vegetables a day that may be atypical in their traditional diet. As an Egyptian who was raised on heavy plates (and seconds, and thirds…) of buttery meats, rice, and bread, the taste I have developed for acai bowls and sugar snap peas since I moved to California continues to raise the eyebrows of my family back in the motherland. Secondly, the prevalence in food insecurity among those with lower degrees in schooling may indicate that malnutrition is, at its core, an education issue. The point of origin in this problem can be seen in the poor eating habits that are seen in children in low income parts of Los Angeles. Two in five children in the county are categorized as being an unhealthy weight, which is often a result of eating an unhealthy breakfast or skipping it altogether. The obesity epidemic produces a snowball effect for a myriad of other problems, including higher school absenteeism, poorer academic performance, increased disciplinary problems, lower graduation rates and poorer health (Business Wire). In an effort to enforce a healthy start, school districts around the county introduced the free and reduced School Breakfast Program, which provides every eligible student with USDA approved breakfast and lunches. Despite this fact, 742,000 low-income children across Los Angeles County do not participate. As a consequence, school districts in Los Angeles County miss out on more than $174 million of federal and state funding each year (Business Wire). This tremendous opt out rate could be one of several reasons. Parents may not think it is imperative for their child to eat a nutritious breakfast before class. Also, a group that investigated this disparity found that many children miss out on breakfast because it is served too early in the day for them to capitalize on the meal. Such an obstacle is more difficult for children of parents who work or do not have the means to accommodate around the meals. Finally, the same group found that children feel too ashamed to admit in front of their classmates that they need the free meal. The kids that leave the food untouched, then, leave school districts in Los Angeles County ineligible for more than $174 million of federal and state funding each year (Goldberg). Ultimately, all these facts point to the larger issue at hand — that misinformation, stigma, and cultural differences all feed into a broken food culture that makes it hard for progressive food reform to stick. Current government effort to offer nutritional information as food for thought are grossly misguided and out of touch with the demographic at hand. To make it easier to measure household food waste and overall health statistics of consumption, Roe and other researchers are developing a smartphone app with Louisiana State University’s Pennington Biomedical Research Center (Ramkumar). With this app, the researchers hope that food insecure residents of Los Angeles can educate themselves on the caloric intake and disposal that happens under their roofs. Such an attempt to keep the information accessible yet trendy is seemingly blind to the possibility that low income residents below the poverty line would not have an iPhone or Android at hand.

Even in places in Los Angeles where people are able to access vegetables, most are left being pushed around on peoples plates before being dumped into the landfills. Out of the 2.9 million tons of waste Los Angeles feeds to landfill sites, 28% is comprised food waste. That is 815,000 pounds of scraps of food, much of which is edible and fresh days after it is thrown away (warshawsky). The sites of food waste are aplenty and start from the minute farmers plant seeds into the ground. Due to overestimated supermarket demand, farmers feel pressured to produce tons more produce than is actually ultimately harvest, in order to protect against potential damages of unforeseen circumstances that prevent them from reaching the quotas of their clients. In this stage, the loss is classified as “food losses and spoilage.” The scene of food waste happens in the shelves of supermarkets and cabinets. Researches from the firm SSRS looked into this point of food loss, and found that in a simple of consumers, almost 70 percent threw items away once the package date on the foods expired, in the interest of protecting themselves from food borne illness. This would be well and good if the labels on milk, meats, and vegetables were tested and certified. In actuality, a closer look revealed that package dates are largely arbitrary and determined by some eyeballing on the supermarket end. It makes perfect sense as to why a grocer would overshoot the date the food goes sour, of course: the sooner the foods expire, the sooner Angelenos throw out the “decaying” goods and come back to buy another batch. Almost 60 percent said food waste is necessary to ensure that meals are fresh and flavorful (Bloomberg).

The current structure limits Los Angeles’ ability to implement changes, but leaves much room for the local government to step in. (Warshawsky). In its place, CSOs have implemented many programs that attempt to redirect surplus produce to hungry mouths through food banks and redistribution channels, like the program Food Forward. The fundamental obstacles with these plans, however, is that CSOs can not be certain of their financial support long term. The instability of their funds and operations thus compromise their mission and exacerbates their need for government support. The mass disposal of foods is also largely due to what is commonly called the “Wild West” system of Los Angeles waste governance, in which the government leaves food waste services in the hands of private waste companies that operate on a property by property basis. This inefficiency leaves the potential of recycling, composting, and environmental cautiousness by the wayside without oversight of involvement of public services. Additionally, the state of California does the landfill sites no favors with unfathomable laws to distinguish between trash and non-trash produce. According to Alex Helou, “If you have an apple that falls from your garden, you can put it in the green bin. If you eat an apple, the state considers that a food scrap and you’re not supposed to put it in.” Fruit fallen in a backyard is considered plant material and can be processed at green material composting facilities. The same kind of apple bought at an Albertson’s, however, is considered food material and can be processed only at facilities permitted to accept food material. Fortunately, LA County has taken the first steps in implementing a new model in which food waste recycling is a mandatory condition if the private companies want to continue operating (Washawsky). In another attempt, they’ve taken a stab at a curbside food waste pilot program since 2008. Unfortunately, this bore few solid results, with food diversion rates as low as 1-5%. In the sample of all residents familiar with the program, chosen participation is low “due to lack or interest or knowledge in food waste separation, inadequate city incentives or enforcement and lack of permitted facilities to process food waste.” Here, it is once more revealed that throwing money at a problem does nothing without changing the culture surrounding food waste and environmentalism. There is no reason a low income family should feel motivated to sort through trash and decomposing food when it’s framed at an extra task for the vague feel-good benefit of saving the planet.

As aforementioned, none of these programs can ensure success without a makeover of the ideational constructs that surround healthy food — and their expiration dates. Rescuing produce and overcoming paranoia of food borne illness require the ability of a person to look at a fruit or a vegetable and seeing it as not only a foodstuff that is edible, but also one that is nutritious and integral to a healthy lifestyle.

In the interest of painting a balanced picture of the fight against food insecurity, there are several notable projects implemented by Los Angeles County that have been successful at enacting change, as well as some I would suggest for continued progress. To begin, the Market Match program, born in 2009, works to double the benefits for EBT card holders in farmers markets. In other words, those eligible for the program receive a note that offers 10 dollars of credit for every 10 dollars spend on produce in the farmer’s market. The project has been adopted across the region— in fact, 39% of farmers’ markets in Los Angeles County accepted EBT in 2013. With a new grant from the Department of Agriculture,  it is estimated that $1 million in fresh produce will be added to the shopping bags of Southern California’s low-income families over the next two years under this program. In the interest of the 12% of food insecure people that exist over the poverty line, perhaps the benefits of the upcoming rise of minimum wage to $15 by 2020 could help ameliorate food insecurity.  A higher minimum wage per household would enable more consumers to afford more fresh fruits and vegetables and cover the cost of living.

Additionally, the government must identify solutions from the grocer end. As mentioned before, there are private market incentives to shortening the lifespan of fresh produce. However, as well as legal incentives but the public sphere has recognized the environmental detriment that it produces in the form of food waste. In May of this year, Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, and Representative Chellie Pingree, a Maine Democrat, introduced a bill to standardize food labels across the country so that the dates offered are informed and accurate (Ramkumar). The implementation of this bill could save millions of pounds of perfectly edible foods from spending their lives decaying in landfills. With a more strategized approach to reshaping food culture and to combating food insecurity, I am confident that the food supply that could be offered to residents can become as bountiful as current attempts to affect sustainable change.


A note from a Muslim with no intel

The minute Martha Raddatz called upon Ms. Gorbah Hamed to ask both candidates a question, I knew we were in for a good one.

“Hi. There are 3.3 million Muslims in the United States, and I’m one of them. You’ve mentioned working with Muslim nations, but with Islamophobia on the rise, how will you help people like me deal with the consequences of being labeled as a threat to the country after the election is over?”

The audience in my living room was made up of seven girls, three Muslims, one immigrant (and I was the one in all three camps). All eyes were locked on Donald, daring him to show his true bright, blazing colors of bigotry once more. The first chunk of the debate was watching a duck and roll performance as Trump managed to turn every directed question about his horrifying, rapey remarks into one about how the Middle East was our main concern. I like to think that everyone watching found that his comments held no water, and that this opening question was one lap in his destructive race to the bottom.

And when it came time to address his stance on Islamophobia, he responded with unsurprising ignorance, but surprising focus on how to address Islamophobia.

“I mean, whether we like it or not, and we could be very politically correct, but whether we like it or not, there is a problem. And we have to be sure that Muslims come in and report when they see something going on. When they see hatred going on, they have to report it… And, you know, there’s always a reason for everything. If they don’t do that, it’s a very difficult situation for our country, because you look at Orlando and you look at San Bernardino and you look at the World Trade Center. Go outside. Look at Paris. Look at that horrible — these are radical Islamic terrorists.”

We looked around at each other in my living room. It seems that the Muslims on my couch have not been doing enough to report activities of ISIS that we’ve observed on the way to the campus center. Our duties as Muslim Americans have been unfulfilled in the fight against terror because we continue to be surprised and horrified when these attacks happen, instead of predicting them before the fact.

Trump’s stunning lack of insight was to be expected, coming from the man who continues to advocate for handing out Muslim ID cards to the 3.3 million Muslims in the States (or did he never say that? He didn’t seem to be sure). What was most disappointing, however, was Hillary’s echo of this ignorance, all the more implicit in its implications:

“First, we’ve had Muslims in America since George Washington. And we’ve had many successful Muslims. We just lost a particular well-known one with Muhammad Ali…. We need American Muslims to be part of our eyes and ears on our front lines. I’ve worked with a lot of different Muslim groups around America. I’ve met with a lot of them, and I’ve heard how important it is for them to feel that they are wanted and included and part of our country, part of our homeland security, and that’s what I want to see.”

On the surface, Hillary’s intentions seem innocent enough — she wants to ensure that Muslim Americans feel included in the country, welcomed into the coalition of Americans against terrorism, not banished under the fear of collusion with ISIS. And that’s all well and good. But this soundbite confirmed my feelings of uncertainty about Clinton’s new on Muslim Americans since her comments form the first presidential debate:

“Donald has consistently insulted Muslims abroad, Muslims at home, when we need to be cooperating with Muslim nations and with the American Muslim community.”

In this start, Hillary separates America into two pieces: a “we” and the “Muslim American community.” She frames her point in a way that implies Muslim Americans are not part of the American community, but an entity of folks that “we” need to cooperate with for the sake of national security. And she continues:

“They’re on the front lines. They can provide information to us that we might not get anywhere else. They need to have close working cooperation with law enforcement in these communities, not be alienated and pushed away as some of Donald’s rhetoric, unfortunately, has led to.”

Certainly, Donald’s rhetoric about branding Muslims upon entry to the states is alienating and harmful. But his rhetoric about insisting Muslims report suspicious activity, one that Clinton echoes in her belief that “they can provide information to us that we might not get anywhere else,” is equally misguided and phobic.

American Muslims do not  have secret intel on the next terrorist attack. Such beliefs are the consequence of media and political rhetoric conflating the term “Islamic” with “Muslim.” Such expectations are what cause Americans to think that Muslims are dangerous, inexplicably linked to hatred and violence. In a sense, Muslim Americans are on the front lines of the coalition against radical terrorism, not because we are armed with the code to crack the crime, but because we are the ones who suffer both from the attacks from the perpetrators and from the subsequent mistrust from the American people. Asking Muslims to be on the front lines to defeat ISIS is like rallying up Mexicans to defeat the cartel. It just doesn’t make any sense.

Ultimately, like any good American would do, American Muslims would be the first to report violence within our community. I can only hope that Trump would respond to such intel in a better manner than what he had panned for Muslims reporting violence against their families and friends after his election: “I am so saddened to hear that. And I say, ‘Stop it.’ If it — if it helps,” Trump said, turning from Stahl to another camera positioned inside his Trump Tower apartment. “I will say this, and I will say right to the cameras: Stop it.” It is likely they may have their own battles to fight, post election.


Why I think Hillary lost the election

The long awaited presidential debate on Monday set Twitter and tempers alight on both sides of the party pole. It seems when you have two steamrollers coming at each other with relentless stamina (though one steamroller would say otherwise), you end up with little but a debate that falls flat. While I think that Clinton demonstrated her abilities in “looking” and “talking”like a president, it doesn’t quite cinch the election for her when it comes down to the swing states.

Nate Silver, our numbers darling, says otherwise about the numbers:

Start with a CNN poll of debate-watchers, which showed that 62 percent of voters thought Clinton won the debate compared to 27 percent for Trump — a 35-point margin. That’s the third-widest margin ever in a CNN or Gallup post-debate poll, which date back to 1984.

Of course, the audience that took the time to watch the debate may not be comprised of the same demographics as the overall masses that will take to the polls in November. The shared members get smaller when we take the sample from watchers who actually took the time to get polled by CNN.

If we take a look at Nate’s daily rack up of voters via his Nowcast, we actually see a decent plummet of people who would vote for Hillary if they went to the polls after the debate. When Hillary is facing off against a man who yaps about the need to follow “law and order” in the same breath that he uses to claim that he’s been evading federal taxes, the fact that she dropped 3.9% overnight doesn’t make much sense.



And it’s largely because sense isn’t the primary force at play in this presidential election anymore. Hillary is speaking to the educated, young millennials that are ducking through the “he lies, she lies” to look at the actual facts. According to the official fact checkers of NPR following the election, Hillary proved to be speaking truthfully about not only with platform positions on issues, like her commitment to maternal welfare and lower taxes, but also her mistakes and shifts in positioning over the last few years with respect to TPP, NAFTA, and those god damn emails. On the other hand, Trump was a couple of miles away from accuracy in China’s devolution of currency, and his tracking of statements he’s previously made about women, climate change, and tax audits.

While I’m sitting on the couch trying to stop my eye from twitching, I quickly realized that I do not sure Hillary’s qualities at remaining calm and collected in the face of opposition. Staying calm under pressure is an undoubtedly valuable asset to have as the leader of the free world — an asset that Clinton demonstrated at the podium on Monday and one that she pointed out as lacking in her opponent:

His cavalier attitude about nuclear weapons is so deeply troubling. That is the number-one threat we face in the world. And it becomes particularly threatening if terrorists ever get their hands on any nuclear material. So a man who can be provoked by a tweet should not have his fingers anywhere near the nuclear codes, as far as I think anyone with any sense about this should be concerned.

It is an ironic likelihood that Clinton’s calm demeanor is what caused her to tremble statistically in the polls. By taking the high-road, Clinton missed an opportunity to hold Trump accountable for boundless mistakes and hiccups that looks ugly in any light. What Clinton failed to consider was that those who are listening to facts and aren’t watching to be convinced by her.

Unlike many progressives and democrats, there are masses of blue collar republicans and independents that are turning out to vote in November. This is the target audience that Hillary doesn’t work hard enough to capture. As my friend Baha writes in his blog,

“Trump is leading by 40 points when it comes to having the support of non-educated white youth. Clinton could definitely use the support of the millennials who are not college educated and are not privileged by their economic and educational opportunities. It is imperative that Clinton uses the young blue collar vote to her advantage.”


Trump, in the eyes of these young constituents, won the election because he did not lose. He managed to evade humiliation and hard pressed questions, largely because Clinton didn’t it find it useful to bother him. When Trump accuses Clinton of letting ISIS exist for her entire adult life, and Clinton what Bill Maher calls a Jim-from-The Office direct to camera take,” she’s not looking at the non-educated white youth. She’s calling upon her fans to roll eyes with her, to laugh and brush it off. Trump, when given the opportunity to lambast Clinton, grabs it with both hands.

Ultimately, while Clinton did reveal herself to be prepared in answers, presidential in demeanor, and yes, likable in person, she didn’t really show undecided voters anything new.