1. What does Kashmere think about other sports with violence in it such as wrestling or boxing.
2. What about the other nationalites that are in the NHL do they have less or more violent acts than the canadians.
1. "The Russians Remember" Malcom Gray in Maclean article
2. Brett Kashmere interview with stylus magazine
3. "Violence and Sport" Smith, Michael D., Ph. D. book
4. "Kings of the ice : a history of world hockey" Andrew Podnieks book and CD
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Video and Resistance: Against Documentaries
the authors start off the the articles explaining how people
thought that memory or writing
wasnt the best way to retell the past, but when photographs
were invented all the scientests thought they had something
that could represent history without any form of bias. the
authors explain how this is not true and then they continue
onto the main part of the excerpt which is how
documentaries do not actually show the truth. They go
through three different documentaries and explain how
each is not totally truthfull it is just the directors interpertation.
The authors then mockingly explain how a typical liberal
documentary on a guerrilla war. at the end the authors say
that documentaries are not concrete history "but an independent
semiotic frame through which sensation has been filtered and
interpreted." Sontag believes that a picture can give
information butshe also states that they are unable to give a
moral stand point although it can reinforce an existing one. this is consistent with what the authors' of the earlier text
said. with the picture Piss Christ there are many different
ways to interpert the picture but people did in a way that was
congruent to their beliefs.
thought that memory or writing
wasnt the best way to retell the past, but when photographs
were invented all the scientests thought they had something
that could represent history without any form of bias. the
authors explain how this is not true and then they continue
onto the main part of the excerpt which is how
documentaries do not actually show the truth. They go
through three different documentaries and explain how
each is not totally truthfull it is just the directors interpertation.
The authors then mockingly explain how a typical liberal
documentary on a guerrilla war. at the end the authors say
that documentaries are not concrete history "but an independent
semiotic frame through which sensation has been filtered and
interpreted." Sontag believes that a picture can give
information butshe also states that they are unable to give a
moral stand point although it can reinforce an existing one. this is consistent with what the authors' of the earlier text
said. with the picture Piss Christ there are many different
ways to interpert the picture but people did in a way that was
congruent to their beliefs.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Sunday, October 14, 2007
revised superfund essay
Richard Dojan
14 October 2007
The Future of Superfund
Superfund is a government backed organization that cleans up toxic and hazardous sites around the country. Since 1980, Superfund has been cleaning up factories, petrochemical plants, old mines, and military bases that have been polluting America for decades. Superfund uses about one billion dollars a yearly in its efforts to clean up and now the monetary funds that it has been using is drying up. Most of the funding came from taxes on major chemical and industrial companies but since 1995 those taxes have not been reinstituted. As a result, the portion funded by individual taxpayers has increased from 18 percent to 53 percent of the total cost. Some people believe that the specialty taxes should be renewed, but many think that Superfund should be done away with totally. Those opposed to Superfund say that the majority of the money that Superfund uses is for legal costs and not for actual cleanup of sites. Another reason for getting rid of Superfund is the lack of development in areas where there were or are polluting plants once stood because of fear of liability for the cleanup of the area. There is also the trouble with the funding for Superfund. Some democrats wish to bring back the specialty taxes but some in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claim that most of the companies that were taxed before have cleaned up most of their waste. They explain that it would not be fair to those companies to pay for the cleaning up of sites that they did not pollute. There is no doubt that Superfund will continue to operate with nearly 500 sites that are being worked on right now and over 1000 more that need to be worked on. The question now is where the funding for these projects is going to come from. (Christian Science Monitor, Sigman 8-12)
As of right now there are two main ways that Superfund can acquire the needed money to pay for all of the cleanup activities that it is working on. The first of which is what is Superfund is going towards right now which is using the tax revenue that most other government agencies use. The second is to reinstate the “polluter pays” tax that Superfund used until 1995 when it expired and not renewed.
Hilary Sigman, a member of Rutgers Initiative on Climate Changes, Social Policy and Politics, writes that the EPA takes into account whether or not a company will help pay for the cost of the clean up in its decision on how well and how exactly the site will be cleaned up. At sites where one company will take much of the responsibility for paying for the clean up the EPA will usually opt for a lower cost choice which usually means a reduction in the quality of the clean up at the site. Also if a company has to pay for much of what will happen at the site the company is given a more active role in deciding how the site will be cleaned up. The more a company has a say in how a site will be cleaned up the less money is spent on the site. “Less elaborate remedies are chosen for sites where PRPs are likely to bear a large share of costs …which clean up the site more permanently than other remedies, are more frequent at orphan sites than at sites with viable PRPs. By contrast, treatment remedies are less frequent when PRPs are more financially stable and thus have a higher expected share of clean-up costs.”
(Sigman 1, 18-20) This means that the more a single company is involved monetarily the more emphasis on how cost efficient the clean up will be which is not necessarily the way that will get the site as clean as possible. Sites that are orphaned from big companies receive more extensive and long lasting clean ups than those sponsored by large companies. Also, since companies are more likely to have a big interest in how a site is to be cleaned up when they are spending a majority of the money means that limiting costs is a big factor in their decision to be involved.
Onondaga Lake is currently one of the Superfund sites. Onondaga Lake is one of the most polluted lakes in all of America. There are over 167,200 lbs. of mercury in Onondaga Lake as well as large amounts of chloride, calcium and sodium because of the soda ash factory. The factory was closed in 1970, but as of right now there is a waste sewage treatment plant that dumps directly into the lake and that causes a high level of Phosphorus to accumulate in the lake. Not all of the lake’s problems are man made however. The lake’s water shed has high levels of gypsum which in turn releases large amounts of sulfate into the lake. All of these play their part in keeping the water heavily polluted with mercury (Hg). “Due to industrial waste, domestic effluent, and the bedrock geology of the watershed, Onondaga Lake has unique chemical characteristics that may directly and indirectly affect the chemistry and cycling of Hg.” (Wang and Driscoll 2261) All of these factors combined make the clean up of the Onondaga lake area extremely difficult. With the increased difficulty comes increased complexity and that brings with it increased cost for the removal of the mercury that is there now and for the prevention of excess phosphorous being pumped into the lake by the waste water treatment plant. Onondaga lake currently does not have a major corporation that is funding the clean up because there is no law requiring them to since that bill expired over ten years ago. There is little hope that the tax will be renewed anytime in the near future because the administration and the EPA themselves say that they have the necessary funds to fulfill its mission. (Adams 3039-40) This however is not necessarily a bad thing as it was shown above that the more involved a company is in the clean up process the less effectively and less fully a site is cleaned up. That site is also usually cleaned up for the short term and it is not always made sure that the future of the site will be stable. Without a large company that is paying for the cleanup the leaders of projects must make an extra effort to reduce costs because they have a set budget as opposed to an almost blank cheque they would have if a company was paying. The largest construction project to date for the Onondaga lake cleanup, two large ammonia and phosphorus reducing plants, saved over 69 million dollars by using sound business techniques. (Onondaga Lake Partnership)
Onondaga Lake has a very complicated and expensive clean up process to go through before it will be considered non-hazardous. It is good that there is no major company backing the clean up process because that means that the site will be cleaned up more fully and for the long term. There is the down side however that Superfund may not have enough money to finish the project for many years, but waiting a little bit longer may be better in the long run than a quick fix that may fall apart because of a company’s involvement.
14 October 2007
The Future of Superfund
Superfund is a government backed organization that cleans up toxic and hazardous sites around the country. Since 1980, Superfund has been cleaning up factories, petrochemical plants, old mines, and military bases that have been polluting America for decades. Superfund uses about one billion dollars a yearly in its efforts to clean up and now the monetary funds that it has been using is drying up. Most of the funding came from taxes on major chemical and industrial companies but since 1995 those taxes have not been reinstituted. As a result, the portion funded by individual taxpayers has increased from 18 percent to 53 percent of the total cost. Some people believe that the specialty taxes should be renewed, but many think that Superfund should be done away with totally. Those opposed to Superfund say that the majority of the money that Superfund uses is for legal costs and not for actual cleanup of sites. Another reason for getting rid of Superfund is the lack of development in areas where there were or are polluting plants once stood because of fear of liability for the cleanup of the area. There is also the trouble with the funding for Superfund. Some democrats wish to bring back the specialty taxes but some in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claim that most of the companies that were taxed before have cleaned up most of their waste. They explain that it would not be fair to those companies to pay for the cleaning up of sites that they did not pollute. There is no doubt that Superfund will continue to operate with nearly 500 sites that are being worked on right now and over 1000 more that need to be worked on. The question now is where the funding for these projects is going to come from. (Christian Science Monitor, Sigman 8-12)
As of right now there are two main ways that Superfund can acquire the needed money to pay for all of the cleanup activities that it is working on. The first of which is what is Superfund is going towards right now which is using the tax revenue that most other government agencies use. The second is to reinstate the “polluter pays” tax that Superfund used until 1995 when it expired and not renewed.
Hilary Sigman, a member of Rutgers Initiative on Climate Changes, Social Policy and Politics, writes that the EPA takes into account whether or not a company will help pay for the cost of the clean up in its decision on how well and how exactly the site will be cleaned up. At sites where one company will take much of the responsibility for paying for the clean up the EPA will usually opt for a lower cost choice which usually means a reduction in the quality of the clean up at the site. Also if a company has to pay for much of what will happen at the site the company is given a more active role in deciding how the site will be cleaned up. The more a company has a say in how a site will be cleaned up the less money is spent on the site. “Less elaborate remedies are chosen for sites where PRPs are likely to bear a large share of costs …which clean up the site more permanently than other remedies, are more frequent at orphan sites than at sites with viable PRPs. By contrast, treatment remedies are less frequent when PRPs are more financially stable and thus have a higher expected share of clean-up costs.”
(Sigman 1, 18-20) This means that the more a single company is involved monetarily the more emphasis on how cost efficient the clean up will be which is not necessarily the way that will get the site as clean as possible. Sites that are orphaned from big companies receive more extensive and long lasting clean ups than those sponsored by large companies. Also, since companies are more likely to have a big interest in how a site is to be cleaned up when they are spending a majority of the money means that limiting costs is a big factor in their decision to be involved.
Onondaga Lake is currently one of the Superfund sites. Onondaga Lake is one of the most polluted lakes in all of America. There are over 167,200 lbs. of mercury in Onondaga Lake as well as large amounts of chloride, calcium and sodium because of the soda ash factory. The factory was closed in 1970, but as of right now there is a waste sewage treatment plant that dumps directly into the lake and that causes a high level of Phosphorus to accumulate in the lake. Not all of the lake’s problems are man made however. The lake’s water shed has high levels of gypsum which in turn releases large amounts of sulfate into the lake. All of these play their part in keeping the water heavily polluted with mercury (Hg). “Due to industrial waste, domestic effluent, and the bedrock geology of the watershed, Onondaga Lake has unique chemical characteristics that may directly and indirectly affect the chemistry and cycling of Hg.” (Wang and Driscoll 2261) All of these factors combined make the clean up of the Onondaga lake area extremely difficult. With the increased difficulty comes increased complexity and that brings with it increased cost for the removal of the mercury that is there now and for the prevention of excess phosphorous being pumped into the lake by the waste water treatment plant. Onondaga lake currently does not have a major corporation that is funding the clean up because there is no law requiring them to since that bill expired over ten years ago. There is little hope that the tax will be renewed anytime in the near future because the administration and the EPA themselves say that they have the necessary funds to fulfill its mission. (Adams 3039-40) This however is not necessarily a bad thing as it was shown above that the more involved a company is in the clean up process the less effectively and less fully a site is cleaned up. That site is also usually cleaned up for the short term and it is not always made sure that the future of the site will be stable. Without a large company that is paying for the cleanup the leaders of projects must make an extra effort to reduce costs because they have a set budget as opposed to an almost blank cheque they would have if a company was paying. The largest construction project to date for the Onondaga lake cleanup, two large ammonia and phosphorus reducing plants, saved over 69 million dollars by using sound business techniques. (Onondaga Lake Partnership)
Onondaga Lake has a very complicated and expensive clean up process to go through before it will be considered non-hazardous. It is good that there is no major company backing the clean up process because that means that the site will be cleaned up more fully and for the long term. There is the down side however that Superfund may not have enough money to finish the project for many years, but waiting a little bit longer may be better in the long run than a quick fix that may fall apart because of a company’s involvement.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Background on Superfund
Superfund is a government backed organazation that cleans up toxic and hazerdous sites around the country. Since 1980 Superfund has been cleaning up factories, petrochemical plants, old mines, and military bases that have been pollutting america for decades. Superfund uses about one billion dollars a year in its efforts to clean up and now the fund that it has been using is drying up. Most
of the funding came from taxes on major chemical and industrial companies but since 1995 those
taxes have not been reinstituted. As a result, the portion funded by individual taxpayers has increased from 18 percent to 53 percent of the total cost. Some people believe that the specialty taxes should be renewed, but many think that
Superfund should be done away with. Those opposed to Superfund say that the majority of
the money that Superfund uses is for legal costs and not for actual cleanup of sites. Another
reason for getting rid of Superfund is the lack of development in areas where there were
polluting plants once stood because of fear of becoming liable for the cleanup of the area.
There is also the trouble with funding of Superfund. Some democrats wish to bring back
the specialty taxes but some in EPA claim that most of the companies that were taxed
before have cleaned up most of their waste. They explain that it wouldnt be fair to those
companies to pay for the cleaning up of sites that they did not pollute. There is no doubt that
Superfund will continue to opperate with nearly 500 sites that are being worked on right
now and over 1000 more that need to be worked on the funding for Superfund will most
likely come from the average taxpayer.
link
of the funding came from taxes on major chemical and industrial companies but since 1995 those
taxes have not been reinstituted. As a result, the portion funded by individual taxpayers has increased from 18 percent to 53 percent of the total cost. Some people believe that the specialty taxes should be renewed, but many think that
Superfund should be done away with. Those opposed to Superfund say that the majority of
the money that Superfund uses is for legal costs and not for actual cleanup of sites. Another
reason for getting rid of Superfund is the lack of development in areas where there were
polluting plants once stood because of fear of becoming liable for the cleanup of the area.
There is also the trouble with funding of Superfund. Some democrats wish to bring back
the specialty taxes but some in EPA claim that most of the companies that were taxed
before have cleaned up most of their waste. They explain that it wouldnt be fair to those
companies to pay for the cleaning up of sites that they did not pollute. There is no doubt that
Superfund will continue to opperate with nearly 500 sites that are being worked on right
now and over 1000 more that need to be worked on the funding for Superfund will most
likely come from the average taxpayer.
link
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)