Super? Fund

It sounds like a great idea: A government program created for the sheer purpose of cleansing America’s most hazardous waste-infected sites. That is what the federal government thought back in 1980 when it created the environmental program, Superfund, to do just that; clean up hazardous waste sites around the nation. Fast forward twenty-seven years and 886 successful cleanups later, and Superfund has found itself in the presence of severely hard times (Knickerbocker 1). The article by Brad Knickerbocker, “Superfund Program: A Smaller Cleanup Rag,” which was published in the Christian Science Monitor, exposes many of the problems that Superfund faces today. The most potent of which is the fact that, “The government fund that’s paid for that cleanup at a cost of more than $1 billion a year is bankrupt,” (Knickerbocker 1). As a result, Superfund has relied on a completely unsatisfactory method of “polluter pays” to financially back their site clean ups.

One of the waste-filled sites that is on Superfund’s clean-up list is Onondaga Lake. Located in Syracuse, New York, Onondaga Lake is not only one of the most polluted lakes in the United States, but it is also a shining example of the difficulties that come with the “polluter pays” philosophy. Reason being, the “polluter pays” philosophy is based upon the train of thought that, “Any party that ever touched the waste, no matter how remote the involvement, can be held liable for the full cost of remediation,” (Knickerbocker 2). This does seem fair, but when the clean-up site is one like Onondaga Lake, a site that has had many polluters throughout the years, pin pointing a specific polluter to pay the cleansing fee is quite difficult and controversial considering it is the public that generally suffers.

Among those responsible for the deterioration of Onondaga Lake, the general public has been one of, if not the greatest, target to financial support Superfund. Responsible for the sewage runoff into the lake, the general public has recently had to pay increased taxes in order to monetarily support Superfund’s cleansing process. In fact, “The portion funded by individual taxpayers has increased from 18 to 53 percent of the total costs of site renovations,” (Knickerbocker 2). One the other hand, in no way shape or form should the citizens of Syracuse have to pay a tax for renovating a lake when their average household income is only $35,671, (CNN Money). Their money can go to things much more important than cleaning a lake, like food, rent, utilities, and savings for their childrens’ educations. Although this taxation of the public is completely outrageous, it is done for the purpose of avoiding the legal ordeal of placing the cost of remediation into the hands of major companies.

In regards to the cleanup of Onondaga Lake, putting the financial blame upon big businesses can only bring about vast legal proceedings. Because the “polluter pays” philosophy is based upon putting the cost of remediation onto any polluter even remotely responsible for pollution of a site, lawsuits are a plenty when it comes to placing the blame on big businesses.
In other words, if a big business were to be declared financially responsible for the cleanup of a sight such as Onondaga Lake, they would then be able to search for any other company who may have had the slightest involvement with the polluted lake and sue them under joint and several liability standard to pay the bill. Thus, as the Knickerbocker article points out, “Much of the cost of Superfund goes to lawyers, consultants, private investigators, and administrative overhead rather than for actual cleanup,” (Knickerbocker 2). As a result of this legal run around, many developers refuse to buy and renovate areas where pollution once occurred because they do not want to be charged with having to pay for restoration.

Furthermore, the taxation of the public is not right because the pollution stemming from the general public is only a slight percentage of the total pollution contained in Onondaga Lake. While the city of Syracuse prospered in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries due in part to industrialization, Lake Onondaga suffered immensely. “In 1884, the Solvay Process Company began production of soda ash on the Lakefront and nearby properties. Approximately 6 million pounds of salty wastes, made up of chloride, sodium, and calcium were discharged daily to Onondaga Lake,” (Onondaga Lake Partnership). Unfortunately as time moved on, the lake became even more polluted. “Allied Chemical and Dye Corporation discharged an estimated 165,000 pounds of mercury to Onondaga Lake between 1946 and 1970,” (Onondaga Lake Partnership). Also affecting Onondaga Lake is a sewage treatment plant named Metro which was created to clean the water in Onondaga Lake in the late nineteen seventies. “The lake’s water quality improved in the 1980s , but still did not meet federal water quality standards by the 1990s when Metro contributed over half the phosphorus and 90 percent of ammonia entering Onondaga Lake,” (Return to Glory 10). Thus, the general public should not be responsible for 53 percent of the total costs of site renovations.

Therefore, the “polluter pays” philosophy used by Superfund is a great sounding idea. Then again, although the idea sounds great, in reality it is a completely unsatisfactory method aimed at raising funds. Yes, the general public is slightly responsible for the sewage runoff in the lake, but they should not be taxed to pay over half of the cleaning costs of Superfund sites. Thus, instead of Superfund, the reliance on organizations like The Onondaga Lake Partnership should become the norm. “Under the leadership of the Onondaga Lake Partnership, civic and government leaders are working with the public to develop a shared vision for the lake and how it should be,” (Williamson). In doing so, the vast legal preceding that come with Superfund as well as the taxing of those who cannot afford to be taxed would be avoided. In fact, Superfund should be done away with all together. It was a good thing when it started, but things change, and now Superfund is an almost bankrupt institution that has concocted ludicrous and unfair ways of paying for what they cannot afford.

New Source

This is the new source for my Superfund/Onondaga Lake essay:

Onondaga Lake Improvement Project

It has some good facts as well as current cleanup projects

Christian Science Monitor Article Synopsis

It sounds like a great idea: A government program created for the sheer purpose of cleansing America’s most hazardous waste-infected sites. That is what the federal government thought back in 1980 when it created the environmental program, Superfund, to do just that; clean up hazardous waste sites around the nation. Fast forward twenty-seven years and 886 successful cleanups later, and Superfund has found itself in the presence of severely hard times, (Knickerbocker 1.) The article by Brad Knickerbocker, “Superfund Program: A Smaller Cleanup Rag,” which was published in the Christian Science Monitor, exposes many of the problems that Superfund faces today. Perhaps the most potent of these troubles discussed in the article is the fact that, “The government fund that’s paid for that cleanup at a cost of more than $1 billion a year is virtually bankrupt,” (Knickerbocker 1.) The article goes on to quote the assistant administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Marianne Lamont Horinko, who says, “‘We still face serious challenges because we still have much work to do at our remaining sites,’” (Knickerbocker 1.) Because of these facts, the fate of Superfund is up in the air: some believe it should be done away with while others see that as politically impossible. This affects Onondaga Lake because it is one of Superfund's sites.

For backgroud info I will use the following links:
Onandaga Lake Partnership
Superfund Official Site

Phobia: Collecting in the History of Fear

Upon entering the Peter Graham Scholarly Commons in Bird Library, I was totally taken back by the group of people who had come to see the lecture entitled, "Phobia: Collecting in the History of Fear." Besides myself and about five other CAS 100 students, who were casually dressed in shorts and tee-shirts, the other fifty or so people in attendance were mainly elderly couples dressed to a tee; suits for the men and fancy skirts and tops for the ladies. After getting over this initial shock, I took a seat in the second to last row and prepared to listen to the upcoming speech by pulling out my notebook and a pen. As I was doing this, a woman (I forgot her name because I could not get my pen out in time) came to the podium and intoduced Sean Quimby, a librarian who will teach a class next year called "American Fear." Dressed in a pin-stripped suit, Mr Quimby, who appeared to be much younger than I expected the speaker to be, then gave a brief speech and powerpoint about Fear. In doing so, he told a couple jokes, that to me were lousy attempts at humor, but to the elderly in attendance were histerical, considering they all laughed quite loudly.

Regarding the information contained in his presentation, the lecture was actually kind of interesting. Using fear as his main point, Mr. Quimby started out by describing how fear evolves as one grows up: "It starts with the boogey-man, evolves to phobias of such things as spiders, then becomes the fear of being isolated." From this he refered to Charles Darwin, whose studies proved that fear is a raw emotion, prevalent in animals the same way it is prevalent in humans. Mr. Quimby discussed numerous books about fear in his lecture as well. Two of which were "Culture of Fear" and "Fear, a Cultural History." "Culture of Fear" talked about the trend of Americans to be afraid of the wrong things, such as black men and teenage pregnancy, while "Fear, a Cultural History" touched upon the ability of Americans to become easily rattled at thoughts of apocolyptic disasters. It was after discussing these books that Quimby told the audience the two main trends in American fear: "A dogged invasion followed by captivity" and "a therapeutic future." Using Osrson Well's broadcast of "War of the Worlds" as an example of Americans' fear of invasion, an audio sample of the broadcast was played through the speakers in the room. Many of the elderly people in attendance laughed at this playing, while I found it amazing that people actual believed they were being invaded by aliens at the time of its original broadcast. Another example used to portray this fear of invasion was the story of Sacco and Vanzetti. Two Italian immigrants who were arrested becuase they were believed to be communists. By using numerous examples and sources to describe "fear" Mr. Quimby took a reasonably common word and emotion and looked at it in a very scientific and interesting way.

Binh Danh Exhibit

After visiting the Bihn Dahn exhibit at the Light Work Gallery, I must say that I found the "One Week's Dead" collection to be completely fascinating. The faint faces of the dead soldiers ingrained in the plants, grass, and leaves were, on the surface, kinda creepy. However, after looking at the pieces for a little bit longer, I realized that it all made perfect sense; the plants, grass, and leaves resemble the terrain upon which, the soldiers fought and died during the Vietnam War. Regarding our current times, the photos of the soldiers killed during the Vietnam War are eerily similar to the photos of the soldiers that have died in Iraq; they are mostly young men who were taken way to prematurely. Therefore, Dahn's works will always have significance in society because they "Remind us that wars may end, but they are never over" (Laura Guth, Assistant Director Light Work). Susan Sontag would probably agree with my impression of Binh Danh's exhibit because she states, "Photographic images are pieces of evidence in an ongoing biography or history." Meaning, as long as there are wars, there will always be photos and works like those of Binh Danh. What's more, Sontag states that, "The camera makes exotic things near, intamate." This is definitely true regarding Dahn's work becuase no matter how "exotic" or unkown the dead soldiers in the pieces are to viewers, intimacy and emotion just jump out at you while looking at Dahn's works of art.

Art

Art is a word used to describe a creation, whether it be a painting, poem, song, film, sculpture, etc., that brings about an emotional response in both the creator and the viewer. One such piece of art is the Pollice Verso (Thumbs Down) by Jean Leon Gerome. In this famous oil painting, a battle-worn gladiator stands over his defeated opponent as he looks towards the numerous fans in the stands giving the dreaded thumbs down, as if to give the order, "KILL HIM!" Combined with the gritty, dark mood of the piece, the meaning of the thumbs down brought upon me an immediate feeling of dread and dispair the first time I layed me eyes on it; perhaps exactly what the illustrator was trying to display. That first encounter with this glorious work of art was back in seventh grade while scimming through my history textbook. Still to this day, whenever I feel as though I am having a bad day, I search for the Pollice Verso online to see how minor my problems are compared to those of the defeated gladiator whose fate lies in the hands (thumbs) of the crowd.


Like my definiton of art, de Duve states that, "Your dealings with art have the nature of a love relationship. And just as you need no theory of woman to love a woman, or of man to love a man, you need no theory of art to love art." In other words, de Duve, like myself, is saying that an unconscious emotional tie is created when one views a work of art; much like when one falls in love. Furthermore, de Duve goes on to say that, "If at this point someone asks you to define art, it is with your taste and your personal feelings that you will answer." This is due impart becuase if one does not experience that emotional tie with a certain piece of work, then that piece should not be considered art to the emotionally untied individual.