Home Blog Page 1347

Slacklining jumps in popularity

0

By Cole Guenter (CUP)
Photos by Mark Burnham
Slacklining has hit the University of Saskatchewan campus and it might be more than just a fad

Saskatchewan (CUP) — Slacklining is the act of walking on one- or two-inch wide webbing that is anchored on either end. The line is commonly anchored to trees to keep it a few feet off the ground. Once strung, people attempt to keep their balance while walking across the narrow webbing.
Unlike tightrope walking, where the rope is pulled completely tight, slacklining, as the name implies, ensures the line still has slack in it. This also allows for more spring in the line, creating a trampoline effect.
While the sport does seem to be gaining popularity among younger people, slackliner Clarissa Kostiuk, a student at the U of S majoring in drama and education, says the sport is still strange to some.
“Lots of people give us strange looks,” Kostiuk said. “Many ask just to try standing on it and then walk away because they can’t do it, but everyone asks to give it a shot.”
One possible reason for slacklining’s recent surge in local popularity is the mainstream attention it has garnered in past months. Slackliner Andy Lewis showed the world what the possibilities are on a slackline when he was integrated into Madonna’s dance choreography during the Super Bowl halftime show last February. Lewis’s ability to shift his weight and remain balanced while bouncing from his back to his chest amazed millions of viewers.
Kostiuk, who began slacklining this summer, agrees that this type of mass showing has helped put slacklining on the map.
“I definitely think that has an impact on all different generations just realizing that it is a sport. At first it can kind of look strange, but having big television spectacles showing it off makes it more socially acceptable.”
Due to the current rise in popularity of the sport, you might be surprised to find out that it was invented in the mid-1980s by rock climbers Adam Grosowsky and Jeff Ellington. The two long-time climbers started by walking across the guard chains in parking lots. They noticed the balance required to complete the feat was similar to the balance needed for rock climbing, and that it also strengthened their leg and abdominal muscles. The duo strung up some old climbing webbing between two trees and would take to the slackline when the weather prevented them from climbing mountains.
Advocates of the sport also boast about its meditative aspect.
“It’s similar to yoga in the sense that when you do yoga, your brain relaxes from the concentration,” Kostiuk said. “Slacklining requires using so many muscles, and concentrating so much on your body doing all the work it needs to do. The concentration on our balance helps us clear our heads. Nothing else around matters; it’s just you, the line, and your balance.”

SFU Hockey gets ready for the season

0

By Bryan Scott


SFU prepares to take on UBC in University Hockey Challenge 2012

 

The Simon Fraser University Men’s Ice Hockey Team is gearing up for another successful season. After a 17–2–5 record in the 2011–2012 season, the Clan failed to win their third straight BCIHL championship when they fell 4–3 in overtime of the championship game to the University of Victoria.  They will be looking for revenge as the season approaches.  As a final tune-up for the season, the Clan will participate in the 2nd annual University Hockey Classic on Sept. 21–22.

Last year, almost 1,600 fans showed up to Bill Copeland Arena to watch the inaugural University Hockey Classic between SFU and their bitter rivals from UBC.  The event is a two-game series, a home game for each side. SFU prevailed, winning in a shootout. This was after both teams had won their respective home games.

Since they are in different leagues, UBC (CIS) and SFU (BCIHL) do not play in the regular season. “We want to promote the rivalry that has gone down in recent years,” said SFU’s head coach Mark Coletta,  “[the University Hockey Challenge] is a way to show that university and college hockey is here, and in the mix [with the other sports] to go and watch.” With the NHL negotiations at a standstill, this is a great way to get a hockey fix in these desperate times.

This year the first game will take place at UBC’s Doug Mitchell Thunderbird Sports Centre at 7:00 p.m., on Sept. 21. And the second on Sept. 22 at 7:00 at Burnaby’s Bill Copeland Arena. With a year full of bragging rights on the line, expect these teams to battle tooth-and-nail until the last buzzer.

SFU men’s soccer stomps opponents in week one

0

By Bryan Scott
SFU jumps out to 2-0 after two shutouts, to start the season

The SFU men’s soccer team continued their winning ways from last year, with two lopsided victories over Thompson River University and Vancouver Island University over the last week to begin the season. Neither were conference games, but the Clan will take the 2–0 start to the season.
Carlo Basso (Coquitlam, B.C.) had five of the Clan’s six goals, and JD Blakley (Saskatoon, SK) stopped all shots against to record the shutout. With five goals in one game, Basso was just short of the SFU record of six, which was set in 1988 and matched in 2009. After the game, head coach Alan Koch said, “It was great to see Carlo (Basso) score five goals tonight, and Michael (Winter) was a workhorse in the midfield and kept us going.” He was right about Winter’s play, as he was named the Red Lion Defensive Player of the Week in the Great Northwest Athletic Conference. Carlo Basso was a honourable mention on the offensive side.
On Sept. 2nd, SFU made quick work of the visiting Vancouver Island Mariners, beating them 3–0 at Terry Fox Field. This time midfielder Jovan Blagojevic (Coquitlam, B.C.), in his first game of the season, led the way with two goals. Even with the win, Blagojevic remarked that “we finished pretty well for the most part, but there’s still a lot of work to do and hopefully it gets better from here.” Justin Wallace (Kamloops, B.C.) picked up the final goal for the Clan in 60th minute.

Unions are an integral part of the Canadian labour landscape

0

They’re the reason you got one more day of freedom this past Monday

By Tannara Yelland
Photos by Mark Burnham

Union rallies like this are the reason we have things like the 40 hour work week.

SASKATOON (CUP) — When I was 16 I worked at a Walmart for about three months before the fluorescent lighting and constant McDonald’s meal breaks started to wear down my basic humanity and threatened to drive me insane, leading to me “quitting” (walking out after a shift and never going back to work.)

When I showed up for my initial training shifts, I was treated to a video about how to be a good Walmart employee. It was either in that video or in the spiel the manager gave afterward that the training group was told we were lucky enough not to be unionized, because we wouldn’t have to pay any pesky union dues.

That statement made me incredibly uncomfortable, and the seemingly pervasive apathy toward unionized labour in North America continues to disappoint me.

Unions had their heyday here between the 1930s and the 1970s. They are responsible for many rights that workers now consider basic to their survival: minimum wage, a limit to how much work can be required of you (which goes hand-in-hand with overtime pay), the five-day workweek and the right to bargain for further workplace improvements as a group.

One thing unions have to spend a lot of time fighting for, and probably contributes to people seeing them as self-serving, is their own right to exist. But without unions, employees have to fight for benefits and higher — or just reasonable — pay alone.

Someone who demands higher pay or an extra year off to care for a newborn child can easily be replaced by someone who doesn’t make those demands. One employee is held back by his or her need to eat and pay rent, whereas a group can fundraise to keep one another afloat during a strike.

Unions provide the essential service of presenting a large, unified workforce to combat the large, unified corporation or government for which you work. This is invaluable.

There are more than seven billion people in the world, and the number who are desperate for any kind of work at any level of pay almost certainly numbers in the hundreds of millions.

Beyond keeping enough people alive to staff their stores and have customers to buy their wares, most companies have no incentive to contribute to or ensure quality of life. And it is not at all difficult to replace a few workers agitating for affordable health care or toxin-free workplaces.

The goal of a corporation is to make money. In order to do this, they need to keep costs down and maximize profits. Labour costs money. Minimum wages increase the cost of labour. Weekends and evenings off incur costs by cutting down on efficiency. Overtime costs more than regular labour because it eats into mandatory time off. None of these things are good for CEOs, most of whom can easily imagine themselves taking that money home in the form of a nice Christmas bonus.

As Hamilton Nolan of Gawker so eloquently put it, the philosophy behind not allowing workers to unionize “is the belief that saving 15 cents on a package of Pringles is more important than your neighbors being able to pay for health care.”

He was referring specifically to Walmart, but it applies equally to both businesses that try to circumvent employees bargaining collectively, and to the cultural idea that unions are passe, a dinosaur from a previous era that is no longer required.

This is completely untrue.

You and the people you know may be treated well at your jobs despite not being unionized. But unions exist to fight for the rights of workers. They are the only type of organization that does this. To argue that unions are unnecessary is to argue that the rights of workers — which is to say, the rights of people, the rights of the majority of your fellow citizens — are unnecessary, irrelevant, old hat. And that will never be the case.

SFU women’s soccer is back!

0

By Bryan Scott

SFU splits first two games of the season despite missing players

The Simon Fraser University Women’s Soccer team opened their season with a 3–0 loss to the 25th ranked Cal State Stanislaus Warriors. After the game, Clan head coach Shelley Howieson said, “We were missing some starters out there and I thought the players that were in the lineup turned in a solid effort.” Freshman Goalkeeper Amanda Gilliland (Delta, B.C.) made a strong effort in her first game ever for the Clan. She finished with nine saves on the day, which kept the Clan within reach throughout the game, but unfortunately they were unable to produce offensively.

The clan moved on quickly from their opening loss, by beating Hawaii Pacific University 1–0 at a neutral site in Washington. The score was indicative of the teams’ defense, which played magnificently, with only five shots making it to the target for either team. Again, Gilliland was good in net, recording her first collegiate shutout with three saves, all came late in the game. The game was scoreless until the 44th minute when Aja Choy-Halo (Nanaimo, B.C.) found the back of the net to give the Clan the only goal they would need to win.

The Clan will aim to improve to 2–1 on Saturday, Sept. 8 on Terry Fox Field against the Urban Knights from San Francisco’s Academy of Art. It will be the first time the Urban Knights have played an international match.

Catfield: John

1

By Gary Lim

Petter Watch: Sept 10

0

Petter somberly packs away Hawaiian shirt for next summer.

An interview with a textbook publishing baron

0

Baron Cardiff of Pearson, formal owner of the Pearson Canada textbook company is currently thought to command a GDP of $305.2 million, or in layman’s terms, Gabon. Amassing his fortune through the textbook trade that his family has owned for the past century, Baron Cardiff prefers to enjoy his fortune in private, having gone into reclusion. Through its extensive media connections, The Peak managed to secure a rare interview with the baron.

Gary: First of all, Mr. Cardiff, I’d like to thank you on behalf of The Peak and students at SFU for finding the time to speak with us. You’re not exactly the easiest man to track down.

Baron: Thank you.

G: That part . . . wasn’t a compliment.  In addition to that, where exactly are we? The men who I only assume are working for you had me blindfolded for a good half hour before I ended up here.

B: We’re aboard The Prestige, my own private land-yacht.

G: Land . . . yacht.

B: Yes. The finest method of transportation one can take when crossing God’s green earth.

G: Anyways Mr. Cardiff, you’re an accomplished man, I see here, that your company has recently published it’s 13th editions of Introduction to Calculus, Basic Communications, and College Physics, not to mention your recent accolades in the fields of sailing, riding, what is this, house-owning?

B: Yes, rather good isn’t it.

G: Let’s cut to it Mr. Cardiff, the question on everyone’s mind: why are textbooks so expensive? The average student understands that with large-scale publishing there will inevitable be costs associated with labour, equipment and transport, but on the other hand, $250 for a hardcover textbook? Fuck you.

B: Well, updates to our textbooks are entirely necessary. In this modern age of telecoms and Twitterspheres, information travels at break-neck velocities. What is relevant now, may be totally irrelevant, several hours hereafter.

G: Granted, but with the cost of living on the rise, students are turning to alternative means for their learning materials. Craigslist, book exchanges, textbook renting, even illegal torrenting.

B:I will give you $50 if you never mention any of those things ever again.

G: You’ve got to be kidding; the average university student completes their bachelor’s with over 20 grand in student loans.

B: I’m sorry, I’m not familiar with this word “loan.”

G: You’re joking. A loan? Borrowing money, and later repaying it.  This is a concept that you’re not familiar with.

B: Oh, how amusing, borrowing money. Next you’ll be telling me of your great air exchanging venture, or reusing clothes after wearing. The humour pages, indeed. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to make the final arrangement on an island in the South Pacific that I’ll be purchasing for the wife.

G: Oh, which one?

B: I’m sorry if I’m butchering the pronunciation, but I do believe the locals calls it ‘Ahstraulia?

G: Australia?

B: Yes, that’s the one. She does love those kangaroos.  Anyhoo, you must rather go now.

And with a snap of his perfectly manicured fingers, I found myself ejected off of the land-yacht with nary more than a “what about the 50 buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucks” echoing in the wind.

 

Is the capital gains tax rate robbing Canadians blind?

0

With parliament crying deficit, increasing the capital gains tax rate is a possible financial salve

By Jonathon Simister

It’s been in the news recently that Mitt Romney’s running mate Paul Ryan wants to eliminate tax on capital gains — money people “earn” from investing the money they already have instead of actually working. Even Mitt Romney, a multi-millionaire, admits that such a plan would reduce his tax bill to near zero.

Many Canadians are content in believing that such outlandish ideas would only be considered amongst libertarian true-believers in the United States, who are so out of touch with reality that they actually believe that privatized courts would be “more just,” and that shiny rocks are “the only real money.” This is not the case.

In Canada today, capital gains are taxed at only half the rate of income earned from labour. Just look at line 199 of your T1 form: “Multiply the amount on line 197 by 50 per cent.” After adding up all of their investment income, and subtracting any losses, investors get to add only half of this total to their taxable income. This means someone earning $50,000 per year in interest on a couple million in savings at the bank would pay the same amount of income tax as the poor sucker who gets $25,000 to do their landscaping. One person works all day in the hot sun while the other gets twice the money to do nothing and yet they both pay the same amount of tax at the end of the year. Factor in tax-free investment vehicles like RRSPs, RESPs, and TFSAs and the multi-millionaire could actually earn much more and pay even less tax than the poor schmuck mowing their lawn.

In fact, these investment tax shelters ensure that regular people, the 99 per cent, never have to worry about paying capital gains tax. Anyone who has money left over after maxing out their annual tax-free $22,970 RRSP contribution limit, $2,000 per child RESP limit, and $5,000 TFSA contribution limit isn’t exactly working class. No one is paying capital gains tax on money they need to save for their retirement or their children’s education so there’s no legitimate reason to afford capital gains special treatment on tax forms. The low capital gains tax actually makes it harder for most Canadians to go to school or retire comfortably, because it robs the government of revenue it would otherwise have to help offset these costs and necessitates higher taxes on the meager incomes of students and retirees.

An increase on capital gains tax ought to be one of the least controversial tax increases. Aside from inheritance, investment income requires the least amount of effort to earn. The one per cent’s one, tired argument for the capital gains tax rate is that the money currently being invested in Canada will be invested elsewhere if it is increased. Their argument is flawed for two reasons. First of all, Canada is not a poor country by any standard, and thus doesn’t need huge amounts of foreign investment. This affords us the luxury of restricting foreign ownership in major industries. There’s plenty of money already in the hands of Canadians to be invested in new ventures or major developments; we don’t have to sacrifice our principles to appease overseas plutocrats.

Secondly, there are already plenty of places with zero capital gains tax, but investors are still pouring money into Canada. Canada will never be able to compete with tax havens like Barbados or The Cayman Islands, but we don’t have to. Canada’s investment appeal comes from the country’s resources and skilled workforce, not tax incentives. People who want to invest in the oil sands, for example, can’t very well choose their tax jurisdiction, so there’s no reason not to make them pay their fair share. Improving education will likely do the most to hasten growth of the Canadian economy. Increasing the capital gains tax to match taxes on labor income is the obvious way to pay for such improvements.

Does drinking decaf cause cancer?

0

Weighing the pros and cons of drinking decaf coffee

When not in the lab, he moonlights as a coffee connoisseur.

By Kristina Charania
Photos by Jean-Etienne Minh-Duy Poirrier

We all know that judging glance you dole out when the next person in line orders a decaf beverage. Any returning university student will tell you that coffee isn’t coffee without caffeine. And, while judging is (usually) never nice, many decaf drinkers are unaware of the long, controversial history backing the decaffeination process.
There are several ways to decaffeinate a coffee bean, but two popular methods, the direct and indirect methods of decaffeination, have been under fire for nearly 30 years for posing potential hazards to consumers. Both use a chemical solvent like dichloromethane to extract caffeine from beans without losing their flavour or aroma.
If you think the simplicity of these methods sounds too good to be true, you’d be correct. An early study in 1981 fed dichloromethane to several mice through a stomach tube — the tumors resulting from ingestion easily proved that dichloromethane was carcinogenic for small animals. Eventually, the chemical was recognized as possibly carcinogenic to humans by organizations like the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
But, my friend, let’s be realistic here.
Dichloromethane is undoubtedly the big bad chemical that you think it is, but it doesn’t make decaf coffee a sudden danger to your health. For starters, testing on mice simply isn’t the same as testing on people — developed tumors in mice don’t concretely prove that they will form in humans under similar conditions.
The mice in these cancer studies were also pumped with enough of the chemical to equal millions of cups of coffee for a human being. Any carcinogen circulating the body in extreme concentrations is naturally going to produce cancerous tumors. You’d likely bust your stomach open before you reached a hundred cups of coffee, anyways.
If there is any solvent remaining in decaf beans, it’s likely to evaporate from your beloved beverage in the brewing process. The solvent’s boiling point is approximately 103 degrees Fahrenheit, and coffee is usually brewed between 195 and 205 degrees Fahrenheit — ensuring that the dichloromethane will mostly boil off by the time any coffee reaches your hands. In addition, past studies tested decaf coffee samples and found values ranging up to 4.0 ppm (parts per million — that’s a pretty small unit) in these samples, which falls under the 10.0 ppm maximum level specified by the FDA.
Although the FDA was approached by several groups to ban dichloromethane in all food production, their faith in the chemical’s harmlessness was unwavering. This leads to a final point: while dichloromethane is still used fairly often, the media did a stupendous job in scaring many companies into using other methods. Many companies like Nestle have banned the use of dichloromethane in production as an extra precaution and moved to using ethyl acetate, a compound that occurs naturally in fruit. This means that some of the decaf you consume hasn’t come in contact with any solvents and is safe to drink.
If you find yourself prematurely eyeing today’s coffee roasts with the caffeine-deficient mania you normally reserve for final exam week, do a double-take and indulge in a hearty cup of decaf if desired. If you’re a stickler for chemical-free foods, give herbal coffees a shot or seek out a Tim Hortons decaf coffee — their Swiss Water method uses a carbon filter instead of synthetic substances to remove the caffeine from beans. Consumers and industry professionals consider this method safe, and it originated right here in British Columbia.
Go ahead and take a sip. That 24-ounce decaf double-double beside you is still safe after all.