The Stony Brook Press » Opinion | The Stony Brook Press

Take Our Guns, Seriously, We Can’t Help Ourselves

John Fischer — Sat, 04 May 2013 23:14:54 +0000

You would think that the events of 2012 would have been a wake-up call for Senators to get out their ammo (their thoughts and ideas) and target what some would argue as an ongoing trend in our society over the last few decades: gun violence. Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora and Sandy Hook. Has Congress forgotten these events that were plastered in every newspaper across the country? Has it forgotten the blood, the hysteria, the tears on people’s faces when they found out they would never see their loved ones again?
You would think that four months ago when Adam Lanza killed his mother and then walked through the doors of Sandy Hook Elementary School where he shot and killed 20 children and six women, that Republicans, Democrats and even groups like the National Rifle Association may want to do something to prevent other children and their families from experiencing a similar trauma.
I am sad to report that this target was missed on Wednesday, April 17th when in a vote of 54 – 46, the Senate rejected a compromise plan to expand background checks on the purchase of guns. As a result, the proposal that would have kept weapons modeled in the style of those used by combat forces out of the hands of civilians was rejected. As I’m writing this, it’s strange to imagine how six more votes would have formed a majority to pass the bill and probably would have made this review a positive outlook on the Senate rather than a negative one.
I just have one question: Is the Senate insane or just coldhearted and emotionless? I would not be surprised if it was the latter. It just doesn’t seem to make any sense. After the past year, why wouldn’t we want more background checks, especially if they prevent another mentally-deranged person from shooting down a bunch of defenseless, first-graders or a family who spends time together at the movies?
Yes, the second amendment does give citizens the right to bear arms and should that be respected? Absolutely, but with limits. What I mean is that while weapons should continue to be available to the public, they should only be carried by those whom are mentally stable and can adhere to the responsible possession of these weapons. And if a weapon is modeled after one used by the armed forces, doesn’t that make it necessary for war and battle zones rather than American households? After all, the whole point of owning a gun is for protection instead of killing a burglar or unstable person.
But what really pisses me off are the four Democrats who voted against such a measure just to save their seats in the Senate. Yes, it’s politics. Yes, I understand…that you care more about that than setting an example for your gun-pro states that this violence has to stop and that the only way to do so is by limiting access to those who cannot be trusted with a gun.

I Shbinked Myself

HowieNewsberkman — Sat, 04 May 2013 23:09:58 +0000

I, Howie Newsberkman, am a mysterious man haunted by many secrets. For example, did you know that if you press up-up-down-down-left-right-left-right-B-A-Start on the title screen of Contra, you’ll get extra lives? Did you know that the Pizza Planet truck is on the witch’s woodcarving table in Pixar’s Brave? Did you know that I once shot a man in Reno…just to watch him die? It’s all horrifyingly true. Late at night, I toss and turn, terrified by these grisly specters of my past.
Luckily, last year an answer arrived to combat my perpetual turmoil. As previously reported in The Stony Brook Press, Stony Brook Secrets is a Facebook page where the campus community can share their innermost doubts and fears. Yes, originally we weren’t sharing these posts anonymously—oh, the publicizing was anonymous, so yes, the world at large still doesn’t know that I am the man who really kidnapped Lindbergh’s baby—but it wasn’t anonymous to submit secrets, considering we just all used Facebook personal messaging to do so.
That was okay with me. The faceless mastermind behind the campus’s scandal network seemed trustworthy enough to hear that I, Howie Newsberkman, am sexually aroused by onions and that talking newt from The Boring Rocks. That definitely makes sense to me. Then again, I never saw Gossip Girl, so maybe there’s something I’m missing. Sure, he later switched to anonymous Tumblr submissions. My guess is he just missed that GIFset explaining how those aren’t really anonymous either, but maybe I just spend too much time on Tumblr.
Whatever. I’m just a journalist, so who am I to judge the campus’s ultimate humanitarian? Yes, humanitarian. Rumor has it that the Lord of Secrets himself was starting a non-profit secret organization, and that rumor is true. Although its original launch date of April 25 has been delayed, news of Shbink, as it has been ingeniously dubbed, still has reached my ears. You may be asking: Besides a name that sounds like a comic strip sound effect or the world’s most-forgettable Pokémon, what makes Shbink different than the old Stony Brook Secrets page, or even, say, Post Secret?
Oh, ye of little faith! So much is different! Because Shbink is a business, Shbink has its own website, T-shirts, and pens. It also has the endorsement of the Elton John-esque head of the Quidditch World Cup. Shbink’s employees are known as ambassadors, a name that suggests that the United States may soon have a new trading partner. Shbink’s ambassadors are all around us, presumably doing something important. Whatever it is, they’re not sharing it, but they have been smiling and staring at computer screens in a series of remarkable staged photos.
That is most of what is different about Shbink. At its core, Shbink was a very large text box in which poor wastrels like you could type their innermost passions. Then you would hit submit, give your email (which of course ensures maximum confidentiality) and you’d be done. Then you just sit around and wait until Shbink actually launches, at which point your secret would go live. Or, as Shbink actually, honestly, said before a clever edit: “Exposing you bitches in…” And that gave me nothing but hope.
As we speak, Shbink’s global reach is expanding. Over 15 colleges—or at least 15 other ambitious delvers of secrets—are on board, and boy, are they all excited to do whatever it is a Shbink does. It’s great to see so many with so much faith in a purple text box.
It’s a Shbink world, everybody. Our secrets are now pawns in a global empire, and that is beautiful. And now that the Shbinkmaster is a public figure, it won’t be long before journalists like me begin printing some of his secrets, or at least having some fun with the Shbink premise. We’re not the only bitches with secrets to expose, are we? And in the Shbink world, we’re all equally pathetic.

Farewell Editorial

The Stony Brook Press — Sat, 04 May 2013 22:21:50 +0000

Typically, every May the exiting executive editor of The Stony Brook Press writes a farewell editorial about where the Press has gone under his or her reign and what’s up ahead. This is not one of those years. Our executive, Nick Batson, will be passing the torch to Jodie Mann, but he will not be leaving The Press entirely. Instead, I will be leaving (or at least abandoning all positions but author of The Boring Rocks). So Ms. Mann asked me to write my farewell. But first, the beginning.
Four years ago, I was a gangly awkward teenager with almost no ideas about what to do with my time. I say “almost,” because I knew I had two usable skills: intense knowledge of English grammar and the ability to draw mildly-humorous talking animals. There weren’t many clubs where those techniques could promote me to a three-year tenure as third-in-command. In fact, there’s only one: The Stony Brook Press. And being part of the Press, though troubling at times, was honestly one of the most fun parts of my time at college.
But as a gangly freshman, I didn’t know that. I suspected that a newspaper would be good to join, but how to choose which one? At the time, the campus had many news organizations: The Press, the esteemed Statesman, the plucky Independent, the quirky Think, the, uh, unique Patriot… But only one told me that they had Nintendo consoles in the office. So I took my talents to the Press. At the second meeting I attended, I basically just played Castlevania. At the third, Tetris Attack. But while doing that, I somehow learned a lot about journalism and management.
You might wonder why I’m telling you this, besides the self-indulgent catharsis that characterizes most of what I write. Actually, this time it’s all essential. You see, The Press was, and is, and hopefully will be a great publication because of its laid-back atmosphere and sense of acceptance. And from this venue can thus come both manic oddities like Stadiums of Shit and important stories like the Lamar/Aoki scandal. With our skills and attitudes, we can review Bubble Tape while still having the integrity to handle stories of death and destruction with the seriousness they deserve.
The Press is an intersection of fun and quality that can only come from people who are passionate about what they do: whether it’s photos, art, features, poetry, reviews, sports, Sportz, opinions, telling jokes and yes, even journalism. And fun and quality is really the most you could ask from a campus paper. As long as there are passionate people here (and I assure you, our replacements have passion to spare), The Press will still be everything you’re hoping for.
Four years ago, in the first printed Boring Rocks comic, Pippin told Fwubo that he needed to stop being timid and stand up for what he believed in. I’d like to think in some ways, I spent the past four years doing the same. Maybe no one cared. But I’m still glad I put my work out there. And if you’re passionate about what you do, I implore you to do the same. Stony Brook needs more folks like you. The Press needs more folks like you. Come down and show us what you’re made of. You’ll be glad you gave yourself the chance.

~Evan Goldaper (former Associate Editor of The Stony Brook Press)

Construction Disruption

The Stony Brook Press — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 22:41:02 +0000

Construction, to those who are not wearing hard hats and vests (and maybe to those who are, also), seems like needless hassle — a tic the size of a dinner plate on the back of a benevolent student just trying to get a slice of pizza in the current constructional maze that is the Kelly Dining zone.

To get to Kelly’s entrance has become somewhat of a challenge; maybe that’s good, obesity is a problem and we need any extra exercise we can get.

But, in all seriousness, to put it simply: for current students, construction on campus makes things bad. It means walking back to dorms without the option of a sidewalk. It means leaving for class five-to-10 minutes early to allow time for that detour made necessary by the blockade of metal gates around the old Old Chemistry building. It means accepting the fact that Kelly Dining has, for quite some time now, looked more like a post-apocalyptic fragment of the Earth than a place to eat cheap macaroni and mashed potatoes and hang out with friends.

And the work doesn’t end there. Crews are working on new buildings and maintaining older ones, fixing pipes and breaking them.

To students who traverse Stony Brook’s daffodil-lined grounds for just four years (ish), the constant work is a giant blemish on the face of what could be a physically beautiful campus. There is also noise.

According to University President Samuel Stanley, “One measure of any institution’s health is the number of cranes on campus.” If this is the case, our campus is clearly eating an apple a day and staying well-hydrated. There are cranes everywhere.

You’d be hard-pressed to find a current student who will tell you that construction is good, save for those who realize that construction is what brought them the new Campus Recreation Center and also every other building that exists.

The funny thing about being a current student looking at construction is that, whether the critics realize it or not, it is easy to be short-sighted. It is easy to say that four construction-less years would be nice, because then we’d always wake up to the sights we see on college brochures and every day we could smell the freshly-cut lawn as we listen to the chirping of birds rather than the humming of heavy machinery. And yet, constructional improvements are the reason for every building that exists on this campus today.

As the university grows in size and its number of prospective students does the same, construction becomes a necessary part of its existence.

SBU has gleaned both its physical appearance and its institutional status from the field of construction. Everything good, and bad, about this campus came from a once-current construction project.

Someday not too far from now, SBU students will wake up in the rooms of residence halls on the land that is now only grass connecting Mendelsohn Quad and the Charles B. Wang Center, walk to the academic mall to take their seats in classes in the soon-to-be-opened Frey Hall and not think twice about it. They will walk past the Computer Science building in the mornings and at night attend basketball games in the new arena. They will visit the Marine Sciences center at Stony Brook Southampton.

Someday, these things will be normal; they will be institutions and they will be taken for granted as things that are just here.

But these things need to be built, and current students need to accept that. Also, we sure do pay enough for improvements, monetarily speaking.

In 20 years, this campus will likely be barely-recognizable to anyone who is a student today. And that’s how it should be — it’s important to keep up with other universities, to compete, because to lose our footing in the college-selection game is all too easy.

The second the appearance of SBU’s campus becomes inferior to that of Binghamton or Syracuse or Buffalo or Albany, SBU loses just a little bit of its reputation; it shrinks from its tall stature; it sinks down in its chair and begins to accept defeat.

Mama Bloomberg

Nick Batson — Sun, 07 Apr 2013 22:31:31 +0000

So Mama—I mean Mayor—Bloomberg is back with another great idea to make New Yorkers healthier. It seems for the time being Bloomberg is taking a break from harassing businesses that sell too much soda and is refocusing back on the tobacco industry.

Bloomberg’s three term mayoral career has been filled with efforts to improve the public health of the city, beginning with the ban of trans-fats back in 2008 and more recently the attempted ban of soft drinks larger than 20 oz which was shot down by New York Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling the day before the ban was to go into action.

In 2011 Bloomberg banned smoking in all parks, boardwalks, beaches, recreation centers, swimming pools and pedestrian plazas and New York City already tacks on an extra $5.85 in taxes for the sale of each pack of cigarettes.

But Bloomberg’s newest campaign is a little more drastic than high taxes.In addition to requiring retailers to keep cigarettes packages out of sight from customers and restricting the use of coupons and promotions on cigarette sales, the bill will also set a mandatory minimum price of $10.50 for each pack of cigarettes.

At this point in our lives, I think we get it. Smoking is bad for you and it’s something you really shouldn’t do. But why do we do it? Maybe it’s the feeling of rebellion we want to experience, maybe we just want to look cool (seriously it doesn’t make you look cool) or maybe we just have addictive personalities. One thing is for certain though, high prices haven’t ever really stopped smokers from lighting up, so it would seem that this regulation wouldn’t do much either.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand where Bloomberg’s coming form. He wants his city to live healthy and happy lifestyles. Which is fine, but what isn’t fine is having a Mayor that at time appears to resemble your mother more than a leader.

Many Americans are quite big on personal freedoms. Just take a look at that whole Second Amendment dispute. It may sound selfish, but as an American I want the freedom to do what I want. If I want to smoke cigarettes, I should be allowed to do so without any governing body attempting to stop me. The very same goes for large soft drinks.

The point is, there’s a line that has to be drawn somewhere. When does the concept of improving public health begin to infringe on other American’s personal freedoms?

Defense of Marriage Act

Rebecca Tapio — Sun, 07 Apr 2013 22:30:49 +0000

The marriage of two homosexual human beings is an abomination in the eyes of God, and uniting them in holy matrimony will result in the corruption of the entirety of American society. People will start trying to couple with their dogs, and children influenced by the gays will become gay instantaneously.

Luckily, none of these statements are fact, but citizens of the United States of America have every right to believe them as such. Issues arise only when one person attempts to force his or her beliefs on another.

Many people supporting the Defense of Marriage Act publically reference their Christian beliefs as evidence for their arguments. If this were a theocracy, which would probably fly.

The United States is not a theocracy. It is not the role of the federal government to impose the sanctities of one religion on an entire population against their will. The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion for all, which also means freedom from religion.

Whether you’re Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Algonquin, narcissistic, atheistic or agnostic, you should be treated equally in the eyes of the law, regardless of age, gender or sex.

I believe wholeheartedly that everyone should have the ability to express their opinions, and people should not hesitate to include their religion in the forming of those ideas. But when your ideas fundamentally oppress and harm other people simply because you have a different opinion than they do, that means that you shouldn’t be influencing matters of state.

The federal government should not control the institution of marriage. It should be providing civil unions for all, with all the same tax breaks and socioeconomic benefits that would exist between spouses. “Marriage” based on individual beliefs should then be pursued in individual houses of worship.

The institutions of monogamy, commitment and self-sacrifice exist in people outside of traditional marriages, and that’s what we should really be celebrating. “Marriage” is really just a piece of paper, in the end.

Vote or Die

The Stony Brook Press — Sun, 07 Apr 2013 22:09:55 +0000

Well it’s that time of year again. Students walking around, petitions in hand, hoping to get enough signatures to make it on the ballot to run for a USG position.

Most students will nonchalantly sign these petitions, maybe not even paying attention to whose petition it is they’re signing. They’ll hand the clipboard back and continue on their way, knowing nothing about who it is they just spoke to and endorsed for a USG position.

It’s fair to say that most students know little, if anything, about what USG is, let alone how they operate. Stories about their activities may appear in campus media, but many of them are glossed over.

The election will begin April 8, and a small percentage of undergraduate students will log on to SOLAR to vote for candidates. Some will do so responsibly, having researched each candidate and knowing what they stand for. Many others however will log on and vote for whoever their friends may have told them to. An even larger number won’t even vote.

It’s sad really, that so few students know or even care about who will make decisions on their behalf. It’s easy to get caught up in school work or other activities and forget that a student government even exists.

For those of us involved with clubs on campus, we’re forced to work with student government, whether it be to negotiate budgets or request money for supplies. We know how important student government is. We know that without it, our jobs and our activities would cease to exist. So much of what we do on this campus, and what services we can provide to the undergraduate community rely on those who are elected to USG.

This is also a big time of year for the campus, as well as USG. The semester’s winding down, summer plans are being made, but it’s also nearing the time when the acts for the spring concert are announced. More than any other time of the year, USG is in the spotlight. Many students will have complaints about the talent chosen, especially considering by the outcry from students regarding the Steve Aoki and Kendrick Lamar concert that would never be. Many of these students didn’t vote last year, and will now complain when the actual talent for the concert is announced.

They’ll complain about how Stony Brook doesn’t act in the students interests, how Stony Brook wastes money, and surely many other things. But will they look at the real root of the problem? That problem being those who were elected to USG.

That’s not to say that those who are involved with the selection of artists for the spring concert are a “problem,” but that if students do have a problem with the way things are being done, those are who they should be voicing their opinions to.

Many of them won’t. They’ll complain on Facebook or Twitter, or in side conversations with friends. Completely unaware of the fact that they have power over their own destiny. They have the power to change things for the better, for how they want them to be.

This is where we say “put up or shut up Stony Brook.” If you have a problem with the way things are handled on this campus, especially special events like the spring concert, then do something about it. Research the candidates, get to know them, understand what they want to do and make an educated decision as to whether or not you agree. If you agree vote for them, if not then don’t. Just don’t sit around and do nothing, and then complain when something doesn’t go your way.

We have the power to do great things and have experiences which will last us a lifetime as students here, lets make sure we put people in office that will reflect our best interests. Don’t vote for candidate because you like them, or you think they’re nice, or because your friend told was in a class with them once. Vote for the person who’s really the best leader for this campus.

That being said, when the polls open on April 8 make sure you’re ready, and more importantly make sure you take the time to actually go on and vote. Your future at Stony Brook relies on it

Big Coffees Go Bye Bye?

Brianna Peterson — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 00:15:22 +0000

On March 11, Justice Milton A. Tingling of the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan decided that Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s limits on sugary beverages were “arbitrary and capricious,” stopping the restrictions in their tracks just one day before they were supposed to go into effect. Thank god. The only chance the ban now has is an appeal, which is Bloomberg’s plan.
I wasn’t concerned about the “Super Big Gulp” disappearing or removing the option to make my soda at McDonalds the Xtra value size. I was most worried about how my cup of Starbucks would be affected. Thankfully, I don’t have to worry anymore.
The original ban was also set to go beyond the oversized sodas and affect coffee sales in NYC as well. Those who go to Dunkin Donuts or McDonalds for their caffeine fix would have had to add their own sugar packets instead of having the employee do it for them.

The fate of various coffee beverages would have varied according to the ratio of milk, sugar and calories that each cup contained. The size wouldn’t have been affected, though, as long as a barista didn’t add any more than 5 sugar packets to the cup. How much sugar finally would have ended up in the cup, however, is completely up to the customer, since they could have added as much sugar as they wish once they receive the coffee.

How was this supposed to prevent obesity? I don’t really see it. As mentioned, customers would have been able to add as much sugar as they wanted once they received the cup of coffee, and anyone who wanted more than 16 ounces of soda could just buy two small ones instead of one really big one.

The loopholes on this piece of legislation were numerous. Even the companies that would have been affected admitted that there are a lot of ways to get around the ban. If Bloomberg was concerned about the health of New Yorkers and is still determined to lower the risk for obesity, why were there so many ways to circumvent the ban?

Not every sugary beverage has a loophole, however. If the ban gets appealed and goes into effect, Frappucinos will still be up for debate. While milk is exempt from the large drink ban, Frappucinos also contain a lot of sugar. The mixes that are used to make Frappucinos have at least 54 grams of sugar in them. Even when compared to a 20oz bottle of Coca Cola, which has 64 grams of sugar, that’s still a lot of sugar.

It’s not that I have a problem with Bloomberg trying to prevent obesity. It’s great that he is trying to do some good. The only issue is that it would affect people’s ability to choose whether they want to be healthy or not. My coffee-drinking habits have made me biased in regards to the idea of the ban.

Luckily, the ban has been brought to a halt for now, but Bloomberg does plan on appealing the judge’s decision. In the meantime, I’ll just continue to buy my Venti Frappuccino with all of the fix’ns and enjoy the sin of sugar a bit longer.

What’s the Deal With Weekend Life?

The Stony Brook Press — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 00:06:39 +0000

We here at The Stony Brook Press have been kicking around the idea of writing about weekend life activities for quite some time here. However, the brainstorming would almost invariably turn into an open forum for editors and staff members to make jokes and complain about how “weekend life” is something that doesn’t really exist, which would be why so many people pack their bags and head home for the weekends.

The numbers really do show that the Brook doesn’t empty out nearly as much as it did years ago. That being said, I can’t imagine how empty the place was back in the days prior to 2006, because the place does empty out quite a bit, especially over extended breaks when the place becomes a damn ghost town. That situation becomes a whole mess of boredom unto itself that we won’t even begin to get into here.

Sure, there are plenty of reasons to want to head out. You could want the comfort of your own bed, a home-cooked meal, to hang out with friends that don’t attend SBU or chill with pets. The reasons are seemingly endless.

However, the University should make a real effort to keep students around on weekends, because for a significant number of students, this is their home for the majority of the year.

On the various occasions that we have began research on the topic over the past 10 months or so, we would look at the events planned and outlined on the emails sent out by the Weekend Life Council. After all, it was the sole purpose of said council to provide a reason for students to stick around on weekends.

What was so surprising was that the majority of these events took place prior to the actual weekend. The latest they’d usually take place was on a Friday evening, some even taking place on Thursdays while classes were still in session. We ran a piece examining this weird occurrance, but never really investigated deeper.

Further into this very issue (on page six, to be exact.) The Press’ veteran Features Editor Alyssa Melillo takes a deeper, more thoughtful look at the topic of weekend life, which I strongly suggest you give a read, as it really is very good.

From Ms. Melillo’s findings it appears that the folks on the Weekend Life Council have been making a legitimate effort to keep people around and have been doing a better job as of late with their event planning and whatnot, but I haven’t noticed it personally.

Who knows, maybe we’re just looking in the wrong places.

Redneck Reality Television

Tom Johnson — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 02:13:23 +0000

I’m not going to bury the lede, I absolutely love reality television. For me, the trashier and dumber the players involved, the happier I am.

You can only begin to imagine how excited I was when I noticed the emerging trend of reality TV’s guido population packing up their spray tans and shake weights and returning to the pits from whence they came in their IROC-Zs, free to once again terrorize, roofie and spread a new breed of venereal disease to the population of their original domiciles, in favor of a new hillbilly paradigm.

In my eyes, guidos fall into the same category as juggalos and bronies: people that both horrify and disgust me and that the world would be a much, much better place if we were to load them all up in a rocket and shoot it into the sun.

While some remnants of that bygone age still cling to life (Mob Wives, Snooki & JWoww, etc) the spotlight has now been transferred over to our lovable, idiot cousins south of the Mason- Dixon.

We’ll start with Buckwild, MTV’s new jam about a group of youngins in West Virginia living their backwater lives and gittin’ ‘er done. The show is described as being “Jersey Shore in Appalachia,” which I’d argue is pretty apt. The show knows what it is, and that’s fine. I’d rather it be that way then have them try and class the joint up with any substance.

Granted, people bitch and moan on the Internet (as they are prone to doing) that the show perpetuates negative stereotypes of West Virginians and is ruining their reputation, because everyone thinks of West Virginia as a bastion for intellectual pursuits and not a backwoods flyover state, right?

Then there’s Duck Dynasty, A&E’s way of letting us peer into the lives of the Robertson clan, a family of obscenely rich Louisiana residents that own and operate the stupidly profitable Duck Commander duck call company. They like heavy machinery, camouflage, explosions and shooting stuff. It’s a regular ol’ slice of the American Dream. The thing that I’d argue is most endearing about it is that the people it follows are like your idiot cousin, but instead of having these grandiose plans that will never come to be, they have a near-limitless pool of funds to make their dreams reality. Wanna make the world’s biggest duck call? You can sure as hell try, so what if you don’t have the skills or intelligence? The cash is all that matters.

To make it even better (hard to imagine, right?!) I learned important life lessons, like how you should always take a shotgun with you whenever you go in the woods, “redneck geometry” and that you shouldn’t judge a man’s prowess by the size of his duck call.

I don’t like Duck Dynasty, I love Duck Dynasty. And in all honesty, you should love it too, in an unironic way. You should love it in the way I do, wherein you find it endearing and worthy of said love, even though at the end of the day it’s making you stupid, and that’s okay.

Yeah, it’s just another way to pander to an audience by offering them something stupid and entertaining, but I really hope this can go on for a long time, because I love it all so goddamn much.