Dear Editor,

I write to you today in order to condemn your newspaper’s policy of publishing anonymous letters to the editor (LTEs), which was done by The Statesman as recently as the April 16, 2012 (Volume LV, Issue 26) edition.  Publishing anonymous LTEs provides a forum for personal attacks without any accountability, providing a powerful avenue for smearing a target without needing to reference any facts or evidence.  Furthermore, anonymity often leads to disruptive remarks that diminish the quality of discourse, as is doubtless your experience and that of your readers who take part in discussions on online forums.  Anonymity online often leads to vulgarity, “trolling” and “flaming”, which have no place in respectable print media.

While LTEs written by the public can be a powerful tool to criticize a policy or even the character of a politician, which may serve the public good, anonymous LTEs targeting a politician can easily be written by a rival in order to give the appearance of public opposition.  Anonymity deprives the reader of the ability to ascertain the motivations of the author.  As a comical example, suppose that an anonymous LTE derided The Statesman as “a rag whose dual purpose is to kick-start the recycling programs of the communities where it is distributed and to serve as toilet paper for poor college students.”  The sting of such an attack would be greatly mitigated, however, if the author was known to be the editor of a rival newspaper.  The publication of an anonymous attack can inflate the private grudge of a rival or detractor into the public condemnation of the silent majority.

Finally, contrary to journalistic standards that give the target of a critical story the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing, LTEs ambush their targets, who must wait until after the damage to their reputation is done before being able to respond.

I therefore urge The Statesman to modify its guidelines for submission, to state that opinion pieces and LTEs cannot be published anonymously.  Additionally, where LTEs directly criticize an individual, I urge you to give an opportunity for the target of an LTE to write a rebuttal that is published simultaneously, so that your readers have the benefit of both sides to the story in forming their opinions.

Sincerely yours,

Esam Al-Shareffi

Many of you may have seen my face around campus over the past two weeks. I am the guy with blond hair running for CAS Senator. Sadly, that is the best description I can give for you because my face on a poster is often the only information that people have about me before I am able to tell them what I stand for and what my qualifications are. I am not writing to campaign for myself, rather I am writing to express my overall opinion of this election.

By far the biggest complaint of many candidates in this election has dealt with the Elections Board. From the first day of information sessions, when a room was failed to be booked, potential candidates were informed that the Board would strictly enforce the rules and regulations of both USG and the campus. However, this was never the case. First, the board made an illegal extension of the deadline to submit intent forms because there were vacant and unopposed positions. The USG code states that 24 hours of notice must be given to the student body in order for them to submit feedback on such an extension. However, the announcement was simply posted on the USG website on Tuesday, March 12 (the day before the new deadline). This is an extreme violation because candidates, such as myself, were denied the opportunity to argue against such an extension.

Second, during the petitioning process, multiple people, including myself, reported infractions such as electioneering within 100 feet of a SINC site and petitioning without a platform statement attached. To my knowledge, people were only disqualified because they did not have enough petition signatures. Then, during campaigning and elections week, there were more violations including illegal posting on surfaces such as walls, doors, and glass. Seawolves for Change wore t-shirts advocating their party throughout campus including, but not limited to, the library, where they were within 100 feet of a SINC site. Members of my party might as well have walked through the library with signs saying “S.A.F.E.” As current USG Senator David Adams put it, “If I can’t trust you with less than a page of posting policy, how am I supposed to trust you with a 137 page long code?” Eventually the Elections Board did give warnings for these violations with time for correction but did not take action when violations were repeated. Eventually this turned into a battle to get everyone disqualified and no party was exempt. I was targeted by someone writing my name on another candidate’s poster. And during all this the Elections Board did not disqualify one person. It is their duty to take action. Think of how much worse our national elections would be if the Federal Election Commission also did not take action against infringing candidates.

The Elections Board aside, there were other things that made me sick. While this election saw some of the most creative campaigning tactics, there was one thing in particular that vexed me. I must be clear that I do not intend to bash Seawolves for Change, and I do apologize in advance because I do have friends in the party, but I believe that it was one of the most tactless methods of campaigning and I hope that it is never repeated. Using the school’s mascot as a party icon and slogans like, “We are all Seawolves,” gives the appearance that it is sanctioned by the University. I could not distinguish a “Stony Brook Athletics” shirt from a “Seawolves for Change” shirt. It is propaganda that could make students feel disenfranchised from the school for not voting for the party.

Again I ask that you not perceive this as a jab at another party because I have a problem with parties in general, including my own. Joseph Santangelo, a candidate for CAS senator, wrote to The Statesman last week saying, “The several parties are a little more than a ruse that employs a catchy name to get votes.” While I disagree with almost everything else that he wrote, this statement is all too accurate. In the USG elections, parties are not about increasing or decreasing expenditures, raising or cutting taxes, or whether or not utilizing socialized healthcare is right; they are about us versus them. USG parties are about electing people who stand for something no different than someone on the opposing party. They are about maximizing the number of votes that a candidate can get. Candidates tell their friends to vote for their party without explaining anything about what they stand for.

The result is informal straight-ticket voting. While this method of voting is practiced in many states it causes many undergraduate students to vote for people that they know nothing about. It ruins the democratic process of voting for representatives that actually represent one’s interests. Instead of voting for the most qualified person, people who have no knowledge about Senate, Rules of Order or how USG operates are elected in. Many times I heard people saying things such as, “Vote for my party because we will try to get fraternities/sororities funding.” Statements such as this err in two ways: USG is unable to fund fraternities and sororities because they are selective in membership (the same with honor societies) and voters are led to believe that these candidates and their parties are capable of impossible tasks. The effect is people receiving votes for lying to student body and leaving them with high expectations of that party.

Unfortunately we may never be able to rid USG of large parties as people would argue that it would be taking away the students’ right to collectively assemble. However, it is possible because the laws for forming parties are outlined in the USG code, a document which is much easier to amend than the USG constitution.

As this election comes to a close I find myself to be increasingly sick from all that has happened. I have been pitted in supporting friends over other friends and at this point in time (Thursday, the night before voting ends) I still have yet to cast my votes. I have seen rules go unenforced, attempts to tarnish my name, the school’s mascot being used as a tool against other students and students fighting against each other to be the one to bring change to campus. It is abhorrent. I may not be elected, but I only hope that these issues will be corrected by next year’s governing body.

However, that beauty is quickly coming to an end. Soon, one of the more peaceful and open sections of campus will be replaced by a four-to-five story dormitory and cafeteria that will make one of the few remaining open areas on campus cramped.

Expected to be completed by 2014, the new complex will include two new dormitories and a new cafeteria. Also included in the plans are the closure of the Student Union following the completion of this project.

Most college campuses, especially in the Northeast, show their heritage through the aged buildings on campus. The old brick and mortar buildings stand as a testament to all that the university has accomplished. Some of these buildings date back to the 1700s in the case of the Ivy League. Shouldn’t the older structures be the ones that are most worth preserving?

We’re a young university when compared to others in our area, we’ve just passed the half-century mark. How would it feel to one day bring your children back to this campus, say 20 years from now, and not be able to recognize most of the buildings? It would feel probably as if you had lost a part of your personal history.

Not only will the building of these new dormitories further decrease the open space on campus, but they would also become an eyesore on the skyline. Sitting outside on the patio of the Wang Center, it’s nice to look out and see blue sky and trees. Imagine looking at that same skyline a few years from now, and seeing dormitories instead of that once wide open sky.

It’s sort of ironic in a way. By adding new buildings, we’re actually beginning to destroy the heritage of our own university.

This isn’t to say that modernizing the campus’ structures is inherently bad. It’s important. Even the oldest universities have constructed new buildings in recent years. They’re easier to maintain and some people enjoy walking into a modern building the first time they visit a campus.

There just simply is no need to attempt to condense the entire campus into one very small section of an enormous plot of land. If we really wish to expand our campus, why not venture into areas that aren’t being used? Sure, that would involve removing portions of the larger wooded areas on campus, but it’d be better to have some breathing room.

Stony Brook has accomplished a lot in its short life, and we will continue to do great things in decades to come. Let’s just be sure that the Stony Brook we know now, will be the same decades from now.

I didn’t go. I don’t think I even knew when it was. Was it recent? Earthstock is usually around Earth Day and I believe Earth Day was the other day, when Google’s logo was a flower garden. Was that for Earth Day? Maybe it was Mother’s Day. Are there other plant holidays? Does Google celebrate Professor Sprout’s birthday? I don’t really know.

You might think that this makes me incredibly unqualified to write an editorial about Earthstock. Maybe I don’t have strong feelings about it. But I do have strong feelings about the environment. After all, I worked at a nature center for 11 years, where I learned the best way to feed bearded dragons, the complete text of Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax, and how to make people feel guilty for not recycling.

Now, we could talk for hours about whether or not recycling is important. Is recycling going to save the earth? Well, I’ve read more-than-enough comic books to have determined that only Superman can do that. Sure, for every reason the EPA cites about why recycling is important, some kook on Wikipedia has posted a cynical retort. But as far as I’m concerned, recycling does a lot of good. Why spend hundreds of years waiting for your plastic bottle to decay when you could just turn it into another plastic bottle? It’s grade-school, nay, Sesame Street­­­-school logic. Keep the earth from being filthy.

Surely you’re following me here. So my question to you is simple: why aren’t you all recycling? Stony Brook really wants you to do so, even when it’s not Earthstock. The campus has a whole bunch of recycle bins; they’re almost everywhere that there’s a trash can. Yet every day, I see people tossing glass and plastic bottles into the garbage. It drives me crazy.

It’s a silly thing to get frustrated about, sure. But it’d be just as easy for me to stop complaining about it as it would be for everyone to throw things where they belong. If you’ve got a genuine issue with recycling, fine. Keep throwing bottles away. But if you’re just being lazy, why not reconsider? We don’t need an Earthstock to tell us what to do. I think what big events like Earthstock don’t show us is that conservation really needs to be basic and mundane. When you’re done with this issue of The Press, just put it in a paper recycling bin. Done. When you leave the bathroom, turn off the light. Done. When you’re considering driving from your dorm to the Union, maybe walk instead? It’s a nice day. And frankly, you could use the exercise.

After all, you shouldn’t need an Earthstock to get you to go outside. Just get going and do the right thing.

Forbes Magazine compared the bills to “requiring the manager of a flea market to shut down the entire market because some of the merchants were selling counterfeit goods.”  Many sites participated in a blackout in which certain areas of the website were censored as a protest. It had me thinking of what the internet would be like if SOPA passed and I decided that life would be officially boring. How was I going to pass the time? As a huge fan of Korean and Japanese music, the internet is my only source for watching my favorite bands’ music videos and variety shows. I was not pleased with the thought of no longer having that option.

And of course, who could forget the infamous hacking of the Department of Justice website by a group called “Anonymous” in response to the closure of Megaupload?

Naturally, SOPA and PIPA didn’t pass and it was a victory for the netizens. Did it end there? No.

On April 26, Congress passed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protecting Act (CISPA). According to Digitaljournal.com, “Congress is discussing the best way to avert the ongoing cyber attacks and some legislators have put forward a new act which, if it passes, Congress will allow the government access to personal information of any person of their choosing.”

According to the authors of CISPA, the purpose of the bill is “to provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cyber security entities.” They also include the broad and undefined line: “and for other purposes.”

This means that the government would have the right to obtain personal information from social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. It appears that this new bill is even worse than SOPA and PIPA, but is it really?

Some may think it’s not right for the government to monitor your internet usage, as well as obtaining your personal information from private companies, as if giving your social security wasn’t enough. However, when you look at it from the other side, as explained by Politico, “CISPA is aimed at combatting cyber attacks by encouraging private companies to share information about cyber threats with the government.”

CISPA really isn’t a terrible bill. It just asks users to sacrifice a small amount of privacy for the sake of security.

Just like any other bill, CISPA has its pros and cons. What people should look at is whether the negatives outweigh the positives before judging the bill as an attack on freedom. For now, we’ll just have to wait and see.

There are roughly 20,000 students on campus, and yet, only over 1,000 students voted on SOLAR for the new USG officers and senators.

Unfortunately, this year’s elections seemed more like a high school popularity contest than a political election. There were flashy posters, cute taglines and Facebook promotional event groups rampant through campus in the last few weeks, the result being the Seawolves for Change party capturing 22 out of 32 seats in USG. Hopefully their vague notions of fostering change and community translate into actual benefits for USG and the campus.

When the torch is passed on to the next generation of any club, agency or organization, it should be without the mentality of simply cleaning up after their predecessors’ messes. The new officers should aim to do better than those before them; to fix mistakes, learn from history and allow the community as a whole to prosper.

After a Letter to the Editors from USG Executive Vice President Deborah Machalow in the last edition of The Stony Brook Press, it seemed SBU politicians and students far and wide jumped on the bandwagon to email their thoughts and opinions to The Press and The Statesman.

Unfortunately, this does not mean that all these letters were gold. While Machalow’s letter was well written, well informed and articulate, it is not without its preferences. Machalow demonstrates support for several candidates that were running in this semester’s elections, much to the opposition of many USG members. While rumors of impeaching Machalow in her last days of reign as EVP surfaced, others became emboldened to submit similar pieces, albeit, with less sophistication.

In a letter to The Statesman, an anonymous writer blatantly chastised Machalow for being a puppetmaster to members of the Senate. The piece was ridden with typographical and grammatical errors and had zero basis to back up any claims made against Machalow’s character and the way she ran her office. But the letter loses even more validity in that it insults Machalow for “wearing a mask.” At least she posted her honest editorial with her name attached. It is more than hypocritical to criticize someone for a false facade while not putting a name to the harsh words one is writing.

After that, Esam Al-Shareffi wrote a letter to The Statesman criticizing their choice to run such a letter, as it completely goes against the point of an LTE. The Statesman elected not to run Al-Shareffi’s letter, likely because he established his point in a jab against the publication. He then sent it to The Press who has agreed to run the the letter in our LTE section.

Kenneth Myers, a senator elect and member of the S.A.F.E party, sent in another letter published in this issue about how dirty the election campaigning was, with many people disregarding set rules and guidelines for promotional materials for party members running for USG positions. He claims that unknown persons attempted to use his name to vandalize other candidates posters and thus blackmail him in the process.

Shortly after, Mallory Rothstein, USG Senator elect and member of the Seawolves for Change party, emailed The Press asking to write an opinionated piece to either “directly or indirectly endorse Aimee Pomeroy” in regards to the runoff elections in which Pomeroy was pitted against S.A.F.E party member, Jason Sockin.

While Rothstein’s article would not have even made it into this issue in time to help Pomeroy win her election (not that she needed it, clearly) we here at The Press saw this simply as a blatant attempt to shamelessly advertise for her fellow party member. She went on to publish her endorsement in The Statesman while conveniently leaving out her obvious bias as a Seawolves for Change party member.

Ideally, an LTE is not outlet for people to shamelessly support or defame others; they are intended for readers to voice their opinions, concerns and beliefs for things read within the pages of a publication. In the past, The Press has received such letters bastardizing us for the use of certain words or the publishing of certain, unsavory pieces. We want to elicit debate, spark thought and on many, sometimes unintentional, occasions, invoke controversy. When the campus publications are being used in ways that simply pander to the whims of the powers that be, like USG, it is not doing its community any favors.

While there is no changing those that won their positions in USG, it seems obvious to those informed and aware of internal conflict that USG has lost several intelligent individuals through their losses in the elections. Now the government of SBU is under a very near two-thirds majority by the Seawolves for Change party, whose mission statement is as vague as it is cliche. While it is surely everyone’s hope that those elected will do their best to benefit the community, it is unclear whether a fruitful and significant difference will be made. Either way, I’m out of here. Good luck, Stony Brook!

The Undergraduate Student Government elections not only included figuring out who was going to fix the problems that former members are leaving behind, but whether or not the Student Activity Fee would be voluntary or mandatory. Students came through, voting to keep it mandatory, which will allow clubs to still function on campus.

What really boggles the mind is the fact that out of the about 24,000 students enrolled at Stony Brook, only around 2,000 voted during the USG elections.

Stony Brook switched to an online election system a few years ago, and every student that has access to a SOLAR account is able to vote.  With this convenient voting system, and the simple fact that everyone can get online one way or another, it’s baffling that the number of people that voted isn’t higher.

Yes, there is the easy-to-use voting system for elections, but are the students aware that it is, in fact, easy? There really isn’t an emphasis on how important USG is and what they do for the campus. The fact that they control the money students pay the University for the Student Activity Fee isn’t well-known.  Above all else, students really don’t care.

Perhaps if the administration or USG were to make the information more available to the students on campus, there would be an awareness that voting for these elections is actually important, creating a willingness to do so. There needs to be more action taken by USG and the University to emphasize the importance of these elections. This is similar to the course evaluations. Once they were placed online, much of the student response was lost, especially when compared to when they were handed out during the class.

Something ultimately needs to be done in order to raise awareness and get students to vote in these elections. Until then, SBU students will continue to be surprised and outraged when USG bylaws change and their clubs have to follow new rules.

Recently, scientists have dug up studies from the 1960′s that consisted of six surveys of more than 500 patients, the majority of them male, and came to the conclusion that dropping acid could indeed be the answer to excessive drinking.

According to the study, on average 59 percent of LSD patients and 38 percent of control patients had improved from their initial exam, based on a standardized assessment of problem alcohol use. However, the suppression of the desire to drink only lasted six months after the treatment, though the result suggests that regular treatments using LSD could lead to a sustained benefit.

So why does this drug seemingly work so well on compulsive drinking?

“LSD may stimulate the formation of new connections and patterns, and generally seems to open an individual to an awareness of new perspectives and opportunities for action,” researchers said in a university statement. “We do not yet fully know why LSD works this way.”

While it seems that the drug does help regulate the issue of excessive drinking, it is hard to ignore its negative effects. It is highly unpredictable how the user will be affected. Physically, it can cause dizziness, loss of appetite, nausea, numbness and tremors. Mentally, there is a dramatic effect on the senses. Colors, smells and sounds are intensified and sometimes lead to a phenomenon known as synesthesia, during which a person sees sounds and hears colors. Bad trips could induce terrifying thoughts and nightmarish feelings of anxiety and despair that include fears of insanity, loss of control or death.

The after-effects of the drug, which are shown through results of the studies regarding alcoholism, can also leave the user with the inability to recognize reality, think rationally or communicate with others. This ultimately leads to producing a long-lasting psychotic-like state that could progress into profound depression or dramatic mood swings.

Does the possibility that LSD can help alcoholics step away from the bottle outweigh the potentially destructive effects the drug has?

More research needs to be done to see if the end justifies the means. In the meantime, go enjoy a bicycle ride.

Wiz Khalifa, the joint-loving hip-hop artist leading the current generation of post-Kanye West rappers, is currently set to perform at Stony Brook University’s end-of-the-year concert on April 27. The Undergraduate Student Government, under its event-planning wing, the Student Activities Board, has confirmed a bid contract with Wiz for $85,000 and is in the negotiating stages of finalizing a confirmed contract, according to Special Programming Agency Director Jackie Cowles and USG President Mark Maloof. Opening for Wiz will be R&B artist Miguel Jontel, who is set to perform for $15,000, as well as a currently undisclosed opener of Wiz’s choosing for roughly $1,500. The entire show is projected to cost SAB around $215,000, with $100,000 going to production.

The pick of Wiz for the yearly spring show is a very welcome shift from the divisive artists that have filled the slot in previous years to a musician with one of the broadest appeals of any pop star today. In the past four years, USG has brought big-name artists, but never without accusations of having wasted money with intentions driven by misguided tastes and expectations, resulting in disappointing concerts that only remind those students well-versed in the history of the Stony Brook Concert Series that we are failing to live up to a once-glorious musical legacy.

For instance, in 2009 we saw Hellogoodbye, a not-so-relevant indie pop band, and the rapper, Fabolous. It was a failed effort at pulling together two polar opposite artists in the hopes of appealing to the tastes of a vast student body that, in the eyes of the old SAB, was comprised of either rap fans or rock fans—perhaps a racially charged notion. The following year’s Brookfest featured a similar combination of rapper Wale and indie pop duo Matt & Kim. Though they are both college-oriented, and reflect—again—SAB’s catering to vastly different audiences, and the result was an even more discomforting clash of styles and an event that drew a small fraction of what the audience could have been.

Last year’s concert could be—and should be—considered a success, if assessed on attendance alone. Grammy-nominated Bruno Mars and R&B soul musician Janelle Monáe drew lines hours before tickets went on sale, and the show sold out easily. Those chart-topping artists were consistent in genre, and appealed to what is probably the largest demographic of Stony Brook students, if that demographic is simply a generalized group of people that have turned on the radio in the past year and have some semblance of an idea of what modern pop music sounds like. Both artists receive consistent airplay and are, to the average listener, famous enough to warrant a “Wow, we got him?” or “Hey, I’ve heard that ‘Grenade’ song.” But they were not college acts. College acts do not stand in front of the Grammy crowd dressed like an absolute clown—one who is shamelessly bastardizing ‘50s rock n’ roll—and dance back and forth while showcasing a doctored smile and a Jimmy Neutron haircut.

It may have sold out the Sports Arena in record-breaking time, and everyone who attended undoubtedly had one of the more memorable experiences Stony Brook has offered him or her, but judging Stony Brook’s fun capabilities in a broader context would illustrate how limited our campus experience has been. And because Bruno Mars is by no stretch of the imagination a “college act,” last year’s concert left many students—including those who were led to believe that acts like Best Coast and Immortal Technique were setting an appropriate college-geared trend—tremendously disappointed.

But Wiz Khalifa is absolutely and undeniably a college-oriented artist. His appeal begins—not surprisingly—in the rap community and continues into Top 40 territory (see the chart-topping “Black and Yellow”) before settling into the college rap scene. He is also easily one of the most accessible hip-hop artists out there, in that he consistently outshines fame-bathing imitators like Big Sean, stylishly and effortlessly out-rhymes lyrical heavyweights like Lupe Fiasco and stands tall against the hip-hop goliaths of Degrassi and Young Money fame who dominate the airwaves. His lyrical themes, which revolve around an obsessive love of weed and an introspective reflection on fame, simultaneously influence and draw strength from the lifestyle of lackadaisical college students, on top of effectively evolving a hip-hop aesthetic dominated by late teenagers and early 20-somethings.

It would be hard for anyone, even those not well-versed in modern hip-hop, to not appreciate the insight and desire for change exhibited by this year’s USG in making this decision. While the contract is not officially set in stone until Wiz gives his final sign-off in the coming weeks, it is unlikely he will pull out of a confirmed bid contract pending unforeseen circumstances outside USG’s control. That said, April 27 is a day that may finally wear the Stony Brook Concert Series title with pride, and see record-breaking lines weaving through the Academic Mall.

Check out USG’s official Facebook event page here. Tickets go on sale, $5 for students and $20 for non-students, this Thursday, April 19 at 9 a.m. Each student may purchase one student ticket and one off-campus ticket.

Yup. If you, like me, only get your news from me, you might have missed Tuesday’s big announcement that Santorum withdrew his campaign. It obviously was a painful decision for Santorum, who appeared in Gettysburg looking incredibly like Chevy Chase’s vintage Saturday Night Live impersonation of Gerald Ford, albeit with worse hair and slightly-less comedic potential. The photo in question headlines a slideshow on The New York Times website, which expresses Santorum’s sadness through dimly-lit images from the whole campaign. These include the former senator in a bowling alley, in front of claw machines, and holding an Etch-A-Sketch. Seriously, whoever’s been following Santorum on this campaign is practically an honorary member of the Instagram hipster community.

That claw machine must symbolize something, because it shows up not once, but twice. The possibility of Rick Santorum’s presidency is like that one Pepe the King Prawn doll you really wanted: though Pepe stares at you from beneath a pile of ugly bears, he constantly eludes your metal grip, no matter how many quarters you pump in. Claw machines: painful realizations for fans of Muppets from Space and social conservatives alike.

Yes, this decision must have been painful for all twelve of Santorum’s supporters, who are now going to have to hope that Mitt Romney ups his misogyny and racism from moderate to high. I kid, I kid! It’s certainly true that Santorum, by being less moderate than Romney, was able to rally some conservatives who aren’t going to be as excited about one of the kings of pandering. But seriously, you want to talk about unpopular candidates? Your candidate’s so unpopular, only four of his seven kids bothered to show up to his resignation!

Luckily, Santorum’s epic failure was in part alleviated by this week’s really big failer: the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or North Korea to its friends.

(And yes, “failer” is a word. It means “one who fails,” and seems to have fallen out of use in the late 19^th century. I’m bringing it back.)

North Korea, ever eager to appear legitimate among all those other countries that are capable of feeding at least half of their population, spent about one billion dollars making a rocket, under full realization that success with this venture would stop the United States from giving them further humanitarian aid. They knew it would make China and the UN angry, but they didn’t care. They called in reporters from around the world, despite a usual policy of isolation. They said the rocket was supposed to launch a satellite. Some speculated it was supposed to be part of a weapons program. I posit that it was the initiation of the world’s largest game of Gradius. But regardless of your bent for conspiracies, the rocket exploded in the costliest one billion dollar mess since Peter Jackson’s King Kong. And on the country’s founder Kim Il-sung’s birthday, too. Awkward.

So, as he moves out of the race and off to an inevitable future of lackluster political commentary, Kim Jong-un and I are here to remind Rick Santorum that things could’ve been much worse. Rick, your campaign budget may have been dwindling, and it all might have been for naught, but at least you can still eat at night. I might be relentlessly making fun of you one week after the fact, but at least it’s just some geeky writer and not the entire South Korean government. And of course, the reporters you invited to watch you fall aren’t going to expose your long history of incompetence. They just took photos of you with claw machines.