Going Downtown?

By: Alyssa Kenderdine, Staff Writer

The scene is a familiar one. It’s 12:50 on a Monday afternoon. Students have just been let out of class and can’t wait to finally go home for the day. They decide to take the downtown shuttle since it’s raining like usual and do not want to walk. The expected wait is supposed to be only 10 minutes since the shuttle comes every half an hour. It’s now 1:03, and they grow annoyed. In the 13 minutes they have been waiting for the downtown shuttle, four Honeysuckle buses have already circulated with a max of five people on each. For students living all the way by Papa John’s, which is a lot further from campus than Honeysuckle is, this is more than just a nuisance. Finally, it is 1:05, and the downtown shuttle is rounding the corner. Everyone rushes to form a line so they may be one of the chosen few that claim a seat on the congested, crowded bus.

So, why are there about five Honeysuckle shuttles running back and forth while there is only one downtown shuttle that picks up on campus another one that picks up downtown? It just doesn’t make sense. There are a lot more students who live downtown than there are at Honeysuckle, and the distance is farther as well.

Not only are the lack of downtown shuttles an issue but they are also not punctual. When I moved into my downtown apartment at the beginning of the year, I was told that the shuttle comes at every 05 and 35 of each hour. This was true, for the first week yet as the year continued the shuttle began to come later and later. I now don’t expect to see the shuttle until 10 minutes and 40 minutes after. It might not seem like much, but it is extremely inconvenient in inclement weather. Then, when the shuttle does eventually come everyone shoves each other to find available seating.

At last you are on the shuttle and hopefully you are sitting down and not being forced to stand holding those metal bars in order to balance while getting hit with the oversized backup of the person standing in front of you. Depending on what shuttle driver you have you will most likely be listening to the country radio station which repeats the same song almost every ten minutes. If you like country music, enjoy the tunes. Yet, those like myself, who despise any and all country music might want to bring headphones and an IPod to drown out the horrid noise. The conversations you hear on the shuttle are also interesting so that may be a good way to go. The best ones often come on a Monday morning when friends are talking about what they did that weekend. So whether or not you want to bring your own music, listen to the radio or eavesdrop on other’s conversations your will have an interesting time on your eight minute shuttle ride to campus.

I have never drove a bus, so I assume it is pretty difficult especially with so many stops and turns throughout the town. So when you are riding on that shuttle, make sure you hold on to something when there is a turn or you might fall out of your seat. Also, when you arrive on campus expect an occasional bump when the driver accidently runs over the sidewalk when pulling up to McCormick. But when you get off the shuttle, always say thank you to the driver. Not only is it the polite thing to do but it’s interesting to hear what the driver’s respond with and if they change what they say each time or not.  

So if you are moving to a downtown apartment next year and are looking forward to having transportation to and from campus be aware of the above things when boarding that shuttle on your first day of the year. Maybe they will wise up and finally build that walkway from Honeysuckle to campus, so they can eliminate those shuttles all together and provide a few extra shuttles for downtown.

View from The Voice: Growing Pains, Growing Gains

By: The Voice Staff

Within the past five years, Bloomsburg University has made effort to expand the campus. We are seeing more apartments, made especially for student tenants, being built downtown, along with housing stretching as far as the Route 80 entrance. In 2007, BU began renting the Alvina Krause Theatre from the Bloomsburg Theatre Ensemble, creating a cooperative venture between the theatre, BTE, BU players and the Theatre & Dance Division of BU. Building the bridge between campus and the town did not stop there. The Center for the Visual and Performing Arts began a formal relationship with The Moose Exchange as a performance venue in 2011. The university and students continue to use the facility for a variety of events such vocal performances all the way to the recent “Rave Night.”  We no longer find campus stopping at Carver Hall. We at The Voice appreciate the efforts of BU to accommodate the large number of students.

With student enrollment increasing, the campus has found itself tripling students in dorms, waiting in overcrowded lines at food establishments and anxiously awaiting the library computers to log them in. With scheduling being at this time of year, it is now more noticeable than ever how many people occupy the university. Students find it beyond difficult and at times frustrating, to race against thousands of other students to get into courses. The overcrowding taints the view of the university for many students. It isn’t uncommon to hear students gossiping about how BU “lets in too many kids. “As the university tries to accommodate students by fitting them into already maxed out classrooms, mobility becomes an issue. It is common to see, in buildings such as Bakeless, limited mobility due to the number of students who shuffle down the center staircase between classes. Students find themselves waiting for a second downtown shuttle bus, a usually delayed one, to transport them. We at The Voice believe campus should be welcoming; however, we do not want crowded restaurants and an overflowing library to deteriorate students will to learn.

Is this how BU will stay?  We at The Voice would like to see BU get organized and make more moves towards further expansion.  We are outgrowing our campus. We feel that expanding can only help the university offer new students the best BU experience. In addition to physical growth, BU could benefit from continuing to strengthen their alliance with the town. A continued strong town presence is needed.  Events such as “The Big Event” and “The Giving Tree” connect the two worlds of the town and campus. We would like to see more of that.

One way this could be done is through BU partnering with restaurants downtown.  These restaurants could work out a program with the school that would allow students to use their FLEX or Husky Gold as payment. Not only would it strengthen the relationship between students and the town, it would also disperse the students to more eateries, lessening the crowds on campus. BU has made strides this semester by adding a franchised restaurant like Subway, something students would like to see even more of; however, we believe students would like to see eateries on campus that aren’t offered in town. The downside of the recent Subway addition on campus is that it has taken away business from the Subway on Main Street. If BU could have partnered with the Subway on Main Street, the flow of customers and money would have been dispersed. BU and the town should work together to offer a variety of restaurants rather than three Subways within five minutes of each other. Offering a FLEX/Husky Gold plan could help level the playing field and draw more students downtown to support businesses and disperse the hungry crowds in long lines on campus.

Upper campus has the potential to also serve as an aid in enlarging BU. The addition of more dorms to upper campus would encourage upper classmen students to move off campus to third party housing, allowing more incoming freshman to be dispersed on both upper and lower campus.

Hopefully, this could lessen the number of freshmen being tripled. Populating upper campus could be a huge step for the campus considering it is still uncharted territory for some students. If upper campus was more accessible with shuttling, from downtown and lower campus, and they added eateries, study space and recreational rooms, similar to the Kehr Union, students might find themselves utilizing it more fully, leveling the capacity of both campuses.

With a more widely dispersed student body, BU would need to increase and improve shuttling, making it simpler to travel between upper campus, lower campus and the town. The increase of university shuttling would comfort students who would be interested in living at places as far as Lionsgate. We believe students are less likely, as of now, to want to live as far away as the entrance of Route 80 because shuttling is faulty.  Landlords may find more interest in building near that area if students have reliable transportation to campus. We at The Voice believe students would fully support expanding the campus and the university presence beyond Main Street and the residing side streets.

Expansion is inevitable, but BU and the town need to be smart about how it is executed. While the university’s goal may be expansion, we do not want to step on the town’s toes. By working together, both sides will be able to communicate their goals and needs.  Although Elwell Hall’s remodeling is beautiful, we would like to see more dormitories along with more buildings for academic classes. More eateries that accept meal plans, FLEX and Husky Gold would offer more variety to students. Spreading housing options throughout Bloomsburg versus in the center of town would help to even out crowds of students awaiting shuttles. Allocating more services for students will brighten students’ views on BU and build relationships between the town and students.  We at The Voice appreciate BU’s high quality, low cost education and only want BU to continue to strive and grow.

Searching for a Solution: Bullying Children is Not the Answer

By: Dan Lacca, Contributing Writer

As the country heals from Sandy Hook, lawmakers at every level have been searching for ways to prevent another tragedy. However, a massive gun-control hysteria has hit America, forcing at least the Maryland state legislature to delay the search for a solution to school shootings, and focus efforts on stopping school officials from abusing students due to a nation-wide gun phobia. An unprecedented amount of harsh school disciplining begs one to ask: “What happened to common sense in this country?” 

According to the Huffington Post and Daily Caller, second grade student Josh Welch, was suspended for two days after his teacher noticed his pop tart took the shape of a gun after Josh began to eat it. Josh suffers from ADHD and struggles academically but excels in art. Josh admitted to shaping his pop tart, but he was trying to make a mountain not a gun. To justify the suspension, the school claimed Josh threatened other students by pointing his breakfast at them saying “Bang, Bang”, which Josh denied in press interviews.

“I didn’t say “bang, bang”. I just pointed it at the ceiling.” Letters were sent home, asking parents to discuss the incident with their children and the school councilor would be available for anyone who felt traumatized by Josh’s behavior. The incident forced Maryland State Senator JB Jennings to propose the Reasonable School Discipline Act of 2013, aka “The Toaster Pastry Gun Freedom Act”, restricting what actions can be taken to discipline students that make gestures an overly- sensitive school official may deem offensive. Jennings reasoned, “These suspensions are going on their (the students) permanent records and could have lasting effects on their education.”

Josh is not the only victim. Hunter Fountain was celebrating his birthday the way children have done for generations in America. The Fountains baked cupcakes for Hunter to share with his class, decorating the tops with World War II Army men. A classic American tradition and a classic American child’s toy, is there a better mix? Apparently the principal of Hunter’s school believed so. According news outlets, Fox, the Principle of Schall Elementary deemed the cupcakes “insensitive”, confiscating the deserts until Hunter’s mother told the school to just take the toys off. Hunter’s father stated in an interview with FOX News “It’s vile they lump true American heroes with psychopathic killers.”

In January, CNN reported another incident in Mount Carmel, PA where a little girl (choosing to remain anonymous) and her friend made plans for a play date involving a Hello Kitty bubble gun and a Princess Bubble Blower.  "I'll shoot you, you shoot me, and we'll all play together," said the kindergartener. The next day she was given a ten-day suspension for committing a “terrorist threat” and was asked to see a professional councilor. After her parents found legal guidance, the suspension was reduced to two days for a “threat to harm others.”

Newtown was a tragedy. It is natural that the country would be extra sensitive while healing. But has America become so sensitive that the education system feels they need to take out their frustration by bullying children? Lock your doors and hide America, apparently cupcakes topped with army men are somehow going to inspire kids to rampage across the country, armed with deadly bubble blowing toy guns and peacemaker shaped pop-tarts. If more legislatures are forced to delay real issues to police petty phobias and others demand common sense, then perhaps Mark Steyn, a conservative leaning political commentator, was right when he said, “You’re doomed America. You’re done for. No society can survive this level of stupidity.”

April 18, 2013

View From the Voice: Keep Calm in the Face of Tragedy

Emergency Contraception: Getting the Facts Straight

Political Perspectives

Political Perspectives

'Gung-Ho' for More Gun Control

In the wake of traumatic experiences such as the Sandy Hook tragedy and the shootings in Colorado, the nation grieves for lives unjustly stolen. Questions such as “Why?” and “How could this happen?” cross every citizen’s mind as they feel the impact of violent attacks like this. The legal ownership of assault-style weapons and the possibility of universal background checks are both contentious issues currently in Congress. I will be focusing on why our country should be putting a ban on assault weapons.

In fact, according to the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, a nationally recognized polling organization, 59 percent of those they polled support a nation-wide ban on the sale of assault weapons. Forty-one percent of the Republicans polled were in support of this kind of ban as well. In addition, 53 percent of people polled believe that the United States should have stricter gun laws.

Yet, the United States is seeing a lack of political action. Congress has just failed to bring a bill into vote that would require universal background checks. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid stated that the ban on military style weapons was removed in order to save the entire gun reform package. According to MSNBC, the Obama Administration will, however, continue to seek bipartisan support for the gun control bill.

Still, what kind of justification is out there on why the process of gun control has been so strenuous?

According to Jennifer Steinhauer of the New York Times, “Its [the assault weapons ban] political demise stems from a confluence of realities: the lobbying prowess of the National Rifle Association; stiff resistance from lawmakers in both parties; serious questions about the efficacy of the ban in stemming gun violence; and the lack of support from gun safety groups,” that have led the legislation’s  failure.

Leading the fight against assault weapons is Senator Feinstein (D-Cal).  On “The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell”, Sen Feinstein said “What’s important to me is to dry up the supply of these weapons so that over time they are less apt to fall in the hands of grievance killers, juveniles, people who are mentally disabled and criminals.”

Republicans have a different story. Mitch McConnell, who is the Senate Minority Leader, for example claimed that one reason why Congress would filibuster the legislations rather than debate it was because the bill had no bipartisan efforts. Another reason, as stated by Senator John Boozman (R-Ark) on KHTE, a local radio station in his home state of Arkansas, by stating that 90 percent of violent crime is by handguns and 5 percent by rifles. Yet another excuse offered by conservatives, like House Speaker Boehner (R-Ohio), is that there are already laws for gun control that are not being properly enforced, thus the real issue is reform.

While Boozman’s point is valid, it does not detract from the fact that assault weapons are inherently more dangerous and do not need to have a presence in civilian life. Assault weapons are not the primary weapons of choice by the common killer, but they nevertheless are much more lethal than a gun that takes time to reload. A recent study of mass shootings since January 2009 from Mayors Against Illegal Violence found that while “12 of the mass-shooting incidents, or 28 percent, involved assault weapons or high-capacity magazines,” those incidents resulted in “an average of 8.3 deaths, compared with 5.4 deaths on average for the rest [of violent crimes].” The kinds of weapons that can inflict that much damage do not belong in the market for private purchase. Period.

Personally, I agree with perspectives from both sides. Senator Boehner makes a valid point. There are many laws on the books that attempt to regulate and control the distribution of guns. However, it is still too easy for guns to become part of the underground economy and enter the hands of criminals or the mentally unstable. On this issue, I agree with Senator Feinstein. We should be doing more to enforce already present laws. Still, though, I personally cannot move past one fundamental idea in my rationale: there is no good reason that these guns should be made available.  At this point, we have lost politicians (like Harvey Milk), civilians like those in Aurora, and the children of Sandy Hook all because America keeps coming up with excuses not to ban these deadly weapons. But I ask, how many more excuses do we need to stop the selling of these fatal objects once and for all?

Stop the Assault on Assault Weapons

In the aftermath of many disastrous events, there is an ever increasing pressure on legislatures to create a ban on what has been characterized as “assault weapons.” Speaking directly on emotion rather than reason, many citizens of the United States fall victim to the propaganda released by the pundits in favor of gun control legislation. Throughout this ongoing debate, it is clear that many gun control advocates enjoy the abuse and exploitation of the word “assault weapon.” In reality, while speaking on facts, Dr. Edward Ezell, a preeminent expert in the firearms field, along side the United States Defense Department, stated “a key characteristic of a true assault weapon is that it must of the capability of full automatic fire.” Even with these type of statements, it is evident that a mischaracterization of these weapons has been presented to the American people. Factually speaking, and assault weapon is a fully automatic weapon, which is already banned by the National Firearms Act of 1968. If legislatures and political pundits would like to limit the availability of these weapons, well, their battle has already been fought, and they accomplished this many years ago. Sadly however, it is evident that the American people have been manipulated into believing a false image of the weapons that are both legal and illegal in this country today. Based on this, it is entirely fair to say that we as Americans need to have a better understanding of the sanctions being implemented on our constitution by gun control advocates today.

For the purpose of this piece and for the better understanding and knowledge of the readers, it is responsible of both sides to begin referring to these proposed banned weapons as semi-automatic rifles rather than the abused and false term of “assault weapons.” As this misconception of the public has been revealed, it is time to dig into the policies that have been proposed, as well as the ones that have failed. In the heat of emotion and lack of understanding, the Assault Weapons ban of 1994 was implemented. Ten years later, it failed. Through this 10 year time period, 14 mass shootings took place which included, the notorious 1999 Columbine High School shooting. While the American people were victims to a pointless ban, it is shown through statistics that the ’94 ban was avoidable. As a matter of fact, Gallup and the U.S Justice Department have reported that crime began to fall prior to the ’94 ban, and continued to fall while it was in place. Even more importantly, this downward trend is still evident today as there is a consistent decrease in violent crimes taking place. It also evident that these type of policies are entirely unnecessary, as violent crimes committed with these weapons are truly minimal. This is supported through many statistics, one being presented by the Borough of Justice Statistics, when reported that “violent criminals only carry or use a military-type gun in about one percent of crimes nationwide.” In addition to that, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports in 2011, of the 8,583 firearm homicides that occurred, 6,220 of them were committed by handguns while only 323 were committed by rifles. This goes to show that the bans proposed are targeting absolutely the wrong groups of weapons, and it is only a matter of time that the failures of previous bans repeat themselves.

 One of the most respected members of society, and a group that is consistently in the line of fire, and should be the epitome of gun control, is in strong opposition of the proposed bans. A survey conducted by Police One.com in 2013 shows that officers are overwhelmingly against the proposed legislation. When asked if a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazine would reduce violent crime, 95.7% of the respondents replied with the answer “no.” The people who are facing violent, destructive criminals on a daily basis, overwhelmingly agree that these types of bans simply do not work.

Out of all arguments by gun control advocates, probably the most disturbing is that the constitution does not protect citizens from obtaining semi-automatic rifles. Sadly, they are entirely mistaken and false in stating this. The second amendment states “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Gun control advocates say that bearing arms is only allowed for a well-regulated militia, mistakenly believing citizens are not citizens permitted to exercise this right. This is incorrect, as stated by the U.S Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, “militia” was defined in the Militia Act of 1792, which said that it included every free adult male in the United States. Moreover, in Supreme Court case U.S. v. Miller, the Court stated “the Militia, comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” As Americans, we need to view such debate based off facts, and speak, decide, and primarily vote on facts, rather than emotion. Do not succumb to the overwhelming pressure and commotion to act, created by gun control supporters. Rather, analyze the facts and act based on what has proven to work, rather what has proven to fail.