NEWS; SUBSTANCE HARMLESS

Staff in Bernon Hall, the Admissions building, reported a “suspicious substance” found in an envelope mailed to the office last Thursday, May 3. The substance turned out to be harmless, though an investigation was still carried out.

The investigation included both the Village of Hempstead and the Nassau County police forces, who responded with Hazardous Material Teams.

The University sent out a mass e-mail to all University employees, students and faculty concerning the foreign substance and the subsequent investigation. “Police have assured us that there is no danger posed to any other building or space on campus,” the e-mail said. “The incident has been contained within Bernon Hall.”

Public Safety responded to the substance report, according to a University student who works as an ambassador for Admissions, who would only speak on the condition of anonymity. The officers sealed off the building, not allowing anyone inside to leave.

An employee opened the envelope containing the substance, the student said. “No one knew what it was.”

Public safety then evacuated the building. Nassau County police arrived 10 to 15 minutes later, the student said. The county hazmat team dressed and prepared a portable laboratory in the parking lot outside Bernon Hall.

Within 20 minutes, the hazmat team identified the substance as not posing any danger. “As soon as [the hazmat team] knew what it was, they let us go,” the student said.

The hazmat team did not test the substance inside the building, but rather at the portable lab. The student was informed that the substance was in fact mashed up antacids.

Other reports from students that work in the building said the substance was curry powder.

Additional reporting from Julia Matias.

OP-ED; DEBATES SHOULD BE OPEN AND CHAOTIC

Debating the Debates

The 2008 election season has heated up earlier than any presidential election cycle in recent memory. But you already knew that.

What you may not have known is that the debate season is starting early as well. This past Thursday, the eight Democratic candidates debated at South Carolina State University, a historically black college in Orangeburg South Carolina. Tonight, the ten (ten!) Republican candidates are debating in California, at the Reagan Presidential Library.

The debate Thursday was fast-paced, with no time for meandering beyond the question asked. “NBC Nightly News” anchor Brian Williams moderated the 90-minute debate.

Answers were limited to one minute, with 30-seconds for a rebuttal, if necessary. Some questions were asked that required no answer other than the raise of a hand.

Now, I wholeheartedly believe in the art of political discourse, the importance of more voices at the table and all of that, but there are major problems with these debates, aired on MSNBC.

First, each candidate requires equal time, as well they should. Each voice has equal merit, so each deserves equal time. However, when there are between 8 and 10 candidates all clamoring for equal time within a 90-minute timespan, things can get either chaotic or muffled. One candidate, former Sen. Mike Gravel (Ala.), complained on MSNBC after the debate that he felt he did not have enough time as compared to the other candidates.

Second, the answer window is so small that all the audience gets to hear is a rehashing of talking points. There is no time for the nuance or detail required for a discussion about how to reform health care, for example. This gives a much greater advantage to candidates long on vision but short on details, such as Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.).

Third, the candidates were not allowed to ask each other questions, so there was no real exchange of ideas at all. Isn’t that the point of a debate? Not anymore. Now a debate is a forum and free stage for a candidate to say whatever he/she feels without a challenge.

All of this being said, I still believe these debates are a great thing for the country, for the candidates and for the American people.

But improvements must be made in order to please all involved. All candidates officially declared as candidates still must participate, regardless of the level of support seen in public opinion polls. For the Democrats, Kucinich and Gravel deserve seats as much as Obama and Clinton. For the Republicans, Brownback and Huckabee need the same opportunity as McCain and Giuliani.

All candidates must have at least two minutes to answer a question, but that time can be cut to mere seconds at the moderator’s discretion. Moderators have lost all power in coordinating and conducting debates; it is time to give them back that power. Moderators must ensure that candidates stick to answering the question, but not allowing for a rehashing of prewritten talking points.

The candidates must take questions from the audience, but at the moderator’s discretion. This method works quite well in the presidential debates and reactive questions on topical issues from constituents can really put a candidate’s knowledge of an issue to the test. Pre-submitted questions read by a “representative” of the public comes off as cold and calculated; let the people talk, they are the ones voting, after all.

Candidates must be allowed to challenge and question their respective opponents. If candidates could challenge each other, new and interesting ideas can develop, the American people can see how a candidate reacts under fire, and whether the candidates actually have ideas on how to improve a nation in peril, rather than perfecting 10-second sound bites for the campaign trail.

All candidates from each party should debate weekly on an issue. If the Democrats debated Tuesdays and the Republicans Thursdays, maybe there could be “Issues of the Week” debates. One week could be Iraq, the next health care, the next Social Security, etc. Instead of giving each issue its ten minutes, this extended investigation might lead to more nuanced and specific answers from candidates. The American people might, for once, get to know what these candidates want to do with their votes.

The obvious criticism to this would be that chaos would ensue onstage, but I think that could be a good thing. The more we see our candidates under fire, the better. The more questions the candidates they get asked, the better.

Remember the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the total entropy (chaos) of any system increases over time. Maybe this law should start to apply to our political process as well, because something new can come from the chaos.

NEWS; DEBATE COMMISSION IMPRESSED WITH UNIVERSITY

Officials from the Committee on Presidential Debates were impressed with their campus visit when they met University and local public officials for the first time Thursday, April 23, as part of a preliminary inspection process to vet applicants for hosting a presidential debate in 2008.

University President Stuart Rabinowitz, Board of Trustees Chairman John D. Miller, Director of Public Safety Ed Bracht and other senior administrators all met with committee executive producer Marty Slutsky, two other debate producers, Tammy Johnston and Rory Davies. Secret Service agents and Nassau County Police Insp. Robert Turk also attended.

Many local elected officials attended the meeting, including Nassau County Executive Thomas Suozzi, Hempstead Town Supervisor Kate Murray, State Sens. Dean Skelos (R-Rockville Centre) and Kemp Hannon (R-Garden City).

The commission opened the beginning of the meeting to the press, which allowed President Rabinowitz to thank the commission for coming and for introducing executive producer Slutsky.

Slutsky gave a brief statement: “This is a truly impressive gathering of people. I truly feel and I will convey to the commission my impression that we have the backing of the entire area and all of the officials, which is very important.”

The production teams do not make the decision over who gets to host the debates. They report their findings to the commission, who makes the final decision on which four sites host the debates, three of which are presidential, and the fourth between the vice presidential candidates.

Reporters were not permitted to ask questions during the public part of the meeting. After a break, Rabinowitz and the public officials took questions from the press outside the meeting, which continued behind closed doors.

“This is all about the education of young people,” Rabinowitz said. “They will be involved not just at the actual debate.”

There will be a lot of internships, work, externships and things to do, where students can learn about the political process and the press, he added.

The closed-door meeting moved outside as well, and it included a tour of campus facilities such as the Physical Fitness Center and David S. Mack Sports and Exhibition Complex, which is the proposed site of the actual debate.

There is bipartisan support for the debate to be held at the University, Sen. Skelos said. “I’m hopeful that the selection committee will see that this is a totally appropriate location, especially with the history of Long Island and the birth of the suburbs,” he added.

"We are in the New York media market, so that would be great for coverage overall,” Suozzi said. “Levittown is the first suburban community in the United States and, as a result, suburban politics are getting to be more and more important in presidential politics.”

“It is a long and detailed process,” said Melissa Connolly, Director of University Relations. “They were looking at everything, even in closets. I believe it went well.”

The University is one of nineteen sites that applied to host the debates, and is the only one in New York State to do so. Other applicants include places such as the Metropolitan Exposition Recreation Commission in Portland, Ore., and the University of Central Arkansas in Conway, Ark.

NEWS; PROPERTY TAX FREEZE PROPOSED

MINEOLA, Mar. 29—Nassau County Republican lawmakers have proposed a freeze on property tax assessment increases for the next five years because the 2003 reassessments, and subsequent annual assessments, have caused “sticker shock” for Nassau County residents, according to the legislators.

The proposed legislation calls for County Assessor Harvey Levinson to continue assessing properties, but any increases he finds would not take effect until 2013. Any depreciation in property value, whether by assessment or by sale, would take immediate effect.

The Democratic majority objected to the proposed legislation and they planned to prevent a vote on the proposal by using parliamentary maneuvers.

Nassau was ordered to reassess properties for three years beginning in 2003 due to a court case, settled in 2000, which found that the county’s method for assessing real property was discriminatory. The plaintiff had argued that property in poorer and minority communities were over-assessed.

"Annually reassessing the value of Nassau residents’ homes during a real estate boom is not an accurate reflection of proper proportionate property taxing as envisioned by New York State law,” said Legis. John Ciotti (R-Elmont) in a statement.

Prior to the case, properties were assessed for tax purposes at the 1938 land value, according to minority press secretary Christina Brennan. This led to the over-assessment of some communities in the 1990s, because there was no real definitive community of minorities or the poor on Long Island in 1938, she said.

"Our families are being torn apart because no one can afford to remain here or start a life here due to the exorbitant costs of living on Long Island—and a big part of that is runaway property taxes,” said Legis. Denise Ford (R-Long Beach) in a statement released to the press.

Democrats dispute the motives for the legislation. “It is the most politically motivated, irresponsible, public relations feel-good idea that I have ever heard of in government,” Presiding Officer Judy Jacobs (D-Woodbury) said.

Because the three-year period of the settlement is over, the Republicans wanted to prevent the re-assessments from continuing. This proposal, according to the Republican press office, is the “first of many measures to decode the Nassau County taxing procedure and bring predictability back to our residents’ households.”

Property taxes in Nassau County are calculated by taking the fair market value (as assessed), and multiplying it by an assessment rate, which is currently 1 per cent. Next, that assessed value is taxed at the rates the assorted taxes require.

However, state law requires that an assessed value cannot increase by more than 6 per cent annually, so to circumvent that, Minority Leader Peter Schmitt (R-Massapequa) alleged, County Assessor Harvey Levinson has been “manipulating the fractional assessment rates.”

The Democrats are not putting the bill onto the legislative calendar, which is tantamount to killing the bill before it even arrives.

University faculty and staff were divided on the issue. “No, I don’t think a freeze is the thing to do,” said, Executive Secretary of the political science Mary Starke, who is from Bellmore. “History taught us a lesson when County Executive [Tom] Gulotta appeased voters by never addressing taxes under a code from the 1930s.”

“Property taxes are exorbitantly high, second to New Jersey for highest in the country,” said Dr. Leslie D. Feldman, associate professor of political science, who is from Great Neck. “This platform is a good way for Republicans to get back power.”

One professor questioned its happening. “In theory it is a good idea, but is it realistic?” asked Dr. Rosanna Perotti, Associate Professor of political science. “I don’t know.

NEWS; DIPLOMAT SAYS TALK TO IRAN

The United States must normalize relations with Iran instead of preparing for a possible invasion, said Mansour Farhang, who spoke Wednesday concluding the “International Scene” lecture series presented by the University’s Center for Civic Engagement. He also said that the American-supported Shah had been a major supporter of Iranian nuclear capability prior to his overthrow in 1979.

Mansour Farhang is an Iranian-born author and diplomat. He served as the first ambassador to the United Nations after the Iranian revolution but left in 1981 as a dissident. He currently teaches Middle Eastern politics and international relations at Bennington College, in Vermont.

His lecture focused on relations between the United States and Iran, especially if Iran were to gain the capacity to build a nuclear weapon, which he said that experts believe is to be about 5-7 years away.

Farhang sought to dispel the notion in the United States that the current Iranian administration is nothing but a group of religious fanatics. “I consider the Iranian political leaders, those that are managing the country today, to be rational actors in the Machiavellian sense,” he said. “They are people who calculate and think about their interests, as opposed to being whimsical or fanatical.”

Farhang said the development of weapons is to be more of a deterrent to forces surrounding the country, rather than to use them against Americans or their allies.

Iran had been pursuing the nuclear option since the early 1970’s, according to Farhang. The Shah at the time, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, wanted to ensure Iranian security if the good relations between Iran and the US were to deteriorate.

Revolutionary Iran dissolved the nuclear program soon after its ascendance to power because they did not trust anything done by the Shah and because the new Prime Minister did not trust the science behind it, Farhang said.

However, after the Iran-Iraq war, they saw the necessity in redeveloping the weapons capacity. Rather than the Western aid that they sought last time, Iran received investment and supplies from the East, including Russia, China and Pakistan, Farhang said.

Iran wants functional independence, according to Farhang. Rather than being tied down and surrounded by the American hegemon, Iran wants to be able to assert itself as a major player in the region.\

Four things must happen for relations to normalize between the two countries, according to Farhang.

This includes security guarantees from the United States, saying that the surrounding Americans will not invade the nation. The Americans have a military presence in nearly every country bordering Iran, including Iraq, Afghanistan and Turkey, and the Iranians feel threatened, he said.

Iran wants the sanctions lifted. According to Farhang, the revolution failed in its attempt to provide income equality and freedom for its people. The sanctions have strangled the economy while strengthening the regime, much like Saddam’s Iraq, he said.

If the Iranian economy were to be able to flourish with western investment, this could be beneficial for both countries, Farhang added.

Because of its history in the region, Iran wants respect. The American attempts to isolate the country for the last 28 years have failed, so respect is in order, according to Farhang.

Most importantly to Farhang, any negotiations cannot have any preconditions. Iran has said they listen to the United States, but they will not act because conditions are unfair.

Farhang believes that the American foreign policy elites want to have a détente with Iran, though some still ache for confrontation.

“The nuclear issue has come to symbolize the nature of this estrangement between the two countries,” he said. “But the estrangement is not limited to the nuclear issue.”

The confrontation between the US and Iran has aided the “most reactionary elements of the body politic,” Farhang said. “They use xenophobia, they use the confrontation to suppress dissent and justify their repression of political opponents.”

Both countries have a stake in many issues, according to Farhang. A peaceful Persian Gulf is in Iran’s interest, he said. “Normalization of US-Iranian relations would be a fantastic gift that the Bush administration, or maybe the successor, could give the Iranian democracy.”

OP-ED; IMUS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FIRED

The Madness Must Stop

Let me begin by stating that this is not a defense of Don Imus. What he said was both reprehensible and indefensible, but this must be clear: he should not have been fired.

Don Imus got his stripes as a “shock jock” in the 1970s and 1980s, and statements like this were his calling card. His reinvention as a bastion of the establishment brought Imus a newfound credibility from a source he had previously disregarded.

With this newfound credibility came responsibility. Imus interviewed many members of the press, as well as politicians. The interviews were highly substantive and nuanced: some even compared their experiences on Imus to “Q & A” on C-SPAN.

With that being said, a profile on Imus aired on “60 Minutes” in July 1998; Mike Wallace interviewed him. In the piece, Wallace accused his program of being racist, to which Imus responded, “Give me one example of one racist incident.”

Wallace replied: “You told Tom Anderson, the producer, in your car, coming home, that Bernard McGuirk is there to do n----- jokes.” Imus protested and said that he had never used the word himself, but Anderson, who was at the interview, said that Imus had in fact used the word. Imus backed down.

When Bob Herbert of the New York Times indicated to MSNBC that he was going to refer to the piece, “they began acting very weird.” The same day the column ran, April 12, Imus was removed from MSNBC’s broadcast schedule.

As I mentioned earlier, Imus had a long record of misogyny, racism and anti-semitism.

What matters now, however, is what comes next. Since the “establishment” had such a close relationship with the Imus program recently, they have been extremely quiet on the issue.

Frank Rich, also of the New York Times, appears to be the first to attack the future head on. In his column published April 15, he admitted to his own hypocrisy on the issue: he has been a regular guest since the 1990s.

Rich called the slurs “burlesque” but admitted that the slurs didn’t bother him previously; Rich is Jewish, but he saw Imus as an equal opportunity offender. With Imus’ firing, Rich argued that edgy comics, once again, are going to be marginalized. Let us remember the example of Bill Maher, he said.

Rich’s fundamental argument is one held by many journalists, including this columnist: no speech should be censored and more speech leads to better speech.

Immediately following Imus’ firing, discussions are being held over the influence of hip-hop music on today’s youth. Mainstream hip-hop is chock full of examples of misogyny and racism: the word n----- is tossed about regularly, women are either bitches or ho’s and the lyrics portray an image of increasing drug abuse and crime.

Not all of the artists are black, either. For every 50 cent, there is a Bubba Sparxxx with a song like “Miss New Booty.” For every D.M.X., there is an Eminem.

Most important is the audience consuming this dose of hateful music. According to Russell Simmons, President of Def Jam Records, 4 out of 5 hip-hop records are bought by white suburban teens.The white kids are listening to “street” music, because they think it makes them “harder.” They are looking for that edge that their suburban, upper middle-class lifestyle is not providing for them. What they don’t realize is how detrimental it is to their interpersonal development.

The question now becomes: who gets the right to say these words? Why do “artists” get the right to say it but “shock jocks” and the “establishment” cannot? When are the words wrong?]

All of these questions are now being answered in the wake of Imus’ fall, or at the very least, the attempt is there. My resolute belief in free speech calls for a theoretical defense of Imus. He has every right to say what he did, regardless of whether someone agrees with him.

As does Rush Limbaugh when he claimed Michael J. Fox exaggerated his Parkinson’s disease to win votes for a referendum in Missouri. That does not make his speech acceptable; rather it just makes it accessible, even if it isn’t true.

The free market will decide if people will tune into hateful communication, regardless of the medium. If there is a demand for it, a supply will be provided.

But if the country has truly moved on from the problem of racism and sexism, then the public will not tune into it, and it will fall by the wayside. Until this happens, we can assume that the divide has not been closed.

PROFILE; MIKE ANDERSON-MOVERS AND SHAKERS (TIMES OF MIDDLE COUNTRY)

Careers in technology are the new job frontier, and Mike Anderson knows it. He has worked in the industry for over 20 years and has both designed and taught courses in technology for several colleges and universities.

His work for the Middle Country Central School District School Board as a Trustee and his membership in the Greater Middle Country Chamber of Commerce, all while running his own business, show his hard work ethic: something he developed growing up in Lindenhurst and in the military.

Mike Anderson grew up in Lindenhurst and graduated from Copiague High School in 1978. After graduating, he volunteered in the Army, serving with the 101^st Airborne Division until 1981. Upon returning to Lindenhurst, he took courses at technical school and became a certified systems engineer with Microsoft.

Anderson became Chief Information Officer for Nextech Information Systems, which involved teaching over 40 trainers at a time at over 8 locations throughout Long Island. This led Anderson to design curricula for and teach courses for Nextech at colleges and universities all over the island, including SUNY Stony Brook, Hofstra University, St. John’s, Briarcliffe College and others.

Nextech closed down in 2001; Anderson proceeded to form his own business, American Professional Services. “It has given me time to give back to the community,” he said. Anderson was a founding member of the Centereach Chamber of Commerce, which, in turn, became the Greater Middle Country Chamber of Commerce to accommodate nearby Selden and Lake Grove. He was elected president of the Chamber last month.

Anderson has served as Trustee for the School Board since 2004. He was asked to run for the position by the School Board President after serving as a businessperson-advisor for a Budget Advisory Committee for the School District.

His committee assignments include Chairman of the Technology Committee, co-Chair of the Committee for Better Choices and co-Chair of the Budget Planning Committee.

As Chairman of the Technology Committee, Anderson is in charge of acquiring the best technology for the students of the District. “Enrico Crocetti, the Director of Technology, is doing a great job, he’s doing a lot of work with little resources,” he said. “There is very little to improve that is technology-related.”

New York State has cut financial aid to the school district, Anderson said. As such, funding for technology has lessened for the last few years. “We are working with the Legislative Committee to increase state aid to the district so all valued programs can continue in the district,” Anderson said.

Anderson was crucial in securing a $50,000 grant for the schools as co-chair for the Choices Committee. ‘The purpose behind the program is to give the students the knowledge and the opportunity to make better choices,” he said. “It’s not just to make ‘rec’ nights.”

“He got a lot done on the Choices Committee,” said Ron Grinnell, the School Board’s Vice President. Anderson has overseen the nights of recreation, counseling and social work, and the availability of literature to combat violence and drug abuse.

The Budget Planning Committee involves working with the Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Roberta Gerold, and Vice Superintendent, Herb Chessler. “He is a very focused board member who always has the student’s best interest in mind,” Gerold said.

The committee is looking at the programs run by the district with the district officers and working with the community to determine the value of each program. The committee is changing the way we look at the budget, from a single-year plan to a multi-year plan,” he said. “[It is] going to take some time to make that transition.”

Anderson’s background in technology has brought success to Centereach’s businesses and education. Though he does not actually write the budget, his insight is monumental in how the town allocates money, be it to attract new members to the Chamber of Commerce or to make the schools better in order to bring more people to live in Centereach.

Since being elected to the School Board, Anderson has joined an institution that values his membership. “Everybody on the board does a good job and he fits right in,” Ron Grinnell said.

The Centereach Civics Association agrees. “He is very knowledgeable and a very good organizer,” said Carol Cavalieri, its 1^st Vice President. “He [Anderson] definitely is a mover and shaker.”