Most students have been lucky enough to witness the slackliners in action at OSU. To most, they are referred to as the “tightrope people,” or something of the like. While slacklining does bear similarities to this circus trick, it is actually unique.

The act of slacklining involves tethering a 1-inch tubed webbing between two anchor points. The rope is secured using a carabiner and can maintain a weight of 4,000 pounds.

“The mental focus experienced while walking the line is just beautiful. As far as the walker is concerned, the outside world does not exist; it takes 100 percent of your brainpower to maintain balance. If you let the outside world into your thoughts for an instant, you fall off,” said Ian Roth, an active slackliner and OSU alumnus.

While the act most commonly seen on campus involves walking just a few feet above the ground, there is also a style of slacklining called “highlining.” As the name suggests, the walker is often much higher off the ground and is tethered to the rope for safety.

Slacklining has gained a lot of momentum as an extracurricular activity for rock climbers. Often on rest days or while at camp, climbers will slackline to work on their mental focus. Though it may be recreational, the sport does take a great deal of practice.

“Persistence is key. Also, coming to grips with the fact that you are going to take a lot of falls. Keep getting back on the line until you get another step. A fun game for beginners is to loosely tie a string on the line as a marker for the furthest point walked, and push it forward with your toes as you get better. Soon enough it will be to the far anchor,” Roth said.

Clearly the art of slacklining is for the calm and patient, but not for the faint of heart.

“I really enjoy the feeling of mastering a skill,” said Jesse Hansen, slackliner at OSU. “When I am slacklining, especially on a high line, there is a moment of focus that is unparalleled in anything I have ever done.”

Evanston singer/songwriter, Rachel McClusky achieved what most other aspiring artists her age only dream of — the 17-year-old’s song, “Secret Crush,” is featured in Disney’s latest teen comedy, “Prom,” which hit theaters April 29.

McClusky said she got the deal through her father, Jeff McClusky, a Chicago-based music promoter and entrepreneur who has worked with the likes of The Rolling Stones, Madonna and Paul McCartney.

“My dad is in the music business, and he’s my manager,” McClusky said. “He and the president of Disney music started talking about my music and how I could get more involved with Disney, and they offered me the opportunity to write about prom.”

McClusky, who graduated high school early last November, said “Secret Crush” was the culmination of high school experiences with a boyfriend while secretly crushing on another guy.

“I wrote this song my freshman year in high school, and it was about this boyfriend I had and we were just kind of disconnected, but I still liked him,” she said. “And then there was this other guy, and we were so similar and I really liked him, but I didn’t want to let go of the boyfriend, so I had to keep it a secret crush.”

When McClusky first started talking to Disney music executives back in March, she was not always positive her song would make it into the movie. After being denied placement in the two scenes she applied for, she received good news just before the movie was wrapping up production, she said.

“They called me back like a week later and told me they found a spot for it,” McClusky said. “I was really grateful because it was about a week before the movie was actually going to be finished, so I felt really lucky to have that spot.”

Disney flew McClusky out to L.A. for the premiere of “Prom,” which took place April 21 at the El Capitan Theater in Hollywood.

“It was a really great experience,” McClusky said. “I was so excited, I didn’t know where in the movie it (“Secret Crush”) was gonna be played, and so just hearing it when I was totally not even expecting it was just such an awesome experience. I couldn’t stop smiling for the rest of the movie.”

McClusky describes her music as “pretty mainstream pop” and typical of what you would hear on the pop radio waves.

“I would say lyrically I’m similar to Taylor Swift where I like to write about love and relationships and family,” she said. “And then sound-wise, I would probably say I’m similar to Katy Perry.”

McClusky is currently working on her album, “Beleave Me,” set for release in June or July. She is also scheduling live shows, including one at the Cornerstone Festival on July 3 in Bushnell, Ill..

“I would love to become more involved with Disney as time goes on, but right now I’m trying to finish my album, and we’re pretty close to being done,” McClusky said. “We’re all really pumped about it.”

The University of Alabama has confirmed the death of newly transferred junior offensive tackle Aaron Douglas. Douglas was found dead Thursday in Jacksonville, Fla. The cause of death has not been reported.

The 21-year-old Douglas recently transferred to the Crimson Tide at the beginning of the year from Western Arizona Community College. During his freshman year at the University of Tennessee, Douglas earned freshman All-SEC honors at the left tackle position.

Douglas decided to leave Tennessee after a second coaching change, and he cited a diagnosis of depression upon his departure.

The standout offensive tackle was slotted to compete for the left tackle job in Alabama’s offensive line.

The native of Maryville, Tenn., Douglas was said to be visiting his grandfather in Jacksonville. Douglas tweeted on his Twitter account @80Fresh 14 hours prior to his death being confirmed.

“It is a tragedy anytime you lose someone close to you and even more so when it is a member of your family,” said UA head football coach Nick Saban. “Aaron was a part of our family and always will be a part of our family at Alabama. He was an outstanding young man and we were excited about what he had accomplished as a player and a person in the short time he was with us.”

In my last column, the unraveling of the domestic oil production myth began with the concept of a global oil market – companies beholden to no specific country – and the dominance of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.

But the domestic oil production myth truly unwinds on a few other key points that proponents of domestic resources often pass over.

First is the amount of time between when a company receives its permit to begin production and the first drop of oil that is recovered.

According to the Energy Information Administration, it takes an average of around five years for an oil company that was just awarded a lease of reserve land to recover the first drop of oil. Why not ignore alternative sources for five more years, and hope for more oil? To call this procrastination would be an understatement.

Second, America generally doesn’t come close in total reserves compared to the rest of the world. Again according to the EIA, in 2009 the average amount of proven oil reserves within the United States was 21.7 billion barrels of oil. By comparison, Venezuela had 99.3 billion, Canada 178 billion, Europe 13.6 billion, Russia 60 billion, Africa 117 billion and the Middle East, collectively, is sitting on 745 billion.

But consider the possibility that one of the “super major” oil companies – all international producers – develops an interest in tapping America’s oil reserves either in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge or off shore. How much oil could America get?

On optimistic speculation by EIA’s analysis of “technically recoverable” amounts surveyed by geologists, it has been estimated that ANWR could produce about 876,000 barrels of oil each day. As of 2009, the U.S. produces 9 million barrels of oil a day, and consumes just over 18 million.

With a world market that consumes a total of about 86 million barrels a day according to data from 2007, ANWR’s recoverable amount accounts to just over 4 percent of our current domestic production, and barely 1 percent of world production. Certainly, the “super majors” are already lining up to get a hand in that.

Proponents for domestic production seem to skip over how negligible a contribution that tapping the ANWR oil reserves would make. Nine hundred thousand extra barrels – in 2025 nonetheless – does not make up any ground in efforts to reduce foreign dependency.

Finally, and most important of all the reasons to reduce foreign oil dependency the public would support, domestic production suggests that gas prices would be lowered. Unfortunately, again, it wouldn’t fix this problem either.

In a 2009 EIA report, “Impact of Limitations on Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Federal Outer Continental Shelf,” the EIA projected domestic crude oil production through 2030 based on historical and current data for production and reserve availability.

The report explores two options for the future of domestic oil production: the OCS “limited” case, where the currently suspended limits on the development of oil production in the Outer Continental Shelf are reinstated; and the OCS “access” case, which examines the “potentialimpacts of lifting of Federal restrictions on access to the OCS” in various parts of the U.S., such as those sites made available in 2008 when the moratoria was lifted. So it’s limited production versus possible production.

The EIA projected that crude oil production in the limited OCS case would be 6.83 million barrels per day by 2030, and gas prices would average $3.91 per gallon.

Now, for the access case – examining the great potential of domestic oil production by furthering utilization of the OCS – the EIA estimates that by 2030, 7.37 million barrels of oil would be produced per day, bringing the price of gas to $3.88 per gallon.

Just think, in under 20 years, by opening our “possible” OCS reserves we would save 3 cents a gallon! Rejoice, baby, rejoice! Domestic production makes gas cheap…er.

Within the remarks and the push to expand domestic oil production, one may hear arguments for reducing “foreign dependency,” “creating of American jobs,” relying on “American resources,” and so on. But never do you hear a proponent of domestic production directly state that gas prices will go down, or even remain steady. And rightfully so – as shown, more American oil does not truly mean lower American gas prices.

Despite the major downsides, domestic production does do one thing: create jobs. While environmental organizations dispute statistics handed out by petroleum-related coalitions – for example, the 9.2 million jobs related to petroleum industry estimated by the Petroleum Institute – it makes sense that more rigs and transportation would create more jobs.

Yet, on the other hand, the industry also has the power to destroy thousands of jobs, as seen in the British Petroleum oil spill. Furthermore these companies, as stressed within the aforementioned reasons, are international. Wouldn’t the labor be given to those who would take it for the cheapest salary?

Overall, the benefits of domestic production do not exist, or granted, are negligible. “Drill, baby, drill” is a myth. The concept is unrealistic, unprofitable and misleading. The power of domestic production lies purely in political gain, vying for a constituency that stands against the assumed expensive and inconvenient lifestyle changes that comes along with alternative energies.

The reasons given against domestic drilling don’t even touch upon the negative environmental aspects related to oil, and they don’t need to. Proponents of domestic production can be beaten at their own game; Politics, economics and social welfare – domestic production doesn’t better any of it.

We’ve been sold the need to reduce foreign oil for decades, yet nothing has happened. It’s fair to say it never will. Change will only come when global oil becomes scarce. When the resource becomes scarce, control becomes necessary. Consider when that day comes, and the U.S. is still dependent on it, would America then rethink alternative sources?

Eh, who cares? Let’s have the next generation deal with that issue.

A Boston club will pay a fee totalling $28,500 to four organizations supporting higher education for black students as part of a settlement in a complaint of discrimination against black Harvard and Yale graduate students and alumni.

On Nov. 20, 2011, Cure Lounge shut down a party for black Harvard and Yale students and alumni in fear that the party was attracting “the wrong crowd,” including “local gang bangers,” inciting allegations of racism by the club management against the party guests.

The Attorney General’s office, which filed a suit against Cure with the Massachusetts Commission against Discrimination (MCAD), announced on Tuesday the four recipients of the $28,500 fine on the club: Freedom House, Cambridge College, Bottom Line Inc., and the United Negro College Fund.

This February, Cure Lounge agreed to apologize to the community and event attendees, send their employees to anti-discrimination workshops, and pay the fine—the benefactors of which were not yet decided at the time.

On the night of the incident, club management told patrons to leave the venue 30 minutes after they had opened the doors.

Management gave patrons a variety of reasons, ranging from “technical difficulties” to “gang activity” to fire code issues.

Cure’s head of security Sherif Hashem gave event organizers a different reason, according to the complaint filed by Coakley and MCAD.

“It’ll be the weed smoking brothers from the other side of Massachusetts Avenue who will want to come in if they see beautiful black women in line, and it will be a problem if we try to turn them away,” Hashem said on the night of the incident.

Club management did not call police, and attendees reported not seeing any suspicious persons in the crowd.

Coakley said she hopes that this occurrence of discrimination will result in constructive change in the future.

“While we cannot change the actions of Cure Lounge the night of the incident, I am pleased that something positive has resulted from our settlement and that we are able to award these grants to help African-American students fulfill their academic ambitions,” Coakley said in a statement. “This funding will help ensure that these young adults have the tools to prepare and apply for higher education and allow them to pursue a path to personal growth and academic achievement.”

Illinois legislators are gearing up for another gun control debate just as the state House struck down a concealed carry proposal by a six-vote margin last week.

The state Senate is now debating a bill that would impose more punishment on gun traffickers in the wake of the state House’s voting against legislation that would have eased restrictions on gun carrying.

“We got the most votes we’ve ever got in the history of Illinois,” said state Rep. Brandon Phelps (D-Harrisburg), who introduced House Bill 148.

The bill would have allowed individuals to apply for permits to carry firearms concealed, provided the individual is older than 21, holds a valid Firearm Owner’s Identification Card and has taken training classes. It failed to clear the state House by a vote of 65-32-1, narrowly missing the 71-vote margin.

Phelps said he was not surprised by the results but nonetheless was disappointed.

“Criminals are always going to have guns, and we’re just going to be more at their mercy,” he said.

Illinois and Wisconsin are the only two states that do not allow concealed carry. Washington, D.C. also has the same restriction in place. State Rep. Rich Brauer (R-Springfield) said the law has reduced crime rates in other states.

“If there would have been a problem, they would have made it illegal in their states,” Brauer said.

Banning concealed carry goes against the Second Amendment and infringes on citizens’ constitutional rights, he added.

On the contrary, the Illinois Council against Handgun Violence welcomed Thursday’s results.

“We’ll go against the trend as long as we can,” said Colleen Daley, executive director at the council.

She said the council’s studies do not show concealed carry reduces gun violence. State Rep. Daniel Biss (D-Evanston), who voted against the bill, agrees putting more guns in the community is not the solution.

“By definition, the easier to carry guns, the more opportunities people will have to shoot each other,” Biss said. “The huge percentage of gunshot deaths and injuries in this country are not incurred by criminals the victim doesn’t know but rather people who are in the same families, in the neighborhood where people know one another.”

Biss acknowledged illegal gun possession is a huge problem in Illinois. He introduced a bill on May 4 that would revoke the registration of vehicles used in gun trafficking crimes.

“It basically gives law enforcement officers one more tool to deal with gun traffickers,” Biss said.

Currently, Illinois punishes individuals involved in gun trafficking, but Biss said the new bill would suspend the registration of vehicles involved in gunrunning — the illegal transport of three or more firearms. Biss said he is confident the bill will pass. However, he acknowledged gun trafficking is a complex problem that needs multiple solutions.

“Nothing works by itself,” he said. “What we need to do is to have simultaneously a network of all sorts of pressure on people and a robust toolkit given to our law enforcement officials. This is just one small arrow.”

Evanston Police Cmdr. Tom Guenther declined to comment on either bill but said the department would follow what is passed in the legislature.

Northwestern students are divided over the issue of concealed carry. Medill freshman Shayna Starr said the bill would help to protect citizens against gun violence.

“If someone is constantly put in danger, then having a concealed weapon is a means of protection and should be allowed,” Starr said.

But Weinberg freshman Sabrina Koval said the bill would only increase the number of shootings she frequently heard about growing up in Chicago.

“If guns are illegal now and that’s how bad it is, more people are going to resort to gun violence to solve their problems (if concealed carry passes),” Koval said.

According to an analysis published in the New York Times on a U.S. city’s likelihood of being hit by a natural disaster, the city of Corvallis was ranked safest in the nation.

This analysis determined, of the 379 U.S. cities reviewed, which had the lowest and highest risk for being affected by disasters such as tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, drought and hail.

Following Corvallis, Mt. Vernon-Anacortes, Wash. is in the number two spot and Bellingham, Wash. is ranked third. The next highest ranked Oregon city is Salem, as the seventh safest in the nation.

The West Coast has been known to be more vulnerable to earthquakes, as opposed to the Midwest, which suffers from tornadoes, or the East Coast, which withstands hurricanes every year.

While the honor may make some breathe a sigh of relief, one expert believes the analysis may have been too lenient in there assessment of threats from Mother Nature.

“In my view, the New York Times downplayed the threat from earthquakes,” said Robert Yeats, professor of geology in the geosciences department at Oregon State University. “Seattle got high marks even though there is a proven active fault running through downtown Seattle that had a large earthquake less than 1,000 years ago, accompanied by a tsunami that struck the Magnolia Heights area.”

According to the data posted from the New York Times, “Risks for twisters and hurricanes are based on historical data showing where storms occurred, (and) earthquake risks are based on United States Geological Survey assessments and take into account the relative infrequency of quakes, compared with weather events and floods.”

This research was conducted following events such as the disastrous storms in the South and the deadly earthquake in Japan, which reportedly killed more than 18,000 people with nearly 12,000 still determined missing.

Yeats said Corvallis was not the only city included in the survey that may have been incorrectly ranked for safety.

“In addition, suburbs Kent and Auburn have volcanic hazard from mudflows from Mt. Ranier, the most recent occurring 500 years ago,” said Yeats. “The survey also gave high marks to Bellingham, Mt. Vernon and Salem, all at similar risk from quakes, when in fact Salem was damaged by an earthquake in 1993.”

On the New York Times website, the data results are displayed on a map of the United States, with green dots representing cities with lower risk of hazards, and red dots indicating the cities with the highest risk.

Dallas-Plano-Irving, Texas, was ranked the most dangerous city to live in the United States, followed by Jonesboro, Ark., Corpus Christi, Texas, and Houston, Texas. Texas rounded out with five cities in the top eight most dangerous.

Yeats fears the high marks for safety may give community members a false sense of security, possibly hindering emergency preparedness.

“I regard the survey as irresponsible, hampering efforts of emergency managers to make this a safer place to live,” said Yeats.

The NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament never will be the same.

No, it’s not because Connecticut and Butler made James Naismith spin in his grave with an unprecedentedly awful championship game. Nor is it because of further expansion.

After failing to agree on a new contract with CBS, Gus Johnson will no longer call tournament games for the network.

So, for the foreseeable future, the tournament will lack the voice that captured the frenzied nature of each game.

Imagine if Jim Nantz called Ron Lewis’ shot against Xavier in 2007. As we transitioned to commercial, we would’ve been hit with some unbearable pun, such as “a three for Ron and overtime for all — the Musketeers and Buckeyes after this.”

Yes, we’ll still get our dose of Johnson during Big Ten play, as he still is expected to do basketball for Big Ten Network.

No one can turn each play in an Iowa-Northwestern game exciting quite like he can. Big Ten fans won’t lack his pizzazz, but most of the nation will — on the big tournament stage.

He called NCAA Tournament games for 16 years, but now his presence will be replaced by guys like Tim Brando, who unleashed this gem of a call after Butler’s Matt Howard beat Old Dominion with a buzzer-beating tip-in: “Butler … did it again!”

Clearly, there are few who can capture the moment quite like Johnson can.

Traditionalists might prefer an understated announcer, in the Pat Summerall mold. Yet, it’s hard to mimic his voice and simultaneously speak so eloquently with such few words.

Summerall and Johnson are on opposite ends of the spectrum — really. Most announcers try to strike a balance between the two … unless you’re Joe Buck, who is in a class of his own. He always sounds like he just found out his dog died right before going on air.

Johnson reactions are more genuine than most. Sports fans tend to get excited when they see a remarkable play in a tense moment, and Johnson’s announcing style mimics this.

Take his call of OSU’s Matt Sylvester’s game-winner against an undefeated Illinois in 2005. After he hit the shot, Johnson screamed uncontrollably, much like Buckeye fans.

This informal style apparently is appealing to the Internet savvy. In March, someone created an online soundboard for Johnson, capturing his best bytes, including “here comes the pain” or “he’s got getting-away-from-the-cops speed.”

CNBC sports business reporter Darren Rovell conducted an informal poll on Twitter, which showed that two of every three people say Johnson gets them to watch a game they normally wouldn’t watch.

Apparently Johnson’s stronghold in the social media realm is something that CBS, which caters to its viewers’ median age of 55, doesn’t understand.

As the lead college football announcer for Fox, Johnson may be taking a step forward in his eyes. Still, the entertainment value of the NCAA Tournament takes a clear step backward with his absence.

The Cal State University may raise annual tuition by as much 36 percent, or $1,566, if it is faced with what is being called a “scorched earth budget” by Chancellor Charles B. Reed.

The 36 percent tuition hike is part of a budget contingency plan laid out by CSU officials Tuesday in preparation for a possible $1 billion reduction in state support to the 23-campus system.

Tuition for the 2009-10 academic year was about $4,000, but students could soon pay as much as $6,450 if the university is faced with the $1 billion cut.

“There are no good options, only extreme choices,” Reed said in a press release. “But, we need to ensure that our students still receive a quality education, that we preserve the institution and, that a degree from the CSU maintains value.”

In addition to the tuition increase, CSU officials plan to virtually shut down 2012 winter and spring enrollment by “wait listing” applicants for those terms. The university estimates it could turn away 20,000 qualified applicants.

The CSU currently faces a $500 million reduction in state support but may face a $1 billion reduction if state tax extensions are not implemented sometime before the upcoming academic year. Reed noted that neither the extreme tuition hike nor admission closures will be necessary if the tax extensions are implemented.

Last November, the CSU retroactively raised tuition by 5 percent for the spring 2011 semester and again by 10 percent for 2011-12 academic year.

If the university implements its contingency plan, CSU students will be faced with a 65 percent total increase in student tuition since fall 2010.

The CSU says an additional $500 million reduction in state support would amount to eliminating the budget for 10 of the university’s smallest campuses and enrollment funding for 85,000 students.

In an interview with the Daily 49er, President F. King Alexander said a cut of this magnitude would result in the discussion of closing such campuses.

For 1.4 billion people living in the world today, subsisting on such an impossibly tiny figure is a fact of daily life. And from May 16-20, this struggle will become reality for a small but passionate group of Oregon State University students who have teamed up to take a stand to end extreme poverty.

The eager army of Beavs is participating in a nationwide challenge called “Live Below the Line.” Live Below the Line is an event organized by the Global Poverty Project, an international movement to see the end of extreme poverty within a single generation. Until now, such a goal has always been economically impossible to accomplish. In an effort to raise awareness and funds for the Global Poverty Project to help developing nations to permanently rise above the line of extreme poverty, each member of the team, which calls itself “The BeaLIVErs,” will spend no more than $1.50 a day on food.

“Living below the line is more than just some diet,” explained David Fleming, a 19-year-old psychology major who belongs to the BeaLIVErs team. “It’s a way to learn empathy and gratitude.”

The team is representing our school well. While taking the challenge, participants typically ask family and friends if they would like to sponsor them to raise money for the Global Poverty Project. The BeaLIVErs, a group of fewer than 30 individuals, is currently ranked among the top-four fundraising teams in the country. Anyone who ever doubted that a small group of young people had the power to change the world was clearly unfamiliar with the giant-slaying determination of OSU students.

With my peers’ enthusiasm as my inspiration, I’ve decided to join the BeaLIVErs team. I want to participate not only in protest of extreme poverty, which I believe to be the most monstrous injustice in our world today, but also as an attempt to understand someone else’s suffering. There is no reason why I was born into a life of privilege and opportunity while 1.4 billion people must juggle the cost of food, healthcare and education on a daily budget of $1.50. The things I worry about every day are incredibly trivial in comparison to those daily hardships, and my challenge is to remind myself of their reality.

Many LBL participants agree that gaining a new perspective on poverty is a crucial part of making a global impact.

“I want to raise awareness for an important global issue and to experience what hunger really is,” explained Alex Schulz, a member of Phi Gamma Delta fraternity and a junior at OSU.

“I am doing Live Below the Line to grow in compassion with those who are living in poverty,” added Monica Kolinska, also a junior at OSU. “Every person who says they cannot live on $1.50 a day is testimony to the fact that no one should have to. And we can help change that.”

The key word, of course, is “we.” No one person can tackle such an overwhelming problem alone, but when a committed group of people work together to make a change, the results can be staggering.

“I am living below the line so I can experience what 1.4 billion people have to deal with every day,” said Troy Love, an OSU construction and engineering management major. “I am hoping my small contribution will motivate others to end global poverty forever.”

For those who want to join the fight against extreme poverty, you can become a part of our team at livebelowtheline.com. Even if you’re not sure your belly can handle five days of rice, beans and ramen, you can still help The BeaLIVErs make a difference by making more modest sacrifices, like giving up your daily coffee one morning and donating the $3 you save to the cause.

As Gandhi once said, “Be the change you wish to see in the world.” Changing the world begins with a change from within. In participating in this eye-opening experience, we hope to change our perspectives and thus change the world. We want to take a stand and bring an end to this suffering, and nothing would make us more proud than knowing our fellow students have chosen to stand with us.

Molly Jones is a junior in English. The opinions expressed in her columns do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Barometer staff. Jones can be reached at forum@dailybarometer.com.