And you thought this class was weird!

Everytime I tell someone that I'm in a blogging class, their first reaction is, "Oh cool. Wait. What!?!?" But I'm sure they wouldn't think it's so weird in comparison to the Internet Famous class offered at Parsons in New York City.

I guess I'm almost speechless as to why it's even a class, though I can see how the concept is good. According to the website, "Internet Famous Class is dedicated to learning how to spread your work to the widest possible audience online."

I like that idea. Learning how to use the internet as a way to self-publish is great. But that's where the good idea stops and the "wtf?" factor comes in.

"Our Famotron software measures the online attention economy — view counts, blog links, social media activity, followers and their influence — and awards students their final letter grade... Sites like Digg, del.icio.us, YouTube, Flickr, Facebook, Technorati, Alexa, Google, LinkedIn, Twitter and many more will be mined for data relevant to the amount of attention a student is receiving... This raw data is calculated into a “Famo Index Score” that will be mapped onto the Parsons Graduate Grade Scale Description, and each student given a grade from an A to an F."

So what does this lead me to believe? Apparently, being like Tila Tequila is desirable. Also, acting like an idiot for the internet now requires a college education.

The best comment comes from EleanorRigby at Gawker:

Next, MTV and The Learning Annex should join forces to create a series of classes including:
-Reality show scriptwriting
-So you're from an upper-middle class town in California and want to be famous for being utterly boring...here's what to do
-From the Real World house to cardboard box: What went wrong
-Casting your reality show: From mundane blond lead to bitchy underminer
-Mario Lopez: Is American television truly utilizing this gem in enough hosting spots?
-"Music" television: A historiography

25 random things

So I've heard a lot about this "Facebook 25 random things" list ... and I had no idea what it was. Which is weird, considering I spend far too much time on the internet and am usually in the know about these trends.

There was an article on Gawker today that posted links to five top newspapers around the country who all had articles about the trend - all from Thursday alone!

And then it hit me ... I know what this is! I got my frist "You've been tagged in a note" notification a week ago that brought me to a friend's list of 25 random things. I considered making my own but was too busy at the time.

I don't like to be a part of trends (which, ironically, is a trend in itself these days!), but I'm going to go against the grain and hop on the bandwagon.

Kara Flaherty's 25 Random Things:

1. I have a part-siamese kitten named Chai (pictured above).

2. The Yeah Yeah Yeahs are my favorite band (and have been since before "Maps" came out!)

3. I dream of moving to New York City someday.

4. I have a terrible addiction to browsing apartments on Craigslist in New York, Denver and other major metropolitan areas.

5. I have eaten cheesy broccoli and chicken three times this week and still can't get enough.

6. I drink chocolate milk daily.

7. I love my parents and only wish I had appreciated them more when I was younger.

8. Everyone thinks my sister and I look a lot alike when we're both blonde, but the moment she dyes her hair dark, nobody believes we're related (picture at right: 1989).

9. I'm planning my sister's honeymoon and sincerely wish it was mine. Atleast she knows it'll be good!

10. Sometimes people think I'm stuck up because I don't talk a lot, but I'm really not at all. I just prefer to observe.

11. My best friend from high school had a baby and I consider myself an aunt.

12. I have a Peace Corps application waiting to be finished and sent in the moment I decide I need to do something drastic with my life.

13. I used to think it would be fun to write a memoir. I don't think so anymore.

14. When my boyfriend plays video games until the early morning hours and ignores my requests for a lower volume, I flip him off through the wall. He won't know I do it unless he reads this.

15. I wrote my first will when I was 16 and have updated it ever since. I think it's important and something everyone should do.

16. I totally believe in ghosts, though I have never seen one with my own eyes.

17. I still have the link to a blog that I kept when I was 14, and when I came across it the other day, it made me sad.

18. The tattoo on my wrist represents the memory of a friend who was killed by a drunk driver, as well as the resulting life lessons I learned from the loss. Whenever people ask and I tell them this, they suddenly get uncomfortable. Now I just say, "It's a long story."

19. I watch "The Office" regularly.

20. I voted Obama.

21. I feed my cat all-organic food that has to be specially ordered on the internet, yet I live off frozen, boxed and fast food.

22. All of my grandparents are still alive.

23. I spilled wine on my laptop keyboard a couple months ago, which made it almost completely unusable. I got my new keyboard in the mail yesterday and successfully changed it out today. The only difference is that the enter and shift keys are shorter, so I keep hitting \ and \ and it makes me mad that I have two keys that do the same thing in the least convenient places.

24. I am so picky when it comes to jeans and shoes that when I find a pair I like, I stock up.

25. I still don't know exactly what I want to do when I have to make it out in the real world. I just know I don't want to get stuck with a job I hate.

Nebraska's smoking ban

I've decided to focus on Nebraska's state-wide smoking ban for my next editorial. It's something that has come up quite often in my group of friends, since everyone smokes except me, my sister and my boyfriend. It's the equivalent of about three versus twenty, and I'm not exaggerating.

Neither my boyfriend nor my sister care about the ban, which ultimately leaves me as the only person to advocate for it. Because of this, I have my argument pretty well thought out (and well practiced!).

So I'll start by giving the basic argument points of those against the ban, then countering each of them with my own. Here we go!

1. It's not fair, the government is discriminating against smokers.
This is interesting, and honestly, the only point I can slightly agree with. The thing is, the government is NOT discriminating against them as people - they can still go and do anything a non-smoker can - it's simply that the government is discriminating about where they can smoke. Now, I doubt anyone actually identifies themselves as a "smoker" and not a "person." Just as identification is not black and white, neither is this issue.

2. They are infringing on my constitutional rights. I should be able to smoke wherever I want to.
Oh, so do you smoke in hospitals? Schools? Libraries? Grocery stores? Retail stores? Court houses? Government buildings? Banks? At the gas pump? Of course, when people say this, I realize they basically mean restaurants and bars, but they just don't understand how ridiculous it is that they should say "wherever I want" as if they've ever been able to smoke anywhere and everywhere.

Also, where in the constitution is a person guaranteed the right to smoke in a restaurant or bar? Oh right, NOWHERE. But just for argument's sake, what about my constitutional right to breathe clean air? Every time a person smokes around me and I am forced to breathe their smoke, they just took away my right and my choice to be smoke-free. If I'm just standing around breathing, I'm not affecting them in any way. Isn't there something wrong about that?

Altogether, this constitutional rights argument is overly dramatic at best and downright ignorant at worst. The state isn't taking away your cigarettes. They aren't even telling you to quit smoking. They're simply saying, "Step outside to enjoy your cigarette." That way, both smokers and non-smokers can retain their choices.

3. Why can't non-smokers go somewhere else?
I hate this argument because it is extremely divisive. It just reminds me of going back to a time of segregation, and that's dangerous. Should smokers and non-smokers have separate bars and restaurants? Once again, this is a way of defining people by their habits, not as individuals (which I mentioned in #1).

What's funny (and sad at the same time) is that it's typically the same person who says, "It's not fair, this is discrimination!" followed by, "Can't non-smokers go somewhere else?"

I hate it when people apply standards to others and don't apply those same standards to themselves. Apparently, according to this person, it's not okay to discriminate against smokers, yet discrimination against non-smokers is no problem!

Now believe me, I follow my own advice. I imagine, "What if I was a smoker? Would I step outside?" And the answer is a strong YES. Yes, I would. It's not hard to simply step outside to smoke, I would do it as a common courtesy toward others regardless of the smoking ban. I don't see why it's so hard for anyone else.

Also, the majority of people in the United States are non-smokers. Only 23% of adult men and 19% of adult women smoke. It's really not fair to argue that this minority of people should be allowed to go everywhere and that the majority of Americans should go somewhere else.

But getting back on topic, sometimes when people say non-smokers should go somewhere else, they point out the existence of smoking and non-smoking sections at restaurants. Although I think it's a well-intended step toward trying to keep everyone happy, the different sections still don't take into consideration many other things. What about a group of people who are a mix of smokers and non-smokers? What about the very obvious smoke that drifts into the non-smoking section (because let's face it, half a wall or no wall at all, the smoke isn't just going to stay out of the non-smoking section because the signs say so)? What about the non-smoking employees who work in the smoking section?

When a habit invades other people's space, there should be a limit. If a woman has a boss who sexually harasses her at work, are we going to say, "Why can't the woman go somewhere else or get a different job?" No, we are going to address the harassment. Or at least, I hope we are.

So main point here: If smokers simply step outside to smoke, both smokers and non-smokers can still go anywhere and everywhere. No one has to "go somewhere else."

4. If people go to bars to drink, why can't they smoke? Both actions are harmful and legal.
Once again, this is a matter of invading other people's space. To get right down to it, both drinkers and non-drinkers can go to a bar, but if a drinker drinks around a non-drinker, does that directly affect the non-drinker? Is the non-drinker suddenly going to be swimming in alcohol? Will the alcohol somehow get into the non-drinker's system, causing them to be drunk? If they go to a bar a lot but never drink, will they still be at risk for alcohol-related cirrhosis?

Now let's change this around. If a smoker smokes around a non-smoker, does it directly affect the non-smoker? Will the non-smoker be surrounded by smoke? Will the smoke get into the non-smoker's system? If a non-smoker is around cigarette smoke a lot, will they be at risk for smoking-related health problems, like cancer and emphysema?

Changes things, doesn't it?

5. The ban hurts businesses.
People who say this fail to realize that the Nebraska Restaurant Association backs the ban, and not one of the 700 businesses in the association have complained about the ban. Not a single one!

At first, the ban was somewhat more favorable toward certain businesses. For example, it originally was going to only ban smoking in bars that serve food, while bars that don't would still be allowed to have smoking inside. This was later ruled unconstitutional, which is why the ban now applies to all bars.

As to business in general, I just can't imagine a smoker refusing to go anywhere after the ban simply because they won't be allowed to smoke inside. If they choose to stay home and never go out to eat or hit up the bars - well, that's pretty extreme, and those few extremists probably don't make up even half a percent of a business's customers.

In fact, I think the smoking ban will help businesses, because it will encourage more people (like myself, for instance) to go out to places because they won't run the risk of coming home reeking of smoke, coughing for a week straight or simply getting sick to their stomachs after breathing so much smoke. Those are the exact reasons why I rarely go out to the bars (and all of my friends who live at the bars wonder why they never see me!).

Also, theoretically, a business can save money by not having to pay so much towards employees' health. If even one employee is healthier because of the ban and, as a result, is not required to go to the doctor as often, voila! The business just saved money on insurance.

6. Second-hand smoke doesn't actually hurt anyone.
I'm always baffled by the people who say this. They believe reports of second-hand smoke dangers and health risks are some government conspiracy. That, or they're scrambling for an argument - anything - because they have nothing else.

7. I think they're just trying to make me quit. And you know what? I'm just gonna smoke more!
Ok, Jeremy, you do that.


For the most part, I think people who get defensive about the ban may be confused. Some of them claim the ban will mean they can't smoke in their own homes or their cars (strangely, my friends who smoke always step outside their non-smoking rented apartments or ask before lighting up in my car, all without complaint). Others think it's the government's first steps to outlawing smoking altogether.

Here's what the ban will do: Make smoking in public indoor places illegal. That's it.
It's not extreme.
It's not a conspiracy.
It's going to be okay.

**What are your for/against arguments on the smoking ban? Let me know in the comments! I don't want to leave any good points out of my editorial!


See also:
WOWT-DT Omaha: "Smoking ban passes in Nebraska legislature."
Lincoln Journal Star: "Heineman signs smoking ban."
Join Together: "Nebraska court voids exceptions to smoking ban."
American Heart Association: Smoking cessation
Debate: Should smoking be allowed in public places?

Groundhog Day is lame.

[ Watch Groundhog Day 2009 here ]



Here's what it is. A bunch of people, mainly old men in black suits and top hats, huddle around a fake groundhog burrow. One man pulls the groundhog out and holds him up in the air Lion King-style as the poor little guy wiggles around. Then they put the groundhog on a flat surface, gather around him and stare at him eye-level as he sniffs the covered platform. After that, the men share a look of, "Oh, did he say something? Ok, let's all turn at the same time and nod like we understand." A poem is read aloud, and the crowd cheers as the men tell us all about the groundhog's weather predictions for the next six weeks.

Granted, the video linked above begins with the main guy saying, "We say there are a lot of serious and important things in life, and Groundhog Day is not one of them. It is just serious fun."

What gets me is the fact that everyone pretends to take this thing seriously, even though nobody does or is expected to. Every year, news casters say, "Oh, little groundhog, please don't see your shadow! Oh, you did? Oh no! Now we have six weeks of winter left! Boo!"

I think Groundhog day is lame because not only is it the same thing year after year, but it's one of the most absurd holidays we have that gets mainstream attention. Why look to a groundhog for important weather information? Why not look to, oh, I don't know, the location of Earth relative to the sun? Or if that's too hard, how about the Weather Channel?


What, you think I have no sense of humor? Well, it's just hard for me to either laugh at these groundhogs or take them seriously when I'm so overly annoyed by the tradition as a whole (and the resulting media coverage). I believe groundhogs are cute, chubby little creatures; meteorologists, they are not.

Interestingly enough, according to Wikipedia's entry on Groundhog Day, proponents of the tradition state the groundhogs are accurate 75% to 90% of the time. However, in real life, their success rate is 39%. That's a solid F by nearly all standards.

So why do people do it? I mean, 40,000 people can't be wrong. On second thought, 4 million people bought Snuggies, so 40,000 is certainly within the realm of possibility.