I <3 Arrested Development

Does anyone else here watch Arrested Development on DVD over and over? Am I the only one? Well, maybe in class I am (let me know if I'm not alone, classmates!), but I know for sure that many people around the country enjoy Arrested Development just as much as I do.

It's great, and there are so many reasons, it's really hard to explain it to someone who hasn't seen it or doesn't get the humor. But my all time favorite reason as to why Arrested Development is super cool is that nearly every single line is part of a joke or alluding to a joke. It's extremely clever, and I've watched every episode at least three or four times to make sure I catch it all.

Unfortunately, the show was canceled after only three seasons because apparently nobody was watching it. Now it's finally being made into a movie, and I have no idea when it's supposed to come out, but I hope it comes to Kearney. I will go as many times as my limited funds will allow me!

My boyfriend and my sister are both huge Arrested Development fans as well, and I never realized how often we make inside jokes from the episodes until I did it to someone who has never seen the show before. I guess I can't expect everyone to get it when I say "very ... handsome ... !" while acting like I'm about to barf. Or if something crappy happens, we say, "Michael!" in a low, vengeful voice. Also, since my last name starts with F, some of my friends who watch the show like to call me "Mr. F" ... if you watch the show, you'll see this is slightly insulting (or flattering, considering Charlize Theron is the actress), but it's all in good laughs.

Below, my favorite clip (explaining the "very handsome" thing) and my favorite episode, courtesy of Hulu.com.

Milk vending is good for everyone involved

For my local editorial, I decided to focus on the issue of adding milk vending machines to the campus. I know, it's not the most exciting subject in the world, but I still think it's important and something UNK should definitely consider.

Campus food services already offer an array of choices to students, but unfortunately, the vending machines on campus have a much more limited selection. To attract dollars and satisfy the needs of all students, it would be in the best interest of the university to expand the selection and include milk vending machines.

Studies began early in the decade with select high schools across the country to assess the market for milk vending machines. At the time, schools and communities were understandably worried about the rising obesity rate of children and teens, and because milk can be a healthy alternative to sugary soft drinks, it became the focus of many parents and principals who wanted a change.

After the school board in Madison, WI dropped its exclusive vending contract with Coca Cola in August 2000 and introduced milk vending machines alongside the pop machines, criticism about loss of funds soon turned to praise at the profits the milk machine was bringing to the schools.

Mona Arneson, the kitchen coordinator at West High School, told the Associated Press that she didn’t believe the milk program would work at first, but she was proven wrong when she began having difficulty keeping the machine stocked. In the first four weeks, students at the school of 2,100 pupils had bought 200 bottles of milk every day.

The Fluid Milk Strategic Thinking Initiative (FMSTI) ran its own studies, which indicated vending milk can be as successful as soda sales. In high schools, an average of 68 percent of students bought milk, and of those, 30 percent purchased milk at least once a week.

No studies have yet been released about the success of milk vending machines on college campuses, but if the success of milk vending machines at the University of Washington is taken into account, it’s not difficult to see that milk is just as popular among college students as high school students. Micheal Meyering, vending manager of the university, told University Week, the student newspaper, the machines sold out during the first couple of days after they were installed, leading him to ask the vendors for more frequent delivery.

The University of Nebraska would make a smart choice by installing milk vending machines on campus. Milk is already available at the Starbucks locations and campus convenience stores, but the hours at every milk-selling location vary from closing as early as 3 p.m. to only being open for lunch and dinner. None of these locations are open past 9 p.m. or during the weekends.

Just as students have the convenience of 24-hour soda, coffee, water and snack machines on campus, milk should have around-the-clock availability as well. Not only is milk a healthy alternative to soda, but many students simply prefer milk over other beverages. If previous studies can be believed, milk machines would also become a source of profit for the university, making them a worthy investment in this time of budget cuts.

Sources:
Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board
"Schools vending machines got milk - and students are getting it, too" - AP
University Week News

Watchmen story is pretty cool; the movie, eh.

So some friends and I went to the Watchmen midnight release last night. The last time we went to one of these things, it was for the Dark Knight, and it was insane with huge crowds of people and many costumed fans running around.

We didn't know what to expect at the Watchmen, but it was nowhere near the crowd or energy of the Dark Knight. Not that it really matters, but I guess I thought this movie has been hyped more than that.

Anyway, for people who don't know about the graphic novel or its multiple failures at becoming a movie in the past, here's a quick synopsis:

The story is set in the 80s, in a reality where Nixon is president and is in his fifth term. The Watchmen are all masked superheros that work for the government, and they are considered normal in culture and society. Dr. Manhattan is the only one who actually has super powers, though, so the U.S. uses him as a sort of military weapon.

The setting is during a cold war with Russia, and basically both the U.S. and Russia are on the verge of nuclear war, which would be so big it would cause the extinction of humanity. To make a very long and complicated story short, one of the rogue Watchmen carries out his own master plan of bombing major cities all across the globe, causing the rest of humanity to believe Earth is under attack from aliens, thus banding together against a common enemy and finding world peace.

If you see the movie, it's a bit different from the main story.

The reason Watchmen has failed multiple times at becoming a movie is because those who got involved felt it was way too complicated for the standard two-hour movie format. Most felt it would do best as a miniseries. Keep in mind, this wasn't a simple comic - it was a graphic novel that was actually on a list of top 100 reads at Time Magazine.

I hate to say it, but critics were right - this really is the movie that can't be made successfully. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad movie by any means, but it just doesn't stand out in the crowd of comic movies, at least not for me. I'm not a huge comic movie fan anyway, so I don't know how much my opinion might matter, but honestly, I was let down. It's like the movie just doesn't do the story justice. The effects and fight scenes and everything else within the movie are definitely done well, but I can't help but feel like they should have tried to make the movie a trilogy or something. I mean, even Spiderman was a trilogy, and who cares about that guy?

One good thing is the soundtrack, which has some oldies in there like Bob Dylan and Janis Joplin. Another good thing is the strong female character who can fight and kick ass without needing to be saved by teh menz. Also, the beginning of the film is really creative, showing how the Watchmen have permeated culture (think Andy Warhol, Vietnam, JFK, etc). There's also a lot of repeated symbolism, which the novel itself was well-known for.

Also, here's the trailer.

Beware of the cats: all 500 of them!

I realize that I have already blogged about cat topics twice, but I have to admit: I am a cat person. I have two kittens right now who I adopted through the Humane Society, and they are two very different little personalities but equally lovable. So every time I see a story about cats, it makes me think of them, and I smile :)

Anyway, I simply couldn't pass this story over. There's a man in Florida who has built a 30-acre ranch for stray and abandoned cats. It's called Caboodle Ranch, and it has everything from little houses and buildings for the cats (including lake front cabins and a WalMart!), to outdoor trails and dug outs.

Craig Grant, the man who started it all, spent over $100,000 of his own money to build everything on the ranch, and he spends an additional $6000 every month and 14 hours every day to keep the cats well-fed and the ranch well-maintained.

There are over 500 cats that live there, and Grant says he will never turn a cat away who is in need of a home, so I'm sure the numbers will only continue to grow.



Animal abuse is a problem, but from what I've seen, heard and experienced myself, cats seem to be targeted much more than any other pet. The cat I grew up with, I saved from boys putting her in a cardboard box and kicking her around the skate park and a busy street. They called me a cow when I intervened and saved her (I was 16 and barely weighed 100 lbs, what jerks!). She's more my mom's cat now, since she has lived in my parents' house since then and prefers my mom over anyone else. I love to play with her when I go home to visit, though.

Anyway, it's refreshing to see someone with such a love for cats who is doing so much for their well-being. I don't have money now, but I plan to donate to the ranch this summer when I get a second job. It won't be a lot when compared to the expenses the place racks up, but I'll feel good about doing something since I don't have the option of flying down to Florida to volunteer.

In case you missed the linked text above, the website for Caboodle Ranch is http://caboodleranch.com/Index.html. You can see pictures, watch videos, read the blog, donate, and more.

On a side note, I'm destined to be a crazy cat lady by the time I turn 50.

The double dog dare post about campus parking

Quick note: Double dog dare, you say? Well, to quickly explain, Dr. Hanson, the professor of this blogging class, hates anything and everything to do with articles complaining about student parking. He says that no matter how good or bad parking really is, students at every campus across the university will complain unless they all have the ability to park within 5 feet of the door to their building 100% of the time. And, since it's been talked about so much, he says there is nothing more that could possibly be written about it that's new or interesting.

But apparently, people still want to write about it anyway, so he's giving us one chance to write a blog about it, and whoever writes the best or most interesting post will win something on Tuesday. I wasn't going to write about it, but why not try? So this is my daily experience with parking on campus.

To begin with, UNK sells more parking spots than it actually has available. I'm not sure what that ratio is, but I've been told that it's not as bad as some other universities. I think it's crap that universities sell more spots than they have, and I remember having a problem with it when I lived in the dorms. Get back late? Oh, sorry, that $50 parking fee you paid isn't going to help you out this time. I would have to park five blocks or more away and walk to my dorm. It sucked. The university sure makes some good money from it, though.

I moved out of the dorms as soon as possible and lived in the apartments surrounding campus. Because I'm a journalism major, the majority of all my classes are in the library, and I lived in an apartment that was nearly across the street from the building. It was closer than the dorms!

However, as pretty much everyone in Kearney knows, the neighborhoods surrounding campus are party havens, which results in 2 problems: it's too loud to sleep, and parking is even worse than campus if your building doesn't have assigned parking spaces. I couldn't take it anymore, so I moved out. Now I live about 8 blocks from campus in a great apartment (that I should probably blog about later, now that I think about it).

Anyway, now that I'm far enough away to be required to drive to school on days that are cold or when I'm running late (which is pretty much every day, really), I'm a commuter. Mmmm commuter ... I hate that word.

Now, I could once again battle with parking and pay $50 for the opportunity to possibly have a spot after driving around through all the commuter lots ... OR I could be a cheapo and park in the neighborhoods. I chose cheapo. And to prove why I believe being a cheapo works best, let me illustrate my usual morning of parking.

In the picture below, the red tinted area represents campus, the red outlined buildings represent where I go to class this semester, and the red lines at the bottom show the places where I usually have to park.

For this example, let's assume I get stuck with the furthest parking spot I've ever had, and I have to walk to the furthest class, which so happens to be this blogging class. The map below shows the route I would take.

Depending on your lifestyle, that might look like a long walk, and it might not. But here's the truth ... it's a little more than 1/3 of a mile and takes about 4 minutes (5 minutes if traffic is heavy on the highway I have to cross). Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself on google maps:



View Larger Map


I have never thought about this being a problem, mostly because it's free. There are plenty of streets with free parking surrounding campus, and plenty of students take advantage of it. And there are still open spots, always! If I had paid money and was given only a few areas to park that might already be full, I wouldn't be too happy about it. So I don't. There are no expectations for the perfect spot, and therefore no chance for me to feel ripped off.

The trick is to take the first spot you see. Don't drive around the blocks looking for the best spot, it's just as bad as driving around a parking lot. It's a waste of time. In my experience, simply parking as quickly as possible and then getting out to walk saves a lot of time and is much less stressful. If you refer again to the maps above, that furthest parking spot I ever had - that area is always open, even during morning class times. Go there. Then take the alley, which connects to another alley, which comes out by Come n' Get It. You'll be right across the street from the library area. It's magic.

Of course, there are some downsides. I'm now one of those same people who used to piss me off by parking in the neighborhoods, and maybe I'm keeping someone from being able to park close to their own home ... but at least I'm not one of those jerks who parks in the 30-minute parking for 36248632548 hours!

So what's the point I'm making here? Is campus parking a problem or not? Well, the point is that it doesn't bother me because I don't deal with it.

Before I end this post, though, I'd like to share a secret with those who may be upset with the parking, saying it's too far away or what have you. I learned about it from some Japanese students who lived in the same party apartment building as me ... FOLDING BIKES!

They're so weird, huh!? I was fascinated when I first saw one. I bought one for my tiny apartment and I actually went all summer with only using my car maybe twice a week. It was amazing.

Even more amazing is the bike parking on campus. It's as close as ten feet to the door! It's everywhere! There's always an open spot!

If you have a problem with parking, ride a bike. Put this thing in your trunk, pull it out, unfold it in less than a minute, and you're on your way. It even has a flat area to strap on a backpack or books.

Hurray!

Kearney crime: does it matter?

So today the class had a debate about the concealed weapon law in Kearney. Apparently there's a state law that allows weapons, but Kearney had a city law the outlawed them. Now the state is saying the city law doesn't apply, which makes concealed weapons legal again. Some people are happy that they can carry concealed weapons, while other people are angry that the state is basically pushing the city's laws aside.

As for me personally, I don't really care. I was never aware it was an issue, and I don't like guns. I would never carry one myself because they scare me, and the thought of a bunch of people carrying them around makes me nervous. But that's not the point of this post.

The point is that one girl in class asked why people in Kearney even care about carrying guns. Her basic argument was that she is from Omaha, a relatively dangerous city, and the crime in Kearney doesn't even compare. Actually, she was almost arguing that any crime that happens in Kearney is basically insignificant, so people don't need guns here.

I will admit that yes, Omaha crime is much more prevalent than Kearney crime, as this graph shows:

I realize the graph is small, but it shows that Omaha's overall crime rate is 198 while Kearney's is 80. The average for Nebraska is 96, while the national average is 100.
(info from clrsearch.com)

But just because Kearney doesn't come close to Omaha in terms of crime rate doesn't mean that crime doesn't happen here. Otherwise, obviously, we'd have a crime rate of 0. Zero. Zip. Zilch.

In October, one of my best friends was mugged at gun point in an alley downtown. There's one gun problem for you. Also, according to the City of Kearney's Police Department, 11 of the last 13 months had reports of shots fired in district 3 (which includes downtown) - and that's not even counting districts 1 and 2.

True, Kearney might not be Omaha, but that doesn't mean nothing happens here.

It's also naive to think that small towns don't have crime. Here's an article about the crime surge in small towns, and here's another that explains how small towns are fighting the crime surge with big city tactics. Granted, these articles are 5-7 years old, but that doesn't make them any less relevant.

And some quick notes before I end: The picture for my post, the book In Cold Blood, is about the true story of a family that was massacred in small town Kansas.

Also, here's Kelcey Fike. She was brutally murdered in Kearney, and the police are still looking for her killer. It's a terribly sad story that I hope will come to a conclusion sooner than later.

3 ideas for local issues

Making Kearney more pedestrian friendly
I like to walk instead of drive, but there are countless blocks in Kearney that don't even have sidewalks. In the winter, the snow from the streets is even plowed onto the sidewalks! Also, it might just be that I live in a rental neighborhood with possibly sketchy landlords, but the sidewalks are never scooped. Isn't there a law against that? I'll have to look it up. I could also write about making Kearney more friendly to bicyclists - compared to almost every other town or city I've lived in or visited, Kearney is the worst.

Milk vending machines!
I know this is probably the most boring topic anyone has come up with, but it's something I think is important. I drink milk every day, but I have to either go wait in line at the Starbucks in the art building, or I'd have to walk all the way to the union convenience store. There are lots of drink machines on campus, but I'd estimate that 95% of them are pop machines. I've seen a couple of water and juice machines, plus the coffee machine in the library. Give me a milk machine! I can't say for a fact if other students would use it, so I'll have to research if other campuses have done it and how it's worked out. I do know that it proved successful to have one in high school when they introduced the milk machine my senior year.

Textbook prices
This is one topic that most students seem to have thought of, and I can agree that it's a problem. However, there are so many aspects to book prices, I'm not really sure where to begin here. I'll keep it as an idea, but I probably won't venture to write an editorial about it.

Smoking is a personal decision and needs to remain just that: personal

This is the final draft of my second editorial for class, which was supposed to focus on a state or regional issue. The smoking ban is something I feel strongly about, and for some reason, I found it hard to write this editorial because I had to narrow down my reasons. If you want to read the long rant I posted earlier, complete with full arguments and a list of links, go here: Nebraska's smoking ban.

If you want to read the bill itself, go here: LB395.

On February 26, 2008, Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman signed into law a statewide smoking ban that will go into effect starting June this year, outlawing smoking in bars, restaurants and most other workplaces. The signing came as a victory to advocates of the bill, which had been turned down time and time again in the past.

However, since the bill has passed, there has been both an outcry and a sigh of relief from various individuals and businesses around the state, and the idea of a strict statewide smoking ban has been controversial, to say the least. There have been exceptions, then rewrites, then more exceptions, then law suits – and the ban hasn’t even gone into effect yet!

Despite the arguments from both sides, no argument is more valid than this: there needs to be a limit as to how far one person can invade another person’s space. We have harassment laws, stalking laws, traffic laws, pollution laws, disruption laws and privacy laws, to name a few, and we will now have smoking laws.

Smoking is indeed an invasion of personal space. In establishments that still allow smoking indoors, the smoke from a single cigarette will find its way into the area of other patrons, whether they like it or not. Smoking and non-smoking sections make no difference, especially in the eyes of a restaurant worker or bar tender who doesn’t have the convenient choice to distance him or herself from the intrusion.

There is absolutely no reason why the public should accommodate a habit that not only harms the person involved, but also has the potential to harm innocent people unfortunate enough to breathe the same smoky air. The side effects of first and second-hand smoking, which include cancer and emphysema, are extremely dangerous, and it is in the public’s best interest that these diseases and their sources are kept under control.

Statistically, smokers make up a minority in this country. According to the American Heart Association, only 23 per cent of men and 19 per cent of women smoke, and the numbers are continuing to fall. We would never argue that the rights of a minority group don’t matter, but we would not step down on the fact that the rights of the majority are especially important. Even more important than group rights is public health.

Smoking is a personal decision, and any adult is free to acknowledge and accept the addiction and dangers of the habit. However, no one is free to push those same dangers onto unwilling citizens. We should be able to believe we are safe when in public, and although it’s a difficult standard to reach, small steps like the smoking ban will bring us closer to attaining that goal.

Alexandra Pelosi's "Right America: Feeling Wronged"

Alexandra Pelosi, the daughter of democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, worked on creating a documentary about John McCain's supporters while McCain was still running for president. She and her crew went to the rallies and interviewed these people, using the footage as a way to open up a conversation between the left and right, hoping that liberals would take away some sort of understanding by listening to what the conservatives had to say.

Or so, that's what she says. Actually, from the clips I've seen of the film, I can pretty easily agree with critics that the film is extremely biased and, instead of opening up conversation, it does nothing more than put these people up for us to laugh at.

Here's an excerpt of what Michael Leahy, a Washington Post writer, had to say in "'Right America:' Filmmaker uses a distorting lense"

It's drive-by journalism, to put it charitably, a string of stupefyingly brief hit-and-run interviews with a bunch of unidentified people who we know are going to say nothing that will surprise us. By then, we've already figured out they're going to be fried by Pelosi's camera. We know they're going to sound like yahoos, often goaded, always reduced to sound bites and caricatures.

All the conventions of the smirking, winking, belittling political documentary are abided by in this film. An inordinate number of the yahoos wear T-shirts and weird caps. There is the obligatory NASCAR tailgating scene with the requisite Confederate flags and some white guys saying they'll never vote for any black man. There are a couple of campaign events sporting all-American schoolgirl choruses who sound like they're right off the "Up With People" tour bus. There is a young guy whose T-shirt, meant to deride Obama, declares "Say No to Socilism," and when Alexandra Pelosi tells him he's misspelled socialism and asks him to define it, we know he's not going to be able to, that he's going to say something way wrong and stupid -- which he does, offering that socialism is "basically, it's like the views of Hitler. It's between like communism and -- I don't know what the other word is."

Now believe me, I was definitely one of those people who was both horrified and amused at seeing the typical "racist republican hick" on YouTube and reading about them at liberal blogs and web sites. As a pretty liberal person, it was cheap amusement for me, but I never once thought they made up the majority. We all know that extremists are a crazy minority, and as an unfortunate result, they get the most media coverage.

There's a big difference between putting these people out there and saying, "Look! They're crazy! Let's point and laugh!" and "Here are your typical Republicans, let's try to pretend like we want to understand them, because it will make us look good and make them look like assholes."

I live in Nebraska, obviously, which is a red state. It's not the reddest of all red states, but it's still much more red than blue, especially in the panhandle, where I grew up. Almost everyone I know from back home is republican, and not a single one of them is anything like the stereotypical "racist republican hick" that gets brought up time and time again. By pushing that stereotype onto them, it's extremely insulting to their intelligence. Believe it or not, there really are some viable opinions and beliefs on the republican side, and even though I don't agree with a lot of those stances, that doesn't mean they're wrong. It's just a different way of looking at things, and I sincerely respect that.

Even people who didn't vote for Obama still consider him a good candidate for president. Most people agree that his election is a sign that America is stepping up with its promises of equal opportunity, and that it's a good thing. Democrats and Republicans alike respect him and are willing to work together with him.

Now, do I know people who truly believed Obama was the anti-christ? That Obama was going to tax them so much they'd end up on welfare? Etc. etc. etc.? Yes, and the simple truth about all of those people was that they were not informed. They stuck with only taking in the information they wanted to hear, no matter how logically flawed.

Alexandra Pelosi said she was "putting up a mirror." Well, maybe she should turn that mirror on herself, as she obviously fell victim to the same disease: MISINFORMATION. Had she maybe tried to find decent and open-minded Republicans, she would have learned a thing a two ... but she didn't, probably because she really didn't want to hear what they had to say, as her motive was to simply make them look stupid and reinforce her own opinions about McCain supporters.

As for the documentary, yes, I will probably watch it. But to try to coat it in "understanding the other side" is both biased and ugly. When I watch it, I'm going to watch it for laughs, plain and simple. Though to be honest, I'm probably going to feel sorry for those people. I'm also going to relive my relief of the entire presidential campaign finally coming to a conclusion.

It's more than advertising - it's catvertising!

Ok, so I know I'm a little bit late on catching the news here, but this advertising idea is just too good to go without comment.

There's a new video game out called "Fear 2," and after seeing my boyfriend play the free trial on his Xbox, I can attest that this game is indeed SCARY. Well, that is if you're afraid of aggressive ghosts coming at you in a bloody grade school hallway. That kind of thing gives me nightmares.

Anyway, as we all know, Friday the 13th is an equally scary holiday for those who may be superstitious. And what is one of the most well-known superstitions? Black cats = bad luck.

So whoever was in charge of marketing this game decided to take advantage of the holiday and related superstitions, and they created cat-sized t-shirts with the Fear 2 logo printed on them. Then, they put the shirts on stray black cats and let them roam the streets of London.

Explaining the ad campaign, a spokesperson for Warner Bros (the company who made the game) said, "Everyday people are bombarded with so many advertising messages that it can be easy to miss them. With our research telling us that Brits are actively looking out for signs of bad luck this Friday, it makes perfect sense to try and capture their attention that way."

Now people want to know: will this catch on and maybe show up somewhere in the United States, like New York City?

I think it could, but it obviously wouldn't work if everybody started doing it, and it would only be effective for a small category of businesses. Also, I'm sure that if it happened too much, there would be a risk of animal rights activists getting involved, which would probably hurt a company involved with catvertising in the long run.

But to be honest, stray cats probably don't mind a free t-shirt.