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.

Kittens! Inspired by kittens!

I'm sure most internet addicts have already seen this video more than once, but I wanted to share it anyway. I think it's hilarious, mostly because I have kittens right now and they are crazy! Plus, my sister and I had a book like this when we were kids, though it was both kittens and puppies, and I loved looking at it. Now that I think about it, I haven't seen that book in years ...

Anyway, I decided to look this video up on the viral video charts, and as you can clearly see, its play has skyrocketed in the last few days, reaching 1,372,324 plays (at the moment) and 360 blog posts (now 361).


In case you missed it, here's the video:

Shut out by the economy

Remember Circuit City? Linens 'n Things? Sharper Image? KB Toys?

They're gone, all gone, and here are a few companies that might be next, according to Moody's Investors Service:

Claire's Stores. (Privately owned; about 18,000 employees.) Leon Black's once-renowned private-equity firm, the Apollo Group, paid $3.1 billion for this trendy teen-focused accessory store in 2007, when buyout funds were bulging. But cash flow has been negative for much of the past year and analysts believe Claire's is close to defaulting on its debt. A horrible retail outlook for 2009 offers no relief, suggesting Claire's could follow Linens 'n Things - another Apollo purchase - and declare Chapter 11, possibly shuttering all of its 3,000-plus stores.

Six Flags. (SIX; about 30,000 employees; stock down 84%). This theme-park operator has been losing money for several years, and selling off properties to try to pay down debt and get back into the black. But the ride may end prematurely. Moody's expects cash flow to be negative in 2009, and if consumers aren't spending during the peak summer season, that could imperil the company's ability to pay debts coming due later this year and in 2010.

Blockbuster. (BBI; about 60,000 employees; stock down 57%). The video-rental chain has burned cash while trying to figure out how to maximize fees without alienating customers. Its operating income has started to improve just as consumers are cutting back, even on movies. Video stores in general are under pressure as they compete with cable and Internet operators offering the same titles. A key test of Blockbuster's viability will come when two credit lines expire in August. One possible outcome, according to Valueline, is that investors take the company private and then go public again when market conditions are better.

Krispy Kreme. (KKD; about 4,000 employees; stock down 50%). The donuts might be good, but Krispy Kreme overestimated Americans' appetite - and that's saying something. This chain overexpanded during the donut heyday of the 1990s - taking on a lot of debt - and now requires high volumes to meet expenses and interest payments. The company has cut costs and closed underperforming stores, but still hasn't earned an operating profit in three years. And now that consumers are cutting back on everything, such improvements may fail to offset top-line declines, leading Krispy Kreme to seek some kind of relief from lenders over the next year.

Sirius Satellite Radio. (SIRI - parent company; about 1,000 employees; stock down 96%). The music rocks, but satellite radio has yet to be profitable, and huge contracts for performers like Howard Stern are looking unsustainable. Sirius is one of two satellite-radio services owned by parent company Sirius XM, which was formed when Sirius and XM merged last year. So far, the merger hasn't generated the savings needed to make the company profitable, and Moody's thinks there's a "high likelihood" that Sirius will fail to repay or refinance its debt in 2009. One outcome could be a takeover, at distressed prices, by other firms active in the satellite business.

For the complete list of companies, go to the article: "15 companies that might not survive 2009."

"Boys, girls, and the money divide"

I just finished reading an article about the differences between boys and girls when it comes to money, and with the teaser, "Young women are still falling behind when it comes to financial skills and savvy. Do they really still think that money is a guy thing?" ... it seriously appalled me. I'll tell you why.

The article focuses on kids 16 or younger and how they spend/save their money, and it basically implies that girls spend money on frivolous things while boys save up for more important purchases. Granted, it's not completely sexiest, because the article brings up the nature vs. nurture point, explaining that boys are more likely to be included in talks about money at a young age, while girls are led on to believe that a man will take care of them financially one day, so they don't have to worry about money. So all in all, it's not that girls are simply stupid with money, it's that society as a whole doesn't educate us about the importance of taking control of the economics in our lives.

The first reason I found the article appalling is because it chastises girls for wanting to buy "short-term" items, like purses and shoes, while it congratulates boys for saving up for a car stereo. Umm, can someone tell me what the difference is here? Aren't both items equally unnecessary? The article says girls will spend on lifestyle items, while boys spend on status items - if you ask me, both an expensive purse and an expensive stereo fall under both of these categories. I'd like someone to tell me exactly why one is better than the other.

The other reason I didn't like this article is because it didn't even include girls who might be good with money or boys who might suck at it.

As far as my own experience goes, my mom is a banker and my dad spends his free time investing, so my sister and I have been trained since the very beginning about how important money is. When my sister graduated from high school, she put all her graduation gift money into a CD. When I was just a kid babysitting and busing tables during the summers, my parents talked to me about starting a retirement account. Ever since then, I've invested in it with every job I've had.

Now when it comes to my dear boyfriend, he is nowhere as good as I am about budgeting, though he's not completely terrible. He saved up money to buy an Xbox 360, and now he's in the process of saving up money to buy a 37" flat screen TV. Granted, our TV is so old that the picture and sound cut out on occasion, which is really quite inconvenient when we play RockBand, but I still don't think it's a good idea.

I, on the other hand, am saving up money for when I want to move out of Kearney after college graduation. I'm determined to move no more than a month after I finish, and part me thinks that if my boyfriend doesn't have his part of the money saved up by then (as we agreed), I'm leaving him and his big, fancy TV behind. We've got more than a year before we have to worry about that, though.

Now, does that mean I never buy extra things? No, because I definitely buy things like bath salts, cappuccinos, striped knee-high socks, nail polishes, and other things I could probably live without. I'm also pretty bad at starting a new hobby, buying everything I need for it, then setting it aside for a new hobby not long after (which is why I have a huge box full of sewing machinery, fabrics, threads, etc., another huge box full of old books and cutting equipment for hollow books, and yet another huge box full of collage and scrap booking stuff).

In the end, I just hate reading these kinds of articles that pit gender differences against each other. A lot of it is, excuse the language, absolute bullshit.