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.

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.