The Kearney City Council made an offer to purchase the First Tier Event Center. The council was willing to spend between 2-3 million to purchase the event center.
The council hopes that by purchasing the First Tier Event Center more money will come into the community.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Early Graduation
I was trying to think of topics for my next editorial this past week and after not finding many news-worthy issues I decided to consider my own experiences.
I was thoroughly disappointed earlier on in the semester after finding out that UNK does not offer an early graduation program. My advisor told me as long as I was within 12 credit hours of completing my degree, I could register for early graduation. I am not sure if this used to be possible, but after I called the registrar's office I find out that early graduation is not an option. I am left with disappointment because I wanted the big graduation ceremony with hundreds of other students, but now I will have to be satisfied with a small summer graduation ceremony.
I think early graduation should be re-instated so long as the student is within a certain amount of credit hours of completion. There is no harm done if they don't end up finishing the courses because the diploma isn't sent until everything has been completed.
I was thoroughly disappointed earlier on in the semester after finding out that UNK does not offer an early graduation program. My advisor told me as long as I was within 12 credit hours of completing my degree, I could register for early graduation. I am not sure if this used to be possible, but after I called the registrar's office I find out that early graduation is not an option. I am left with disappointment because I wanted the big graduation ceremony with hundreds of other students, but now I will have to be satisfied with a small summer graduation ceremony.
I think early graduation should be re-instated so long as the student is within a certain amount of credit hours of completion. There is no harm done if they don't end up finishing the courses because the diploma isn't sent until everything has been completed.
Phone alerts
UNK will now be sending alert messages via phone, either an actual call, text message or both. This new protocol will hopefully help in the speed of delivering emergency messages to students.
According to the Kearney Hub, "Students and staff will be notified during tornadoes, ice and snowstorms, fires, hazardous materials leaks, floods, bomb threats, earthquakes, bio-terrorism, shootings, a pandemic, attacks with weapons of mass destruction, or any other emergency that requires action by the campus."
School officials wanted multiple ways of notifying students in case of any emergency and phones and text messages open the options even further and quicker.
According to the Kearney Hub, "Students and staff will be notified during tornadoes, ice and snowstorms, fires, hazardous materials leaks, floods, bomb threats, earthquakes, bio-terrorism, shootings, a pandemic, attacks with weapons of mass destruction, or any other emergency that requires action by the campus."
School officials wanted multiple ways of notifying students in case of any emergency and phones and text messages open the options even further and quicker.
Parking after 5 p.m.
This is not the typical parking issue argument. I am completely satisfied with the amount of parking available for both live-on-campus and commuting students. There is substantial parking for the number of students and faculty that UNK has and the walking distance is minimal--especially in comparison to UNL. However, I do have one complaint and my beef lies with parking after 5.
I think I should start off by stating an extremely generalized statement that I believe, for the majority, is true. Students are led to believe that they can park in any lot or any space--so long as it isn't illegal (aka handicap, no parking or fire zone)--after 5 p.m. without receiving a ticket. I have been attending school here at UNK for three years and have lived both on and off campus. This is a general assumption many students have.
Obviously, this might be a misconception and if so clarification needs to happen.
I recently received a parking ticket after 5 p.m. at the library, while I was on-air in the radio workshop studio. There were plenty of available parking spots in the faculty lot just west of the east-front entrance, but because the 30-minute stall was open and closest (and I was running a little behind) I parked there. I have parked in this 30-minute stall before without any problems or complaints only because I was led to believe that you can park in any space or lot without getting a ticket.
My objection is this: If students are allowed to park in lots and spaces they typically are not allowed to park in, why can they not also park in a 30-minute stall for longer than 30 minutes? Students are led to believe that you can park in any legal stall without receiving a ticket after 5 p.m. So, if students are being allowed to break the rules and park in otherwise off-limit spaces how does the 30-minute space differ? Why are students allowed to park in metered stalls after 5 p.m. without getting ticketed for not putting money in or following those time constraints?
Had I known the "difference" between parking where you aren't allowed/parking in a metered spot without putting money in and parking in a spot for longer than 30 minutes, I would have saved public safety and myself the hassle of writing and dealing with a ticket.
I think I should start off by stating an extremely generalized statement that I believe, for the majority, is true. Students are led to believe that they can park in any lot or any space--so long as it isn't illegal (aka handicap, no parking or fire zone)--after 5 p.m. without receiving a ticket. I have been attending school here at UNK for three years and have lived both on and off campus. This is a general assumption many students have.
Obviously, this might be a misconception and if so clarification needs to happen.
I recently received a parking ticket after 5 p.m. at the library, while I was on-air in the radio workshop studio. There were plenty of available parking spots in the faculty lot just west of the east-front entrance, but because the 30-minute stall was open and closest (and I was running a little behind) I parked there. I have parked in this 30-minute stall before without any problems or complaints only because I was led to believe that you can park in any space or lot without getting a ticket. My objection is this: If students are allowed to park in lots and spaces they typically are not allowed to park in, why can they not also park in a 30-minute stall for longer than 30 minutes? Students are led to believe that you can park in any legal stall without receiving a ticket after 5 p.m. So, if students are being allowed to break the rules and park in otherwise off-limit spaces how does the 30-minute space differ? Why are students allowed to park in metered stalls after 5 p.m. without getting ticketed for not putting money in or following those time constraints?
Had I known the "difference" between parking where you aren't allowed/parking in a metered spot without putting money in and parking in a spot for longer than 30 minutes, I would have saved public safety and myself the hassle of writing and dealing with a ticket.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Editorial 2
Nebraska is one of eleven states that are considering bills that may require women to receive an ultrasound before continuing with the abortion procedure. Sixteen states already have abortion-related ultrasound laws. Some of these require that the doctor show the patient the ultrasound, some require the patient to hear the fetus's heartbeat and some require the doctor to inform the patient where she can receive a free ultrasound.
The two proposed bills under speculation in Nebraska are LB675 and LB676. Legislative bill 675 would require doctors to show their patient the ultrasound before she would be permitted to receive the abortion. Oklahoma's version of the ultrasound bill, which is much like LB675, is currently facing a lawsuit against the center for Reproductive Rights, who claim that this bill violates privacy, endangers health and assaults dignity. Legislative bill 676 states that the doctor must tell the patient an ultrasound is available and refer her to a crisis pregnancy center that tries to discourage the woman from getting an abortion.
Both bills are a biased way of discouraging women from getting an abortion regardless of the circumstances or situation. If the goal of these two bills was to have absolutely no abortions, why are they skirting around the issue and why didn’t they propose to outlaw abortions altogether?
By forcing women to listen to the fetus’s heartbeat or look at the ultrasound, the bill is patronizing, humiliating and degrading women. It assumes that women going in to receive abortions are not informed and even suggests that they don’t realize they have a fetus inside of them. This bill is not concerned with the woman’s health or mental security but instead, determined to get rid of abortions altogether.
Everyone agrees that a decreased number of abortions in Nebraska is desired, but the bills being proposed do nothing more than fault the women without identifying the key cause. The goal is to decrease the number of abortions by assessing how to prevent the unwanted pregnancies to begin with. These women need to be informed before getting pregnant. Birth control and other preventatives need to be more accessible to women so the number of unwanted pregnancies decreases along with the number of abortions. If an abortion is sought, the woman needs to be referred to an unbiased counseling center to help her make the most appropriate decision for her situation.
The two proposed bills under speculation in Nebraska are LB675 and LB676. Legislative bill 675 would require doctors to show their patient the ultrasound before she would be permitted to receive the abortion. Oklahoma's version of the ultrasound bill, which is much like LB675, is currently facing a lawsuit against the center for Reproductive Rights, who claim that this bill violates privacy, endangers health and assaults dignity. Legislative bill 676 states that the doctor must tell the patient an ultrasound is available and refer her to a crisis pregnancy center that tries to discourage the woman from getting an abortion.
Both bills are a biased way of discouraging women from getting an abortion regardless of the circumstances or situation. If the goal of these two bills was to have absolutely no abortions, why are they skirting around the issue and why didn’t they propose to outlaw abortions altogether?
By forcing women to listen to the fetus’s heartbeat or look at the ultrasound, the bill is patronizing, humiliating and degrading women. It assumes that women going in to receive abortions are not informed and even suggests that they don’t realize they have a fetus inside of them. This bill is not concerned with the woman’s health or mental security but instead, determined to get rid of abortions altogether.
Everyone agrees that a decreased number of abortions in Nebraska is desired, but the bills being proposed do nothing more than fault the women without identifying the key cause. The goal is to decrease the number of abortions by assessing how to prevent the unwanted pregnancies to begin with. These women need to be informed before getting pregnant. Birth control and other preventatives need to be more accessible to women so the number of unwanted pregnancies decreases along with the number of abortions. If an abortion is sought, the woman needs to be referred to an unbiased counseling center to help her make the most appropriate decision for her situation.
ultrasound goals?
We all want decreased numbers reported for abortions.. but are they going about it the right way? What is wrong with their bill proposal as is?
1. They are attacking women in a vulnerable state.
2. They are not offering unbiased help.
3. They are not concerned with the health of the woman or fetus.
4. They are assuming that all women who go in to receive an abortion are completely ignorant to the fact that they have a fetus inside of them.
1. They are attacking women in a vulnerable state.
2. They are not offering unbiased help.
3. They are not concerned with the health of the woman or fetus.
4. They are assuming that all women who go in to receive an abortion are completely ignorant to the fact that they have a fetus inside of them.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Required ultrasounds before abortion
Nebraska is one of eleven states that are considering bills that may require a more informative visit before receiving an abortion. Sixteen states already have abortion-related ultrasound laws. Some of these require that the doctor show the patient the ultrasound, while others are required to inform the patient where she can receive a free ultrasound.
Nebraska Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln offers two different views he has on informed consent. First, he suggested that Nebraska doctors be required to show their patient an ultrasound before she would be permitted to receive an abortion (LB675), much like the Oklahoma law that has caused a lot of controversy, however Oklahoma's law also requires the doctor to describe the picture to the patient. Fulton suggested this law despite the impending lawsuit from the Center for Reproductive Rights stating that it violates "privacy, endangers health and assaults dignity." Indiana's abortion ultrasound law similarly requires the patient to listen to the heartbeat rather than viewing the ultrasound.
The second option is much less intrusive and requires the doctor to tell the patient an ultrasound is available--but does not have to be performed(LB676). This bill seemed favorable because it would not bring in the constitutional issues.
South Carolina debated for over a year on the same issue and finally reached a similar compromise.
The main objective is to see a decline in the number of abortions in Nebraska. The goal is to better inform women who feel overwhelmed and vulnerable.
There is one problem still seen by pro-choicers on the subject. When women are given a referral to receive a free ultrasound it would be to a crisis pregnancy center, which aim to discourage women from getting an abortion, when rather they should be aimed at fully informing the woman to make the best decision for her situation.
Nebraska Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln offers two different views he has on informed consent. First, he suggested that Nebraska doctors be required to show their patient an ultrasound before she would be permitted to receive an abortion (LB675), much like the Oklahoma law that has caused a lot of controversy, however Oklahoma's law also requires the doctor to describe the picture to the patient. Fulton suggested this law despite the impending lawsuit from the Center for Reproductive Rights stating that it violates "privacy, endangers health and assaults dignity." Indiana's abortion ultrasound law similarly requires the patient to listen to the heartbeat rather than viewing the ultrasound.
The second option is much less intrusive and requires the doctor to tell the patient an ultrasound is available--but does not have to be performed(LB676). This bill seemed favorable because it would not bring in the constitutional issues.
South Carolina debated for over a year on the same issue and finally reached a similar compromise.
The main objective is to see a decline in the number of abortions in Nebraska. The goal is to better inform women who feel overwhelmed and vulnerable.
There is one problem still seen by pro-choicers on the subject. When women are given a referral to receive a free ultrasound it would be to a crisis pregnancy center, which aim to discourage women from getting an abortion, when rather they should be aimed at fully informing the woman to make the best decision for her situation.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Jessica Simpson--attacked about her weight by media
Jessica Simpson has always been know for being a gorgeous Texan beauty, and she has also been constantly criticized about her weight. Jessica has been in the spotlight numerous times for her up and down pounds and she claims that she just loves food and that she is a girl with natural curves. So what will satisfy the media--apparently whatever sells...
When she lost weight for her role as Daisy in the Dukes Of Hazard and after a photographer caught this picture they said that she had an eating disorder and was sickly skinny.
After her breakup with John Mayer, Simpson reportedly gained more weight and after much criticism she lost the weight. Her weight has not been in the spotlight until just recently when unpleasant photos were taken of her at a concert. This was one photo that caused the media to go into a frenzy.
The funny thing is that in this picture the 5'4'' singer is around 132lbs, which is the average and healthy weight for that height! I don't believe that Simpson was criticized fairly by the media, but are celebrities ever? It should be expected that she will receive bad publicity sometimes and if it hurts her feels she should try to brush it off. However, the media is sending the wrong message to young girls, who already have a hard time accepting their own body images. They are either too fat or too skinny. I think the media needs to consider their responsibility and influence over young girls before blitzing a celebrity about trifle things such as their weight.
When she lost weight for her role as Daisy in the Dukes Of Hazard and after a photographer caught this picture they said that she had an eating disorder and was sickly skinny.
After her breakup with John Mayer, Simpson reportedly gained more weight and after much criticism she lost the weight. Her weight has not been in the spotlight until just recently when unpleasant photos were taken of her at a concert. This was one photo that caused the media to go into a frenzy.
The funny thing is that in this picture the 5'4'' singer is around 132lbs, which is the average and healthy weight for that height! I don't believe that Simpson was criticized fairly by the media, but are celebrities ever? It should be expected that she will receive bad publicity sometimes and if it hurts her feels she should try to brush it off. However, the media is sending the wrong message to young girls, who already have a hard time accepting their own body images. They are either too fat or too skinny. I think the media needs to consider their responsibility and influence over young girls before blitzing a celebrity about trifle things such as their weight.
13-year-old dad sparks controversy
The UK has the highest number of teenage pregnancies in Western Europe. So why is this young man having a child such a big deal? Probably because Alfie Patten was only 12 years old when his 15-year-old girlfriend Chantelle Steadman conceived. The couple seems ignorant of the actual necessities for raising a child. Neither has a source of income--unless you count the ten euros he receives from his father as allowance. They are oblivious to reality and actually believe that they can give this baby a "great future". As the both expect to stay in school, child-rearing will fall on their parents list of responsibilities.
Where has adolescence gone? Children are having children. Clearly children are not being sexually educated soon enough to prevent this from happening. Also, there is almost a glamour aspect to having a child. Teenagers are wanting children because it is associated with being adult, with having more freedoms and especially their own place. Teenagers should not be contemplating parenthood as CNN.com reports.
Former Conservative party leader Duncan Smith said ""It's not being accusative; it's about pointing out the complete collapse in some parts of society of any sense of what's right and wrong. There is no opprobrium any more about behavior, and quite often, children witness behavior that's aggressive, violent, rude and sexual. It's as if no one is saying this is wrong."
Teenage pregnancy should not be glamorized and education needs to be improved. These children have no idea how hard parenthood is, they don't realize its not an excuse to be treated like an adult--it takes you straight from carefree childhood into adulthood with responsibilities, bills, money worries, sleepless nights, etc. I don't know how they conduct sex education in the UK, but if their teen pregnancy rate is the highest in Western Europe they clearly need to try alternative methods of education.
Where has adolescence gone? Children are having children. Clearly children are not being sexually educated soon enough to prevent this from happening. Also, there is almost a glamour aspect to having a child. Teenagers are wanting children because it is associated with being adult, with having more freedoms and especially their own place. Teenagers should not be contemplating parenthood as CNN.com reports.
Former Conservative party leader Duncan Smith said ""It's not being accusative; it's about pointing out the complete collapse in some parts of society of any sense of what's right and wrong. There is no opprobrium any more about behavior, and quite often, children witness behavior that's aggressive, violent, rude and sexual. It's as if no one is saying this is wrong."
Teenage pregnancy should not be glamorized and education needs to be improved. These children have no idea how hard parenthood is, they don't realize its not an excuse to be treated like an adult--it takes you straight from carefree childhood into adulthood with responsibilities, bills, money worries, sleepless nights, etc. I don't know how they conduct sex education in the UK, but if their teen pregnancy rate is the highest in Western Europe they clearly need to try alternative methods of education.
FINALLY, Stimulus Bill passes
The Senate finally passed President Obama's stimulus bill for a total of $787 billion on Friday, February 13. President Obama hopes that the bill will "boost an economy in freefall with a combination of government spending and tax cuts and credits" according to CNN.com.
After several revisions to the first draft of the stimulus package, it is finally broken down as follows:
$267 billion for direct spending such as food stamps and unemployment benefits
$212 billion--possibly more-- will be aimed towards tax cuts
$120 billion towards infrastructure development--this includes road and government building repairs
$100 billion to be used towards education (improvement in school technologies and the such)
$30 billion on energy projects (this encouraged a majority of the controversy as the immediate effectiveness for economy)
When the stimulus package went to the House for a vote there was no Republican support. Not much changed when it faced the Senate for the final vote, but it did manage to swipe three Republican supporters, which was all that was needed for the bill to pass. All of the Democrats in the Senate supported the package, whereas seven in the House rejected it. The bill passed through the Senate with a final vote of 60-38.
In this article, I found it interesting that they broke down exactly how individuals will be directly affected by the package:
Individuals will receive a $400 tax credit
Couples will receive an $800 tax credit
Many students will receive a $2500 tuition tax credit
First-time home buyers may qualify for up to an $8000 tax credit
Those who receive social security will receive a one time credit of $250
Although these tax credits look nice, apparently the stimulus package is only 35% tax cuts and 65% spending. But, hopefully that spending will generate all of the things President Obama anticipates. It is still estimated that this package will create somewhere between 1-3 million new jobs.
After several revisions to the first draft of the stimulus package, it is finally broken down as follows:
$267 billion for direct spending such as food stamps and unemployment benefits
$212 billion--possibly more-- will be aimed towards tax cuts
$120 billion towards infrastructure development--this includes road and government building repairs
$100 billion to be used towards education (improvement in school technologies and the such)
$30 billion on energy projects (this encouraged a majority of the controversy as the immediate effectiveness for economy)
When the stimulus package went to the House for a vote there was no Republican support. Not much changed when it faced the Senate for the final vote, but it did manage to swipe three Republican supporters, which was all that was needed for the bill to pass. All of the Democrats in the Senate supported the package, whereas seven in the House rejected it. The bill passed through the Senate with a final vote of 60-38.
In this article, I found it interesting that they broke down exactly how individuals will be directly affected by the package:
Individuals will receive a $400 tax credit
Couples will receive an $800 tax credit
Many students will receive a $2500 tuition tax credit
First-time home buyers may qualify for up to an $8000 tax credit
Those who receive social security will receive a one time credit of $250
Although these tax credits look nice, apparently the stimulus package is only 35% tax cuts and 65% spending. But, hopefully that spending will generate all of the things President Obama anticipates. It is still estimated that this package will create somewhere between 1-3 million new jobs.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Christian Bale's rant
I'm not sure if anyone is surprised by the recent news that Christian Bale freaked out on the set of his "Terminator" movie. Apparently, the set's director of photography Shane Hurlbut, started checking one of the lights on set when Bale lashed out. He said several curse words and even threatened that he would not come back unless Hurlbut was fired because Bale says he was unable to concentrate. Bale used very explicit language when trashing Hurlbut. But, he has apologized and he is only human. Everyone has their diva moments; it just so happens that Bale's was accidentally caught on camera.
People need to give him a break. Just because he is a celebrity does not mean that he is any less human or any less emotional than the rest of us. He apologized and admitted that he acted in an unacceptable manner, so in my opinion, that says more about his character than a lot of other celebrities who lash out and NEVER apologize (aka Naomi Campbell).
People need to give him a break. Just because he is a celebrity does not mean that he is any less human or any less emotional than the rest of us. He apologized and admitted that he acted in an unacceptable manner, so in my opinion, that says more about his character than a lot of other celebrities who lash out and NEVER apologize (aka Naomi Campbell).
Cannibalism in Russia
I know this seems like a strange topic and trust me it didn't just pop into my mind. Yesterday during my Adolescent Literature class, we were discussing the Grimms brother fairy tales and what moral or warning they wanted to convey to children. One of the guys shouted out "stranger danger", the teacher laughed and then went on to say that the fairy tales are telling children not only to watch out for strangers, but not to take food from them, lie in bed with them, etc.
My teacher is a pretty creative mind and her thoughts dash from one topic to another. For some reason, one of the fairy tales we were reading reminded her of an article that she read.
Earlier in January a young teenage schoolgirl went missing. It was later found out that she was lured into the apartment of two boys she knew. The boys were only a couple years older than the girl. After bringing her inside they somehow drowned her in their bathtub and then cut out her organs and ate them. The only reason the boys are giving for murdering the girl is that they were simply hungry. As if they couldn't walk to a grocery store?
My teacher went on to say that she believes one of the boys was a butcher and the other was a florist. Word-of-mouth stories get mixed up a lot, and I cannot guarantee factuality of the story, but what is important to take from this is that cannibalism is not against the law in Russia.
My teacher ended our discussion by saying that it is not only stranger danger that one needs to be aware of, but also be cautious of friends that might eat you because they are hungry.
My teacher is a pretty creative mind and her thoughts dash from one topic to another. For some reason, one of the fairy tales we were reading reminded her of an article that she read.
Earlier in January a young teenage schoolgirl went missing. It was later found out that she was lured into the apartment of two boys she knew. The boys were only a couple years older than the girl. After bringing her inside they somehow drowned her in their bathtub and then cut out her organs and ate them. The only reason the boys are giving for murdering the girl is that they were simply hungry. As if they couldn't walk to a grocery store?
My teacher went on to say that she believes one of the boys was a butcher and the other was a florist. Word-of-mouth stories get mixed up a lot, and I cannot guarantee factuality of the story, but what is important to take from this is that cannibalism is not against the law in Russia.
My teacher ended our discussion by saying that it is not only stranger danger that one needs to be aware of, but also be cautious of friends that might eat you because they are hungry.
Octuplets' mom
CNN reports that Nadya Suleman had eight babies after taking fertility treatments. Sule man already had six children at home before going in for the fertility treatments. The main conflict in this story that is causing much controversy is the fact that while Suleman went in for the fertility treatments, she did not have a stable income and she was living at home with her parents.
Suleman believes that the controversy over the matter is the fact that she is a single mom (all of the children have the same biological father, who donated sperm). However, the real problem lies in her ability to support the children. Suleman who claimed that she only ever wanted children should not have gone in for fertility treatments (I'm assuming using government money because a single mom without a job would most likely not be able to afford these costly procedures)when she already had six children at home that she was unable to take care of without the governments help.
I believe that because Suleman was unable to financially support her first six children the fertility treatments should have been denied. What kind of life does she plan on offering her fourteen children? The question that might be more appropriate is what kind of life can the government provide for these fourteen children? I believe Suleman, like many others, is taking advantage of the system.
I cannot offer any suggestions for improvement in the government to prevent this type of situation from occurring, but if a woman who already has six kids and then implants eight more with in vitro fertilization, why won't the government help a married couple that don't have any children?
Suleman believes that the controversy over the matter is the fact that she is a single mom (all of the children have the same biological father, who donated sperm). However, the real problem lies in her ability to support the children. Suleman who claimed that she only ever wanted children should not have gone in for fertility treatments (I'm assuming using government money because a single mom without a job would most likely not be able to afford these costly procedures)when she already had six children at home that she was unable to take care of without the governments help.
I believe that because Suleman was unable to financially support her first six children the fertility treatments should have been denied. What kind of life does she plan on offering her fourteen children? The question that might be more appropriate is what kind of life can the government provide for these fourteen children? I believe Suleman, like many others, is taking advantage of the system.
I cannot offer any suggestions for improvement in the government to prevent this type of situation from occurring, but if a woman who already has six kids and then implants eight more with in vitro fertilization, why won't the government help a married couple that don't have any children?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
