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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
