In my search to find 3 topics of discussion on state issues, I ran into two for UNK. I know it's a way off, but I'm holding onto these for reference.
The first is eliminating trays from the cafeteria. This was on the Omaha World Herald.
I found it kind-of funny, though with this quote:
"Just the other day, Zatechka saw a student pile his plate high with chicken nuggets. When the student finished his meal, Zatechka followed him to the tray-return area and saw eight untouched nuggets on his plate. 'We aren't going to permit that kind of food waste," Zatechka said. "We can't.'"
*Gasp* OMG, like, 8 chicken nuggets left over after an entire plate full...maybe it's good that he didn't eat all of them.
But, I did like this information:
Gauging waste
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last fall, the University of Kansas looked at whether trays made a difference in how much food students threw out. KU found students dumped more food with trays than without them.
Food waste: Decreased from an average of 1,063 pounds per meal to 657 pounds when the trays were taken away.
Beverage waste: Decreased from 105 gallons per meal to 48 gallons without the trays.
The next article I found in the Lincoln Journal Star and it was about budget cuts on the UNK campus in order to keep jobs.
The proposed pay cuts would range from 10 percent for those making more than $150,00 a year to 1 percent for those making more than $30,000. Those making less than $30,000 a year would see pay cuts of less than 1 percent.
I like this idea better than eliminating jobs completely. First, if we eliminate professors then there will be less classes available, less classes available means not many students can take the class-so why not consider another major or another school that is adaquetly staffed. And let's not forget the Kearney community, UNK is a primary employer in this town.
The last one I found was in the Journal Star.
According to the article, a high school coach and 3rd grad teacher was placed on paid leave for giving a 17-year-old Sidney girl alcohol. Shane Nordby, 36, is charged in Buffalo County Court with two misdemeanor counts: procuring alcohol for minor and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Court records say the incident occurred Dec. 23 at Nordby’s home.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
More on BSDC
I'm getting most of my sources from Journal Star.com,
I found it interesting in this article that retired speech therapist said that she blames former Gov. Ben Nelson for the issues because combined five separate agencies into a single massive health and human services system, in which, McConnell said, there were more levels to hide and more levels to confuse people.
A seven-member committee was created last year to oversee the problems at BSDC. After review, it was decided that they should continue to oversee the facility.
"'This spring, the center will likely lose about $29 million in annual federal funding because of those problems and will be completely state funded for the one or two years it takes to get recertified by the federal Medicaid program,' special committee chairman Sen. Steve Lathrop said Monday."
See, this is where I get confused. If this facility is in such poor shape, why take away federal money from it? How is that supposed to fund better facilities, new equipment, medicine, doctor and therapist visits, food and proper training for employees that is routinely checked on? There is no way that the state can fund all of that, unless taxes are raised or something gets cut. Which, by the way, has happened. BSDC used to have a hospital on it's campus to treat it's patients, so this made is easier in an emergency situation because the patient could be taken under care until an ambulance came (if it was that severe). It shut down last year.
I found it interesting in this article that retired speech therapist said that she blames former Gov. Ben Nelson for the issues because combined five separate agencies into a single massive health and human services system, in which, McConnell said, there were more levels to hide and more levels to confuse people.
A seven-member committee was created last year to oversee the problems at BSDC. After review, it was decided that they should continue to oversee the facility.
"'This spring, the center will likely lose about $29 million in annual federal funding because of those problems and will be completely state funded for the one or two years it takes to get recertified by the federal Medicaid program,' special committee chairman Sen. Steve Lathrop said Monday."
See, this is where I get confused. If this facility is in such poor shape, why take away federal money from it? How is that supposed to fund better facilities, new equipment, medicine, doctor and therapist visits, food and proper training for employees that is routinely checked on? There is no way that the state can fund all of that, unless taxes are raised or something gets cut. Which, by the way, has happened. BSDC used to have a hospital on it's campus to treat it's patients, so this made is easier in an emergency situation because the patient could be taken under care until an ambulance came (if it was that severe). It shut down last year.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Nebraska Issue: Beatrice State Development Center
I've been doing some research and decided to write my next editorial on the Beatrice State Developmental Center, since it is in my hometown and my younger sister works there. I, too, have experience in working with the mentally disabled when I worked at Mosaic, a private instuition that is also in Beatrice and throughout the Midwest.
Here, the Lincoln Journal Star has been doing a lot of work coving the issues at hand.
The latest issue stated that BSDC had to get 50 residents moved to Lincoln and Omaha facilities my 5:00 p.m. today due to concerns of their ability to handle, "medically fragile" residents. Concern arose when two deaths occured in March 2008 and mid-January 2009. Proper emergency procedure was not followed.
My younger sister only works in the kitchen of this instuition, and from her experience it is very relevant that abuse in almost a natural thing. Her boyfriend works directly with the clients. He has not abused his clients, but he has had to turn in co-workers for it. The lastest "de-de-de" moment from the workers there was that when temperatures were below zero...just a few weeks ago. The boyfriend's co-worker came to visit him at his house with a client in the passenger seat. The client already had a cold and typically is sleeping by 8:00, it was 8:30 when he visited. Now, what would posess this kid to think that it's a good idea to drive around a sick client in the evening in temperatures below zero with icy driving conditions? Why didn't someone stop him? This is relevantly minor compared with other events that have happened on the campus.
As a resident of Beatrice, I understand that those who work there do not want to see the instuition shut down, this means our town unemployment rate will skyrocket...a large chuck of people who work in town work there. Otherwise, it's manufacturing plants or Wal-Mart (which most jobs are taken by the elderly, who have to still work well over their retirement age for minimum wage pay just to afford groceries and perscriptions, but that's another story).
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Phelps smokes pot, apologizes
CBC Sports
So here goes another big debate, is marijuana OK to use? Will it have negative effects?
For Michael Phelps, the answer is no. Recently, a photograph began floating around of Phelps with a baseball hat turned backwards taking a hit from a bong in a party at the University of South Carolina in November. The photo turned up in a British tabloid.
"I engaged in behaviour which was regrettable and demonstrated bad judgment," Phelps said in a statement to the Associated Press. "I'm 23 years old and despite the successes I've had in the pool, I acted in a youthful and inappropriate way, not in a manner people have come to expect from me. For this, I am sorry. I promise my fans and the public it will not happen again."
Marijuana is different from performance-enhancing drugs, according to the World Anti-Doping Agency, or WADA.An athlete is subject to WADA sanctions only for a positive test that occurs during competition periods.
"We don't have any jurisdiction," Howman said. "It's not banned out of competition. It's only if you test positive in competition."
The worst thing that is going to happen to him is that he may lose $100 million dollars in sanctions by embarrassed sponsors.
Yes, he is a role model for many aspiring athletes and for America as a whole, therefore I agree that his behavior was inapproiate. Yet, he did apologize and he should be forgiven. It obviously didn't stop him from winning 8 gold medals in Bejing, China and be named sportsman of the year by Sports Illustrated.
I think embarrassment should be enough of a punishment. Some people who commented on the news article I found stated that they think Phelps should give up his medals. I disagree. Marijuana in no way enhances a person's performance, so he wasn't cheating. I think people should refer to their D.A.R.E. Program days and get the facts.
I personally do not agree with Phelps using the drug at the party, and I agree that he demonstrated bad judgement. But, this does not mean that he should forever be punished for one bad night by taking away sanctions, his medals, and his good reputation.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
YouTube Obama "Single Ladies" spoof
So I saw this on E! news and found it hilarious so "I thought I would share it with everyone. What I thought was interesting was that this got 2 million views compared to Beyonce's official Sony video that had 450,000. Yet, there are several videos of the "Single Ladies" song, so adding it up it came to more views...so far.
The 26-year-old Iman Crosson said that he wanted to support Obama by impersonating him in a respectful manner. Which, after watching his videos, you can see.
His interview can be found on the post above.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Final draft for editorial #1
The Fight for Freedom of Speech Reaches Online Boundaries
The development of new media technologies has always altered the way we think about threats to free speech. In the beginning of the 20th century, civil libertarians in America worried over the danger of the government silencing and controlling free speech. Fear arose when Eugene V. Debs, the Socialist candidate for President, was imprisoned for publicly protesting American involvement in 1919 during World War I. After the Supreme Court started to protect unpopular speakers consistently, critics worried that free speech in America was threatened less by government suppression than by editorial decisions made by mass-media corporations.
Today, the Internet has given anyone access to reach a potential global audience. Internet service providers, such a Google, have the ultimate power to decide what is published and what is not. Google holds 63% of the world’s Internet searches. With this, Google has the power to decide what controversial material may or may not appear on local search engines; like in China.
The country has always had skeptics over the country’s consideration for human rights, and this brings up yet another concern. The most recent noted attempt the Chinese government has done to censor China’s people was during the Obama inauguration. When Obama said, “recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions,” and, "to those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist,” the sound was cut off, leaving Obama’s lip moving and English text scrolling at the bottom of the screen.
In response to the rise of online gatekeepers a bipartisan bill, named the Global Online Freedom Act, has been introduced by House Democrats and Republicans. The bill would require Internet companies to disclose all information in response to demands by foreign governments. This would make it difficult for the companies to keep local employees within repressive countries. In turn, the people of the country would not be able to find information that they have the right to view. Although, a software named “Freegate” was created to wage cyber war on the Chinese regime. The program finds holes in the firewalls, created by the Chinese government, and takes Chinese users to banned web sites undetected.
If so many people are finding alternatives to get to a banned web site, isn’t the attempt to restrict information futile? We believe that free speech applies to everyone, despite their country, when it comes to the Internet. There is too much information that is easily accessible, and as the phrase goes, “where there’s a will, there’s a way.” Free speech is not just a right to those in America, but the entire world. So, we say to those of Google, do not give in to the demands of foreign countries. Those of China have the right to find information on events going on in the world around them, just as any other person has the right to do so. So long as there are those who fight for freedom of speech, we shall stand behind them.
Works Cited
“Can Bloggers Crack The Great Firewall of China?” Digital Journal. You Tube. August 15, 2007.
“Chilling Effects Clearinghouse.” Electronic Frontier Foundation. www.chillingeffects.org.
“Chinese TV Censors Part of Address by Obama.” Edward Wong. The New York Times. January 21, 2009.
“Cracking the Great Firewall.” Paul Wiseman. USA Today. April 23, 2008.
“Global Online Freedom Act of 2007.” January 5, 2007.
“Google’s Gatekeepers.” Jeffrey Rosen. The New York Times. November 28, 2008.
“Google to Censor China Web Searches.” Elinor Mills. Cnet News. January 24, 2006.
List of Claims
Policy: Freedom of Speech should apply to everyone in the world, despite their country, because the Internet is too vast to contain and discriminate against.
Chinese users are still finding ways around their government’s firewalls to find information they seek.
China censored Obama during his speech addressing the United States and the World.
Google hold 63% of the world’s searches.
Google has the power to determine what is available to people within a local area.
The Global Online Freedom Act requires online companies to disclose information that foreign countries want banned from their citizens.
The development of new media technologies has always altered the way we think about threats to free speech. In the beginning of the 20th century, civil libertarians in America worried over the danger of the government silencing and controlling free speech. Fear arose when Eugene V. Debs, the Socialist candidate for President, was imprisoned for publicly protesting American involvement in 1919 during World War I. After the Supreme Court started to protect unpopular speakers consistently, critics worried that free speech in America was threatened less by government suppression than by editorial decisions made by mass-media corporations.
Today, the Internet has given anyone access to reach a potential global audience. Internet service providers, such a Google, have the ultimate power to decide what is published and what is not. Google holds 63% of the world’s Internet searches. With this, Google has the power to decide what controversial material may or may not appear on local search engines; like in China.
The country has always had skeptics over the country’s consideration for human rights, and this brings up yet another concern. The most recent noted attempt the Chinese government has done to censor China’s people was during the Obama inauguration. When Obama said, “recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions,” and, "to those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist,” the sound was cut off, leaving Obama’s lip moving and English text scrolling at the bottom of the screen.
In response to the rise of online gatekeepers a bipartisan bill, named the Global Online Freedom Act, has been introduced by House Democrats and Republicans. The bill would require Internet companies to disclose all information in response to demands by foreign governments. This would make it difficult for the companies to keep local employees within repressive countries. In turn, the people of the country would not be able to find information that they have the right to view. Although, a software named “Freegate” was created to wage cyber war on the Chinese regime. The program finds holes in the firewalls, created by the Chinese government, and takes Chinese users to banned web sites undetected.
If so many people are finding alternatives to get to a banned web site, isn’t the attempt to restrict information futile? We believe that free speech applies to everyone, despite their country, when it comes to the Internet. There is too much information that is easily accessible, and as the phrase goes, “where there’s a will, there’s a way.” Free speech is not just a right to those in America, but the entire world. So, we say to those of Google, do not give in to the demands of foreign countries. Those of China have the right to find information on events going on in the world around them, just as any other person has the right to do so. So long as there are those who fight for freedom of speech, we shall stand behind them.
Works Cited
“Can Bloggers Crack The Great Firewall of China?” Digital Journal. You Tube. August 15, 2007.
“Chilling Effects Clearinghouse.” Electronic Frontier Foundation. www.chillingeffects.org.
“Chinese TV Censors Part of Address by Obama.” Edward Wong. The New York Times. January 21, 2009.
“Cracking the Great Firewall.” Paul Wiseman. USA Today. April 23, 2008.
“Global Online Freedom Act of 2007.” January 5, 2007.
“Google’s Gatekeepers.” Jeffrey Rosen. The New York Times. November 28, 2008.
“Google to Censor China Web Searches.” Elinor Mills. Cnet News. January 24, 2006.
List of Claims
Policy: Freedom of Speech should apply to everyone in the world, despite their country, because the Internet is too vast to contain and discriminate against.
Chinese users are still finding ways around their government’s firewalls to find information they seek.
China censored Obama during his speech addressing the United States and the World.
Google hold 63% of the world’s searches.
Google has the power to determine what is available to people within a local area.
The Global Online Freedom Act requires online companies to disclose information that foreign countries want banned from their citizens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
