Monday, January 26, 2009
Fooled by the campus legend
If only she would have lurked moar.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The Daily Editorial Page Doesn't Know Statistics.
But the real reason I check out the editorial page is for the letters to the editors that I wish I had written like this one:
That was in response to MSA spending almost an entire meeting talking about how it's sexist that women get 2 points for scoring a goal in B level IM soccer. That's why I enjoy watching MSA waste time. But then again, no one ever voted for Mr. Russell.The Daily's story Tuesday about a student government effort to change intramural sports scoring (Students: IM scoring policy is sexist, 09/23/2008) is a prime example of why the majority of this campus takes our student government to be an absolute joke. Every year I am bombarded with candidates’ flyers promising me reduced textbook costs and increased campus safety. Instead of solving these problems, I read that some LSA Student Government representatives are labeling a "B” level intramural soccer scoring system as an “urgent” issue concerning our student body.
If the LSA-SG represntatives behind this, Steven Benson and Kim Buddin, have such an issue with the scoring, they should play in the “A” league and quit wasting our time. Is this what our student government really debates behind closed doors? With the recent rash of burglaries across campus and continually increasing tuition costs, shouldn’t they be focusing their efforts elsewhere?
Perhaps I should run during the next election. My platform would consist of free unicorn rides to North Campus and orange soda in every drinking fountain on campus. In the end, I would fulfill just as many promises as the current student government does.
Alex Whang
LSA senior
The one editorial that really stood to point out how inept the daily is was the one about stadium accessibility. I feel I must respond. For those who didn't read it, the premise was that the University's was wrong in its belief that it wouldn't be able to sell enough handicapped seats at football games. The Daily argued that because the University sold a vast majority of the seats this year "administrators should have every reason to believe that tickets for the rest of the wheelchair-accessible seats will sell well when the renovations are complete."
Now for some background, the U increased the number of handicapped seats from 92 to 184 this year. The article stated that it sold between 74 to 89 percent of these seats. So that breaks down to 136 seats at the season low, and 164 in the season high. So my question is, if they are at the maximum selling only 164 seats, what makes the Daily think that the U will sell the 329 handicapped seats that agreed to provide in the future. I don't know the individual numbers but even at the most extreme values it is in the tens of standard deviations that they will sell all 329 handicapped seats. Also, it could be noted the the number of Americans in wheelchairs is decreasing, and the population of the state of Michigan is also decreasing. Sure it was a rough year, but the proportion of people who come to games in wheelchairs isn't going to magically double with a few more wins. The Daily writers should be able to figure this out.
Now for the fun part.
So, 2 years from now there will 329 handicapped seats in the stadium, and I approximate that they will only be selling 180 a game (high estimate). So that leaves 165 unattended seats a game. Each one of those handicapped seats takes up about 12 regular seats (call Sam and confirm). So what does that add up to? 1,980 fans won't be able to watch each game in the big house. Which will be about 15,840 people a season. Those 15,840 fans would have paid about $50 a ticket, so now the settlement will end up costing the Athletic Department $792,000 a season. That's some serious money. But maybe they deserve it for trying to get away with calling what they are doing a repair not a renovation, which was just dumb.
What they should have done is used basic forecasting to estimate the number of Handicapped tickets they would expect to sell, and then made enough to fullfill a large service rate. Then each game they could make enough handicapped seats to fulfill handicapped seating 95% of the time, and turned the rest of the space into temp seating. Instead they just cleared out rows of the stadium and are praying that exactly 329 people in wheelchairs want to watch a Michigan Football game.
Instead of criticizing the Athletic Department, The Daily should have realized that the Athletic Department was right, and there is no possible way they will fill all of those seats. Then The Daily should have done some sleuthing and found what the actual numbers were and found out just how unlikely it would be for them to sell those seats given current demand rates. Next they should have realized how this settlement will negatively affect a large number of fans. Next, they should have offered a solution to the problem. Instead, they said, "Accessibility Sells!" the University is dumb, lets make sure we include everyone, even if it means that we can't include 1,980 other people.
As a side note, one thing that no one ever seems to mention is that the Stadium is still not up the ADA standards. All we have done is simply settled out of court with the only group to ever sue us. I don't think that sets a precedent, seeing as we are still in violation of the law. Not to give anyone ideas, but if I was a PSU fan and I had the money, I would sue the shit out Michigan to get the title of largest stadium in America. Just a thought, lawyer friends care to weigh in?
Also today the Daily ran a lengthy editorial defending Furries. What type of crap newspaper is this?
Monday, January 19, 2009
Craft Corner
Basically, it's a pencil holder made out of discarded beer cans.
It's for those drunks that like to keep things organized.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Next Party: Frat Bro's and Traffic Woes
The intersection at Zina Pitcher and Catherine.

It is soo awful. It is the dumbest intersection in the state. It is essentially a one-way street that turns around a corner with a driveway coming off of it. There is a stop light for the traffic on Zina Pitcher but only a stop sign for the traffic at the driveway. Have you ever seen an intersection with a light for one direction and only a stop sign for the other?

I should tell you that this is a street without very heavy flow. There is actually very little traffic that comes down the street. A car coming out of the driveway would have no problem entering the street without the traffic light. More so, the vehicles that do leave the driveway, have no clue about whether the oncoming traffic has the right away or not, because they can't see the damn traffic light.
Also, what does the "No Turn on Red" sign indicate. Sure at a normal intersection that would mean that you cannot turn right on red. But since you could see the intersection as a one-way street turning onto another one-way street and it is legal to turn left on red from a one-way to a one-way, so maybe the sign means you can't turn left on red. Or does it mean both? Why wouldn't you be allowed to turn right on red? There is no way that turning right at an intersection like this that you could get hit by another car.
I hate this intersection.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Brian Fights the Man
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Post College Plan 5
I want to start a business, maybe a side business business of the bar. It would be an ice cream truck, but along with serving ice cream it would sell booze. It would drive around at night and sell booze to all of the college kids. Imagine if every night a truck drove down the street playing a tune, and you would walk outside and buy a fifth, or case or whatever you wanted that night. On the night of the greenwood block party, I could park across the street, and then drive to South U around midnight to get the bar crowd. It would be brilliant.
Yep, nothing like the weird 26 year old driving around college towns selling beer out of the back of his van. Cool!
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Harriet Tub-man
So for the last year we have had a hamster living in the Box house. It is probably the worst possible place for a pet, but she at least smells better than most of the house. We named her Harriet Tubman because she is always trying to get out of whatever enclosure she is in. She has chewed through everything from her plastic ball to Al's carpeting to make her escapes. We usually find her a few days later and on a different floor from which she got out.
Two nights ago in a fit of drunkenness Harriet's cage (read: glass fishbowl) was destroyed. Without a home we put her in the best place we could think of; the shower. So now she has a great living space with nice steep walls, while we have one less shower. I don't know how that thing is still alive.
Monday, January 5, 2009
WTTIF Turns Two
It's the second birthday of my blog, which somewhat coincides with the new year.
After reading over the posts from 2008, I realize that I have a large amount to live up to in 2009. It should be a pretty exciting year. I am in my last semester and I'm only taking 14 credits, 3 of which are pass/fail and 2 of which are a first half-semester mini-course. I'm going to graduate and start a job, I hope. I expect to hit puberty sometime soon, which should be fun. Hopefully I'll actually take Alaska trip I've been vigorously planning. Maybe this will also be the year that I kick that crystal meth habit. I'll be moving out of this shithole, which is sad, but I will be moving into a new place somewhere. I should have some money from selling my Pogs and Benie Babies, so I will invest that into some infomercials, Snuggies it is! Some of my buddies are planning on proposing to their GF's, so I might have some weddings in the future to look forward to.
I've also started contributing to our fantastic house blog. I am going to stop posting on MB&QB because 3 blogs in enough for a kid with a 7th grade writing ability.