By Jacqueline Zuniga

I left the Arcata-Eureka Airport, in Mckinleyville, at 6:30 p.m. — it was the easiest flight I had. Arriving at the San Francisco International Airport, I spent nearly $50 on food because I was not going to starve. That was the first sign of how poorly my trip was going to go. I sat near my gate laughing out loud at reels, not knowing it would be the last time I laughed until I reached my family days later.

Getting on my flight, the lady next to me decided it was annual Piss Off Jackyday. She took forever removing everything from her bag when boarding and woke me up five times going to use the restroom during our four-hour flight. 

My connecting flight had a two-hour layover in Chicago O’Hare. It was 5 a.m. and the airport was packed, so I documented my experience on my close friend’s story about how many people there were during that time. As a college student, I care what I spend money on, so when I treated myself to a coffee that damn near drained my bank account I wasn’t expecting it to make my already awful morning worse with the worst coffee ever. On the bright side, it’s like United Airlines knew my experience with them was going bad – no one was assigned to sit next to me. I was able to finally read and relax. After more than 12 hours of traveling, I finally landed on the other side of the country, where an hour-and-a-half commute waited for me. After all that, I arrived at my aunt’s house at 1 p.m., saw my mom and ate real food.

After a chill family reunion, I woke up at 4 a.m. to relive the nightmare one last time. After briefly believing my flight was double booked, the flight attendants solved my issue. Sadly. The problem didn’t end there. I got seated next to a man who used his huge leather jacket as a blanket, which spilled into my seat taking over my armrest. I felt like a sardine in a can, making me uncomfortable the whole flight. 

On my last United Airlines flight the app confused me, saying I had 54 minutes to get to my gate. Unfortunately, that was actually the time it was going to take me to arrive at my gate — my next flight was boarding in 14 minutes. I had to get from A23 to B58, so I took the airport train and walked what felt like miles to board my flight. 

Everyone on that flight decided to talk to the person next to them. No shade to them, but the people in front of me were yelling and laughing, which pissed me off. Why are we being so loud on a flight? Have we forgotten airplane etiquette? Two hours of chatter and laughter at an absurd noise level was not fun. Their joy of making absurd plans at such a loud level made me miserable. 

May we not forget: not everyone wants to hear your loud conversations. If you need to get up 15 times during a flight, buy an aisle seat. And United, as a broke college student, I don’t want to pay an extra $60 not to sit in the middle. What was supposed to be a relaxing journey through the clouds became a red-eye flight straight from hell. 

Jacqueline is the super duper cool sports editor,social media manger for LJ and news manager for KRFH.

By Tara Linderborg-Cordry

Classrooms, the doctor’s office, even the campus library, all have one thing in common: blinding, fluorescent overhead lighting. These lights — often referred to as the big light — are a common intergenerational conflict. At least some of us have memories of being disappointed as kids when the lights came back on after quiet time. The question is, what makes these lights such an assault on the eyes?

Light directly affects our internal clock. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) found that light is the strongest environmental signal for our circadian rhythm. Artificial lights can disrupt this cycle, causing fatigue and lack of sleep. For many, bright lighting can also cause physical discomfort and headaches. More lighting doesn’t necessarily mean better lighting; multiple studies have found that fluorescent lighting can lead to eye strain, decreased attention and in some cases even lower test scores.

These huge overhead lights are used as if everybody has the same needs, but we all have different sensitivities. Smaller and softer individual lights let people control their personal workspace, making people feel more comfortable and productive. Preventing sensory overload also helps to make spaces more accessible for those with light sensitivities. 

Big lights also make a space feel too harsh; softer lighting is more inviting when entering a new space. Places of business often use fluorescent light to increase visibility, but businesses with ambient light feel welcoming, people want to shop where they feel welcomed.

Natural light should be used more often; opening windows and doors can help to air out a room, but can also reduce the need for overhead lighting. This, of course, reduces unnecessary electricity use. With gas and electricity prices climbing higher, limiting your use of lights could dramatically reduce your monthly electricity costs. Rooms can be well lit without blasting white light into every corner. 

Schools are a great example of this; students will spend hours under fluorescent lighting, with no way to control their environment. Imagine how much more comfortable your classrooms would be with flexible lighting.

As a culture, we rely too much on overhead lighting, even though we have much more sustainable and comfortable lighting options. It’s time to switch to better, more efficient lighting. 

Tara Linderborg-Cordry is a Journalism student and reporter with the Lumberjack. She is a Humboldt local and is pursuing a career in Public relations. When she’s not writing, she’s usually at the beach with her dog, Murphy.

Barley Lewis-McCabe

It’s 2006, Tamagotchis dangle comfortably from rearview mirrors. Natasha Beddingford’s latest single, “Unwritten” is taking the world by storm, the “great war on terror” is at its height and millions of Americans tune in every Wednesday at 9 p.m. to try to unravel the mysteries of the island in Lost. There’s something new on TV; Dateline – one of the most reputable TV news shows of the era is bringing you a gritty look into the burgeoning menace of online pedophiles, hosted by Emmy Award-winning journalist Chris Hansen. This is To Catch a Predator (TCAP). 

Primetime – directed by Lance Oppenheim is phenomenal and at times hard to watch for all the right reasons. It’s a claustrophobic and personal look into the burden of being America’s premier pedophile hunter, while also doubling as an introduction to the bastardization of news media in an oversaturated entertainment field. 

In the film’s first act, NBC executive Jeff Zucker – himself – lays it out straight for Hansen – Robert Pattinson – Americans are tired of fiction, they want real action that plays on their deepest fears. Audiences don’t want a fantastical version of their world; they want the harsh reality they hope they’ll never experience. There’s only one journalist who can find a story and abandon any ethical principle to hook people in, Chris Hansen.

Everyone in Hansen’s sphere confronts the dark side of their virtuous fight and grapples with the underbelly of what they’re doing — soon everyone is pushed as far as they can go, as the film explodes into a conclusion that leaves you hanging. While it is a fictionalized story of the classic American television program, Primetime creates its own world — very similar to ours — with all of the same events and same people, they just act a bit differently than they really did. Pattinson delivers a volcanic performance as a righteous and furious Hansen fighting a seemingly supernatural, Lynchian evil that corrupts men and must be beaten out, publicly. He’s balanced out by Andie Bender – Merritt Weaver – his mild-mannered producer who’s more focused on keeping their show afloat than catching a white-whale of a predator. While this is applicable to any cast member, Weaver’s performance especially was grounded, passionate and didn’t just jump off the screen, but sat in the seat next to me and ate my popcorn.

Dan Plumb – Skyler Gisondo – is a struggling musical theater actor who gets his big break as pedophile bait on TCAP, alongside experienced decoy Del Harvey – Phoebe Bridgers – in her debut film role. Primetime doesn’t ignore the emotional, physical and theatrical work that went into a show like TCAP. 

The minimal score and heavy emphasis on natural sound kept me on the edge of my seat for nearly two hours straight. The camerawork was unique and engaging; the CRT tint and 4:3 aspect ratio led to a film that felt both dated and timeless. Oppenheim’s love for analog horror was clear by the third act and executed perfectly. 

Primetime is a movie that could not have come at a better time. In my humble journalistic opinion, this is the movie of the year and Hansen could really benefit from a media ethics class.

Barley is the good-timing Editor In Chief of The Lumberjack, as well as a jack of all trades news writer. Contact him for any reason at bl258@humboldt.edu

By Tatiana H Moore

The United States of America is no longer a valuable ally, and we need to stop pretending that it is. Not that I needed to go to Ukraine to find myself with this opinion, but I did. I just got back from a three month stint in Ukraine where after visiting family, I volunteered and also worked at a summer camp for children of affected families. My relationship with Ukraine is more than just ancestral. I speak the language, I advocate, I get involved, and I even work for a Ukrainian American Non Government Organization (NGO).

 I never thought I would advocate for the US to leave Ukraine alone. For years, the U.S has touted itself as Ukraine’s greatest ally in the fight against Russia, but I disagree. The meetings with Putin, diminishing Financial aid packages, and hemming and hawing on air defense have only served to center the U.S in a conflict that Ukraine should be central to. American officials continue to position Washington as a necessary middleman between Kyiv and Moscow, while Ukraine is left having to respond to proposals that directly affect its territory and sovereignty. A country that believes the best solution for Ukraine is to cede territory and withdraw its EU application is no ally of Ukraine. 

The U.S. needs to understand that Ukraine is not a chessboard for American foreign policy. The U.S. has every right to decide how it spends American money and what role it wants to play internationally, but what it does not have is the moral authority to decide what Ukrainians should sacrifice for peace. In my humble opinion, Ukraine is better off without the U.S. 

There is an uncomfortable history with America’s relationship to Ukraine that I rarely hear discussed. In 1994, Ukraine agreed to surrender its nuclear arsenal, an arsenal that made it the third-largest nuclear power in the world at the time. In return, Ukraine joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and received security assurances from the United States, explicitly affirming respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence, and existing borders. This deal was made by the United States and helped create the conditions Ukraine finds itself in today. The U.S. has a responsibility to remember this history and more importantly, to uphold the promises made, but that hope has long been lost ever since the U.S. sat by and watched the annexation of Crimea in 2014. 

The U.S has played a major role in supporting Ukraine, particularly through military and financial assistance, and while I do believe this support has been important, the time has come for America to bow out. Europe’s role has grown substantially as U.S support has declined. Europe has provided military aid, financial support, humanitarian aid, refugee support and training of Ukrainian soldiers. If Europe, a continent directly threatened by Russian aggression, can increasingly shoulder the responsibility of supporting Ukraine. Why does Washington still need to position itself as the indispensable leader of Ukraine’s future? 

Tatiana H Moore is a senior journalism major and a reporter/writer with LJ thm18@humboldt.edu

The state of housing scams in Humboldt County

By Winter Music

After two years living on the beautiful Humboldt campus sharing a dorm room with strangers and experiencing back pain from the mattresses, I chose to start looking for off-campus housing. Who would think a cozy town like Arcata would be plagued by scammers? But then again, what else can you expect from random websites like Craigslist or Facebook Marketplace. Getting bait and switched from a listing on the Humboldt.edu rental listings resources was a different level of upsetting.

I spent about a month believing that I would soon get my own apartment. Panicked by the thought of losing a good housing opportunity, I forgot to be cautious. I sent the down payment and we scheduled a time to meet when I realized that someone was living in, what I thought was, my apartment. I had a sinking feeling I had taken risks I didn’t need to by sending deposit money before meeting the “landlord” in person. I didn’t make sure that the way I sent money could be cancelled, and I didn’t walk away when I first had doubts. When I went to the house, the “landlord” had dropped off the face of the planet. Suddenly, all the worries and concerns I had started to make more sense. I freaked out when I realized how bad the mistake I had just made was, but the damage had been done. I learned the hard way that small towns like Arcata can scam you just like everywhere else.

While that website I got scammed on has been removed and replaced by a list of reputable rental companies, it’s important to know that scammers can find their way into places you might not expect. So when you take the leap, and move from campus into your own place, be sure to never send over any money until you’ve been to the location in person, met the landlord and signed documents.

Winter Music, Copy Editor, wlm38@humboldt.edu

By Kaylon Coleman

“In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment,” renowned London based food critic – Anton Ego said in Ratatouille. “We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.”

Both Lee Cronin’s The Mummy (LCTM) and Michael premiered this month with scathing reviews from critics ranging from The New York Times to The Associated Press. At time of writing, LCTM scores a 47% on the Tomatometer and Michael scores a 39%. To that I say: screw what the critics think. I know how that may sound coming from the mouth of a critic, but I’m not from the New York Times — I’m just a humble man sharing my thoughts on a public forum. I implore you to use your own judgment before jumping to conclusions. With that being said, both LCTM and Michael surprised, delighted and exceeded my expectations.

I believe if you hated Michael, you also hate whimsy and joy. There’s plenty of  things wrong with the biopic, I’ll admit it. It’s relatively bland as far as biopics go, there’s no mention of Janet Jackson, it glosses over a lot of topics and the pacing is a bit fast. All valid criticisms, all valid contention points. Is it the best biopic out there? No. But the heart behind the project is what drew me in. 

 Jaafar Jackson does an exemplary job of bringing his uncle to life in the film. Aside from O’Shea Jackson Jr. playing young Ice Cube in the N.W.A. biopic, I can’t think of another instance where a celebrity’s relative has gotten to depict them onscreen – or at least, I haven’t seen any. Jackson brings such a passion to the role that I don’t think anyone else could achieve if they weren’t so directly related. Along with the production from the Jackson brothers, it felt as though this movie served more as a love letter to Michael Jackson wrapped in a bow of nostalgia than a traditional biopic — and I’m all for it. 

I tried to contain myself during the movie, but Broadway Cinema unfortunately faced the brunt of my excitement. When Who’s Lovin’ You came on I nearly turned the theater into a personal karaoke session. The movie had me invested the whole way through. I’m hopeful for part two, especially since they added the “His Story Continues” line at the end of the film after positive screen testing. The movie did feel as if it ended abruptly though; even with a potential part two, I don’t think 30 more minutes of movie could’ve hurt.

Colman Domingo also killed his performance as Joseph Jackson. He has officially entered the niche of black actors who portrayed their villain roles so well people still hate them in real life, like Richard T. Jones in Why Did I Get Married or Blair Underwood in Madea’s Family Reunion. Nia Long played her role well, per usual, but I wish they gave her more to do as Michael’s mom. I feel as though Michael and Joseph were the only characters to have any real depth explored within the film. I give Michael four out of five stars.

Now, let’s talk about the mummy. I’ll be the first to admit I was hating on LCTM before it came out, but it was actually pretty good. I haven’t watched any previous Mummy movies — except for some clips from the Tom Cruise one — so it’s safe to say I walked in with some preconceived notions. I was so ready to tear this film to pieces, but what originated as cynicism quickly turned to intrigue. 

The film follows a family reeling from the disappearance of their daughter in Cairo. Years later, she is found and returned to them, but as a mere shell of who she used to be. Almost immediately, I was locked in to the film. Shoutout journalist representations in movies — yes, I’m biased. 

LCTM does something that most modern horror movies have failed to do for me: it made me feel something other than boredom.  *Cough, cough* Black Phone 2 *cough, cough* Undertone. I was squirming, I was jaw-dropped, I was shocked. This is definitely one of the most gruesome movies I’ve ever seen. I can’t say I was necessarily scared, but this is how you terrify. I think what reels me into horror films is how authentic the characters can be given the circumstances they’re facing.

What I enjoy about this film is how realistic the family dynamic is. Each actor brings something different to the role, but in a way that presents itself as a family reeling from the disappearance and reappearance of their child before the supernatural elements come into full effect. The visuals were also appealing and added to my overall enjoyment. I did start to tune out near the end, as it started to feel a bit gimmicky, but overall, I give the movie a four and a half out of five.

So, if you’re debating where to spend your money on a $5-movie-Tuesday, go to Michael if you want a fun time that’ll leave you mesmerized and go to LCTM if you want a frightening time that’ll leave you mortified.

Kaylon Coleman is a senior journalism major with a concentration in news and a minor in communications. He is the Life & Arts editor for LJ, Marketing and Communications lead for the Umoja Center and a part-time radio DJ and merch manager for KRFH. He can be reached at kc403@humboldt.edu 

By: Kaylon Coleman

If there’s one thing that incites happiness within me and inspires me to be a better person, it’s witnessing passion flowing through someone else. Passion is beautiful; it’s so raw and true, you can’t fake it — you know it when you see it. It shows up in a myriad of ways: the homie that’s so geeked about their favorite show that they’ll talk your ear off about it any chance they get, or the friend that loves their craft so much that you can see them light up when asked about it.

I’m talking about that spark — that’s what I love; someone caring so deeply and so enthusiastically about something in a society that constantly pushes nonchalant and apathetic attitudes. Which is why I say, please persist. Do what you love — do what you’re passionate about. This world is so unrelenting; it’s unforgiving and it feeds off of tarnishing your love for something. As we grow older, the weight of life’s responsibilities become more and more prevalent. With that, we may not have as much time to rock climb or make beats or knit, especially if there’s no money being made in the process. But, doing what you love is what fuels your soul.

They say if you do what you love, you’ll never work a day in your life, but I think there’s more to that. I love journalism. It’s a passion of mine that I’ve decided to pursue it as my career. But, there’s definitely work involved. I have to deal with a lot of doubt, especially self-doubt. I have to deal with the naysayers who say journalism is a dying industry. I’ve faced constant heartbreaking rejections, and I haven’t even graduated yet. But, I’m confident in my decision because I believe passion equals purpose.

My whole life, I’ve been told to do what makes me happy, not what makes me money — and I hold that message dear. Living in a capitalistic society, I get it; people want security, they want a wage that’s livable. It might spawn from my optimistic nature, but I believe the money will come. Maybe not right away, but I’d rather scrape by doing what I love than be trapped doing what I don’t. That is why I implore you to keep your passions alive. Even if your passion isn’t what you want to do career wise, it’ll be the thing that keeps you going and keeps you grounded. Never forget: you were born to win!

Kaylon Coleman is a senior journalism major with a concentration in news and a minor in communications. He is the Life & Arts editor for LJ, Marketing and Communications lead for the Umoja Center and a part-time radio DJ and merch manager for KRFH. If you have a topic you want him to discuss, email him at kc403@humboldt.edu.

By Julia Kelm

The Drama follows a happily engaged couple, Emma and Charlie — played by Zendaya and Robert Pattinson — as they prepare for their upcoming wedding. However, their relationship is put to the test when an unexpected detail of Emma’s past is revealed during a conversation between friends. The question, “What is the worst thing you’ve ever done?” sends their relationship and wedding week completely off-track.

The Drama is the latest addition to the repertoire of the emerging Norwegian director, Krisoffer Borgli. You may be familiar with his last A24 collaboration, Dream Scenario (2023), which starred Nicolas Cage. For me, however, The Drama was my first introduction to his work.

I highly recommend going into this film blind, as the twist Emma reveals hits best when unexpected. I luckily — somehow — avoided spoilers before seeing this film Easter Sunday at the Minor Theatre in Arcata. 

It takes a while for this film to get the ball rolling. However, once it does, it just leaves you in the wake of this massive twist. It places you in an achingly awkward and anxious state that is shared by both Emma and Charlie’s post twist. This feeling is heightened by Borgli’s surrealist auteurship, which is just a fancy way of saying a filmmaker’s style. Scenes where Emma’s ear bleeds while at dinner with Charlie, or when Charlie reflects on memories with Emma, seeing as her high school self; both act as excellent scenes in making the viewer feel the anxious stress and distrust Charlie feels for Emma.

The aforementioned detail that Emma reveals is a hot piece of gossip and an even hotter topic within American society. The subject is handled in a mildly humorous way, which has already created mixed responses within online debates, with many who call the approach distasteful. I, for one, enjoyed the approach, finding it bold and unafraid to make audiences uncomfortable and encourage self-reflection.

Zendaya and Pattinson were perfectly cast in their respective roles. Zendaya plays this seemingly idealized woman in the beginning — spunky and charismatic — who then becomes reserved, overtly anxious and paranoid. Pattinson plays an endearing, dorky British guy that turns into a man completely absorbed by delusion. Their performances are truly what made this film come alive for me.

Another character worth mentioning is Rachel — Alana Haim — who is Emma’s bridesmaid and friend — honestly though, if that’s the kind of friend you like to keep, you should do some second guessing. Rachel is the embodiment of an entitled mean girl who can’t forgive Emma for the dark secret she reveals during the climatic conversation. Rachel is a primary factor in worsening things for Emma and Charlie, even though the secret Rachel reveals is debatably worse, or at least similar to Emma’s. To me, this represents the double standards we hold ourselves compared to others. 

It’s often simpler to forgive ourselves because we can more easily rationalize our own actions and thoughts. I think the film acts as a reminder to pull the plank out of our eye, before criticizing the sawdust in our friends — or however the metaphor goes.

Overall, I thought this was a solid film and I look forward to watching more Borgli in the future. 7/10 Julia’s.

Julia is a journalism major and the co-Editor in Chief of the paper. She loves film and is a regular on Letterboxd. She also enjoys going on walks in the forest and taking pictures to relax. If you have a movie you’d like her to review, please email her at jk328@humboldt.edu.

By Bodhi Haugen

For the past several years, innovation has been the last thing I’ve seen when I look at Apple and its products. The new features are becoming predictable: another camera, a different color phone, or maybe a better battery life that inevitably depletes within a year. 

I owned an iPhone around six years ago, and it did its job just fine. It took photos, sent messages and the battery life was okay for a couple years. Fast forward and things don’t seem much different; the shape and design have been practically the same since the iPhone X, which came out in 2017. The software update that changed the app icons was the biggest milestone to note since Face ID. All my close friends and family still have iPhones, so maybe I was missing something. Could it be that the newest phone is now orange instead of silver? 

Any new iPhone that comes to the market is either just shy of — or miles above — the $1000 mark. If there’s only one or two little changes every time, why spend so much money to make an upgrade? It’s an easy way for big companies to keep reselling you the same thing while trying to convince you it’s somehow different. 

The truth is, you’re probably due to get off your high horse and consider other options. The new flashy iPhone isn’t doing anything for you or others around you. The novelty of an iPhone being trendy died a long time ago; nobody cares that the back of your phone now has an aluminum frame instead of titanium. 

iPhone users shouldn’t be afraid to experiment with other brands. I used to hear my dad complain all the time about his shitty iPhone. I would ask why he didn’t switch brands and he always said he didn’t know how to work anything else. I used to think this was because he was just old, but I’m seeing this same behavior with friends and college students alike. 

If you’re dissatisfied with Apple’s innovations, look into what other brands may offer. Companies like Samsung, Motorola and Razer have been creative, with design innovations that users can see. You can fold a Samsung Z Flip7 in half, and it has a touchscreen on the back of the phone for the same price as an iPhone. Even my flip phone, made by a tractor company, can literally have DUO Mobile installed. 

It’s time for Apple to step down as the king of phones — and it’s time for you to wake up. Plenty of other phones are on the market, but consumers are looking the other way. If we want to see innovation in products, we need to show companies we actually care by supporting brands that are doing it.

Selling your iPhone won’t only save you some money, but it might send a message.

Bodhi Haugen is a journalism major and writer for the Lumberjack at Cal Poly Humboldt. Bodhi is on KRFH and enjoys reading, writing, photography, and art. You can reach him at bgh27@humboldt.edu.

By Barley Lewis-McCabe

“Some of the rules that still apply to [US Senate], for instance dueling between two consenting adults, is still there,” Department of Homeland Security Secretary and nutjob Fascist Crybaby Markwayne Mullin said during a tense senate hearing to decide whether he would take control of our country’s least reputable department.

“It’s been illegal for over 170 years,” Rand Paul, the lowly homeland security commission chief interrupted. 

This isn’t an article about Mullins’ disastrous senate hearing, nor his recent appointment. No, I’m not here to harp about how a short tempered chud with anger issues that likes to play army-man is the worst person to be in charge of our country’s barely-regulated wholly unnecessary ultraviolent white-supremacist militia. I’m not even gonna talk about the despicable caning of Charles Sumner back in 1856. Mullins’ hearing reignited one of the longest standing debates in American history; what’s so bad about dueling? 

For those who aren’t familiar with the hit musical Hamilton, a duel is a battle between two people when conventional conflict mediation techniques have been exhausted and someone’s honor offended in such a way that they would kill  to reclaim it.

As a weed-smoking, bandana-wearing, Grateful Dead-listening Cal Poly Humboldt journalism student, I am, of course, against violence. But, despite everything, I’d have to agree with Marky-boy that dueling between two consenting adults is perfectly reasonable. 

Yes, people can die, but duels were never just an easy way to kill someone; they were a way for two people, who are awful at communicating and don’t know the meaning of ‘forgive and forget,’ to fairly settle a dispute and reclaim lost honor. 

Since people wanted a game of life or death to be as fair as possible, dueling followed a strict code. The most popular of which — Code Duello — was written in Ireland in 1777 and spread throughout the Western world. After the invitation to duel is accepted, both parties select a second, someone to ensure the duel is fair, attempt reconciliation on their friends behalf and hopefully prevent an unnecessary death. The challenger decides where they meet, and the challenged picks the weapons. Former Newspaper Columnist and — better known — President Abraham Lincoln once avoided a duel by exploiting his seven inch height advantage and choosing cavalry broadswords of the largest kind frightening his opponent, Newspaper Editor James Shields enough to reconcile. It’s not known if Abe apologized for the distasteful poems he published about Shields. 

The duelers discuss their issues one more time; if no one apologizes, they battle. They each fire two shots at their opponent and if neither of them are injured, the duelists try to talk out their issues one more time. If that doesn’t work, they fight until someone is injured, killed or begged for mercy. A person could also apologize  during a duel to avoid death, which was also considered highly honorable whether you started it or not.

Dueling isn’t just bloodsport, there’s no shortage of clauses in Code Duello that exist to prevent death. It’s simply a way to settle the classic immovable object vs unstoppable force dilemma. In the late 1800s, dueling lost popularity to the sport of fisticuffs — AKA, boxing — or mutual combat — all of which are, for the most part, legal. 

Yes, duels are a relic of the past, and before you ask, no, our senators probably shouldn’t duel each other live on Kick. Violence is awful when exerted unnecessarily and on an innocent person, such as caning — which is still bad. If two people just can’t agree with each other, then they should be allowed to respectfully duel it out in accordance with Code Duello, with a mutual understanding that an apology would always be preferable to a kid without a parent. 

Barley is the opinionated opinion editor and an untraditional reporter who focuses on social change and stories with a real human impact. If you’d like to reach him for whatever reason email bl258@humboldt.edu.

By Jasmin Shirazian

The art of nuance and the craft of writing have been spoiled, milked, to filth; what remains curdled somewhere between lazy and unimaginative writing. We’ve entered a period of time where reboots and remakes of what were once original ideas have taken priority to new, unexplored plots. To revel in nostalgia is simpler and for some — at this point in time, what feels like the many — more entertaining than the attempt to grasp a new concept.

Why is there a Scrubs reboot? This is what set me off this week. The notion that we need another — ANOTHER — hospital based, semi-mockumentary style sitcom, much less a fucking reboot from 2007, is deeply weak-minded. I’m more so less upset about the premise than I am at the fact that it’s a reboot. I love a good concept, but seeing the show that I used to wake up to in the middle of the night blasting while my mom was at work is not the originality I was promised as a child. It’s literally another show about a goofy group of friends getting into shenanigans, but it’s placed in a hospital… did we have to make that a reboot? How did the original cast swing this? Have we run out of ideas? Lest there be more nipples left for us to suckle? 

There are two parties to blame here, in my professional, know-it-all opinion: the network and the consumer. The insatiable thirst for content from the consumer and the overwhelmingly eager, gluttonous network producing it, overworking and underpaying original creatives; overlooking them for network-based nepo-monsters. We are losing the voices of generations to the greed encouraged by not only the puppetmasters, but the audience themself. 

The network produces not what it thinks the consumer will enjoy, but what they will — you guessed it — consume the most of. Because that’s money. The gluttony; greed. But, we’re at fault, too, because we just keep giving into it. We consume the slop of mindless, empty dogshit nonsense that we can’t get enough of — why? Emily in Paris, Riverdale, the new season of Stranger Things where all the 14-year-olds now look 25… because they are. Why don’t we care about the quality of what we’re watching and indulging in? Have our expectations been weathered down so severely that we’ll just take whatever we can get? Yes, actually, I think so.

Not only is the dopamine addiction to our phones a more alluring pull than the effort that goes into developing a story in your mind, but let’s factor in that the regular person is living in hell. For the last 10 years — with a small gap of absolutely nothing to show for in between — the 2016 and 2024 administrations continue to defund and destroy any means of education, with the undying support of the nation’s most undereducated populations. SHOCKER! Wonder if that has something to do with… anything. I would bet the money I’m actively losing to my streaming services that it does have something to do with anything. It’s disturbing to witness every form of art become commercialized and reduced to a principal of cash exchanges, and it sucks that we continue to contribute to it as silent investors. Investors that, rather than profiting, poison their own water supply. 

Here’s the thing: I absolutely love TV — and no, movies do not satisfy the itch that a TV show can scratch. I love sitting in front of a screen and immersing myself in a show the way I do with a book. Whether it’s stupid and funny, or deeply depressing and gut-wrenching, all I ask is that there’s some heart in the writing, some depth to the plot and that writers are paid fairly. Unfortunately, for reasons that mostly come in shades of green, we can’t have those basic requests. And, while indie films and small-scale movie directors are semi-easy to support, I’ve personally never really heard of an independent TV show or network that is funded or owned by smaller groups. So, we lose good writers, we lose good art, we lose good TV. And we take what the big corporations who have the money to produce a long-format series give us, because those in power have made life so desperately miserable for the average individual that we just need something to help us get through the fucking day. 

We consume the dogshit, the Kool-Aid, the unfulfilling plate of nonsense they place before us. We give them the money we don’t get enough of and we get through the day. And another day, and another day. And one day, everything will explode. Until then, support local artists and writers. Maybe, before we all explode, we’ll stop seeing reboots of preexisting poorly-written TV shows. 

Jasmin Shirazian is the curly-headed copy editor and reporter of The Lumberjack. An award-winning journalist and media curator, she prefers to spend her free time watching and complaining about TV. More on the topic and others like such can be found on her Substack, @jasminscornerontheweb. She can be contacted at js760@humboldt.edu.