You would think that as a hub for information, media outlets would do a better job of communicating with their audience and connecting with them.
When I talk to readers about the paper, and about our presence on campus, the notion always comes up that we are separate from the student body. No one knows where we are on campus, no one knows what we do, how we do it or when we do it. The paper appears at the stands the next day, and that is that.
But that's our fault. Like any professional paper, we are always moving forward — always looking for ways to better inform and provoke thought. We are an instrument of the student body. If there is one misconception that The Battalion would like to eliminate, it's the belief that we are inaccessible. In shedding that belief, we have to start somewhere.
The Battalion is always looking for writers, copy editors, video reporters and photgraphers. If your passion is writing, photography, telling stories or rubbing elbows with movers and shakers on campus, then come on by. We are not just the voice for the student body; we are the ears and eyes also. Putting our feelers in the water is what we do. If you want to learn how to put your finger to the wind, then we can help. If you don't like the way we do things here, then stop by and tell us. We may work in a basement, but we're not hiding from anyone.
We've got things pretty good down here. We likely have the best facilities in the state, and are probably in the top ten across the nation. We are in intimate contact with professional journalists around the world, and we've got our finger on the pulse of Texas A&M.
And we are also accepting applications.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Dr. Steven Quiring Q&A
1) Global warming is a very politically charged issue. Is there currently any unbiased research in the field?
Although global warming is very politically charged, there is unbiased research on global warming. The best source of information on global warming is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (more commonly referred to as the IPCC). The IPCC recently (February 2, 2007) released the Summary for Policy Makers for the 4th Assessment report (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf).
Skepticism is an important part of the scientific process, especially since one of the main flaws of science is that it is carried out by humans. Humans are imperfect, biased, and we make mistakes. Therefore, no single experiment or published paper provides enough evidence to conclusively prove something as fact. Thankfully a lot of time, money, and effort has been invested into the scientific research on global warming. There are a lot of things that we know with a great deal of certainty because they have been checked and rechecked by many different scientists over many years. Much of this research is summarized in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment report. This report was produced by some 600 authors from 40 countries. Over 620 expert reviewers and a large number of government reviewers also participated in the process. The IPCC report provides a thorough review of the state of climate science in regards to global warming and it provides an unbiased view of what is known (and what uncertainties remain to be solved). In addition the report qualifies all of the statements that it makes so it provides the policy makers (and other non-climate scientists) with an estimate of certainty.
2) I have read that the cause for concern is not necessarily that the earth is warming, but the rate at which it is warming. What is the real story?
There are two main causes for concern. The first is the global temperature (likely the highest in the last 1300 years). The second is the rate of warming (unprecedented in the last 10,000 years). Although the magnitude of temperature increase is cause for concern, what may be more important from an adaptation and mitigation perspective is the rate at which this warming is occurring. The faster the warming the less time there is for humans, animals, and plants to adjust to these changes. The IPCC predicts that 1.8 to 4.0 C of warming by 2100. If this amount of warming were predicted to occur over, for example, the next 1000 years, it would not be as grave a concern.
3) Skeptics say that global warming is not real, that the earth simply goes through cycles and we are in the warm phase of one of those cycles. What do you think about this?
It has been demonstrated that the warming that has occurred during the 20th century is a result of human activities. In fact, were it not for natural volcanic cycles, the amount of warming during the 20th century would have been much greater. (see my answer to question 8 for more details on this).
4) In Al Gore’s documentary, he shows a chart that measures carbon dioxide and temperature levels taken from Antarctic ice core samples that date back 650,000 years. He claims that the chart shows how rising carbon dioxide levels cause temperature to increase. But when the chart is viewed up close, it looks like the opposite is true. It’s clear that the two are related, but do scientists know what is actually happening?
Excerpt from http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/ :
“This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.
Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.
The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.
It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic Ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.
From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.
In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.
So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]
To read more about CO2 and ice cores, see Caillon et al., 2003, Science magazine”
5) Gore also says that the ice of the northwest arm of Antarctica is cracking and melting. What about the rest of the continent? I have heard it is actually thickening for the first time in 6000 years. Is this true?
This is a difficult question to answer. It is very difficult to accurately model or measure the mass balance of Antarctica. However a recent paper in Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5768/1754) suggests that between 2002–2005 the mass of the ice sheet decreased significantly, at a rate of 152 ± 80 cubic kilometers of ice per year, which is equivalent to 0.4 ± 0.2 millimeters of global sea-level rise per year. Most of this mass loss came from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
However, as the world warms there may be increased precipitation over Antarctica which could cause a thickening of parts of the ice sheet. There is an ongoing debate in the literature about what these issues.
6) It seems like Gore presents a lot of correlations in his film, but doesn’t actually prove causation. What is your take?
No single source of data is sufficient to prove or disprove global warming. Showing pictures of glaciers receding or talking about drowning polar bears is all well and good, but Gore’s documentary only shows a few examples of the impacts of global warming. That is why the IPCC Fourth Assessment report is such an important document. It summarizes many all of the observed trends in snow cover, sea-ice, glaciers, etc. and it demonstrates that many of these trends are related to human activities. I encourage you to review this document for more details.
7) The film suggests that global warming is responsible for massive hurricanes, deadly heat waves, and other extreme weather events. Is this possible? Is there even enough evidence to make such a conclusion?
Global warming is not the ‘cause’ of any single hurricane, heat wave, or other extreme weather event (the climate is not a simple system, it is a dynamic quasi-chaotic system that simultaneously responds to a multitude of forcings and feedbacks). For example, we can’t say that global warming ‘caused’ Hurricane Katrina, however as the world warms due to the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, we know that some aspects of the climate system will change. For example, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report concludes that it is very likely (see explanation below) that the frequency of warm spells/heat waves will increase over most land areas during the 21st century. They also conclude that it is likely (see explanation below) that intense tropical cyclone activity will increase during the 21st century.
8) Is there any evidence that actually shows how much we are contributing to rising temperatures around the world? There is probably a lot of debate about this, but is there any consensus at all?
Yes. It is possible to calculate the magnitude of human influence on the climate. These studies are known as attribution studies and they look at observed temperature changes to determine if they are quantitatively consistent with the natural and human forcings. The IPCC 4th Assessment report concluded that it is very likely (probability of occurrence > 90%) that most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (e.g., Carbon Dioxide).
Excerpts from the Summary for Policy Makers for the 4th Assessment report (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf):
“Changes in the atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases and aerosols, in solar radiation and in land surface properties alter the energy balance of the climate system. These changes are expressed in terms of radiative forcing, which is used to compare how a range of human and natural factors drive warming or cooling influences on global climate. Since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), new observations and related modelling of greenhouse gases, solar activity, land surface properties and some aspects of aerosols have led to improvements in the quantitative estimates of radiative forcing.
The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence (at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct) that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 W m-2.
{Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence that a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism. Positive forcing tends to warm the surface while negative forcing tends to cool it. In this report radiative forcing values are for 2005 relative to pre-industrial conditions defined at 1750 and are
expressed in watts per square metre (W m-2).}
It is likely that increases in greenhouse gas concentrations alone would have caused more warming than observed because volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols have offset some warming that would otherwise have taken place. The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past fifty years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone.”
9) Any other comments?
Global warming is a complex issue and so it is difficult to accurately communicate information to the general public, especially through the media, because the science (and the uncertainties) can’t be reduced to a series of sound bites. Unfortunately there are some people on both sides who are more interested in winning the argument (and advancing their position) than they are in engaging in finding and publicizing the truth. This leads to a lot of misinformation being passed to the public (see for example: http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html).
As scientists we need to do a better job of educating the general public about the science of global warming. A lot is now known about this issue, but of course there are still issues that scientists do not fully understand and hence there is a need for continued research.
Although global warming is very politically charged, there is unbiased research on global warming. The best source of information on global warming is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (more commonly referred to as the IPCC). The IPCC recently (February 2, 2007) released the Summary for Policy Makers for the 4th Assessment report (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf).
Skepticism is an important part of the scientific process, especially since one of the main flaws of science is that it is carried out by humans. Humans are imperfect, biased, and we make mistakes. Therefore, no single experiment or published paper provides enough evidence to conclusively prove something as fact. Thankfully a lot of time, money, and effort has been invested into the scientific research on global warming. There are a lot of things that we know with a great deal of certainty because they have been checked and rechecked by many different scientists over many years. Much of this research is summarized in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment report. This report was produced by some 600 authors from 40 countries. Over 620 expert reviewers and a large number of government reviewers also participated in the process. The IPCC report provides a thorough review of the state of climate science in regards to global warming and it provides an unbiased view of what is known (and what uncertainties remain to be solved). In addition the report qualifies all of the statements that it makes so it provides the policy makers (and other non-climate scientists) with an estimate of certainty.
2) I have read that the cause for concern is not necessarily that the earth is warming, but the rate at which it is warming. What is the real story?
There are two main causes for concern. The first is the global temperature (likely the highest in the last 1300 years). The second is the rate of warming (unprecedented in the last 10,000 years). Although the magnitude of temperature increase is cause for concern, what may be more important from an adaptation and mitigation perspective is the rate at which this warming is occurring. The faster the warming the less time there is for humans, animals, and plants to adjust to these changes. The IPCC predicts that 1.8 to 4.0 C of warming by 2100. If this amount of warming were predicted to occur over, for example, the next 1000 years, it would not be as grave a concern.
3) Skeptics say that global warming is not real, that the earth simply goes through cycles and we are in the warm phase of one of those cycles. What do you think about this?
It has been demonstrated that the warming that has occurred during the 20th century is a result of human activities. In fact, were it not for natural volcanic cycles, the amount of warming during the 20th century would have been much greater. (see my answer to question 8 for more details on this).
4) In Al Gore’s documentary, he shows a chart that measures carbon dioxide and temperature levels taken from Antarctic ice core samples that date back 650,000 years. He claims that the chart shows how rising carbon dioxide levels cause temperature to increase. But when the chart is viewed up close, it looks like the opposite is true. It’s clear that the two are related, but do scientists know what is actually happening?
Excerpt from http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/ :
“This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.
Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.
The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.
It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic Ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.
From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.
In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.
So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]
To read more about CO2 and ice cores, see Caillon et al., 2003, Science magazine”
5) Gore also says that the ice of the northwest arm of Antarctica is cracking and melting. What about the rest of the continent? I have heard it is actually thickening for the first time in 6000 years. Is this true?
This is a difficult question to answer. It is very difficult to accurately model or measure the mass balance of Antarctica. However a recent paper in Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5768/1754) suggests that between 2002–2005 the mass of the ice sheet decreased significantly, at a rate of 152 ± 80 cubic kilometers of ice per year, which is equivalent to 0.4 ± 0.2 millimeters of global sea-level rise per year. Most of this mass loss came from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
However, as the world warms there may be increased precipitation over Antarctica which could cause a thickening of parts of the ice sheet. There is an ongoing debate in the literature about what these issues.
6) It seems like Gore presents a lot of correlations in his film, but doesn’t actually prove causation. What is your take?
No single source of data is sufficient to prove or disprove global warming. Showing pictures of glaciers receding or talking about drowning polar bears is all well and good, but Gore’s documentary only shows a few examples of the impacts of global warming. That is why the IPCC Fourth Assessment report is such an important document. It summarizes many all of the observed trends in snow cover, sea-ice, glaciers, etc. and it demonstrates that many of these trends are related to human activities. I encourage you to review this document for more details.
7) The film suggests that global warming is responsible for massive hurricanes, deadly heat waves, and other extreme weather events. Is this possible? Is there even enough evidence to make such a conclusion?
Global warming is not the ‘cause’ of any single hurricane, heat wave, or other extreme weather event (the climate is not a simple system, it is a dynamic quasi-chaotic system that simultaneously responds to a multitude of forcings and feedbacks). For example, we can’t say that global warming ‘caused’ Hurricane Katrina, however as the world warms due to the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, we know that some aspects of the climate system will change. For example, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report concludes that it is very likely (see explanation below) that the frequency of warm spells/heat waves will increase over most land areas during the 21st century. They also conclude that it is likely (see explanation below) that intense tropical cyclone activity will increase during the 21st century.
8) Is there any evidence that actually shows how much we are contributing to rising temperatures around the world? There is probably a lot of debate about this, but is there any consensus at all?
Yes. It is possible to calculate the magnitude of human influence on the climate. These studies are known as attribution studies and they look at observed temperature changes to determine if they are quantitatively consistent with the natural and human forcings. The IPCC 4th Assessment report concluded that it is very likely (probability of occurrence > 90%) that most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (e.g., Carbon Dioxide).
Excerpts from the Summary for Policy Makers for the 4th Assessment report (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf):
“Changes in the atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases and aerosols, in solar radiation and in land surface properties alter the energy balance of the climate system. These changes are expressed in terms of radiative forcing, which is used to compare how a range of human and natural factors drive warming or cooling influences on global climate. Since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), new observations and related modelling of greenhouse gases, solar activity, land surface properties and some aspects of aerosols have led to improvements in the quantitative estimates of radiative forcing.
The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence (at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct) that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 W m-2.
{Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence that a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism. Positive forcing tends to warm the surface while negative forcing tends to cool it. In this report radiative forcing values are for 2005 relative to pre-industrial conditions defined at 1750 and are
expressed in watts per square metre (W m-2).}
It is likely that increases in greenhouse gas concentrations alone would have caused more warming than observed because volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols have offset some warming that would otherwise have taken place. The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past fifty years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone.”
9) Any other comments?
Global warming is a complex issue and so it is difficult to accurately communicate information to the general public, especially through the media, because the science (and the uncertainties) can’t be reduced to a series of sound bites. Unfortunately there are some people on both sides who are more interested in winning the argument (and advancing their position) than they are in engaging in finding and publicizing the truth. This leads to a lot of misinformation being passed to the public (see for example: http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html).
As scientists we need to do a better job of educating the general public about the science of global warming. A lot is now known about this issue, but of course there are still issues that scientists do not fully understand and hence there is a need for continued research.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Go...Longhorns?
Hopefully everyone has sobered up from depression drinking that was likely rampant following the team’s loss to t.u. Wednesday night.
Everyone here? Good, because it’s time to cheer on the Longhorns in the hope that we can get a piece of the Big XII championship pie, and that Texas scores itself a good seed in the NCAA tournament.
Wednesday’s game was a bigger win for Texas than it was a loss for A&M. They’re playing for a favorable seeding. We’re pretty much locked into a two seed if we just make a decent showing in the Big XII tournament.
A&M would be well served by Kansas entering in the NCAA tournament as a two seed and Texas entering in as three seed. I don’t know about you guys, but I’d rather not face Kansas in the big dance. I don’t care if they have more early exits than the Braves; they will be hungry this time around, and Self is having his team peak at just the right time. Their momentum will likely carry into the tournament, and we don’t want any of that.
Texas, on the other hand, is a team that the Aggies would like to face in the tournament. Durant has shown that he tends to disappear when the game is getting rough, and their defense (or lack thereof) will be a major problem come game time. Gillispie is the superior coach, and Barnes’s tendency to make questionable substitutions when the game is on the line will combine with their porous D to punch an elite eight ticket for your Aggies. This would make the tournament one to remember.
Everyone here? Good, because it’s time to cheer on the Longhorns in the hope that we can get a piece of the Big XII championship pie, and that Texas scores itself a good seed in the NCAA tournament.
Wednesday’s game was a bigger win for Texas than it was a loss for A&M. They’re playing for a favorable seeding. We’re pretty much locked into a two seed if we just make a decent showing in the Big XII tournament.
A&M would be well served by Kansas entering in the NCAA tournament as a two seed and Texas entering in as three seed. I don’t know about you guys, but I’d rather not face Kansas in the big dance. I don’t care if they have more early exits than the Braves; they will be hungry this time around, and Self is having his team peak at just the right time. Their momentum will likely carry into the tournament, and we don’t want any of that.
Texas, on the other hand, is a team that the Aggies would like to face in the tournament. Durant has shown that he tends to disappear when the game is getting rough, and their defense (or lack thereof) will be a major problem come game time. Gillispie is the superior coach, and Barnes’s tendency to make questionable substitutions when the game is on the line will combine with their porous D to punch an elite eight ticket for your Aggies. This would make the tournament one to remember.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Valentine's Day Massacre
Chrisoula Mouliatis discusses the dynamics of the Facebook-aided relationships:
Valentine’s Day is over, and Cupid is gone until next year. Some people are still celebrating because the love of their life has just made their relationship Facebook-official. Or, for those who spent the day solo, they’re celebrating the end of the day that reminded them of how obviously alone they really are.
If anyone has been on Facebook lately, they can view the new pictures being posted while they develop a nauseous feeling in the pit of their stomach. Dating is definitely not the same ball game it used to be. Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, provides members with relationship options from “Single” to “It’s complicated” and they can be looking for “Friendship” or “Random Play.” If you put all of these options together with millions of college students, drama, or hilarity, will ensue.
There are many steps to get to that serious point in a relationship. First, it is meeting the person, and then talking, hanging out, dating, and finally, after some time, commitment.
What’s missing? The big factor now being thrown into play is being facebooked. Nowadays, it is as if nobody is paying attention to what really makes a relationship last because apparently the most important aspect of our love lives boils down to whether or not it’s facebook official. The stability of relationships is hovering over a very thin line, or link. There are some people out there who choose to stay in a relationship because they can’t bring themselves to end it.
Well, Ffacebook has a solution for that. The bright blue link labeled “Cancel Relationship” is readily available for those in need. Click on that link, and the next time someone checks out their News Feed, there will be a broken red heart next to some poor soul’s name.
“Stuff like that really makes relationships seem unimportant or trivial because nobody really cares how long, or what you’ve been through to be in that relationship. I feel like I’m in junior high again the way people treat their love lives over the internet. It’s like writing, ‘Do you like me? Circle yes or no,’” saidays Caroline Cunningham, freshman English major.
Another developing issue is the fact that some Aggies are not so computer savvy, and they prefer getting their information firsthand. The problem with that is Ffacebook is the first source to receive all of the breaking news.
Maybe it's the excitement of a new relationship that just provokes somebody to post it on the internet for all of the world to see, but while that is taking place, it seems best friends are being left in the dark. Not everybody is facebook- obsessed to where they check it every hour of the day to read every bit of their News Feed to see what's going on in the world. Some people just don't have access to a computer all of the time. Or , dare I say it; some people simply may have better things to do.
So, what happens to those people is they end up being completely misinformed. Such exciting events are best heard in person where a friend can really get all of the intimate details. Ultimately, friends are feeling left out, feelings are hurt, and a bruised ego will not go unnoticed for long.
Friends should always come before Ffacebook. Face- to- face conversations are much more enjoyable than wall posts. Some could argue that, but theThe point is that relationships need more substance behind them than a cutesy little heart, and friends should be the first to know. The fact that a two- year relationship is not official unless it’s on facebook is ridiculous, and one click of the mouse is all it takes to break up with someone looks just a little too convenient and cold-hearted to me.
Valentine’s Day is over, and Cupid is gone until next year. Some people are still celebrating because the love of their life has just made their relationship Facebook-official. Or, for those who spent the day solo, they’re celebrating the end of the day that reminded them of how obviously alone they really are.
If anyone has been on Facebook lately, they can view the new pictures being posted while they develop a nauseous feeling in the pit of their stomach. Dating is definitely not the same ball game it used to be. Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, provides members with relationship options from “Single” to “It’s complicated” and they can be looking for “Friendship” or “Random Play.” If you put all of these options together with millions of college students, drama, or hilarity, will ensue.
There are many steps to get to that serious point in a relationship. First, it is meeting the person, and then talking, hanging out, dating, and finally, after some time, commitment.
What’s missing? The big factor now being thrown into play is being facebooked. Nowadays, it is as if nobody is paying attention to what really makes a relationship last because apparently the most important aspect of our love lives boils down to whether or not it’s facebook official. The stability of relationships is hovering over a very thin line, or link. There are some people out there who choose to stay in a relationship because they can’t bring themselves to end it.
Well, Ffacebook has a solution for that. The bright blue link labeled “Cancel Relationship” is readily available for those in need. Click on that link, and the next time someone checks out their News Feed, there will be a broken red heart next to some poor soul’s name.
“Stuff like that really makes relationships seem unimportant or trivial because nobody really cares how long, or what you’ve been through to be in that relationship. I feel like I’m in junior high again the way people treat their love lives over the internet. It’s like writing, ‘Do you like me? Circle yes or no,’” saidays Caroline Cunningham, freshman English major.
Another developing issue is the fact that some Aggies are not so computer savvy, and they prefer getting their information firsthand. The problem with that is Ffacebook is the first source to receive all of the breaking news.
Maybe it's the excitement of a new relationship that just provokes somebody to post it on the internet for all of the world to see, but while that is taking place, it seems best friends are being left in the dark. Not everybody is facebook- obsessed to where they check it every hour of the day to read every bit of their News Feed to see what's going on in the world. Some people just don't have access to a computer all of the time. Or , dare I say it; some people simply may have better things to do.
So, what happens to those people is they end up being completely misinformed. Such exciting events are best heard in person where a friend can really get all of the intimate details. Ultimately, friends are feeling left out, feelings are hurt, and a bruised ego will not go unnoticed for long.
Friends should always come before Ffacebook. Face- to- face conversations are much more enjoyable than wall posts. Some could argue that, but theThe point is that relationships need more substance behind them than a cutesy little heart, and friends should be the first to know. The fact that a two- year relationship is not official unless it’s on facebook is ridiculous, and one click of the mouse is all it takes to break up with someone looks just a little too convenient and cold-hearted to me.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Ringing in the new year
Year of the Pig
Travis Holland tells how to ring in the Chinese New Year
The Chinese New Year is a 15 day celebration, and it starts today. This is the Year of the Pig, so everyone needs to make it a good one for our favorite cuddly farm animal. To do the holiday justice, you should be well prepared.
Day One: Don’t eat meat unless you want a short and unhappy life.
Day Two: Be nice to dogs and give them a double scoop of Kibbles and Bits. Today is every dog’s birthday. Married daughters should visit their parents.
Day Three: Today is not a good day to visit. Everyone will be irritable from the fried food and relationships could suffer. Steer clear of friends and family or you’ll have some seriously bad luck.
Day Four: See Day Three.
Day Five: Today is Po Wu. Shoot fireworks. Don’t cut your hair unless you want to have the worst year ever.
Day Six: Pray and resume visiting friends and family. Jam your favorite Chinese music.
Day Seven: Today is going to be busy for farmers. First, they have to display all their produce. Then they have to make a drink from vegetables. After that they have to drink it. Today is also the birthday of all mankind, so order your cake well in advance. Eat noodles if you want a long life and raw fish if you care to be successful.
Day Eight: Sleep off Day Seven and have a family reunion.
Day Nine: Make your best offering to the Jade Emperor. Continue sleeping off Day Seven.
Day Ten: Today invite everyone you know to dinner, and feed them the best, most expensive food you can.
Day Eleven: Repeat Day Ten, but do it even bigger.
Day Twelve: Day Eleven x 2.
Day Thirteen: By now everyone is tired of the good food. Eat only rice and mustard greens.
Day Fourteen: Prepare for tomorrow’s blowout party.
Day Fifteen: Today is the lantern festival. Decorated lanterns will be everywhere, and people will run through the streets in paper dragons. This is also the Chinese Valentine’s Day, so cards and flowers may be expected of you.
Travis Holland tells how to ring in the Chinese New Year
The Chinese New Year is a 15 day celebration, and it starts today. This is the Year of the Pig, so everyone needs to make it a good one for our favorite cuddly farm animal. To do the holiday justice, you should be well prepared.
Day One: Don’t eat meat unless you want a short and unhappy life.
Day Two: Be nice to dogs and give them a double scoop of Kibbles and Bits. Today is every dog’s birthday. Married daughters should visit their parents.
Day Three: Today is not a good day to visit. Everyone will be irritable from the fried food and relationships could suffer. Steer clear of friends and family or you’ll have some seriously bad luck.
Day Four: See Day Three.
Day Five: Today is Po Wu. Shoot fireworks. Don’t cut your hair unless you want to have the worst year ever.
Day Six: Pray and resume visiting friends and family. Jam your favorite Chinese music.
Day Seven: Today is going to be busy for farmers. First, they have to display all their produce. Then they have to make a drink from vegetables. After that they have to drink it. Today is also the birthday of all mankind, so order your cake well in advance. Eat noodles if you want a long life and raw fish if you care to be successful.
Day Eight: Sleep off Day Seven and have a family reunion.
Day Nine: Make your best offering to the Jade Emperor. Continue sleeping off Day Seven.
Day Ten: Today invite everyone you know to dinner, and feed them the best, most expensive food you can.
Day Eleven: Repeat Day Ten, but do it even bigger.
Day Twelve: Day Eleven x 2.
Day Thirteen: By now everyone is tired of the good food. Eat only rice and mustard greens.
Day Fourteen: Prepare for tomorrow’s blowout party.
Day Fifteen: Today is the lantern festival. Decorated lanterns will be everywhere, and people will run through the streets in paper dragons. This is also the Chinese Valentine’s Day, so cards and flowers may be expected of you.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Mardi Gras
The 20th is Mardi Gras.
Forget the tests. Forget the homework. Forget your professors.
The 20th is Mardi Gras.
If you plan on going crazy this year, try to do it in New Orleans. They've got their PR guys going full force on trying to bring some life and cash to the city. It's been a year and a half since Louisiana got rocked by Katrina, and since some of you are going to get wasted anyway, you might as well help out our neighbors to the east and party there.
Katrina costs the nation $84 billion. Put some of your alcohol money back into the system. Paint New Orleans red.
Try to get back safe, too.
Forget the tests. Forget the homework. Forget your professors.
The 20th is Mardi Gras.
If you plan on going crazy this year, try to do it in New Orleans. They've got their PR guys going full force on trying to bring some life and cash to the city. It's been a year and a half since Louisiana got rocked by Katrina, and since some of you are going to get wasted anyway, you might as well help out our neighbors to the east and party there.
Katrina costs the nation $84 billion. Put some of your alcohol money back into the system. Paint New Orleans red.
Try to get back safe, too.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
How I roll
Some of you may have noticed some changes on the opinion page. Some of you have voiced your concerns. Some of you more civilly than others.
There is method to the madness, people. I wasn't put in this position to piss you off; I leave that to my writers. I'm here to entertain and inform you — and to bring you back to the page time and time again.
Believe me when I say that more people are reading the opinion page than any other time in recent history. I'm proud of the page, and proud of my writers that made the page what it is.
But change does not happen overnight.
Does the page need more serious columns — more "hard-hitting" opinions? Yes, of course it does. I agree with those that say we need more serious topics on the page. It will happen. Three days an entire semester does not make. Relax with the red-alert "this is the worst opinion page in the history of the free world" attitude.
All I care about is making my readers happy. You are my readers. This page does not exist without your support, and the opinion page has got more readership now than I can remember it ever having. For that, I thank you guys.
However, I get a lot of e-mails asking for us to form opinions on stuff that the students "really care about." We've solicited you guys for ideas on what to cover before. Remember when we asked to send in the five most important things that bother/concern you at Texas A&M? We would have loved to turn that into a full-blown, week-long storyline.
Problem is, only four people responded. Don't tell us to run stuff you want to hear if you're not gonna tell us what that is. If this new style really offends you, then pick up last year's Battalion. That's not how we're going to do things here from now on. Ask yourself this — do you really want to hear about the Iraq war or latest in healthcare legislation every single day? If you do, pick up a Washington Times. We're a little more creative here. This is a college paper, and is thus open for experimentation. I know many people fear change, but change happens.
I've got two paid spots open for opinion writers. If you hate the opinion page, come change it.
There is method to the madness, people. I wasn't put in this position to piss you off; I leave that to my writers. I'm here to entertain and inform you — and to bring you back to the page time and time again.
Believe me when I say that more people are reading the opinion page than any other time in recent history. I'm proud of the page, and proud of my writers that made the page what it is.
But change does not happen overnight.
Does the page need more serious columns — more "hard-hitting" opinions? Yes, of course it does. I agree with those that say we need more serious topics on the page. It will happen. Three days an entire semester does not make. Relax with the red-alert "this is the worst opinion page in the history of the free world" attitude.
All I care about is making my readers happy. You are my readers. This page does not exist without your support, and the opinion page has got more readership now than I can remember it ever having. For that, I thank you guys.
However, I get a lot of e-mails asking for us to form opinions on stuff that the students "really care about." We've solicited you guys for ideas on what to cover before. Remember when we asked to send in the five most important things that bother/concern you at Texas A&M? We would have loved to turn that into a full-blown, week-long storyline.
Problem is, only four people responded. Don't tell us to run stuff you want to hear if you're not gonna tell us what that is. If this new style really offends you, then pick up last year's Battalion. That's not how we're going to do things here from now on. Ask yourself this — do you really want to hear about the Iraq war or latest in healthcare legislation every single day? If you do, pick up a Washington Times. We're a little more creative here. This is a college paper, and is thus open for experimentation. I know many people fear change, but change happens.
I've got two paid spots open for opinion writers. If you hate the opinion page, come change it.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Beat them at their own game
If you had told me before the game that Texas would score 82 points on us, I would've laughed in your face.
They did, and we still took it. Hung a century mark on their broken horns.
Given our mode of play, and how it favored the UT style of up-tempo offense all night long, it's nice to blow out the (supposedly) 25th best team in the nation when it's all said and done. Perhaps those analysts critical of our offensive punch will shut up for a while. We pushed it just as well as they could, and we did it in constant foul trouble.
Let's not forget how the refs were doing their best to make it a fair game. Kirk and Jones both foul out, and while Dickie is busy giving our eulogy, we show Texas just how deep our bench can be. Davis took up the slack when he had to, and Sloan puts up double digit points. We've answered two questions tonight: What about foul trouble? What about offensively explosive teams?
We've got the bench, and we can be just as explosive.
I know this is gonna sound silly, but it's almost like Gillispie saw how his team was running it's ass off, and seeing an opportunity to show the world what we're made of, he let them keep going. When we had to play D, we did, and we did it with ragtag rotations of people who kept coming in and out.
I can't wait to face Texas and Kansas in the Big XII tourney.
They did, and we still took it. Hung a century mark on their broken horns.
Given our mode of play, and how it favored the UT style of up-tempo offense all night long, it's nice to blow out the (supposedly) 25th best team in the nation when it's all said and done. Perhaps those analysts critical of our offensive punch will shut up for a while. We pushed it just as well as they could, and we did it in constant foul trouble.
Let's not forget how the refs were doing their best to make it a fair game. Kirk and Jones both foul out, and while Dickie is busy giving our eulogy, we show Texas just how deep our bench can be. Davis took up the slack when he had to, and Sloan puts up double digit points. We've answered two questions tonight: What about foul trouble? What about offensively explosive teams?
We've got the bench, and we can be just as explosive.
I know this is gonna sound silly, but it's almost like Gillispie saw how his team was running it's ass off, and seeing an opportunity to show the world what we're made of, he let them keep going. When we had to play D, we did, and we did it with ragtag rotations of people who kept coming in and out.
I can't wait to face Texas and Kansas in the Big XII tourney.
Digger's got it right
Amazing how two nights ago, all we heard about was how Acie is clutch. Now he's the best guard in the nation?
Time for everyone to get on the Law bandwagon.
Time for everyone to get on the Law bandwagon.
There's another commentator in here?
9:01 PM
Dickie finally gets the name right. About to have to schedule a pronounciation intervention.
Dickie finally gets the name right. About to have to schedule a pronounciation intervention.
Superstar allowance
Guess you can elbow people in the gut when you're the darling of the free world.
Three's vs. FT's
We are getting absolutely killed at the stripe.
18 to 2 advantage. Texas is cashing in their Salvation Army checks tonight.
Thanks be to the basketball gods that we're lighting it up on the 3's. 7 for 11.
18 to 2 advantage. Texas is cashing in their Salvation Army checks tonight.
Thanks be to the basketball gods that we're lighting it up on the 3's. 7 for 11.
Man to man vs. zone
If Texas keeps that zone up, we'll be picking them apart from the outside all night long.
If A&M keeps that man to man up, we'll be fouling all night long.
If A&M keeps that man to man up, we'll be fouling all night long.
What happens when you go national
The same plotlines are brought up over and over.
Expect to hear stuff about Law's near-transfer, his big shot vs. Texas, and how we sucked three years ago.
Expect to hear stuff about Law's near-transfer, his big shot vs. Texas, and how we sucked three years ago.
Stop. Fouling. Please.
Kirk's giving up six inches to Durant, and it shows.
Three fouls in ten minutes.
These refs must think this is a tea party. Let them play please.
Three fouls in ten minutes.
These refs must think this is a tea party. Let them play please.
Push it around
Durant praise count: Up to five
We're finally pushing the ball around. Keep the ball movement going.
We're finally pushing the ball around. Keep the ball movement going.
Gillispie and pace
Gillispie looks snazzy tonight, with his matching jacket and tie.
The team looks snazzy tonight, playing Texas's pace and winning.
We should slow it down a bit though, We need to slow it a bit though. Lock it down with a ten point lead.
The team looks snazzy tonight, playing Texas's pace and winning.
We should slow it down a bit though, We need to slow it a bit though. Lock it down with a ten point lead.
Dickie praise count
Up to two. "Best perimeter player in the nation."
Uh, no. Have you seen Marlon? Oh wait.
Uh, no. Have you seen Marlon? Oh wait.
Deaf Dickie
8:13 PM
All Vitale can apparently hear is his own voice.
Two minutes into the game, and we get a Kav-a-loo-skus.
Someone slap him over the head. There's no -loo in there.
All Vitale can apparently hear is his own voice.
Two minutes into the game, and we get a Kav-a-loo-skus.
Someone slap him over the head. There's no -loo in there.
Wait, he does what?
Good ol' Dickie.
"Durant can score."
No shit.
"Acie is good in the last five minutes."
No shit.
Tip-off prediction: Kav to Law.
"Durant can score."
No shit.
"Acie is good in the last five minutes."
No shit.
Tip-off prediction: Kav to Law.
The Law's in front
espn.com — I mean durant.com — front page. Law in front of the golden child from Texas.
Durant, times two
Forgot to mention, I'll be blogging this from TV
7:49 PM
-------
Cut to Reed, and to Durant. Sigh...
7:49 PM
-------
Cut to Reed, and to Durant. Sigh...
Game blog tonight - A&M vs. UT
I'll be blogging the game tonight real-time, limited only by my inability to type like someone with two arms.
6:49 PM
-------
In the Syracuse v. UConn game - the announcers mention how badass Durant is.
An hour before Durant's downfall, and ESPN is already fawning over their basketball Messiah.
6:49 PM
-------
In the Syracuse v. UConn game - the announcers mention how badass Durant is.
An hour before Durant's downfall, and ESPN is already fawning over their basketball Messiah.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
His picture is in the dictionary
I was going to set this spot aside to complain about students who are pawning off their tickets for mounds of ill-gotten cash, but after our win over Kansas, I can't find the heart to whine about anything.
Fact is, Billy Gillispie is so dominant, that "dominating" should be the only verb associated with the man.
He doesn't wake up in the morning - He's just done dominating his bed.
He doesn't check the weather before leaving for work - He dominates the remote, and then studies how to best dominate the most favorable route to work.
He doesn't eat breakfast - He dominates the most important meal of the day.
He doesn't leave for work - He dominates everything from point A to point B from the comfort of his car.
Guys, that Kansas win is the biggest win in school history, in my opinion. Who would've thought the first team to snap Kansas's home dominance against the Big XII South would be Texas A&M?
There are lot of reasons a team goes on a 17-4 run to finish the game off as winners, but mental toughness is the most paramount. This team does not quit. Period. Five down, ten down - it doesn't matter.
I'm convinced that even if the gaping maw of Hell erupted in midcourt to swallow all human life, Gillispie would have kept his team focused, and our all-American candidate would have still drained that shot.
Fact is, Billy Gillispie is so dominant, that "dominating" should be the only verb associated with the man.
He doesn't wake up in the morning - He's just done dominating his bed.
He doesn't check the weather before leaving for work - He dominates the remote, and then studies how to best dominate the most favorable route to work.
He doesn't eat breakfast - He dominates the most important meal of the day.
He doesn't leave for work - He dominates everything from point A to point B from the comfort of his car.
Guys, that Kansas win is the biggest win in school history, in my opinion. Who would've thought the first team to snap Kansas's home dominance against the Big XII South would be Texas A&M?
There are lot of reasons a team goes on a 17-4 run to finish the game off as winners, but mental toughness is the most paramount. This team does not quit. Period. Five down, ten down - it doesn't matter.
I'm convinced that even if the gaping maw of Hell erupted in midcourt to swallow all human life, Gillispie would have kept his team focused, and our all-American candidate would have still drained that shot.
Saturday, February 3, 2007
Acie Law is the King of Clutch
ACCCCCIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE LAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wait a second. Hold on.
ACCCCCIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE LAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wait a second. Hold on.
ACCCCCIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE LAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Fanning the flames
I said this once and I'm gonna say it again:
If Monday's game against UT is the first game you're attending, then you don't deserve to go. There are undoubtedly Aggies out there who have been screwed over by this lottery thing. There are now undoubtedly Aggies with a ticket who shouldn't be allowed in the building.
For you fair-weather fans: Our new-and-improved basketball program is in its infancy, and it needs support. Stop pretending that your presence at only one game equals fandom. It does not. Billy G. wants people at every game. Where have you been?
For those of you whining about student seating — Face it. Our basketball spirit isn't even close to Duke's, or Kansas's, or Kentucky's. You don't get more seating until we fill up non-conference games. Why would the athletics guys spend craploads of money on a program that the students have shown only lukewarm enthusiasm for thus far?
For those of you who have attended all (or most) of the games this season: I salute you. If you didn't get a ticket, then I'm pissed off for you.
Any fair ticket-pulling plan that wants to draw more people to non-conference games has to involve rewarding those who have attended all (or most) of the games. I don't care if you have a legitimate excuse for missing them, those who made the commitment to every event still deserve precedence over you.
And the fact that this is not the current system is the only thing I fault the athletics department for.
Was the UT ticket pull screwed up? Yeah, but athletic programs and procedures don't change overnight. None of you could probably have done any better, so grow up and recognize the growing pains. Be thankful that we have this problem, 'cause I bet 98 percent of you didn't give a damn about Aggie basketball two years ago.
So there was a communication breakdown. It happens, especially when you have several thousand people all jostling for the same thing while hearing conflicting messages about what is going on. From the mail calls I got, you'd think everyone from George Bush to communist martians were responsible for the fiasco. I've even heard people blame The Battalion for releasing the ticket-pulling information to the public. Good Lord people, are you not happy without blaming someone?
Maybe we can get an excessive whining clause added to the Aggie Code.
If Monday's game against UT is the first game you're attending, then you don't deserve to go. There are undoubtedly Aggies out there who have been screwed over by this lottery thing. There are now undoubtedly Aggies with a ticket who shouldn't be allowed in the building.
For you fair-weather fans: Our new-and-improved basketball program is in its infancy, and it needs support. Stop pretending that your presence at only one game equals fandom. It does not. Billy G. wants people at every game. Where have you been?
For those of you whining about student seating — Face it. Our basketball spirit isn't even close to Duke's, or Kansas's, or Kentucky's. You don't get more seating until we fill up non-conference games. Why would the athletics guys spend craploads of money on a program that the students have shown only lukewarm enthusiasm for thus far?
For those of you who have attended all (or most) of the games this season: I salute you. If you didn't get a ticket, then I'm pissed off for you.
Any fair ticket-pulling plan that wants to draw more people to non-conference games has to involve rewarding those who have attended all (or most) of the games. I don't care if you have a legitimate excuse for missing them, those who made the commitment to every event still deserve precedence over you.
And the fact that this is not the current system is the only thing I fault the athletics department for.
Was the UT ticket pull screwed up? Yeah, but athletic programs and procedures don't change overnight. None of you could probably have done any better, so grow up and recognize the growing pains. Be thankful that we have this problem, 'cause I bet 98 percent of you didn't give a damn about Aggie basketball two years ago.
So there was a communication breakdown. It happens, especially when you have several thousand people all jostling for the same thing while hearing conflicting messages about what is going on. From the mail calls I got, you'd think everyone from George Bush to communist martians were responsible for the fiasco. I've even heard people blame The Battalion for releasing the ticket-pulling information to the public. Good Lord people, are you not happy without blaming someone?
Maybe we can get an excessive whining clause added to the Aggie Code.
This is how the world ends
So Chris (the multimedia editor) and I were out reporting on the ticket pull mosh pit last night. He did all the important stuff, and I followed him around like a pet chimpanzee. We may have talked to you. You may have been drunk.
Anyway, there are two things that really irked me about the whole stampede.
TS apparently decided to further its plan to absorb all the money in the world by posting parking ticket guys in the trees. I swear I saw them spring from the bowels of the Earth to strike at people parked in the bike lane. TS should just build treehouses for their ticket-robots and order them to jump on passing cars. That would solidify their reign of terror.
By the way, if you were one of the guys Chris and I saw argue with the TS dude over a ticket, thanks for the laugh. I assume you guys are freshmen; you'll eventually come to realize that only the tears of a baby seal can persuade a TS guy from sticking you with a citation.
Also, Chris and I ran into a few students who hadn't attended a basketball game so far this season. Apparently they thought they deserved a ticket even though they hadn't supported the team since the start of the season.
To those people: I sincerely hope you have to watch the game at home.
The season doesn't start with UT, and it doesn't end with UT. I'd like to think Billy G. would have some choice words for those of you who think that sitting out 95 percent of the season and freaking out over one, not-so-important game is how to show your spirit.
You want more student seating?
You want more respect for your team?
You want to shake off the image of a bandwagon student body?
Then you need to fight tooth-and-nail for every single freakin' ticket you can get, no matter the opponent. Texas isn't the only obstacle in our way to college basketball dominance.
Anyway, there are two things that really irked me about the whole stampede.
TS apparently decided to further its plan to absorb all the money in the world by posting parking ticket guys in the trees. I swear I saw them spring from the bowels of the Earth to strike at people parked in the bike lane. TS should just build treehouses for their ticket-robots and order them to jump on passing cars. That would solidify their reign of terror.
By the way, if you were one of the guys Chris and I saw argue with the TS dude over a ticket, thanks for the laugh. I assume you guys are freshmen; you'll eventually come to realize that only the tears of a baby seal can persuade a TS guy from sticking you with a citation.
Also, Chris and I ran into a few students who hadn't attended a basketball game so far this season. Apparently they thought they deserved a ticket even though they hadn't supported the team since the start of the season.
To those people: I sincerely hope you have to watch the game at home.
The season doesn't start with UT, and it doesn't end with UT. I'd like to think Billy G. would have some choice words for those of you who think that sitting out 95 percent of the season and freaking out over one, not-so-important game is how to show your spirit.
You want more student seating?
You want more respect for your team?
You want to shake off the image of a bandwagon student body?
Then you need to fight tooth-and-nail for every single freakin' ticket you can get, no matter the opponent. Texas isn't the only obstacle in our way to college basketball dominance.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Give me mail plz
Guys, if you want mail call, you have to send it.
You need a starting point?
Smoking is for nerds. Discuss.
You need a starting point?
Smoking is for nerds. Discuss.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Welcome
Howdy Ags!
This is Kevin Alexander, a junior English major and the editor of the opinion page. Basically, when you get pissed at the paper, I'm the guy who's typically the cause. If you have a suggestion, death threat or are completely inebriated and feel like dropping a compliment concerning the page, I'm the dude you talk to. If you have any mail containing explosive devices, please send it to our multimedia editor; he handles that stuff.
Some of you are probably wondering what this little plot in cyberspace will be used for. I don't know yet. Spare columns, fresh commentary or interaction between students and The Battalion are all possibilities I'd like to take advantage of. Ideally, you'll be able to come here for an Aggie take on current issues and stuff, and maybe you'll get the occasional news tidbit before it hits the paper, complete with poignant wit. We aim to please here.
That all said, I'd like to keep this initial post light. I have plenty of time to alienate my audience — might as well show some patience.
I'd like to explain what I do, and why I like doing what I do, and dispell some of the misconceptions some of you may have about The Battalion.
As the opinion editor, it's my job to handle all of the opinion writers and devise the most efficient way to drive an anarchist agenda. I set deadlines, plan and design pages. I usually put in around 40 hours a week into the paper, so if you spot someone who looks like they just crawled out of prison, chances are it's me.
I don't like introductions. They always feel pretty forced to me, so this post ain't exactly Steinbeckian, but it's necessary. I want to put a face and name on the paper that many of you reed everyday. I, and everyone else here at The Battalion is a student, including the editor-in-chief. We'd like to think we're in touch with you guys, but we sure as hell ain't perfect. Did you notice the typo three sentences ago? Case in point.
Also, if there is an overall political slant on my page, I'm not aware of it. We have conservative writers, as you're probably aware, and we have liberals, as you're also probably aware. For the record, I'm a libertarian, so I don't really get along with anyone. You can send hate mail to mailcall@thebattalion.net. Please include the words "Mail Call" in the subject. We get lots of spam here. Mostly about "male enhancement."
However, if any of you readers out there feel you can do a better job than any of my writers, then drop on by. I've got three paid spots going to the three people who show up first. No journalism experience required. Like I said, I'm an English major, which has about as much in common with journalism as building cardboard boxes does with saving the world from meteors.
Potential opinion page writers must be willing to learn, and take orders from someone who once bet his younger brother in a poker game.
This is Kevin Alexander, a junior English major and the editor of the opinion page. Basically, when you get pissed at the paper, I'm the guy who's typically the cause. If you have a suggestion, death threat or are completely inebriated and feel like dropping a compliment concerning the page, I'm the dude you talk to. If you have any mail containing explosive devices, please send it to our multimedia editor; he handles that stuff.
Some of you are probably wondering what this little plot in cyberspace will be used for. I don't know yet. Spare columns, fresh commentary or interaction between students and The Battalion are all possibilities I'd like to take advantage of. Ideally, you'll be able to come here for an Aggie take on current issues and stuff, and maybe you'll get the occasional news tidbit before it hits the paper, complete with poignant wit. We aim to please here.
That all said, I'd like to keep this initial post light. I have plenty of time to alienate my audience — might as well show some patience.
I'd like to explain what I do, and why I like doing what I do, and dispell some of the misconceptions some of you may have about The Battalion.
As the opinion editor, it's my job to handle all of the opinion writers and devise the most efficient way to drive an anarchist agenda. I set deadlines, plan and design pages. I usually put in around 40 hours a week into the paper, so if you spot someone who looks like they just crawled out of prison, chances are it's me.
I don't like introductions. They always feel pretty forced to me, so this post ain't exactly Steinbeckian, but it's necessary. I want to put a face and name on the paper that many of you reed everyday. I, and everyone else here at The Battalion is a student, including the editor-in-chief. We'd like to think we're in touch with you guys, but we sure as hell ain't perfect. Did you notice the typo three sentences ago? Case in point.
Also, if there is an overall political slant on my page, I'm not aware of it. We have conservative writers, as you're probably aware, and we have liberals, as you're also probably aware. For the record, I'm a libertarian, so I don't really get along with anyone. You can send hate mail to mailcall@thebattalion.net. Please include the words "Mail Call" in the subject. We get lots of spam here. Mostly about "male enhancement."
However, if any of you readers out there feel you can do a better job than any of my writers, then drop on by. I've got three paid spots going to the three people who show up first. No journalism experience required. Like I said, I'm an English major, which has about as much in common with journalism as building cardboard boxes does with saving the world from meteors.
Potential opinion page writers must be willing to learn, and take orders from someone who once bet his younger brother in a poker game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)