Copy and paste of a blog by Joe Mathlete. (NOT ME!)
http://joemathlete.blogspot.com/
The following is a series of text messages I received this Thanksgiving, while I was at my parents' house. We ate a little after 3:00, so keep in mind that for a lot of this I was sitting next to my grandpa, trying not to be rude (to my credit, my phone was at least on vibrate).
1:55 PM
I do have strong feelings for you…and as odd as i keep telling myself that is…i still do. When i went out with jeff it was because i convinced myself
1:56 PM
razy to wear my heart out in the open like i do and like you so much and want to only court you right from the start…but that’s who i am. Im fairytales
1:59 PM
and crazytown. And when it didn’t seem like you were, i did go out and see other boys and put my walls up towards you…
2:13 PM
ey really really wanted to be around me. i never had any other reasons and if i felt that you felt and wanted the same with me as I did with you I wouldn
2:16 PM
you will meet…all i know is i cant help but think of you. i was at my aunts with my friends and family all day having so much fun! Drinking and cookin
2:17 PM
I didnt expect me to go out and date and you not to, i just expected to make myself not feel for you and move on by showing myself boys who acted like th
2:30 PM
And because i want to be honest, i have spent 2 nights in a bed with jeff since ive dated him this time. We didnt have sex. I didnt touch him at all. Bu
3:04 PM
ut i feel right in my actions because of your tone with me (on a regular basis) and your actions. I appreciate so very much that you would invite me to d
3:11 PM
You are as bi polar as a polar bear. Be kind to me or dont. It cant be both anymore...i would also likd to say im sorry i was so quick to write you off b
3:12 PM
inner with travie trav and his parents but how was i supposed to know? You spoke to me and acted as if i would be lucky to see you ever...
3:39 PM
k of you when im trying to think of anything but you. Ive thought of you since i first met you...there has to be something to that. I know you think im c
3:47 PM
that i didnt want to like someone (you) so much when they could just take or leave me. I needed more assurance than that if my heart was already falling
3:49 PM
for you . So i went out with him on the full intention of never having feelings for you again. But here i am... He kissed me and i thought of you. I thin
3:51 PM
g and i just kept thinking of you. Jeff came over to my aunts later that night to hang out and drink and still i thought of you. I spent last weekend mos
3:52 PM
tly at home or with my family. ..not boys...i'm not the crazy girl you imagine. I just am crazy about you. And the way you treat me drives me crazy!
3:58 PM
t go out and see others just because we disagreed or whatever...thats definately not who i am. When im shown respect and honesty, im the most loyal puppy
3:59 PM
and surprise surprise. I thought of you. You ass...happy thanksgiving zach.
4:04 PM
t the first night (when i planned on having nothing to do with you ever again)He touched me over my jeans but my shirt and bra were off...it was awful...
4:11 PM
I just read that and it sounds like rape or something. it wasnt...it was nice actually but you know what i mean
9:19 PM
*Duplicate*
Zombihe! Are you amapzing time!
And now, here are my responses:
2:00 PM
Who is this? I think you have the wrong number
3:04 PM
PLEASE STOP TEXTING ME. YOU HAVE THE WRONG NUMBER.
4:13 PM
Why am I still getting text messages from you? who is zach? for christ's sake, YOU HAVE GOT THE WRONG NUMBER
Thank you to Verizon Wireless and their innovative "William Burroughs" method of text-message delivery. Also to the unknown teenage girl who transformed my otherwise-pleasant Thanksgiving into a Kafka-esque technological farce.
30.11.07
25.11.07
Gloom Rules
Ever heard of Bret Easton Ellis? He's a contemporary of Chuck Palahniuk (Fight Club), and wrote the book American Psycho, which was made into a movie staring Christian Bale. 
I own all of Bret Easton Ellis's books. I have tried to read every single one, and gotten bored/frustrated/disgusted by the tenth page. My last attempt was Bret's book Less Than Zero.
As I expected, it was boring, but I kept reading. The main character is Clay, an 18-year old college student who returns from New Hampshire to Los Angeles. He's rich, arrogant and addicted to cocaine. He feels nothing and does whatever he wants. The first fifty pages was a boring trudge through nothing. Nothing, nothing, nothing. But as soon as I reached page 51. . . things took off.
I realized that Ellis was creating a deep, symbolic build-up for one of the most amazing books I have ever read. Instantly, the book becomes gripping, mind-blowing even. Clay reminds me of myself, a dark side that I have, where I have "almost" everything I want, where I stop feeling and even death, rape, prostitution doesn't bother me. As he goes to party after party after party, takes snort of coke after snort after snort, as I watch him deteriorate, something beautiful grows inside me. I am facing myself, overcoming myself.
Don't read this book. Watch the movie, or stop caring altogether. I think only a select few will understand the symbolism in this book, something I can't explain in a mere book review. You'd have to read it, and you won't.
Bret Easton Ellis said "I read it for the first time in about 20 years this year—recently. It wasn't so bad. I get it. I get fan mail now from people who weren't really born yet when the book came out. I don't think it's a perfect book by any means, but it's valid. I get where it comes from. I get what it is."
He wrote the book in 1985 when he was 19.
I own all of Bret Easton Ellis's books. I have tried to read every single one, and gotten bored/frustrated/disgusted by the tenth page. My last attempt was Bret's book Less Than Zero.
As I expected, it was boring, but I kept reading. The main character is Clay, an 18-year old college student who returns from New Hampshire to Los Angeles. He's rich, arrogant and addicted to cocaine. He feels nothing and does whatever he wants. The first fifty pages was a boring trudge through nothing. Nothing, nothing, nothing. But as soon as I reached page 51. . . things took off.
I realized that Ellis was creating a deep, symbolic build-up for one of the most amazing books I have ever read. Instantly, the book becomes gripping, mind-blowing even. Clay reminds me of myself, a dark side that I have, where I have "almost" everything I want, where I stop feeling and even death, rape, prostitution doesn't bother me. As he goes to party after party after party, takes snort of coke after snort after snort, as I watch him deteriorate, something beautiful grows inside me. I am facing myself, overcoming myself.
Don't read this book. Watch the movie, or stop caring altogether. I think only a select few will understand the symbolism in this book, something I can't explain in a mere book review. You'd have to read it, and you won't.
Bret Easton Ellis said "I read it for the first time in about 20 years this year—recently. It wasn't so bad. I get it. I get fan mail now from people who weren't really born yet when the book came out. I don't think it's a perfect book by any means, but it's valid. I get where it comes from. I get what it is."
He wrote the book in 1985 when he was 19.
15.11.07
The Role of Journalism in Democracy
I’m a pacifist and so is my friend who is majoring in Nuclear Physics. In the future, he will help design rockets, missiles and other nasty projectiles. He once told me he felt guilty that he is going to help create weapons of mass destruction, and I told him to shut up. I’m majoring in journalism, I said, and words have killed way more people than bombs ever have.
Perhaps people have forgotten how potent the press can be. Long, bloody wars have been started because of the written word. The Yellow Press encouraged the Spanish-American War. Mein Kampf was Hitler’s ladder to power. The Communist Manifesto gave Lenin the push he needed. Yes, in the wrong hands, the written word has killed many.
Indeed, journalists need to be mindful of what they publish. It is often all too easy to influence the world with even the simplest reporting. In recent history there have been enumerous junk science reports that caused panic over nothing. Examples are SARS, the West Nile Virus, Anthrax, the Y2K virus, and the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
All of these scares had some truth in them, that’s for certain, but it doesn’t explain why all of these issues were blown out of proportion. The consequences were loss of large amounts of money and at times, loss of life.
The role of journalism in a democratic society is to report the truth, with minimal harm, and no outside interest. It should also be held accountable to its readers. Journalists are not filling this role by reporting half-truths that send people into a panic.
Those in the media will apologize for spelling and grammatical errors, but no one apologized for these outrageous hypes. The media continues to go unchecked, still spreading fear and propaganda without remorse. Perhaps these are all innocent mistakes, but that doesn’t change what happened.
I don’t think issues are exaggerated on purpose. I do think the media needs to man up their mistakes. If an issue was not a threat as previously thought, apologize. Next time, be careful how you word or place your article. There may be a range of ideas why the media doesn’t do this. First, it may make them seem without credibility. Second, reporting mistakes doesn’t grab as many viewers or readers as reporting an incredible new threat. If you want to make money, advertise something that scares people into buying it.
If this is done unintentionally, it could be a simple matter of what events get the most coverage, the slant and tone of a story, where the subject is published, and how it is treated graphically. The best way to illustrate this is to give an example.
Second to the Iraq invasion, global warming is the biggest issue in today’s news. It often gets more coverage than suicide bombings or genocide. The focus is no longer on lives being lost on foreign soil, but on the weather, of all things.
From a scientific point of view, the earth has been warming, but a little more than a degree. The theory is that levels of carbon dioxide, which are released into the air by car exhaust or coal power plants are causing the planet to heat. This is a problem because the polar ice caps will melt and flood the planet, although this detail is incorrect because melting sea ice does not actually raise ocean levels.
No one knows whether the earth is being warmed by human activity or not. There is no proof either way. Still, the media presents this issue one-sided and does not address the other holes in this theory.
The Earth’s atmosphere is a combination of Nitrogen and Oxygen, which makes up 99 percent of it. The other gases are argon, neon, helium, krypton, xenon, and hydrogen. These are labeled as permanent gases while water vapor, ozone, aerosols, nitrous oxides, methane and carbon dioxide are labeled variable gases.
Carbon dioxide makes up 0.0375 percent of the atmosphere. To picture this, imagine you had 10 liters of black sand that averages you about 1.5 million grains. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is equal to 3 grains of sand, or 1 per 500,000 grains. Can levels of something so small really be the cause of a global epidemic? Well, if levels are rising, perhaps. But are they rising? Do not forget, CO2 levels fluxuate as well as the average global temperature. No one on either side can generalize, because we do not know enough about our own environment.
Simply put, no one knows what is causing global warming, and no one knows if “greenhouse gases” cause it either. We know that the earth has risen in temperature by one degree. Is that really so big that everyone should panic and drive hybrids?
There isn’t a lot of conclusive data on global warming, yet the media continues to publish data about it as if it were fact and not speculation or theory. Even attempts at diversifying the issue are poor. I reference the August 13th, 2007 article “The Truth About Denial” in Newsweek. The article called itself a balanced look at the debate on global warming and was anything but fair. It attacked anyone who was a “global warming denier” as either stupid, ignoring facts, or that their research was funded by industry.
The irony in all this is that none of the “deniers” claimed global warming was nonexistent, just not caused by human beings. So far, this is true. According to Newsmax, “the expenditure of more than $U.S.50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one." It goes on to say that skeptics receive only $19 million in funding a year. Compare that to the $50 billion other climatologists receive and it doesn’t seem like “balanced journalism” to be pointing fingers about funding.
This article is only one example of an entire movement of incorrect portrayal of the facts. The November 11, 2007 edition of the Arizona Republic was another such article about global warming skeptics. The newspaper painted them as people who are ignoring facts and hyping on details. It was a front page article that took precedence over six United States troops being killed in Afghanistan. That’s right, opinion is more front-page news than human life.
In general, this type of reporting on global warming clearly goes against the SBJ Code of Ethics. This type of reporting does not “test the accuracy of information from all sources” or “exercise care to avoid inadvertent error.” This type of reporting does not “support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant”. This type of reporting does not “distinguish between advocacy and news reporting”. I find reporting like this dangerous and irresponsible, if it’s reporting at all.
Unless newspapers change their attitude about how they report global warming it will just be like with Y2K, everyone panicking, buying up the bottled water, bunkering down for a non-existent crisis. The role of a newspaper in Democracy is to report fact as fact, speculation as speculation and hold itself responsible for what it publishes. If not, we can expect the same cycles of fear and embarrassment, we can expect large loss of money, we can even expect the loss of life. The fact is, the power of writing is not something to take lightly.
Sources:
Blodgett, H. Robert & Keller, Edward A.,(2006). Natural Hazards. Pearson Education, Inc.
McKinnon, Shaun. (2007, November 11). Skeptics Raise Doubt on Global Warming. The Arizona Republic, p. 1
Morano, Mark. (2007, August 6). Newsweek’s Global Warming Blunder. Newsmax,. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/6/100434.shtml.
Purtill, Corinne. (2007, November 11). Outspoken ASU Prof draws ire. The Arizona Republic, p. 1
Walsh, Bryan (2007, October 15).Meltdown. Time, 170, 16.
Perhaps people have forgotten how potent the press can be. Long, bloody wars have been started because of the written word. The Yellow Press encouraged the Spanish-American War. Mein Kampf was Hitler’s ladder to power. The Communist Manifesto gave Lenin the push he needed. Yes, in the wrong hands, the written word has killed many.
Indeed, journalists need to be mindful of what they publish. It is often all too easy to influence the world with even the simplest reporting. In recent history there have been enumerous junk science reports that caused panic over nothing. Examples are SARS, the West Nile Virus, Anthrax, the Y2K virus, and the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
All of these scares had some truth in them, that’s for certain, but it doesn’t explain why all of these issues were blown out of proportion. The consequences were loss of large amounts of money and at times, loss of life.
The role of journalism in a democratic society is to report the truth, with minimal harm, and no outside interest. It should also be held accountable to its readers. Journalists are not filling this role by reporting half-truths that send people into a panic.
Those in the media will apologize for spelling and grammatical errors, but no one apologized for these outrageous hypes. The media continues to go unchecked, still spreading fear and propaganda without remorse. Perhaps these are all innocent mistakes, but that doesn’t change what happened.
I don’t think issues are exaggerated on purpose. I do think the media needs to man up their mistakes. If an issue was not a threat as previously thought, apologize. Next time, be careful how you word or place your article. There may be a range of ideas why the media doesn’t do this. First, it may make them seem without credibility. Second, reporting mistakes doesn’t grab as many viewers or readers as reporting an incredible new threat. If you want to make money, advertise something that scares people into buying it.
If this is done unintentionally, it could be a simple matter of what events get the most coverage, the slant and tone of a story, where the subject is published, and how it is treated graphically. The best way to illustrate this is to give an example.
Second to the Iraq invasion, global warming is the biggest issue in today’s news. It often gets more coverage than suicide bombings or genocide. The focus is no longer on lives being lost on foreign soil, but on the weather, of all things.
From a scientific point of view, the earth has been warming, but a little more than a degree. The theory is that levels of carbon dioxide, which are released into the air by car exhaust or coal power plants are causing the planet to heat. This is a problem because the polar ice caps will melt and flood the planet, although this detail is incorrect because melting sea ice does not actually raise ocean levels.
No one knows whether the earth is being warmed by human activity or not. There is no proof either way. Still, the media presents this issue one-sided and does not address the other holes in this theory.
The Earth’s atmosphere is a combination of Nitrogen and Oxygen, which makes up 99 percent of it. The other gases are argon, neon, helium, krypton, xenon, and hydrogen. These are labeled as permanent gases while water vapor, ozone, aerosols, nitrous oxides, methane and carbon dioxide are labeled variable gases.
Carbon dioxide makes up 0.0375 percent of the atmosphere. To picture this, imagine you had 10 liters of black sand that averages you about 1.5 million grains. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is equal to 3 grains of sand, or 1 per 500,000 grains. Can levels of something so small really be the cause of a global epidemic? Well, if levels are rising, perhaps. But are they rising? Do not forget, CO2 levels fluxuate as well as the average global temperature. No one on either side can generalize, because we do not know enough about our own environment.
Simply put, no one knows what is causing global warming, and no one knows if “greenhouse gases” cause it either. We know that the earth has risen in temperature by one degree. Is that really so big that everyone should panic and drive hybrids?
There isn’t a lot of conclusive data on global warming, yet the media continues to publish data about it as if it were fact and not speculation or theory. Even attempts at diversifying the issue are poor. I reference the August 13th, 2007 article “The Truth About Denial” in Newsweek. The article called itself a balanced look at the debate on global warming and was anything but fair. It attacked anyone who was a “global warming denier” as either stupid, ignoring facts, or that their research was funded by industry.
The irony in all this is that none of the “deniers” claimed global warming was nonexistent, just not caused by human beings. So far, this is true. According to Newsmax, “the expenditure of more than $U.S.50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one." It goes on to say that skeptics receive only $19 million in funding a year. Compare that to the $50 billion other climatologists receive and it doesn’t seem like “balanced journalism” to be pointing fingers about funding.
This article is only one example of an entire movement of incorrect portrayal of the facts. The November 11, 2007 edition of the Arizona Republic was another such article about global warming skeptics. The newspaper painted them as people who are ignoring facts and hyping on details. It was a front page article that took precedence over six United States troops being killed in Afghanistan. That’s right, opinion is more front-page news than human life.
In general, this type of reporting on global warming clearly goes against the SBJ Code of Ethics. This type of reporting does not “test the accuracy of information from all sources” or “exercise care to avoid inadvertent error.” This type of reporting does not “support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant”. This type of reporting does not “distinguish between advocacy and news reporting”. I find reporting like this dangerous and irresponsible, if it’s reporting at all.
Unless newspapers change their attitude about how they report global warming it will just be like with Y2K, everyone panicking, buying up the bottled water, bunkering down for a non-existent crisis. The role of a newspaper in Democracy is to report fact as fact, speculation as speculation and hold itself responsible for what it publishes. If not, we can expect the same cycles of fear and embarrassment, we can expect large loss of money, we can even expect the loss of life. The fact is, the power of writing is not something to take lightly.
Sources:
Blodgett, H. Robert & Keller, Edward A.,(2006). Natural Hazards. Pearson Education, Inc.
McKinnon, Shaun. (2007, November 11). Skeptics Raise Doubt on Global Warming. The Arizona Republic, p. 1
Morano, Mark. (2007, August 6). Newsweek’s Global Warming Blunder. Newsmax,. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/6/100434.shtml.
Purtill, Corinne. (2007, November 11). Outspoken ASU Prof draws ire. The Arizona Republic, p. 1
Walsh, Bryan (2007, October 15).Meltdown. Time, 170, 16.
7.11.07
Maintenance
In an elevator someone scribbled, "I wrote on the wall. Take that society!" I burst out laughing, and the other people in the elevator gave me looks. I liked the writing, but disagree with it's more subtle meaning. I think that graffiti is more than just a pathetic swing at society and it CAN change things.
For example, the longest recorded piece of graffiti was a 4,000 character essay written in the bathroom of a Chinese college in 1915. The artist criticized the college and the state of Chinese society. He turned himself in, was paraded around the school, and was threatened with expulsion. The student was Chairman Mao, who later founded the People's Republic of China and was responsible for the deaths of 30 million people.
How about a more personal example? The communal bathroom in my dorm used to be a women's room. It's now shared by 70+ men, and has only two stalls. No urinals, and only four showers. The people in my hall enjoy missing the toilet, no matter what they expel: piss, shit, or vomit. The lock on one of the filthy doors was dismantled, providing no privacy for that stall. It's been that way for two months, and I finally got sick of it.
I wrote with my left hand, (to disguise my handwriting), "What are we paying you for? Fix the fucking door!"
I wrote the date, to see how long it took to fix. Less than 24-hours. [SEE PRETTY PIKTURES].
If you still need proof that graffiti changes things, read Daniel Chapter 5. Probably one of my favorite stories in the Bible, as you probably already know. But I don't want to spoil it. Read it.
I don't think graffiti is all that wrong. To a certain degree, it's disrespectful, but not sinful. My actions do raise some questions however.
1. Why didn't I just report the broken lock? Oh, that would have been easier, and far less effective. If you've had to deal with NAU administration the way I have, you'd already know this. If you want to be listened to, you have to shout. Which raises the next question.
2. Is the word "fucking" necessary? Oh yes. Very. I pondered this act for about two weeks before I did it. Word choice was not an accident. Personally, I never cared. I poop on the second floor anyway. It's a more private, clean and quiet bathroom. I only wrote this to see the effectiveness of my message, and to prove the point in this blog. I could have been polite, but that would lessen the notice's potency. That is why no one gives a "shit" about the "PEACE PLEASE" sticker campaign all over campus. It's too nice. If I had wrote, "Please fix the door LOL" I can guarantee you that door would still be busted. Your message has to be strong to get attention.
There are two parts to graffiti; the message and the medium. My medium was permanent marker, which is easy to remove. It's gone with a daub of nail polish remover. Other mediums are stickers or wheatpasting which you can remove with water and a blow dryer. Spray paint is probably the hardest thing to remove, second to engraving. You either have to paint over it, or powerwash it off. Both the message and the medium are equally important. Neither one can be weak or inappropriate.
3. Who exactly are you arguing with? Good question. Am I banging my head against a brick wall or debating with scribbles in an elevator? I'm really just tired of those pathetic people who won't stand up for themselves and say they can't make a difference in the world. I want to prove to those poor saps that you can change something, all you need is a wall and a paintcan to be your voice. The question is, what are you going to write?
The last thing was this: An idle warning. But as I already said, I don't even poop there. And I won't write on anymore walls, because my message has already been delivered.
For example, the longest recorded piece of graffiti was a 4,000 character essay written in the bathroom of a Chinese college in 1915. The artist criticized the college and the state of Chinese society. He turned himself in, was paraded around the school, and was threatened with expulsion. The student was Chairman Mao, who later founded the People's Republic of China and was responsible for the deaths of 30 million people.
How about a more personal example? The communal bathroom in my dorm used to be a women's room. It's now shared by 70+ men, and has only two stalls. No urinals, and only four showers. The people in my hall enjoy missing the toilet, no matter what they expel: piss, shit, or vomit. The lock on one of the filthy doors was dismantled, providing no privacy for that stall. It's been that way for two months, and I finally got sick of it.
I wrote with my left hand, (to disguise my handwriting), "What are we paying you for? Fix the fucking door!"
I wrote the date, to see how long it took to fix. Less than 24-hours. [SEE PRETTY PIKTURES].
If you still need proof that graffiti changes things, read Daniel Chapter 5. Probably one of my favorite stories in the Bible, as you probably already know. But I don't want to spoil it. Read it.
I don't think graffiti is all that wrong. To a certain degree, it's disrespectful, but not sinful. My actions do raise some questions however.
1. Why didn't I just report the broken lock? Oh, that would have been easier, and far less effective. If you've had to deal with NAU administration the way I have, you'd already know this. If you want to be listened to, you have to shout. Which raises the next question.
2. Is the word "fucking" necessary? Oh yes. Very. I pondered this act for about two weeks before I did it. Word choice was not an accident. Personally, I never cared. I poop on the second floor anyway. It's a more private, clean and quiet bathroom. I only wrote this to see the effectiveness of my message, and to prove the point in this blog. I could have been polite, but that would lessen the notice's potency. That is why no one gives a "shit" about the "PEACE PLEASE" sticker campaign all over campus. It's too nice. If I had wrote, "Please fix the door LOL" I can guarantee you that door would still be busted. Your message has to be strong to get attention.
There are two parts to graffiti; the message and the medium. My medium was permanent marker, which is easy to remove. It's gone with a daub of nail polish remover. Other mediums are stickers or wheatpasting which you can remove with water and a blow dryer. Spray paint is probably the hardest thing to remove, second to engraving. You either have to paint over it, or powerwash it off. Both the message and the medium are equally important. Neither one can be weak or inappropriate.
3. Who exactly are you arguing with? Good question. Am I banging my head against a brick wall or debating with scribbles in an elevator? I'm really just tired of those pathetic people who won't stand up for themselves and say they can't make a difference in the world. I want to prove to those poor saps that you can change something, all you need is a wall and a paintcan to be your voice. The question is, what are you going to write?
The last thing was this: An idle warning. But as I already said, I don't even poop there. And I won't write on anymore walls, because my message has already been delivered.
6.11.07
Things You Can Ponder
SEX
DEATH
GAMES
INFINITY
MARRIAGE
PARTIES
WORK
RELIGION
FOOD
CHILDREN
GHOSTS
NOTHINGALL OF THE ABOVE:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)