You’ve heard the joke by now, but if you haven’t, Conan O’Brien refers to YouTube, MySpace and Twitter (“YouTwitFace”) as super time-wasting websites. The majority of us would be embarrassed to find out what percentage of our lives has been lost to the mutual attention-whoring and stalking of our peers. You could have been studying or parasailing or engaging in actual human interaction. In the name of honesty, I’m as guilty as anyone and making absolutely no effort to fix it.

Attention-whoring and stalking are codependent. An attention whore must post the YouTube video of her acoustic “Material Girl” cover, post the URL to her MySpace and create a fan page for herself on Facebook in order to be stalked. Therefore, it could technically be argued that the subject in stalkage was asking for it, but I’m still not sure if I would label it as fair game.

All I know is in the pre-Internet period, you’d have to do an automobile drive-by to find out if your ex was home on a Friday night. Indisputably creepy? Yes, but it was the only way.

We all know attention whores; they have existed in every time and place of mankind’s subsistence. The ones we know personally are small-time. The Jons and Kates are big-time. And they’re gross.

Technology advances so fast in our world that there are more channels of communication than we honestly need. These increased channels make it easier than ever to be an attention whore, and as a result, the whorishness has become epidemic. Things used to be simple. There was a time when people read newspapers, sent postal mail, and minded their own business. But those days are gone, man.

The stalking isn’t always even voluntary. I had to defriend a former high school classmate of mine after I couldn’t take the Facebook status updates anymore. This chick was hardcore. She would update roughly every four hours or so, almost always about her dog. In addition to a “like” function, there should also be a “nobody gives a fuck” one to even the score.

The Internet is a wonderful tool, and like all wonderful tools, they’re only wonderful until some dramatic moron comes along and insists on writing three times a week that they’ve had the worst day of all time. Worse than the Titanic on April 15, 1912. Worse than Hugh Grant on June 27, 1995. Worse than the Red Sox on January 3, 1920. Yeah, I said it; the Yankees thank you for Babe Ruth.

The likes of Skype and AIM make it easier to stay in touch with those who decide to fly the coop and party hardy in a foreign country for a quarter, so it’s arguably a fab networking tool on the pro side.

In a nutshell, everything is more accessible now. We expect more because we can have more. The Internet makes for a consistent stream of information: If a politician gets caught with his pants down, as they always do, you’ll know about it immediately, and with blogs and Twitters, you’ll also know everyone’s opinion on it. Shit, son, I had to get a Twitter because it’s not right that Arlen Specter had one when I didn’t. The dude is 79.

It’s true that we’re in the most connected age yet, but we can only communicate with people so much before it becomes excessive. It’s one thing to know about somebody and another thing to know them.

The net can tell you about any given person, but it’s only through going old school and spending time with them that you can understand what they’re really like. Knowing someone’s favorite band only because it’s listed on their MySpace is cheating. So get out there and hit up some quad Frisbee with your lovers before it gets too damn cold.

MICHELLE RICK believes the best parts of life don’t involve a computer unless you’re an Internet porn addict, which she hopes isn’t the case. Agree/disagree at marick@ucdavis.edu, or just tweet your opinion and hope you’re on her stalk list.

I’m no good at Halloween. My costumes are usually lackluster, and my adventures are nothing to boast of – nothing that wouldn’t happen on an average Saturday. This past Halloween, however, I made it a point to change all of that for you, my readers.

It started off simple: four friends, two liters of grain alcohol and four identical Chewbacca costumes. Things got really weird when this guy Gustave from Luxembourg crashed our party with a pair of live geese and a transsexual stripper named Wunderbar.

With all that in mind, sit back and relax as I tell you how we all ended up in the Yolo County Jail, charged with arson, the theft of a UC Davis fire truck and the defilement of an entire flock of sheep.

Well, no, none of that’s true. Like I said, I’m no good at Halloween. I did nothing out of the ordinary, even though Halloween involves two of my all-time favorite things:

1. Scantily clad women.

2. Mischief.

Maybe I just look for Halloween in the wrong places. If that’s the case, feel free to invite me to whatever you’re doing next Halloween. Anyway, October is over, which means it’s time to get excited for the real holiday. It’s the best day of the year, the one when all the magic happens.

Of course, I’m talking about Thanksgiving – a holiday that involves the next two things on my list of favorites:

3. Eating turkey to the point of falling asleep.

4. Drinking beer to the point of falling asleep.

If I had to add a fifth item to this growing list, I might throw in:

5. Sleeping in a really nice bed, but only if numbers one and two are involved. (Zing!)

If only there was a way to get these two holidays to join forces. Thanksween. Hallogiving. That would be the real winner. Congress could give us all a week or two off to really enjoy it.

Now that I look at it, they basically revolve around the same two core principles. Thanksgiving is all about eating birds and drinking beer, and Halloween is all about drinking beer and trying to eat out some birds. (Heyo!)

Damn, I’m on a roll. If that last one was over your head, you might need to have a talk with your parents.

Moving right along, as a veteran of five years of college warfare, I have been thinking an interesting addition to this column could come in the form of a “question and answer” segment, where you (the readers) send a question or problem that I (the sage) will lend advice or insight to.

This could be a lot of fun, especially if one of you out there is really messed up, or if I have nothing else in particular to talk about. (Kind of like right now, for example. That’s all I’ve got on Halloween and Thanksgiving.)

Before we get into this, however, I’ll set up some ground rules. I will never answer any serious questions like “how do I break up with my girlfriend?,” or “how do I get a girlfriend in the first place?,” because I have no credentials in either of those fields. I could, however, help out in the categories of causing ruckuses (rucki?), pulling pranks on deserving friends/roommates or answering which beer is best (Old Rasputin.)

Something else I have always wanted to do is impose fake names onto people. For instance, maybe a guy named Chris sends me something like:

“Dear Will, I really want to buy a boom box, but I can’t afford one. What can I do?”

No offense, but Chris is a not a thrilling name. In my column, you would get a brand new name – one with kick, with flavor.

“Dear Griffandolo,” I might answer, “Get a job. The bums lost.”

There is my idea. With your help, this column can go to the next level. We can turn it up to 11. So, send me some interesting questions or predicaments, or even some situations that you’ve gotten yourself into. Maybe someone was reading the beginning of this column and thought, “What the hell? Is this guy trying to take credit for what I did with that Chewbacca costume?”

Sorry if I stole anyone’s thunder with that one. I had nothing to do with any Halloween arson. I was in bed around one in the morning because I was so … sleepy. (See, that’s why you need to e-mail me your questions. Otherwise, you’ll have to deal with just me, and I got bad jokes for days.)

With that said, I open my doors to all of your trials and tribulations, and I’ll try my best to help.

Of course, I only mean your laughable and comedic trials and tribulations. If it’s serious, I can’t help you. Call someone else. Try the Ghostbusters. Or Batman. I hear he’s good with family issues.

WILL LONG would be unstoppable if he had Alec Baldwin’s voice and Clint Eastwood’s scowl. Also, if anyone’s driving to LA for Thanksgiving, holler at him at wclong@ucdavis.edu. He needs a ride.

Editor’s note: UC President Mark Yudof sent an e-mail to all University of California students and parents last week, providing an update on student fees and the UC’s budget situation as a whole. This is an open letter to Yudof in response.

I, as well as many of my peers, do appreciate the e-mail detailing the situation. We understand the dire situation in California at the current moment. May God help California through this difficult time and reinstate it into a beacon of hope for many around the world. We understand that we are not the only ones suffering from the present economic difficulties. There are too many people without jobs, too many people losing their homes, and too many businesses barely getting by – if not going out of business entirely.

But, with all respect, being a person with such a background in education, shouldn’t you be the first one denouncing a fee increase to students?

Raising the fees on education is a fundamental mistake that will cost us much more money in the long run than the short-term benefits create. The graduates of tomorrow are perhaps the ones that will prevent situations like this in the future. Taxing them is to take two steps back in the ideology that distinguishes the UC system.

I strongly believe that the economic problems can be solved without taking the easy way out. We in the UC system should always support affordable education so that leaders of tomorrow can learn to lead today.

As president of our great UC system, I humbly request that you urge our state government and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to tax the oil drillers that have been getting a free ride in California for years before you take more money from us. I did some calculations and found that by taxing oil companies that are using California at no real benefit for California, we would have enough money to cover the UC budget shortfall – and have enough left over for every UC student to take a vacation to Hawaii. Twenty-one of the other 22 oil-producing states successfully tax these oil companies; that tax revenue then supports their state schools. Oil companies will have to pay the tax. If they refuse, there are many other companies that will be happy to buy oil from us.

I wish you luck in governing our great educational system here in California. Please do all you can for us, the students. And I was joking about the Hawaii thing, though we can talk about that later.

NAZIR SAYED

Junior, Economics

Students at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism fighting against injustice are now beginning to experience it themselves.

As part of the Medill Innocence Project, between 2003 and 2006, nine teams of undergraduate student journalists under the direction of Professor David Protess investigated the conviction of Anthony McKinney – a Chicago man sentenced in 1978 to life in prison for the murder of a security guard.

The students conducted interviews in which key witnesses recanted their statements from the initial trial and confirmed McKinney’s alibi. Transcripts from these interviews, which were posted online, call McKinney’s conviction into question.

Given the exculpatory nature of the information the students collected, the state’s attorney in Cook County, Anita Alvarez, has slapped them and Protess with subpoenas, forcing them to hand over their e-mails, off-the-record interviews, expense reports, grades, grading methodology and course syllabi.

Alvarez’ spokeswoman said the state would like to see the evidence for itself and determine if grading influenced the students’ investigation. Northwestern University is fighting the subpoenas.

This over-reaching effort by the state of Illinois unfairly and unnecessarily violates the rights of student journalists.

A 1982 Illinois state law shields journalists from having to divulge information to public officials without a compelling public interest. But Cook Country prosecutors argue that the students should be viewed as an “investigative agency” instead of journalists.

Such an assertion is unwarranted and irresponsible. Student journalists perform the same function as their “professional” counterparts, and they merit the same legal protections. And at a greater level, excluding certain segments of the population from journalism shield laws undermines their protection and the ability of the press to hold those in power accountable.

Moreover, there is no compelling interest in this case to warrant the subpoenas. Claiming that the students were motivated by a desire to find exculpatory evidence in order to get a better grade in the class is equally irrelevant. Video recordings of the students’ interviews with witnesses were made available to prosecutors, and any goading or manipulation of the witnesses’ memory to produce a desired testimony would be evident.

No one person – journalism student or state official – approaches a criminal investigation completely dispassionate and without preconceived notions shaped by individual perspective. Therefore, the state should exercise great caution in isolating personal motivation of select individuals to discount the evidence they offer.

And even if state investigators have reason to doubt the veracity of the testimony produced by the Innocence Project students, they could simply conduct their own independent investigation. This would uphold the journalistic protection the students deserve and possibly settle McKinney’s case once and for all.

The state of Illinois should reverse its actions, and the efforts of programs like Medill’s Innocence Project should be encouraged, not hampered. Justice is not always served the first time around, but that doesn’t mean it should never be delivered.

Last week, University of California President Mark Yudof promised thousands of high school students in Fresno that attending a UC is both affordable and possible.

“Project You Can” is Yudof’s request that the 10 UC campuses heighten their efforts to collectively raise $1 billion in scholarship money in the next four years. Essentially he’s asking them to try harder.

There’s nothing wrong with asking. However, Yudof is asking for a bit much, and in doing so, making an empty promise to both current and potential students.

Take our university, for instance. According to University Relations, UC Davis raked in $5 million in donations last fiscal year. Assuming that the other campuses, on average, raise roughly the same amount, that puts the entire UC system at a current fundraising amount of approximately $50 million. At the rate we’re going, in four years we will have raised $200 million in donations, given the economy stays about where it is now – and it won’t.

At the rate Yudof wants us to go, UC would have to raise five times that $200 million number to hit the goal set through Project You Can in one of the harshest financial climates California has ever seen, split amongst 10 campuses.

It is possible. According to Chancellor Linda Katehi, the president of University of Southern California set a similar goal for his campus, which resulted in the school increasing donations almost ten-fold over approximately 20 years. But USC, a private school, is also in the 98th percentile of college endowment assents, according the National Association of College and University Business Officers. USC also had the advantage of a reputation of prestige and a friendlier economic climate during that timeframe.

From 2007 to 2008, USC earned approximately $3 billion in endowments. That’s three times the amount Yudof wants to raise by 2013.

Also according to the NACUBO endowment study, the UC system as a whole had a percentage change in endowment from 2007 to 2008 of minus 3.4 percent. We’re not on the path to success in receiving donations, and as the state anticipates another $20 billion deficit next year, that path will only get rockier.

That’s not to say that raising scholarship money can’t be done, because it can. And it’s not to say that it shouldn’t be done, because students could use all the help they could get. However, Yudof should be more realistic with his goals, and not make promises simply because his public image is reaching Bush-esque proportions.

On the other hand, Katehi believes the billion-dollar goal is feasible only if the university adopts a different attitude and extends its reaches further.

For example, UC Davis alone only receives donations from 16 percent of alumni, according to Katehi. She believes that we not only need to reach to more alumni, but also those who did not attend UC Davis but still believes in the causes the university researches and supports.

This is an innovative and progressive thought and we fully support anyone with the means to donate to students in need. However, we are critical of Yudof’s plan because it shows that he is truly unwilling to make concrete changes that would assist all students affected by the impending fee increases.

When you combine misogyny and capitalism, you get our current cultural climate: being obsessed with the female body. How much it weighs, how wrinkly it is, how tightened, toned and tanned it is, whether or not the hair on it is “natural,” and how much of it there is.

I’m not going to rant about a culture that objectifies women the way ours does, because everybody’s heard that spiel (though it doesn’t hurt to reiterate, of course). But I’m curious, what exactly does it mean when the target of this kind of objectification is the president of the United States?

This week, Drudge reported that President Obama is “Barack ‘n’ Bones,” and wondered if he was “too thin” to run the country. In the grand scheme of things, this isn’t a big deal and it’s not that I want to make a mountain out of a molehill. The vast majority of people criticizing Obama are doing so based on his policies and actions, not his waist-size. Additionally, there are many people who are actually negatively affected by bodily objectification – just ask people who are discriminated against because of their gender, color, size, or sexual identification or the victims of the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding for abortions.

Like I said, in the grand scheme of things, there are issues that are infinitely more important than whether or not Barry is skinny. I’m interested in what Drudge’s coverage says about our culture, not the commander-in-chief’s body.

What does it mean when people think that our president is “too thin” to do his job? How does Obama’s appearance – and we’re assuming they’re making accusations based merely off of his appearance, since no one in the media has access to his medical records, nor should they – affect his ability to govern our nation?

Recently, there has been a push in the media to include a more diverse selection of female bodies represented. Can’t argue with that. But the editors of Glamour still questioned the end result of such inclusion: If other bodies besides those of idealized models were represented, “Would female readers, viewers and buyers want it?”

How Glamour’s question is framed is the most important sentence in this column. The attempt of the media to include women of size in its projection of femininity has nothing to do with improving the position of women. It’s not about your self-esteem or your value as an individual. It’s about finding the most efficient method of pumping money out of you.

Now the media (and the Drudge Report is a member of the media, no matter how ugly its website is) has attempted to undermine the president based on the appearance of his body. The paradigm has backfired. By convincing women of two things – that a) their bodies are inherently flawed, and b) their bodies are their most important qualities – the beauty-industrial complex can make money off of us. It’s nothing personal; it’s just business.

But what does it mean when this “business” spills over onto a powerful member of the government?

The various industries that make money off your manufactured insecurities (and we all have them – I shave my legs, even though I don’t feel like I should have to) have affected us to the point that we’ve targeted the body of a powerful, male politician.

I want to reiterate: it’s not Drudge’s claims that interest me, but what these claims are a symptom of. What the media chooses to produce is also symptomatic of the way our society has fetishized the human (particularly female) body. But you know it’s gotten absurd when the attention goes from the general, “acceptable,” targets – women – to the executive-in-chief.

Will this contrast finally bring people to their senses?

HALEY DAVIS knows it sounds really kumbaya, but everyone should love their body. If you want to sing “Kumbaya” with her, she can be reached at hrdavis@ucdavis.edu.