“Your AggieCard. Your ATM card. All in one.” This is the slogan put forth on the U.S. Bank website for their UC Davis partner branch, glorifying the combination of two entities that have no place occupying the same piece of plastic.

In order to argue that a bank does not belong on a campus, we first need to agree on what a campus means to its students. A campus is not just a conglomerate of buildings, housing classrooms containing professors talking to students sitting in desks. For many students, campus is a home away from home. It is the source of their friends, activities and jobs and the place they spend the majority of their waking lives.

Above all, a campus is a sacred place where education holds the highest priority for both students and the faculty and administration who have chosen to devote their lives to this cause. Having a bank on a public campus, and thus, public property, is an affront to the triumph of education as the highest value and first priority of a university.

Having a bank on campus is a misappropriation of a space that is set aside for education to form a place that takes advantage of students for a profit. Banks don’t profit from or prioritize truth-telling. And while banks are not inherently a negative resource for students in need of loans, their function becomes problematic when they are given campus property to leverage their own gains against students’ losses.

As a result, the U.S. Bank in the Memorial Union is an inefficient use of prime campus space that is meant to be a central location for student activity and resources. Worse, the university has not upheld the principles under which it agreed to give UC Davis students access to bank operations.

A November 2009 article on the UC Davis News and Information website stated, “In developing the bank partnership, Student Affairs adopted a set of guiding principles that require ‘a process that is open, fair and competitive, consultative, and readily available for scrutiny and discussion.’”

It also stated that “Under the campus agreement, a student-majority committee will advise the vice chancellor about what services should be underwritten by the partnership and how funds should be used.”

The spirit of both these statements released by the university have been completely undermined during attempts by students to question the place of U.S. Bank on campus. As opposed to being open to scrutiny and discussion, the university has offered no compelling response to calls to close the bank.

Just as student ID cards should not double as debit cards, U.S. Bank, or any other bank, has no place on the UC Davis campus. If we agree to rent space to any company that will bring us slight revenue, the campus will cease to uphold the principles of an education free from private influence and competing interests.

Signed: Melissa Freeman, Becky Peterson, Angela Swartz, Jasna Hodzic, Erin Migdol

Editor’s note: The California Aggie Editorial Board was split. For another perspective, see Banks on campus: Fair game.

 What about you? If you have an opinion on U.S. Bank, or any other campus issues, let us know. Send your letter to opinion@theaggie.org by Wednesday at noon to be published in Thursday’s Aggie.

I would like to encourage all eligible UC Davis students to apply for the Student Resident Program. As a student firefighter at UCD Fire Dept. for almost three years, I can say that it was one of the best experiences in my life. Beyond the firefighting and EMS skills I learned, I gained valuable experience in leadership, communication skills and how to remain calm in stressful situations. Students in the Resident Firefighting Program work shifts at night and on weekends alongside some of the best career firefighters at UC Davis. In exchange for working shifts, students have the opportunity to live at the fire station to learn the everyday atmosphere of the fire service.

I could never thank the firefighters and staff at the UC Davis Fire Dept. enough for the opportunities I was able to experience in my three years there. It was an eye-opening experience and I encourage all to apply. For more information, see the UCD Fire Dept. website or visit Station 34 on campus.

The most anticipated initial public offering (IPO) in more than a decade is upon us.

If you happen to be one of Facebook’s over 800 million active users, there’s a good chance you’ve heard that Facebook is going public. Facebook will be tradeable on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol FB and will likely be offered for just under $40. Now the question on everyone’s mind is: to buy or not to buy? Let’s take a look.

Since its founding almost exactly eight years ago by Mark Zuckerberg, a fellow AEPi from Harvard, Facebook has fought to remain private despite its huge public presence, so why is Facebook going public now? Well, they don’t want to. However, there is something called the 500 shareholder rule in which the Securities and Exchange Committee (SEC) requires that once a company has 500 shareholders, they must publicly disclose financial data. This is not technically a requirement to go public, but the requirements are so similar that most companies choose to do so once they have reached that threshold, which Facebook has now done.

By keeping private, Zuckerberg has been able to maintain almost complete control over Facebook, avoiding governmental regulation as well the scrutiny Wall Street brings to public companies. In other words, Facebook was able to maintain its freedom and independence, at least as far as that’s possible with hundreds of millions of daily users.

Now that Facebook is going public, I personally doubt it will be able to continue its success in the absence of that freedom, especially with competitors Twitter and Google+ gaining momentum.

Facebook is currently a powerhouse because of the inherent network externality associated with it. A network externality exists when a product becomes more valuable to the user as more people use it, potentially reaching the point of becoming a universal standard. One famous example of this phenomenon is Windows and Microsoft Word. This explains why as competitors eventually began to challenge Microsoft, it was still able to maintain a monopoly. At the time, so many people were using Word and Windows that people buying a new computer needed to have the same programs so that they could easily share documents and files. This was because the large consumer base already using Word and Windows made the value of the programs far greater than any of Microsoft’s competitors. Even with Apple computers becoming more and more popular today, a large majority of Mac users still run Microsoft Word.

So what does that mean for Facebook? If you watched The Social Network, you heard Zuckerberg say it himself: “Even a few people leaving would reverberate through the entire userbase. The users are interconnected; that is the whole point. College kids are online because their friends are online, and if one domino goes, the other dominoes go. Don’t you get that?”

As users begin to leave Facebook, I predict that Zuckerberg’s prediction will come true. The question then becomes when this will happen. Facebook’s biggest obstacle is the enormous challenge of keeping ahead and maintaining its status of being “cool.” So far it has been pretty successful at this, aside from its recent release of the new Timeline version of Facebook that has been met with a lot of user disapproval for a variety of reasons. It remains to be seen whether the pressure to remain ahead has finally caught up with Facebook or if this was simply a bump in the road.

Facebook could also lose users in the face of continuing pressure to address privacy concerns. Bills such as SOPA and PIPA could also prove trouble to the company if they or some version of them eventually become law.

Another key question is what Facebook will do with the billions the IPO will raise, especially considering that Facebook is an incredibly cheap company to run in comparison to other behemoths like Apple and Microsoft. While extra money is certainly an opportunity for good things, there is the chance of a potential Netflix disaster as well.

There is also the concern that Zuckerberg and company are simply attempting to cash out and move on, as Zuckerberg is poised to rake in $24 billion by going public. Or, investors on Wall Street could damage the stock by holding onto it until they make a profit and then dumping it afterwards to earn a quick buck.

It certainly wouldn’t be the first time.

If you would like to discuss Facebook’s IPO with DANNY BRAWER you can contact him at dabrawer@ucdavis.edu.

There is perhaps nothing so quintessentially American as the automobile. For generations, cars have represented independence, the open road and the exhilarating freedom to drive into the sunset of your choice. The old Cadillac slogan sums it up perfectly. There’s nothing more American than “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit.”

Unfortunately, for every good thing in life, there is a group of mirthless killjoys dedicated to ruining that good thing. In the case of the automobile, the opposition is a motley collection of budget-padding bureaucrats, intellectual elites of the enviro-zealot persuasion, and well-intentioned but misguided believers in the benevolent power of social engineering. One is reminded of H.L. Mencken’s famous quip: “A Puritan is someone who is deathly afraid that someone, somewhere, is having fun.” The reasoning of these particular modern-day Puritans is simple: Cars are anathema because they pollute, are wasteful and are just too difficult to control.

The solution as seen by motorphobes is equally simple. If local, state and federal governments make it hell on earth to drive, fewer people will do it. Take for instance a recent article in Time Magazine which blithely asserts, “It makes sense that if you make driving more inconvenient, fewer people will want to do so. After all, who doesn’t detest searching for a parking spot?” The author sheds few tears for the inconvenience of the car-dependent hoi polloi, concluding, “Basically, whether people are annoyed with parking due to lack of available spots or due to outlandish prices doesn’t matter. As long as they are frustrated enough not to drive, the environment will be better off.”

And to ensure that drivers will indeed be frustrated, automobile detractors have a full toolbox of coercive policy proposals. The European model, implemented selectively in some U.S. cities, emphasizes blocking off city streets to vehicles, reducing the number of available parking spots, shortening green lights while lengthening reds, and hitting commuters with congestion taxes, increased bridge tolls and high parking fees.

Others have proposed higher gas taxes, which already place a strain on millions of families but have the pleasing characteristic of enhancing budget funds for the huge transportation bureaucracies. One proposal, the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) tax, would have drivers paying the Feds for each mile traveled, as if every car was a government taxicab with an unstoppable meter. This latter proposal was even included in the President’s 2011 budget draft before public outrage forced a hasty reassessment.

But wait, should our own government be dedicating itself to making our lives worse? The miseries of congestion, scarce parking and long commutes would seem to be disincentive enough without elected leaders intentionally adding quicksand to the quagmire. And what about those living in rural areas or commuting long distances who cannot avoid driving? As a rural-to-urban commuter myself, I already suffer from unavoidable commuting stresses that negatively affect my quality of life. Should my government seek to increase those stresses? That’s a pretty poor version of government by the people and for the people.

One of the biggest problems with automobile restrictions is that they penalize the poor disproportionately. For a comfortably middle-class environmental studies professor to pay a VMT tax to drive his Prius to the local farmer’s market, it’s a mild inconvenience. To a small contractor commuting two hours each way to remodel an old Victorian in San Francisco, it’s a deal-breaker. It’s also a deal-breaker for the traveling musician, the migrating farm worker, the administrative assistant commuting to the city and countless others.

Don’t get me wrong, I love bikes just about as much as anyone else. Living in a small college town (like Davis) or a dense urban area, cars are relatively superfluous and incredibly inconvenient. But the vast majority of Americans, who don’t have the luxury of living in college towns or expensive urban centers, don’t have those options. If you care about the environment, you should ride your own bike and persuade your neighbor to ride his. Using the coercive power of government to penalize those who don’t live as you do isn’t the answer.

Unfortunately, the ruling class seems to care little for the convenience and sanity of the harassed commuter or the joy of the enthusiast. The formula is a standard one for government: more taxes, more tolls, less freedom and less fun.

SAM HOEL is a law student at the UC Davis School of Law and can be reached at swhoel@ucdavis.edu.

Fleshlights. Battery-Operated Boyfriends. Vibes. Whatever your type and whatever you call it, there’s no denying that sex toys are a flourishing industry. But all the variety can make finding the right toy for you quite a chore. Not to mention that some of you may find the thought of some of those objects near tender parts of your body quite terrifying. Have no fear, grasshopper, for I am here to guide you.

First, some vibrator basics. Remember that conversation about masturbation? Well, here’s an instance where the knowledge gained by that activity comes in handy (pun, as always, intended). Because many vibes are designed to focus on specific spots, you want to have a good sense of whether you prefer clitoral stimulation, G-spot action or something else. That way you can narrow down the types you have to choose from.

Even with that knowledge, many of you may find vibrators a little scary. To be fair, some of them do resemble alien torture devices (although their effect is anything but painful). That’s why if you’re even a little curious about toys, I recommend beginning with a mini-vibrator (try a small “bullet” type for the most straightforward shape). Its size makes it less intimidating for a first-time user and easier to store discreetly in small living spaces such as dorms. Also, you can get a decent mini-vice for about $20, so if you dislike it, it’s not a total waste of money.

Increasingly, sex toys are thought of as a female-only area. The common image is of a candle-lit woman in the bath using her Hitachi magic wand to have exploding-petal orgasms of joy. Not that there aren’t some women who do this, but it leaves an awful lot out (other than the fact that Hitachi wands aren’t waterproof). Vibrators are not just for the solo girl. They can be an excellent addition to partner-play, whether you use them to give a massage or to get your lover off. They even make vibes that one partner can manipulate via remote control, which can be quite an exciting exercise. In the non-vibe world of couple’s play, there are toys such as strap-ons, which can be used for any type of intercourse as well as foreplay. As with vibrators, some pre-purchase research and body exploration is wise.

The standard view of sex toys assumes that a man wouldn’t use them and, if he does, he is frustrated and lonely. This is unfair. Yes, due to the mechanics involved, male orgasm may be less complicated to achieve than a female one. And yes, I am aware that in many cases masturbating for men is purely utilitarian (though this is not an male-only phenomenon). But that does not mean that men shouldn’t explore their sexuality to the same degree that many women do. For men who would like to explore, there are vibrators tailored to the typical male anatomy, as well as sleeve toys, like those made by Tenga, that vary in texture and fit.

A big component of sex toy satisfaction is doing your research. I advocate browsing sites like babeland.com. When you see something you like, look closely at the comments section or search for reviews of the product online. If the negative reviews mention qualities that would bother you (uncomfortable, difficult to get into a good position), then that toy is not the right choice no matter how appealing it looks.

When it comes to research, nothing beats going into a store and talking to the people behind the counter. Depending on where you live, this tactic isn’t always feasible. Luckily for us, we live near that den of sin and inequity commonly called San Fransisco. S.F., along with Berkeley and Oakland, is home to several Good Vibrations stores that are clean, well lit and staffed by friendly and knowledgeable people. You can find all manner of toys there, as well as porn and informational books. They are also very LGBTIQ friendly, so you should be able to find something fun no matter who’s involved in your relationship. Field trips are always a good time, especially when toys are involved.

SAM WALL wants to help you pick up some good vibrations so contact her at sewall@ucdavis.edu for product suggestions.