The pastor who predicted the end of the world a few months back was, I think, really on to something. Given that his followers sold their homes, spent huge sums of money on billboards and advertisement trying to tell the world – or, as much of the world that drove by their billboards and advertisements – that it (“it” being the world) is ending. Excuse me, “was” ending.

I’m not saying he was wrong, clearly reality already did that; all I’m saying is that I think he was on to something. Mostly because I’ve found proof I want to share with you all that I think is as convincing as anything else that the end of the world is coming. And, if not the whole world, then at least the parts of the world where people happened to pass by those billboards and advertisements.

Those are the places where the strangest headlines come from. I’m not saying the people there make conscious decisions to do weird things. I’m saying there is an osmotic balance to weirdness, and when you’ve got a sign as soaked in it as “the end of the world is here, in a week,” it’s bound to rub off.

I’m thinking of headlines like, “Man beats woman with frozen armadillo.” The article stated she was planning on serving it to friends, or family, none of whom would’ve had an objection to it because it was in Texas and vegetarians do not exist down there, because they’ve shot all of them.

According to one of many articles I read, the pastor’s followers were “crestfallen” when he said, basically, that he was off by five months and, oops, the Earth will actually be obliterated on Oct. 21. This meant nothing, of course, to the driver who accidentally put the Oscar Mayer Weinermobile in reverse instead of drive, and rammed it through an elderly couple’s garage door. Doomsday? Maybe not, but close.

The pastor felt so terrible when his doomsday message did not come true that he left home and took refuge in a motel with his wife. When I read that, I wondered if it was somehow associated to the hotel in China that was set on fire when fireworks exploded too near it. That one seemed, initially, apocalyptic. But, in revisiting the details of the story, it was because the hotel had been made out of paper. Which, and maybe I’m judging, seems like an obvious no-no.

“The globe will be completely destroyed in five months,” the pastor said, to someone, somewhere, presumably beside a billboard. This wasn’t enough to produce the actual end of the world, but it was certainly enough for people in other parts of the country to sell their homes because, ha ha, who needs a house when the Earth is ready to crack open like an egg and dissolve into nothing? “Not me!” (said people who now regret it).

It’s good if you haven’t breathed too easily yet either, though. Because the pastor has re-evaluated his exacting calculations that put the end of everything sometime between now and some other time, and is now promoting Oct. 21 as the day to end all days. Oh, wait. Never mind, breathe easily. That was a bust too. Though still not enough of one to subdue the panic of the people in and around the IRS, who, has reported to people other than myself that three years or so ago, the pastor’s radio station reported that it received $18.3 million dollars of donations. This seems like a lot until their total assets are considered, which are upward of $100 million. (Cha-ching! Armageddon’s as big a blockbuster now as it was when it was in theaters!).

When I read that sort of thing, it makes me wonder if anyone is home in these places. Which, they probably are, just not near the billboards or signs. Because there, all the houses are for sale and there’s every chance you’ll meet your own end at the hands of a crazy and his frozen armadillo.

Tell your secrets to EVAN WHITE at emwhite@ucdavis.edu. It should be understood he won’t keep them for you, but will delight in hearing them.

Halloween weekend and the envelope-pushing skin-baring “costumes” it yielded have come and passed. Don’t worry, I’m not going to bore you with a diatribe about trashiness versus creativity – that shtick is a tired, silent shout. I will, however, gladly lay this other doozy of a seasonal cliché on you: just as the candy that we collect (or used to, at least) on Oct. 31 teaches us, sometimes the things that are worst for us are the things we want the most.

I know you must have heard it a million times and in a multitude of different ways by now, but there’s still some serious fiber to be found in that platitude, especially if you take it at more than just face value. I’m going to just skip to the part where I spoil the symbolism: the candy in question is a metaphor. I’m not going to spend 750 words fleshing out that idea when I could just divulge it right here, upfront, and conserve my remaining allotted space for talking about myself – you’re all welcome. In short, consider the candy a microcosmic representation of all unhealthy habits and addictions, or to really drive home the symbolism here, junk food for the soul.

You stayed for the third paragraph? Kudos. After the verbal diarrhea and groan-worthy symbolic comparison of the second, I figured you were a goner for sure — hence the speedy condensation of this column’s moral content. But I digress.

Circling back to the idea that we young’uns have a tendency to want things that are bad for us, let’s consider the past month in a nutshell. When the midterms of early October reared their ugly heads, students in every class standing allowed their true colors to shine through. “MORE COFFEE! WHO MOVED MY SPIRAL NOTEBOOK? WHERE’S THE ADDERALL?”

During the period in question, I had just been hired at a downtown coffee shop (Mishka’s Café, 610 Second Street; please, no autographs during work hours) and soon found it to be the studying student’s Mecca. I also found that, even with all the highly customized espresso drink orders (“I’ll just have half-caf soy mocha with two pumps of hazelnut and etc. for here but in a to-go cup.”) most people were either too preoccupied or didn’t care enough to notice when I slipped up on a minor detail or two. They were there for a caffeine fix — and the gourmet coffee, naturally.

When the end of the month came around, bringing the end of midterms, (for the most part; damn you, Linguistics 6!) the atmosphere of anxiety was suddenly replaced with anticipation for the impending bingefest and veritable soft-core porn of Halloween weekend. A steaming mug of Dark Balkan wasn’t the drinkable accessory du jour anymore, if you catch my drift.

I’m not saying that coffee, caffeine or alcohol in moderation are unhealthy. The point I’m trying to get across is that as students we almost force ourselves to develop these dependencies. We lay out all of the things we want and need on a (once again, metaphorical) table — good grades, social/love/sex lives, a job, a beach bod, etc. — and more often than not choose to succumb to all of the overwhelming wants as opposed to delineating a cutoff between them and the needs.

Allow me to water down said previous statement into something that’s a bit easier to swallow: it isn’t necessarily the things we put into our bodies that constitute junk food, but the addictions themselves. Using coffee simply to stay awake rather than savoring it, drinking for the sake of getting drunk, doing everything you want to do to the detriment of your sleep schedule — in attempting to prolong bouts of fun, you kill time that could be used much more industriously.

But enough of the didactic monologue; I would just like to thank the readers who still remain at this point –– the true 1 percent – for their tenacity and admit that, actually, I’m kind of glad to have reached my word limit. Now I no longer have an excuse to put off doing all my other work that doesn’t involve self-reflection. Good thing I’ve got plenty of coffee.

If you want to be DYLAN GALLAGHER’s lover, you gotta not only get with his friends but also buy him things and satisfy his every whim. Suitors may contact him at dylaaaaan@gmail.com!

On Oct. 27, a group of over 75 protesters entered the UC Davis Shields Library, carrying signs and chanting as they marched through the building.

We support their goal of publicly opposing UC fee hikes but interrupting students’ studies is not the way to create such a change.

Midterm season is upon us and students are stressed out. The students studying in the library are trying to get the most out of their ridiculously expensive education. Protesters should not be disrupting the very people for whom they are protesting.

Protesters should instead focus on disrupting those who do not agree with them, or those who can really make a difference in the cost of tuition.

Marching on the Capitol, only a 20 minute drive away, would be much more effective. Legislators are more likely to respond to protesters at their front door than the more common scene of demonstrators on a college campus.

Protesters also walked through Olson, Hart and Wellman Hall. The disruptions caused students and professors to come out of their classrooms, some even yelling at the protesters to be quiet. By disrupting students who are trying to learn, protesters are losing both the respect and the support of those who could be helping them.

While protesting is essential, especially when the possibility of astonishingly high fee hikes loom, protesters should be respectful to those who are trying to learn.

Instead of disrupting Wellman, protesters should walk to Mrak Hall to show Chancellor Katehi how they feel. Protesters should consider attending the UC Regents meeting this month, where they could have a chance to speak to the decision makers face to face. Finally, protesters should strive to educate students on the importance of raising our voices — just not in the library.

Several years ago I suffered a head injury as a result of a bike accident; consequently, I am particularly conscious of the risks and possible dangers of biking.

My accident was the result of another cyclist getting too close and bumping my back tire, something that could happen any day here on campus. All of a sudden I flew over the handle bars, hit the pavement, flipped over, and slammed the back of my head against the road. The impact sounded like a bomb exploding inside my head, but I felt nothing because I was protected by the bike helmet I was wearing. Luckily, the bike club I rode with had a mandatory helmet regulation. If you did not wear a helmet, you did not ride with the club.

After the accident, I was taken to the nearest hospital in an ambulance, spent the rest of the day in emergency, and over the following week I experienced many symptoms of concussion, in spite of the helmet. It would have been a lot worse without it. I always wear a helmet now because I know how dangerous it is to ride a bicycle.

This fall, riding my bike around campus, I have noticed that bike traffic has grown increasingly dangerous. Here at Davis, people do not seem to have the awareness of how dangerous riding a bicycle, especially in a crowd, can be. I see very few helmets (even fewer worn on the cyclists’ heads) and almost no hand signals. I find this situation very frightening, especially with the added component of cyclists texting, talking on the phone, and wearing ear buds (in both ears).

Bicycle accidents do happen here. The cyclist in the accident that I witnessed on campus last Thursday afternoon was not wearing a helmet. During the time I stood by while the police, fire truck and ambulance arrived, the poor victim lay on the pavement, unmoving. A helmet regulation would have benefited that rider.

When almost no one wears a helmet, there is an assumed consensus that nothing dangerous will happen, but that is false. I propose that UC Davis adopt a mandatory helmet regulation to protect cyclists. In addition, bike training and licenses to ride would reduce the dangers of the road.

I don’t think 75 percent of the cyclists here know who has the right of way in a turn circle, do you? I rarely see anyone use hand signals to indicate turning and have never (I am in my sixth year at Davis) seen anyone use a signal to indicate stopping. Someone texting while riding a bike or a skate board is scary, especially when they are coming right at you. Pedestrians can also be hazardous. It is more than annoying to cyclists to see groups of people walking four abreast on the bike path; more than that, it is extremely dangerous.

Would it be crazy to suggest that bike and pedestrian paths be separated?

I know that regulating cyclists would not be popular. Who wants helmet hair or have to stick your hand out when you might turn? However, does anyone really want to lie unconscious in the street, or spend the day in emergency, or get to know how a concussion feels? It is not pleasant.

With plans to expand the campus, I can only see the danger getting worse and worse. Do we have to wait until there is a really bad accident or accidents to awaken from this sense of denial and create some protective regulations? I hope not.

Nan Turner
Sixth-year senior at UC Davis

I am somewhere to the left of the Democratic Party but, when I saw that Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater selling for $1.99 on Kindle, I snapped it up. Clearly, the market had spoken. Conscience of a Conservative, ghostwritten by Goldwater’s speechwriter in 1960, is a classic statement of libertarian principles.

Indeed, one could easily imagine present-day Republicans repeating Goldwater’s calls to unleash the power of free enterprise and to cut “Big Labor” down to size. As an influential example of conservative libertarianism, Goldwater’s book is worthy of merciless critique.

Goldwater argues that citizens should be allowed to develop freely without constraints from the federal government. According to Goldwater, federal power tends towards “absolutism” — it grows whenever it is used, reaching into every aspect of citizen’s lives. Therefore, we should limit Washington’s jurisdiction to those areas mentioned in the Constitution, such as ensuring interstate commerce. Outside of these narrow confines, all other laws should be decided and carried out by the states.

This leads Goldwater to a surprising conclusion. If the federal government is barred from infringing upon “states’ rights,” it shouldn’t intervene to prevent local injustices — including racial discrimination. Goldwater is quite explicit that, though he finds racism personally distasteful, he also condemns moves to enforce civil rights as egregious examples of federal overreach. According to Goldwater, Brown v. Board of Education — the law which desegregated schools — marks a course that will ultimately “enthrone tyrants and doom freedom.”

While this may be an example of 1960s race-baiting, it isn’t the last time conservatives attacked federal civil rights legislation. Milton Friedman and Rand Paul, Ron Paul’s son, have both come out against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while Ron Paul went as far as to call it “a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract.” Of course, it is important to note that while these thinkers do not represent all conservatives, they do represent a strong libertarian strain within the movement.

Why do some conservatives promote economic liberty and states’ rights over racial equality? They suggest that these are not mutually exclusive. Thus, Goldwater maintains that “the problem of race relations, like all social and cultural problems, is best handled by the people directly concerned.” They claim that states will deal with their own affairs and, even if local businesses refuse to serve African Americans, the market will take care of it — those are paying customers who can go elsewhere.

For all their apologies, though, conservatives drop their masks a little when they talk about civil rights. It’s not that they are racist. Institutional and overt racism simply fall below conservatives’ concern because these problems take place in a domain they believe to be spontaneous and free. Individuals, they claim, may choose their own lives as long as they are not thwarted by the state.

In reality, though, countless factors condition and constrain our decisions, ranging from the subtle coercions of communities to the grand machinations of corporations. Study after study shows that race and class background has profound effects on an individual’s economic success and well-being, clearly demonstrating that racism and economic inequality represent powers as tyrannous as any government.

Yet this group of conservatives still imagines a self-creating individual in full command of his or her own destiny. As Herman Cain recently stated, “If you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself.” Still, there is something otherworldly about this concept of the individual free from history or material restraints.

It is common to think of libertarians as separate from their evangelical conservative brethren, but Goldwater constantly reminds us that “man” is a spiritual being whose “most sacred possession is his individual soul.”  This seems to suggest that, just as souls are all judged the same regardless of hardship or circumstance, all economic actors are given an equal chance before God and the market.

In the mystic fog of far right ideology, the individual, unencumbered by earthly limitations, determines its fate through moral deliberation. But when the state interferes with spiritual matters like nuclear waste disposal and workplace safety regulations, Goldwater argues, it prevents both the exercise of virtue and the punishment of vice.

We can see this quite clearly in Goldwater’s treatment of race. In an almost religious form of tolerance, Goldwater states that he does not wish to “impose [his] judgment” upon racist state governments but, instead, will work through “persuasion and education” to bring about an end to their bigotry. In other words, Goldwater hoped to reverse centuries of racist violence and hierarchy by appealing to the supposedly free and unbiased ethical capacities of predominantly white southern states.

As Goldwater inadvertently reveals, the notion of individual liberty is more often than not moralistic hokum, smoke and incense covering over more fundamental oppressions. We are not blank slates or free souls choosing for ourselves. To assert otherwise is to insinuate that victims of systematic discrimination and unequal opportunities are responsible for their own misery.

The reality is that the freedom provided by states rights is the freedom to oppress minorities. The liberty offered to corporations and markets is the liberty to exploit workers. The only individuals liberated by conservatism are the top 1 percent.

JORDAN CARROLL is a Ph.D. student in English and a secret friend to “autocrats and ‘democratic’ Jacobins” who can be reached  at jscarroll@ucdavis.edu.