I have several concerns regarding the Chilean Student Association of UC Davis, California.

It blows my mind that the students who belong to this association have chosen to participate in a lunch with a visiting, unelected Congressman from Chile who was appointed by the leadership of his party (UDI) to represent District #32 in the south. With this act, the message conveyed to the general public is that the association is bypassing the fundamentals of the Democratic process of “one person, one vote” and it condones the anti-democratic system that exists in Chile that allows people like him to be the representatives of people without ever having participated in an election.

Furthermore, his trip to Davis happens to be at the same time that he is supposed to be working in his District and attending to the concerns of his constituency, according to the house rules of the Chilean Congress.

Regarding my second concern, there are still many Chilean-Californians waiting to see if the association will take a public position regarding the student conflict in Chile. These students need all the support they can get from fellow students abroad, especially those at UC Davis. Is the association planning to take a stand, because the majority of these students who are studying at UC Davis are the recipient of a scholarship funded by the people of Chile. I myself pay property taxes in Chile, so I have a stake in this matter. So as a taxpayer, I believe that the association should and must take a public position regarding the student conflict in Chile, and not simply wait for the issue to be resolved.

Boris Cardenas
Chilean-American Davis resident

Herman Cain is not running for president, not really. In a recently infamous campaign ad, his manager Mark Block claims, after taking a drag on a cigarette that would make lung cancer itself blush, that we’ve never seen a candidate quite like Herman Cain before. I beg to differ. In this last year, we’ve seen two. Cain, along with Donald Trump (remember him?) and Sarah Palin, belongs to a tribe of non-candidates eager to take the national stage among presidential contenders to earn a pretty penny.

You can spot this group from their shared characteristics. First, they tend not to have much political experience. Unless you consider his brief role serving the Federal Reserve in Kansas, Cain has never held political office. Unless you consider his vague desire to run on a third-party slate in the 2000 presidential election, Donald Trump has similarly sparse experience. While Gov. Sarah Palin is the exception, interviews and statements from her vice presidential tour suggest that she failed to take much from that experience.

However, ignorance is bliss for this crowd. Whenever the non-candidates are baited by the news media to explain their short political resumes, they usually stand wide-eyed –– as if this is news to them. And then they turn the question around, using it to attack the unpopular political establishment. Back in May at the South Carolina debate, Herman Cain was prompted to justify his political inexperience in contrast to candidates with senatorial, congressional and gubernatorial experience. He redirected attention against career politicians on Capitol Hill with what may have been the line of the night: “How’s that working out for you?” The non-candidates spin their amateur political state into just what the doctor ordered for a corrupt Washington D.C.

You can also spot the non-candidates by their loose-cannonisms. Donald Trump didn’t just draw notoriety because of his celebrity-status. Trump’s infamy was a product of his campaign focus. Rather than use his time to develop a policy platform, Trump used stump after stump to provoke discussion of President Obama’s birthplace.

Sarah Palin’s pseudo-campaign for president was punctuated by conspiracy theories she adopted to explain the media bias against her. And then she joined the Fox News Network.

Herman Cain’s quick wit lends itself to frequent outbursts. He suggested building an electric fence across the U.S.-Mexico border, complete with alligators and a moat. Then he said he made those remarks in jest. He claimed he would not hire any Muslims to his cabinet if elected President. He reneged on those remarks, too. In a recent interview with CNN, Cain came out on abortion as pro-choice and pro-life, all in the same response.

It’s because of these characteristics –– political inexperience and baffling rhetoric –– that political gurus write off these candidates even when they top the polls, as Herman Cain is doing now. The gurus wait patiently and analyze the serious candidates while they wait for the limelight of public scrutiny to unravel the non-candidates.

At the apogee of their public support, you begin to see the non-candidates for their true motivations. Just before Donald Trump dropped out of the presidential primary, “Celebrity Apprentice”, for which he makes $3 million an episode, was renewed and Trump was one of the most popular searches on Google. His brief waffle into the political sphere recharged his brand.

Sarah Palin launched a reality TV-show, wrote a book for an $11 million deal, got a job in network news television, reined in campaign donations and joined a speakers bureau (you can hire Palin to give a 90-minute speech for $100,000). Only after all that did she finally, and anti-climatically, announce she wouldn’t run for President.

Herman Cain also just released a book. Recent campaign finance documents show he is funneling campaign donations to buy thousands of copies for his motivational speaking company at $36,511. Some analysts suspect Cain is mimicking Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign strategy to sell books in every state. Days before the Florida straw poll, Cain’s camp e-mailed supporters to consider buying a collector’s edition boxed set of his book for loved ones.

The problem with non-candidates is that they derail the primary race. On debate stages and in the news, they represent the lowest common denominator of candidates, dragging other candidates through the mud to attack them on their populist perch. Most recently, we saw this with the New Hampshire debate, where one-third of the time was spent deconstructing Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan (which bears disappointing similarity to the default tax plan in the computer game SimCity).

With the primary races fast approaching, one can only hope that Cain represents the last non-candidate to steal the spotlight.

Uncle RAJIV NARAYAN wants you to vote in ASUCD elections! Message him about your favorite candidates at rrnarayan@ucdavis.edu.

I write in response to Jordan Carroll’s column last Thursday alleging a connection between Occupy Wall Street and the University of California. His argument was built on some pillars that simply are not factual and he ignored or understated some inconvenient truths to make his case. Let me offer just two examples.

First and foremost, it is the state’s well-documented disinvestment in higher education – cut roughly in half, in constant dollars, in the past two decades – that has driven up tuition levels. But the budget is not being balanced exclusively on the backs of students. Faced with a $1 billion budget shortfall this year alone, and the possibility of an additional $100 million in state cuts in January, the university has made severe cutbacks, laid off or furloughed employees, increased administrative efficiencies with a target of a half billion in savings in five years and stepped up efforts to generate outside revenue.

Yes, tuition increases have been part of this mix. Contrary to what Mr. Carroll wrote, however, UC regents will not meet soon to discuss more such increases, and certainly not one of 81 percent. Discussion of a multi-year budget outline during the last Regents meeting was aimed at developing a  framework to link state funding with tuition levels and thus allow the university and students to plan ahead over years, not months.

No vote was taken on tuition increases, nor is one scheduled to be taken at the next meeting.

Second, Mr. Carroll was incorrect in his assertion that imbalanced UC personnel policies are to blame for the system’s woes. The proportion of non-academic staff has not changed at UC in more than a decade. Moreover, close to 60 percent of the non-academic personnel growth across the UC system is from UC medical centers. Teaching hospitals, research initiatives and auxiliary enterprises (supported almost entirely from non-state funds) account for roughly 70 percent of the non-academic growth since 1998.

Should Mr. Carroll wish to write again about such issues, I encourage him to give us a call. One key to maintaining the excellence of the world’s best public university system is educating the public about the facts.

Dianne Klein
Media Relations, University of California Office of the President

Jordan Carroll’s article in the Oct. 27 edition of The Aggie entitled “Occupy Wall Street: The UC Connection” and the protests that took place on campus the same day are perfect illustrations of the dangerous thinking that exists in the Occupy Movement. Although this movement is centered on the sentiment that banks are corporations are greedy, allegedly stealing wealth from and manipulating the working class, it has grown astronomically to embody the frustrations of all involved.

The massive success of the Occupy Movement cannot be attributed to the anger about “corporate greed,” but largely to the fact that it, quite simply, welcomes all angry people into its midst. We agree with the protesters on one thing: the banks should not have received the massive bailouts in 2008 and 2009, a fiscally irresponsible move that only increased the deficit of our nation. However, the attack on American capitalism is little more than cannibalism.

Protesters fail to realize that the whole point behind the concept of free-market capitalism is equal opportunity for all to attain prosperity. In America, we do have equal opportunity to achieve prosperity as a result of the freedom in our system, without discrimination against certain groups’ ability to get an education, find employment, start a business or invest in the stock market. Thanks to the freedom offered in this country, anyone is capable of forging their own future.

The Occupy Movement sees a discrepancy between the wealth accumulation of some compared to others; however, the claim that capitalism is entirely to blame for this is absurd.

Wall Street, banks and corporations being protested by this movement were bailed out by the federal government. The federal government heaped massive international debt across future generations of America to “save” these corporations from failing, a move we disagree with. Increasing the deficit like this can only increase the tax burden on working Americans.

Additionally, the financial crisis is not a result of a roomful of scheming corporatists; rather, the federal government crippled these banks and corporations when they regulated that they must decrease standards of loans and mortgages in order to accommodate people that Wall Street normally would not. This regulation led to the collapse of the market, as these individuals receiving loans were unable to pay back the money they were loaned and corporations were in massive debt.

The Occupy Movement blames the corporations when, really, they should aim their gaze at the federal government that tied their hands. If people wish to protest, they should protest the federal government that put banks in an impossible situation in the first place, followed by the infusion of trillions of dollars into the market to rescue them as a result.

In his article, Carroll criticizes the defunding of the UC System by the State of California and he was joined in this criticism by the protesters on campus. This defunding is committed by a democrat-controlled legislature in this state, a legislature that has managed to not only create giant deficits, but to do so while creating the highest tax burden of any state in the country.

The revenue collected by California is spent on its massive welfare state and the never-ending public pension liability instead of being spent on public education. This heavy pension liability extends into UC Davis as well; Carroll and the campus protesters are right to criticize our university for providing administrators with lavish salaries while the quality of our education continues to diminish, accompanied by higher costs. But this is not the fault of greedy corporations and banks or of free-market capitalism.

UC Davis is the public sector. If anyone is getting rich at the expense of the poor it’s not those on Wall Street, it’s those in the public sector because we pay their salaries. Occupy protesters in Davis seem to be confusing the the public sector with the private, perhaps because the movement leaves them with a need to find something to be angry about.

The free-market capitalist system allows wealthy individuals to prosper only when others provide them with that wealth by purchasing their products or services. I don’t see Occupy protesters complaining about the fact that they didn’t need to invent their own computer or build it. This is not a magic, wand-waving phenomenon; the private sector creates these luxuries.

Without the private sector we would not be as privileged as we are. Wall Street doesn’t tax you, they don’t steal from you; they may charge high prices, but in that case, don’t purchase what they sell.

Businesses and banks provide the American people with jobs. Unless you have a job in the public sector, you likely will work for a private company. So it’s quite hypocritical, and as we said, cannibalistic, to fight against the very thing that provides for your livelihood.

If you want to protest something like poverty and economic hardship, direct your protests against the tax-and-spend policies of the federal and California governments. By all means, tell the UC administrators how wrong they are to up their salaries and then demand more money from us, but don’t confuse that with the alleged failures of capitalism. Call it like it is: corrupt, over-spending government.

Dustin Call and Marcus Shibler
Davis College Republicans

Tuesday October 26, 2011, an off-campus group distributed DVDs entitled 180 on the UC Davis campus. The intent of this letter is to provide transparency about the content of the film and empower potential viewers to make an informed decision about watching the film.

Please be aware that we summarize the film and content may be triggering.

The first portion of the film discusses the Holocaust and features several interviews asking individuals on the street what they would do if they had lived in Nazi Germany.

The second part of the film compares legalized abortion to the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. From this point on, the film compares a person’s choice about the outcome of their pregnancy to Hitler’s “choice” to commit the atrocities of the Holocaust. Additionally, the film calls abortion “a Holocaust in America that’s sanctioned by the government.” The documentary advises its viewers to actively vote against legalized abortion and provides information on how to further distribute the film.

Our response to 180 is multifaceted, and we want to share both our support for the communities affected and make a statement.

The distribution of the film on our campus took place at the MU, Silo and Wellman lawn. Many students were not informed about the content of the film and were given misleading information when they asked for a summary of the film. Most notably, the distributors and the DVD packaging made no mention of abortion. In fact, the film itself does not discuss abortion until about 15 minutes into the film. When we asked the distributors what group they were representing, who funded the film, who were the producers, or how they learned about how to distribute it, they refused to answer. Overall, the distribution of the films was deceitful and we find their methods problematic.

The Holocaust has a cultural impact that is inextricable from this film. Comparing a person’s legal right to choose the outcome of their pregnancy with the Holocaust evokes that cultural understanding and creates an artificial sense of horror. The comparison is not merited and the use of the Holocaust is offensive, insensitive and triggering.

The use of the word “choice” both in reference to a person’s choice in the outcome of their pregnancy and to Hitler’s “choice” to commit atrocities during WWII is not comparable. We refute the use of the loaded term “choice” in the discussion of Hitler’s behavior.

We stand in solidarity with students identifying as Jewish, Queer, People of Color, Women, Transgender, Romani and folks with disabilities for whom this film invokes histories of oppression, genocide and erasure. Additionally, we stand in solidarity with folks who have personal histories and experience around the topic of pregnancy, abortion and oppression that may have been triggered. We acknowledge the film as offensive, upsetting, insensitive, reprehensible, vilifying and erasing of history.

We would like to express our commitment to supporting students and providing non-judgmental information surrounding pregnancy. A complete list of resources for students who may have been triggered by the film or are looking for accurate information can be found on the online edition. Please stop by the Women’s Center if you are looking for additional information or want to talk about your experience.

Daniella Moses
Resources & Administrative Intern

Jessie Quinn
Library Intern

On behalf of the Women’s Resources and Research Center

While proceeding through my daily mission to ride my bike over as many crunchy leaves as possible on the way to class, I often think about what to discuss in my column. What more can Davis students have to relate to aside from our bicycles, our Facebooks and our need to stay focused in the classroom? Then I remembered perhaps the greatest theme of all to accompany our college experience, something that divides our time at school into separate eras. I am speaking, of course, of our academic standing, or our “year,” as we like to call it.

So what better way to get a fresh start on a new column than fresh talk about freshmen? Obviously, these high schoolers are the easiest target to make fun of. They can’t ride their bikes properly, they don’t know how to feed themselves and they have about a 0 percent chance of making it into the bars. You know how I know you’re a freshman? You think the Tercero dorms are the coolest place to live.

I remember back in my heyday in the Malcolm high-rise before the buildings were remodelled. Sure, the dorms looked slightly like upscale mental asylums, but there was no doubt that my roommate and our peers thought we ruled the school. Teasing freshmen can be easy fun — that is, until you remember they have more time left in college than the rest of us. I’m pretty sure there’s only, like, three hours left until I graduate.

Not to be sophomoric, but second-year students are a bunch of bird-brained air heads. Their egos are fully inflated after a year of coming home to no parents or curfew, and there is a high probability that the responsibilities of college haven’t quite caught up with them. They are likely to insist they don’t have to declare a major and can continue taking 12 units of GEs every quarter to get by.

You’ll have to travel great distances to find most sophomores, hidden in their cookie cutter apartment complexes they seem so fond of. I’m not sure what makes “Farlington” seem so appealing to them, but apparently they don’t mind having to ford a river and cross a snowy tundra each day to get to class. This is dissimilar to their distant cousin, the not-so-aptly-named juniors.

Third-year students here have figured out how to handle themselves in school. They have traded in their spacious apartments for a shared garage at twice the cost, but inside the heart of downtown. Many juniors have started to take on extra responsibilities, such as an on-campus job or resume-building internship. I, for one, know that after I started working at the CoHo last year, I was severely confused about what I used to do during the 16 hours a week I now spend at my job.

The difference between a third and fourth-year student is probably the least among all the classes. Members of both years avoid frat parties and instead take in Davis’ ever-fashionable bar scene. But, perhaps the thing my fellow seniors and I share most is the sense of urgency regarding our lack of time left here. I know I’m trying to savor every last socially acceptable moment with a beer bong I have left.

This column may have highlighted the differences between the ranks of our fellow students here, but we have a lot to learn from one another. In my fraternity I’ve had the chance to take a “little bro” and attempt to show him the ropes in college. Unfortunately, not all of us will have this opportunity. If you’re an upperclassmen, be sure to take some time to help a freshman avoid a bike accident or share a beer with a sloppy sophomore. You know how much you would’ve appreciated it if someone had done that for you.

You know how I know you’re a senior? Tell AARON WEISS at atweiss@ucdavis.edu.

Fellas, get ready to press snooze one more time on that alarm clock because, that’s right: it’s No-Shave November. Yes, for an entire month, many men partake in the annual tradition of letting their facial hair grow out. It’s a symbol of manliness, which apparently is just the ability to grow a decent amount of facial hair.

If you’ve never heard of this phenomenon, allow me to describe it. The premises are fairly simple: the last day that you shave is Halloween and then no shaving for the entire month of November. Men often take pictures of their faces until the end of the month, documenting the transformation. Essentially, it’s like looking at a picture of a hairless sphynx cat and then comparing it to Chewbacca.

Ok, maybe I’m exaggerating a bit but it is definitely a drastic change, especially for those who grow hair very quickly. For those who sprout a few hairs on their chin and attempt to call it a goatee: sorry, your transformation is not going to look very radical. Unfortunately, your pictures may just look like you forgot to wipe that chocolate after diving into the leftover Halloween candy.

Let’s be honest, some guys look like they’re 12 years old without beards. In those cases, facial hair can be helpful during times when adults ask where your parents are, you try to enter a club or you need to keep scary pedophiles away.

Speaking of pedophiles, try to avoid looking like one during No-Shave November. If you’re one of those guys who grows a mustache that looks especially like you shouldn’t be hanging around elementary schools, by all means abandon this tradition of month-long manhood. No one should get hurt in this process, and children running away from you in fear and tripping could definitely cause some damage.

Don’t know what kind of facial hair to grow? Look around, there’s inspiration lurking at every corner. Presidents from Abe Lincoln to Rutherford B. Hayes have had beards, the latter being the more imposing one. Maybe you’re looking for more thuggish facial hair; if so, look no further than the grunting Rick Ross or even rapper Freeway. If the most you can grow is a mustache, try the ever prevalent Tom Selleck, or more recently, the Ron Swanson, for my fellow “Parks and Recreation” fans.

If you’ve always wanted to stroke your beard while pretending to think about something profound, No-Shave November is the month for you. Socrates and Plato both had long beards and since they probably came up with philosophies while stroking them, why can’t you? If you’re not so sure about having to think, or even pretend to think, why not try growing out your sideburns into mutton chops? Yes, those sideburns look pretty disgusting, but on the flip side that’s quite an impressive amount of hair. Plus, keeping all of that hair will help you stay warm during Davis’ brutal winter.

Guys, be warned: not all ladies love the scruff. Sure, a little bit of stubble is sexy, but when a beard gets too long you may begin to look like a hobo. No-Shave November, therefore, is not about getting the ladies, it’s about displaying manliness. It’s also a way to raise awareness about men’s health issues, which I did not know about until looking it up. Whatever the reason, just don’t expect to get too many ladies.

No-Shave November is a month of ruggedness and sometimes pure laziness. Guys who decide to partake in it: be prepared to itch like crazy and get food stuck in that insanely long beard. Everyone else: be prepared to see your friends transform into cavemen.

MEDHA SRIDHAR is excited to watch guys go from sphynx cats to Chewbacca. Contact her about your journey through the month at mdsridhar@ucdavis.edu.