There are times I’d like to simply drive 300 miles without stopping, but due to climbing gas prices, such vagabondry would be foolish and excessive. Instead, I settle for the drive down 80 West to the East Bay.

I’ve grown quite accustomed to this drive, where the end point is my parents’ abode in the Oakland Hills bordering Berkeley. What I enjoy the most is how 80 transforms from country scenery to urbanized development. It slowly turns from bucolic landscape in the form of green meadows, grazing cows and marshland to more elevated topography, lush blue waters and views of San Francisco’s skyscrapers poking up into the sky.

Since their advent, modes of transportation have been a point of fascination for psychologists studying the effect that motion has on mentality. Yes, some people get motion sickness, while others feel that the “en route” state is only a mundane necessity for getting from one place to another. But for the true adventurists out there, motion is freedom, experiencing the road to get from here to there as equally fulfilling to arriving at the destination.

What’s thrilling to me about driving from Point A to Point B is being suspended in OtherSpace, located neither here nor there. Every time I drive back up to Davis from Oakland I get to stop in a different city for gas, as well as buy my mid-trip coffee at varying locations. Fairfield is a common stop for their shopping mall, where delectable candied apples await me at Haagen-Dazs to serve as the perfect mid-trip snack.

There is a psychology to our fascination with road trips. Think about you and your friends in a car, loud music playing, the hood of your car swallowing the road, your point of location constantly shifting. I find it exhilarating. Our psyches can rest at ease knowing that on road trips we’re moving ahead somewhere as opposed to staying stuck, with the distance covered being blatantly measured and easily observed.

The space of the car is at once no space and many spaces. Though you’re contained to one space, you don’t remain in one spot. As humans, we have a predilection for wanting to move forward while also feeling safe. In the car we are enclosed, but we’re also moving full speed ahead. Pretty scenery whirs by. We leave things in the dust. All the while music plays, and the temperature is adjusted to fit our needs.

The car is comforting to many people for one thing because it’s enclosed. For another, it’s private. My housemate Kyra often uses her car as a second room when the house gets chaotic. A good many venting sessions between the two of us have been contained to the insides of her grey Mitsubishi.

It’s a quiet place, entirely your own (more so than your room, when you consider how paper-thin some of our walls are). You can engage in frisky business in the car, or you can talk for hours with the music playing and then come back to your vehicle later that night in the pouring rain to find that the battery’s drained (as my housemate Mags and I did once after a late night workout at the ARC).

I always wanted to be one of those babies pulled along in little tents attached to their dads’ bikes. It felt so much safer than riding my own bike, where contact with the open air and the outside world seemed threatening. It’s the human tendency to want to burrow. Enclosed moving apparatuses allow for this.

For this reason, I’d recommend going for a drive once in a while (past the cornfields is cathartic) to clean your mind. Mental clarity can often arise in the presence of motion, where the concrete distance traveled serves as a model for forward thinking.

I don’t mean to advocate environmental pollution, however, so keep these spontaneous drives to a minimum. And carpooling is always good.

My new silver car is named Phlipper by the way, substituted for my old 1995 Saturn, Mr. Toad, who finally croaked a couple months back. He puts up with me playing Pitbull really loudly inside him … I should probably be rewarding him with a wash one of these days. When I get around to it.

ELENI STEPHANIDES can be reached at estephanides@ucdavis.edu.

Not long ago, several student-teachers at the UC Davis School of Education came together to found an organization dedicated to improving the schools of the poorer countries of the world. And so after class, in the back corner of the ASUCD Coffee House inside the Memorial Union, the International Teacher Cooperation was born.

As decided by the founding members, the ITC has two fundamental, closely related goals. One, to identify the specific educational needs of teachers and students on the ground in the developing parts of the world, and to fundraise very achievable amounts to meet those needs.

Two, to educate people back here in America about the challenges faced by children in school – or not in school – and growing up in countries such as Liberia, Bolivia and Afghanistan. The greater that awareness grows, the easier it is to accomplish our first goal.

There is no doubt that the citizens of the United States, with our tremendous wealth and worldwide influence, have a very substantial ability to effect change in the Third World. There are enormous obstacles to lifting millions of people thousands of miles away out of poverty, but the right combination of wisdom and idealism can make a world of difference.

Thus the ITC has formulated both short- and long-term plans for achieving our objectives. In the long-term, we seek to spotlight different countries and educational concerns around the world, with an unfortunately endless number of poor communities having living standards very far below our own and desperately in need of aid.

But in the short-term we have an upcoming event on June 1, from 6 to 8 p.m. in 202 Wellman. Rona Popal, executive director of the Afghan Coalition and an expert on that country, will be speaking on the issues facing teachers in Afghanistan and how we can help them help children. Of course, the event is free and open to the public.

As we hope to educate the community with Ms. Popal’s appearance, we also have set a modest fundraising target of $750 by June 30. On campus, in the town of Davis and in the other communities in which we teach, we will be doing everything we can to gather a little money for our fellow teachers.

 Some might argue that California’s educational institutions require all the money they can get, and therefore we should put our own interests ahead of international ones. ITC co-founder Ryan Sonneville sees it differently.  

“[Our problems] should not mean that we turn our backs on teachers who are facing incredible challenges elsewhere,” Sonneville said. “The basic principle of solidarity requires that we stand with educators and students beyond our immediate locale. Teachers in Afghanistan face difficulties each and every day that should not go unheard.”

Even better, Sonneville pointed out that our goal of $750 would go a very long way in Afghanistan. Such an amount would pay for half of a teacher’s annual salary, giving enormous benefits to others at a very small cost to us and similarly stimulating their local economy.

And yet, the steep rise in tuition costs and the recession may make the normally generous more reluctant, while all the concentration on the harsh cuts to higher education might make our efforts at building awareness all the more difficult. But if we are short in time and money, I am reminded of Luke, chapter 21, verses one through four, in which Jesus reminds us of what real charity is.

“When he looked up he saw some wealthy people putting their offerings into the treasury and he noticed a poor widow putting in two small coins. He said, ‘I tell you truly, this poor widow put in more than all the rest; for those others have all made offerings from their surplus wealth, but she, from her poverty, has offered her whole livelihood.'”

As hard as our times may be, it only makes charity all the more meaningful.

What would it say about a community that – mired in a poor economy and grappling with severe problems funding its own teachers – finds the money to assist educators and students we will never meet, living 7,500 miles away and about as different from us as two peoples can be?

“Building relationships with teachers elsewhere, and helping air concerns and problems that teachers in other parts of the world deal with, helps us as a university body as well as a community,” Sonneville said.

Along with parents, teachers are the architects of society. If we hope to build a better world the best place to start is in the classroom. I strongly encourage you to take a little of your time on June 1 to learn about learning in Afghanistan. It’s a small investment for a big return.

An even smaller investment for an even bigger return would be e-mailing ROB OLSON at rwolson@ucdavis.edu.

Today is my birthday! Yes, dearest readers, please feel free to send me gifts of cash, chocolate, flowers or kittens.

Because the universe wanted to make me seem awesome by comparison, today marks the anniversary of the first publishing of Mary Had a Little Lamb and the anniversary of the first opening of the Brooklyn Bridge. I share my birthday with famous people like Queen Victoria and Bob Dylan. Unbeknownst to some of you, I also share my birthday with another important person: my sister, Rachel. That’s right. My parents are the proud owners of twins!

Since you are all avid readers of The Aggie, you know that Maya Makker wrote her column last Thursday about the great camaraderie that comes with having siblings. I have to agree with her.

Sorry, only children, but I think not having siblings would just plain suck. Even math has proven that it’s better to have siblings. Thank you, anthropology class, for teaching me about Hamilton’s rule. Apparently, your kinfolk have got you covered when it comes to lion attacks.

People frequently ask me what it’s like to be a twin. Well, what is it like to have a sister or a best friend? This question has and will haunt me forever, so I want to clear a few things up for you.

Usually our culture treats twins (and other sets of multiples) like some freaks that must be mentally or emotionally conjoined. Yes, this typically means “freak” in a good way, the Lady Gaga-esque, you’re so interesting that the sociologists want to study you way, but still.

Twins are not little green people from Mars. We are human beings that have the ability to lead separate lives and have unique personalities. We just happen to have the same birthday, same parents, sometimes the same DNA, and if it so happens that twins are lucky, like my sister and I am, we fulfill the label of being “bffls.”

Last quarter, Robin Migdol wrote in The Aggie about the portrayal of twins in movies. As a twin, Migdol sees the stereotype of on-screen twins as completely wrong when it comes to off-screen life.

Take the awful blonde-haired blue-eyed Coors Light twins that are nothing more than weird twin-fetish sex symbols. Or look at Fred and George Weasley. “The twins” sure are adorable, but they seem to lack separate personalities (don’t worry, J.K. Rowling, I still love you).

I thought it was only natural that I should interview Rachel about this topic. When I asked her the generic question she’s heard hundreds of times about “what it’s like to be a twin,” she responded: “Being a twin is not my defining characteristic. It’s just a cool fact about me.”

I also asked her about the various first reactions and questions she gets when she tells people that someone else on this planet is running around slightly resembling her and sharing her birthday.

Some of my personal favorites include:

“Do you do each other’s homework?” No, we don’t cheat. We don’t even go to the same school anymore.

“Do you dress and look alike?” No, we don’t look like carbon copies since we are fraternal, not identical, twins. And if I ever start dressing alike with someone, please buy me new clothes. (Although Rachel and I do have some adorable childhood photos of matching French nautical outfits, sunflower dresses and roller-skates that are pretty legit.)

“Do you ever know what she is thinking?” Again, we aren’t superhuman. Twins don’t have ESP mind powers … yet.

“Do you have your own twin language?” I would love to have my own twin language, but I don’t think my sister has any plans to become a linguist and create a new language anytime soon.

Don’t get me wrong. I think it’s a pretty special birthday gift that I have a twin. But even though we grew up together and have probably spent more time with each other than with anyone else, we are still two people. As Rachel puts it: “We lead our own lives but always know that we have someone there for us.” Twins are independent people that just so happen to have a special relationship with another person.

According to The Twins Foundation, twins account for 2 percent of the general American public and the odds of an American woman having twins are around one in 90. So, next time you meet one (or two) of us, don’t stop and stare. Ask us what it’s like to get two birthday cakes!

CORRIE JACOBS secretly wishes that a Beatles tribute band would follow her around all day performing “Birthday” on repeat. If you are willing to play the opening riff for her, reach her at cljacobs@ucdavis.edu.

As our state goes through yet another incarnation of budget hell, Californians of all walks of life continue to suffer. Much attention has been focused on the impact of our budget troubles on education, and as many a parent of college-aged students will gladly offer, no issue has been as immediately costly as the rising price of a college education. 

In a state where we rightly pride ourselves on having the greatest assortment and quality of higher education opportunities in the world, and for living in an economy built upon the foundation of our investment in higher education, we have a strong reason to take pride in and protect post-secondary opportunity for all Californians.

Yet for all the benefits our investment in higher education provides, the enormous brain trust of leaders in public higher education, from chancellors to administrators to legislators and yes, governors, have only been able to face the nearly predictable yet dynamic predicament of state budget shortfalls with two responses: “charge students more” and “cut “. It’s hard to believe that the most daunting economic challenge we have faced as a state and nation has been met with the collective thud of all that experience, intelligence and brain power, unable to muster more than two answers: charge more and cut.   

Could it be our so-called leaders have forgotten how to answer the question “what is our mission?” Maybe they can be forgiven, since if they did realize the history and mission of higher education in our state, we would probably be exploring creative options to continue providing a world-class education that literally drives worldwide industries. Perhaps if they understood the commitment to opportunity that has fueled the greatness of our state, they would understand that much more needs to be done to support the goals of students, families and generations before us. The fundamental mission of the UC is “teaching, research, and public service,” yet many would be hard pressed to argue for the quality of leadership that protects this mission with “charge more” and “cut”.

Has the gravity of the situation overwhelmed the collective abilities of our leaders? Such challenges can be paralyzing, but we deserve better options as Californians who support higher ed. Eugene Bardach at the Goldman School of Public Policy writes that one of the first approaches to addressing an outcome of a policy issue is to “let present trends continue undisturbed.” It seems this has been the only response by public leaders, since it was the organizing and protesting efforts of students that were the catalyst for protecting higher ed from further cuts last year.

At a fundamental level, our leaders have forgotten that classes, schools, campuses and our state’s higher ed enterprise at large is a community. They have consistently failed to proactively engage our community in meeting these challenges together, and in their decisions to impose higher fees and cutting services and staff they have impugned far more than the quality of our education; they have taken advantage of our trust. They have chosen not to engage the community as equals who could share the burden and face the challenges together. As we in the ironically titled Doctorate in Educational Leadership program here at UC Davis experienced, they have summarily raised fees 32 percent in on our cohort without consultation, with no consideration given to family budgets, to colleagues in professions whose very jobs are threatened by budget decisions, and with little regard to options that may help to assuage the sacrifices families must make to pursue the very education their taxes help fund. 

For those of us who believe in leadership by example, it is enormously difficult to be anything but disappointed in our own community members. While many families wonder if they can afford the rising costs our leaders ask us to pay, perhaps we should be asking if we could actually afford the leadership they continue to offer.  

Adalai Stevensen once said, “Understanding human needs is half the job of meeting them.” Leaders of higher education in California seem to not understand the needs of students, our communities or our state. A failure to see your fellow student and colleague as an equal is one of the greatest signs of mistrust. So long as our leaders continue to make decisions absent of participation and input from the community, from students and from families, they will fail at protecting the public trust, our trust, and the mission of our state. 

The state of California is in deep fiscal trouble, and cuts will have to be made across the board. One sector that will see its state funding go down is higher education.

Under Gov. Jerry Brown’s 2011-12 budget proposal, the University of California, Cal State University and California Community Colleges could get $1.4 billion less from Sacramento. Because of this, the UC system will face a guaranteed $500 million cut.

It could get worse. Despite a $6.6 billion increase in state revenue, if Brown’ proposed tax extensions aren’t passed, the cut to the UC could double to $1 billion. Brown’s budget summary acknowledges these cuts, but does very little to offer any type of support. It’s up to each campus and each educational system to figure it out on its own.

The UC will increase tuition by 8 percent in the fall. If the proposed tax extensions don’t get passed, there are talks of an additional 32 percent increase. This means students at UC Davis might pay $17,303 in tuition per year. There are few ways to express our distaste for this that don’t involve offensive curse words in bold face font. But we’re a professional publication.

If these increases go through, do not blame UC President Mark Yudof and the UC Board of Regents. Cutting Yudof’s pay won’t help reduce a $1 billion cut. This isn’t to say you shouldn’t get mad – on the contrary. Get mad at people who can control the situation.

The next round of tuition increases won’t be the UC’s fault – it will be due to the total lack of accountability in Sacramento. By virtually de-funding higher education without offering any suggestions to overcome the loss, state politicians are showing how little they value education after high school.

In fairness to Brown, he did propose giving an extra $2.4 billion to K-12 education – which accounts for over 43 percent of the budget.

However, it seems that politicians feel people will still seek a public higher education regardless of the price. This is likely not the case. As the state government continues to put higher education in a bind and tuition is hiked, it wouldn’t be surprising if fewer and fewer people attend these institutions. If there are fewer people getting a college education in California today, then there are fewer people that are educated enough to run the state tomorrow.

The eventual UC tuition increase will frustrate thousands of students across the state. They will have to pay more for public education that is seemingly getting less and less public.

Even though it will be Yudof and the Regents approving the tuition increase, it’s all they can do given the lack of constructive change going on in Sacramento.

In past years, ASUCD budget hearings have been long and disorganized, and it was clear senators were not familiar with the budget. However, this year, budget hearings ran smoothly and the budget itself was reasonable.

The members of the executive office coached the senate on budget hearing procedures and as a result, it seemed like the senate understood what to expect. Instead of running over the scheduled meeting times like last year, budget hearings ended early. Even with this improvement, the senate still effectively scrutinized the budget.

ASUCD chose to cut the Book Exchange to invest in more productive units such as The Pantry and KDVS. In addition, the executive office decided against giving the president, controller, senators and commission chairs pay raises. We support these decisions because ASUCD officials should be focused on helping the student community; giving themselves raises while cutting units just looks bad.

While ASUCD did a good job with the budget, there were some issues that were not handled correctly.

President Adam Thongsavat proposed an increase to his special project budget from $1,800 to $3,150 with the intention of creating the community t-shirt project. Despite being reduced to $3,000 this still seems excessive.

The t-shirts, which would be available for purchase, are supposed to foster a sense of community. However, $3,000 would be a lot of money to spend on t-shirts, especially when students already have the option of buying UC Davis apparel elsewhere.

Despite some unnecessary spending, the ASUCD 2011-12 budget was handled well with most funds appropriated fairly. Future senators should continue to work hard on the budget and make fiscally responsible decisions that benefit the student body.