Every Nov. 29, I celebrate another year of my existence on this planet we call earth. The following exchange happens at least 26 times throughout the day. Stranger: “Happy Birthday!” Me: “Thanks!” When this doesn’t fill the daily quota for human-human interaction time, people tend to add, “So, how old are you?”

As standard as this inquiry is on anyone’s birthday, my answer always seems to prompt this, not so normal comeback: “What grade did you skip?”

Until September of last year, Californian children could enroll in kindergarten so long as they were born before Dec. 2. Now, due to some low state test scores and the “explorative” nature of four-year-olds, the Senate has passed SB 1381, which has moved the kindergarten cut off date from Dec. 2 to Sept. 1. The bill is expected to take full effect in 2014.

While this change may seem harmless to all of you summer babies, those of us that celebrate our births at the end of the calendar year owe a lot of life decisions and strange comments to Dec. 2. I suppose you could say that we believe in kindergarten.

In attempts to address the 120,000 students who will be affected by the change in date, the bill has created “transitional Kindergarten,” a pre-kindergarten year that is meant to prepare the late-borners who aren’t quite ready for real kindergarten.

It is widely agreed among lawmakers and teachers that the current kindergarten curriculum is nothing like it was 10 years ago. In the words of Senator Joe Simitian of Palo Alto, “It’s a pretty rigorous place these days, and the youngest are struggling to keep up.”

While I respect teachers as much as anyone can, and acknowledge that school districts are forced to make state testing a priority, I can’t help but wonder if this bill is a sign of disbelief.

We shouldn’t forget that kindergarten, as we experienced it, was monumentally significant in our development as small humans.

In 1980, a study known as “Project STAR” was developed by a Tennessee research team who sought to uncover whether or not someone’s early education experience could influence their prosperity later in life. In attempts to address this question, the researchers documented the lives of 12,000 children from kindergarten to adulthood.

Thirty years later, a group of Harvard professors used the data collected in Tennessee and concluded that it is more likely for children to go to college if they had a good learning experience in kindergarten. Consequently, the Harvardians found that at age 27, these college-bound individuals generally made at least $1,000 more a year than their average achieving kindergarten classmates.

A birthday cannot possibly define a child. By bringing the cut-off date forward, it seems to me that we are neglecting to acknowledge the power one year of kindergarten can have in fundamentally influencing a student of any age, both academically and socially.

Granted, I haven’t been exposed to the new kindergarten, but I know plenty of late-borners like myself who have not only have flourished in school, but also remain rather attached to their youth.

UCD sophomore biological sciences major, Nyssa Spector, was born on Dec. 4, a whole two days after the cut-off date (gasp). Despite her day of birth, Spector shared that she’s never felt the negative repercussions of her age in the academic setting. Her parents and preschool teachers knew she was ready to start kindergarten at age four and she’s turned out great.

I don’t know about you, but if I were a bill, I wouldn’t try to tell parents and teachers that they’re wrong about a student’s abilities. I have enough genius nieces and nephews to know that kids can seem kindergarten-ready to non-experts like me, as early as age two.

I’d like to think that we can all believe in kindergarten. It really was a great, unforgettable year.

I can say with certainty that the age diversity among the members of my kindergarten class contributed to my growth as a student and a human being. Life wasn’t harder because I was four, just a little different.

Kids are extremely intelligent human beings who don’t deserve to be academically sorted by their birthday. Kindergarten works. It worked for the adorable four-year-old me, and it worked for my admittedly more adorable five-year-old brother.

So the next time you encounter a September 2-December born four-year-old, make the choice to remind them of their greatness, and raise your glass of grape juice to kindergarten.

MAYA MAKKER wishes the characters on “Lost” had island-themed birthday parties. Share your ideas for Richard Alpert’s parties via mgmakker@ucdavis.edu. He has a lot of birthdays.

Crank up the volume for that sad song, bury your face in a pillow and give yourself an hour or so. You earned it, champ. It feels good, no? Some people love it and some hate it. Myself? I love it. It can be very therapeutic.

Sad music can be anytime music for me. Now, don’t go thinking I spend my days just listening exclusively to sad music. I have my fair share of happy, upbeat music – trust me. I’ll blast Daft Punk while cruising on I-80 over the sad stuff any day, but sad music can make me feel good like nothing else.

Why on earth could listening to sad tunes make a person feel better, whether their sadness is genuine or not? Believe it or not, there may be a reason – a chemical reason. Bet you didn’t see that coming.

An article by the San Francisco Classical Voice highlights an ongoing study by researcher David Huron of Ohio State University. Huron theorizes that people who enjoy listening to more morose music are enjoying the effects of prolactin, a hormone usually released when we’re sad and weeping, or pregnant and lactating (you know who you are). His study involves taking blood samples and measuring the levels of the hormone as the subjects listen to no music, sad music and happy music.

Huron likens the effect of the hormone as being “like Mother Nature wrapping her arms around you and consoling you, and saying, ‘There, there; it’s okay.'” Prolactin works like a handbrake to slow down grief. Not everyone listens to sad songs when they’re genuinely sad. So why listen to them? Huron says that by listening to a sad song one can fool oneself into thinking one’s sad, and then the conscious part of one’s brain will reason that there’s no legitimate need to be actually sad. So, that person will be getting the prolactin without any of the psychic pain, and they come out feeling rather good! People that don’t enjoy sad music probably aren’t producing prolactin; the study is still ongoing.

So, I’m fooling myself into thinking I am sad when I’m really not, and I come out feeling good? How badass is that? It’s a damned nice trait to have. I’ll admit that happy music does induce a similar “feel-good” feeling for me, but the one I get from sad music resonates so much differently.

I know I’m not alone on this happy train either. There are oodles and oodles of people that enjoy sad music like this and can vouch for it. My friend Gina will often find herself listening to “Just a Feeling” by Maroon 5 because it makes her feel good – freakin’ good. She’s even admitted to having it on three or four different mixes. If it makes you feel good, by golly, why stop it?

If you’re not already doing it, try it. Maybe you could use some more prolactin in your life. You may find yourself going “Aw, yeah. That’s the stuff.” I don’t think sad music should be solely reserved for times of genuine sadness. Science may even be able to back it up if this study follows through, but then again everyone is wired differently. If it doesn’t work out for you, I’m sorry.

Unless I’m shedding years off of my precious, little life by listening to the more morose tunes, I don’t think I will ever stop. I love hopping on the happy train whether it be through the sorrow station or the joyous one.

LARRY HINH is plenty happy! Let him know how you’re doing at lthinh@ucdavis.edu

I am writing in regards to The Aggie’s dismal coverage of this year’s Picnic Day. Specifically, I am disappointed by the Aggie’s failure to adequately report on the tragic death of recent UCD graduate Scott Heinig, who died from complications from a head injury sustained at a post-Picnic Day house party on Saturday night.

This tragedy merited only a four-sentence summary in your April 18 edition (“UC Davis grad dies from injury,” p.1) and a cursory reference in an unrelated, April 19 article on UC Davis baseball (“UC Davis drops two in inter-conference play,” p.6). And while the Aggie’s editorial page has thus far failed to comment on Heinig’s death, on Tuesday it did offer a light-hearted editorial (“Thanks for handling your shit,” p.3), which characterized this year’s Picnic Day as a roaring success. Given the fatal circumstances of that day, the editorial’s tone and specific failure to mention Heinig must be considered tactless, if not misleading.

Meanwhile, Heinig’s death and the approximately 60 arrests that occurred at this year’s Picnic Day have been reported heavily by the Davis Enterprise, Sacramento Bee and UC Davis News Service.  The discrepancy in tone and degree of coverage between The Aggie and these news outlets is striking. Many of the students I have spoken with about Heinig’s death have been unaware that it occurred – which must be viewed in part as a result of the Aggie’s lack of substantive coverage. The Aggie does a disservice to the community in not adequately reporting on this issue, and in painting an overly-rosy picture of a day in which someone lost his life.

Heinig’s death is a tragedy that, whatever one’s thoughts on Picnic Day, should prompt a thoughtful campus and community discussion on how to prevent incidents like this from occurring in the future.

Sincerely,

Rob Newcomb

Assistant professor, Department of Spanish and Portuguese

There are so many problems with Geoffrey Wildanger’s guest opinion that I don’t know where to begin.

The most alarming is referring to a diplomat as a “propagandist” and a “professional shill” just because he happens to be Israeli. If a Consul General from Palestine or Libya were to talk at UC Davis, would anyone use such terms? Wildanger’s letter is part of a widespread strategy by anti-Israel hate activists to de-legitimize anyone who disagrees with them. Any comment or news article that is pro-Israel, including statements of facts, is called “propaganda” and, thus, should be disregarded, or worse, blindly disbelieved.

Wildanger claims that his group is willing to engage in and have an honest conversation, but if not with Tor or Oren then with whom? If all speakers who are pro-Israel are considered “propagandists” before they even open their mouths, then who are you going to have dialogue with?

Then there is the outright lie that Palestinians have made “tremendous sacrifices” toward coexistence. Please, name one! Coming to Camp David to sign a peace agreement is not a sacrifice, especially if, as Arafat did, one is simultaneously purchasing weapons from Iran and Syria. No sacrifice could be bigger than Israel’s withdrawal from Sinai in 1976, in which Israel gave up two-thirds of its land, the only oil fields in the region – and the energy independence that came with them – and the homes of 7,000 Israelis in order to achieve peace with Egypt. So let no one say Israel does not make sacrifices for peace.

Israel also gave up the Gaza Strip unilaterally in the hopes of making peace and giving the Palestinians a state, making tens of thousands of Jews homeless overnight. The Palestinian response, alas, was a surge in rocket attacks at civilians, most recently being a heat-seeking missile strike against an Israeli school bus carrying children. Hamas still refuses to accept Israel’s right to exist. If the Palestinians actually want peace and co-existence, that should be the first step.

Lastly, there’s the issue of an academic and cultural boycott of Israel. That makes as much sense as boycotting UC Berkeley and The Woodstock Festival to show opposition to the U.S. military. In Israel, as in the U.S., academics and artists are far more likely to be liberal than the average person. The anti-Israel groups on campus here are effectively trying to boycott their Israeli counterparts,including the many Muslim students in Israeli universities. Any boycott of Israel would affect its nearly 20 percent Muslim population as harshly as it would the 75 percent of it that’s Jewish.

For this reason, Al-Quds University in the Gaza Strip does not boycott Israel. Its President, Suri Nusseibeh, himself has come out in very strong opposition to an academic and cultural boycott for the aforementioned reasons. If a Palestinian university in Gaza does not boycott Israel, then how on earth could you justify enacting such a boycott in the U.S.?

Or is Suri Nusseibeh just a propagandist, too?

Matan Shelomi

Entomology graduate student

First 5 Children’s and Families Commissions may go away! If this happens, thousands of young Yolo County children and their families will lose critical and basic services. Services that help provide food, early education, health insurance for kids and also prevent child abuse.

Many are aware that the governor signed AB 99, which will now sweep $950 million from county commissions to help solve the state budget deficit. But did you know a larger threat to Yolo County’s youngest children has appeared in the form of SB 486, authored by Senate Republican Leader Bob Dutton? This will shut down all the First 5 Commissions in California and hijack the money for the state’s general fund.

What would this mean for the children between zero and five years of age in Yolo County? The Children’s Alliance uses Proposition 10 funds to run the weekly food distribution to 150 needy families; pay for the Children’s Health Initiative enrollment and outreach program; recruit new foster parents; provide for in-home visiting for at-risk pregnant and new moms through the Step by Step program; support universal preschool and many other local programs that have provided critical support for our youngest children and their families.

These are just a few of the programs supported by First 5 Yolo. There are many more.

SB 486 is being discussed in the California State Legislature right now. I urge everyone who wants to keep local control of the Proposition 10 dollars to immediately write or fax a letter to Senator Ed Hernandez, chair of the Senate Health Committee, and let him know your concerns. Please copy Yolo County’s representative, Senator Lois Wolk, a member of the Senate Health Committee, and send both letters to the California State Capitol, Room 2191, Sacramento, CA 95814. The fax number for Senator Hernandez is (916) 445-0485.

Remind our elected officials that we, the voters, have approved Proposition 10 TWICE – once in 1998, and again in 2000 when more than 70 percent of California voters rejected efforts to repeal Prop 10. The Legislature shouldn’t take away what the people of California strongly support!

Katie Villegas,

Executive director

Yolo County Children’s Alliance and Child Abuse Prevention Council

The saga of the Domes closure continued with a positive step toward compromise when Domes advocates submitted a new proposal to UC Davis administration April 13.

The proposal calls for the nonprofit Solar Community Housing Association (SCHA) to function as a third-party management group responsible for maintaining the Domes’ property and overseeing repairs. Under the SCHA necessary renovations would cost an estimated $50,000, as opposed to Student Housing’s price tag of $94,000. Both plans would take about five years but the SCHA’s would do so without forcing Domes residents (Domies) to leave.

Drafters of the proposal should be applauded for their efforts to come up with a practical solution. Rather than accepting the closure of the Domes, they have continued to fight, and should be respected for their perseverance.

The plan itself, while not perfect, is innovative and addresses many of the concerns that closed the Domes in the first place. Domies have acknowledged that some structural repairs are non-negotiable, and have planned accordingly.

In addition, by utilizing a third-party manager, residents demonstrate that they are realistic about the large amount of work that needs to be done. The SCHA, which manages other cooperative housing communities in Davis, seems to be a good fit for the Domes’ unique identity and guiding principles.

Administrators are still wary of the safety and structural terms of the proposal, as well as its legal and financial requirements, so all parties involved must continue to be open to compromise if a plan is ever to be approved.

However, their offer as it stands is an impressive demonstration of their passion and willingness to work with Student Housing to come up with a solution that will satisfy everyone. The administration should take them seriously and give their efforts the respect and consideration they deserve.

I’m responding to Ms. Miller’s guest opinion not as a member of a “choreographed” group of students, but rather as an individual participant in Israeli Consul General Akiva Tor’s lecture.

From what I witnessed, I would say her interpretation of the events as reducing “the intellectual integrity of the classroom…to symbols of hate and hopelessness” as being patently false and in fact a reduction of the larger discussion to a false dichotomy of “right speech” and “wrong speech.” To say that acts of protest are not “engaging in conversation” is a gross under-simplification. Further, it was the remaining attendants of the lecture who rolled down the window shades so as to prevent a view of the students partaking in protest, lined up silently and peacefully along a wall behind the appellate court where the lecture was held, as being those most guilty of not engaging in conversation.

This dichotomy of “right” and “wrong” speech was clearly on display when I was asked to leave the lecture hall after attempting to engage Consul General Tor in a conversation regarding his claim that Israel “refuses to meddle in the internal affairs of its neighbors,” followed by an inquiry as to whether the police presence (two squad cars, two uniformed UC Davis Police Department officers, at least one other plainclothes UCDPD officer, and his personal bodyguard) at the event was normal for a lecture on our campus or at events he attends on other campuses, and whether he knew who paid for this heightened security.

I was publicly booed, shunned by the larger group and forcefully asked to leave by one of the event organizers. I agreed to leave if she would accompany me to answer the latter question about the police presence. However, after attempting to lure me outside with promises to ‘talk after’, and my refusing, she attempted to get a police officer to escort me out. However, seeing how I had not disrupted the event and had only engaged in the public Q&A portion, he did not oblige her request, and I was allowed to stay. After the event, I waited patiently outside but was never again approached by this event organizer.

What became abundantly clear to me though, is the disingenuous nature of Ms. Miller’s invitation to “have a discussion” in the article. Ms. Miller seems guilty of the “anti-intellectual,” “knee-jerk reactions” which she bemoans the student protesters of fostering.

For instance, to begrudge the student protesters from engaging in a discussion coined “Israel Today: Challenges and Opportunities” just because it didn’t explicitly mention Palestine is intellectually counterfeit. It is abundantly evident that the very existence of the Palestinian Peoples poses a fundamental challenge to the existence of Israel with its current policies, and improved relations would seem to be one of the biggest opportunities for “fostering coexistence.”

It is also a severe lack of self-critique that would prevent Ms. Miller from acknowledging the “blind subscription” to ideology present in General Consul Tor’s claim that “Israel only attacks in self-defense”. But when I sought to discourage and draw into doubt this narrow interpretation of the situation, I was encountered with the attendants’ “knee-jerk reactions” and the organizer’s request for my departure.

Further, by merely casting aside such terms as apartheid, colonial, imperial and military occupation as being nothing more than “buzzwords from ideologues” accepted by “liberal sheep”, it is again in fact you, Ms. Miller, who are ignoring our collective responsibility as students to “explore the nuances of important political issues.” By banishing these terms to the historic relics bin, you are, conscientiously or not, attempting to prevent the linkage of Israel’s current policies with those of oppressive states past and present.

Lastly, the claim that “Akiva Tor’s nation of affiliation was enough to spark protest and hate” is again a gross misrepresentation of the student action that I witnessed. I did not see students begrudge General Consul Tor’s nationality, but rather his active role in justifying to the international community and our local community what they interpret as the illegal actions of his nation. This is vastly different from the picture your quote paints of an irrationally angry mob, bordering just this side of anti-Semitism.

The student protestors, in my interpretation, sought to not allow the organizers and attendants of the event to “passively legitimize illegitimate beliefs” by playing host to a man they see as a justifier of crimes against humanity.

I did not see any hate displayed by these students, but if Ms. Miller and others cannot recognize that it is in fact the actions of the State of Israel that elicits this response from individuals, then maybe hopelessness is in line.

However, I am heartened by the well-wishes I received after the event, not just from student activists but from other individual participants, that there still exists in number those who recognize the benefit of a real, unmediated dialogue which rejects notions of “right speech” and “wrong speech” in an attempt to come to a point of honest speech.

– Conrad Samaan