For months in the
run-up to the 2010 elections, pundits wondered aloud how President Obama would
respond to the impending defeat of his party at the ballot box. Typically a
chagrinned president moves to the center if the voters part ways with him in
the midterm elections. But Obama had also been very consistent — with a few
exceptions — in implementing strongly progressive policy at the federal level.
So would Obama choose Clintonian moderation, or Pelosian determination?

The direction of the administration for the
next two years may not be clear yet, but one thing we didn’t have to wait for
was the president’s interpretation of why the House of Representatives was lost
by a substantial margin and the Senate only narrowly stayed in Democratic
control.

“I think the Republicans were able to
paint my governing philosophy as a classic, traditional big government liberal,
and that’s not something the American people want,” the president opined
in a “60 Minutes” interview several days after the election.

“I think the Republicans were
successful,” he added a moment later, “in creating a picture of the
Obama administration as one that was contrary to those common-sense, mainstream
values about the size of government.”

Other than depicting the Republicans as no more
than a collection of Picassos, Obama’s explanation is nothing new. It seems
that whenever the Republicans or the Democrats lose the American people, it’s
never that the product is flawed. It’s just the goons over in marketing that
botched the sale of it.

This method is the perfect escape hatch for
anyone in the public eye when the polls turn against them. My philosophy is
fine. I was just too focused on effecting positive change to play the
politician game as well as my politician opponents. Did I mention they are
politicians and I’m not?

The it’s-just-a-marketing-issue issue has been
around for a long time, and it’ll be around for a longer time to come. For
folks who spend all day in Washington crafting a message, of course their train
of thought would easily explore whether or not they succeeded. As with any good
spin doctor, their mind was already on the message anyway.

But this also reflects an inability to accept
genuine blame for your actions. Obama criticizing himself for losing the
messaging war is much like the job interviewee claiming perfectionism as his
greatest flaw. We’ve all heard of the backhanded compliment that’s really an
insult, but what about the insult that’s really a compliment?

Obama’s take on the failures of his
communications strategy feels suspiciously like the gentleman who says with
aristocratic politeness, “I must have misspoken,” when really he
meant, “You weren’t listening to me.”

Beyond all that, Obama’s explanation simply
doesn’t make sense. The president and the Democrats produced endless speeches,
press conferences, press releases, summits, in-district events and town halls
(until those became counter-productive). They argued for their spending
packages, healthcare reform and increased government controls until they were
blue in the face (pun not intended, but accepted).

Am I the only one to think it odd for the
famed, charismatic orator who crushed the unbeatable Hillary Clinton in 2008 to
claim that he’s just no good at pitching his ideas?

It seems more likely that Obama’s rhetoric only
failed him as president because a campaign is all talk. When the people
measured that talk up against his actions, as inevitably comes with governing,
there was too much of a disconnect for even Obama to overcome. 

Contrast Obama’s post-election self-reflection
with former President Bush’s in his new book, f. Bush concedes he should’ve put more troops into Louisiana after Hurricane
Katrina, faster. He didn’t know at first how big the 2008 financial meltdown
was. The infamous “Mission Accomplished” banner on the aircraft
carrier after the Iraq War in 2003 was another blunder.

For all his reputation of an inability to admit
mistakes, it seems only two years out W. is more willing to point out his own
failings than the quiet kid in the back who’s looking for reasons not to ask
out the prom queen.

I’ve got plenty of criticisms of my own for the
Bush presidency, and it’s undeniable that he cares about history’s eventual
verdict. But I find his recent publicity tour refreshing in its candor and
directness. It’s obvious Bush is a politician no longer, having reached the end
of his political career, feeling liberated to appraise his own decisions
without tired political tactics.

Unlike President Obama.

Paint a picture of ROB OLSON and send it to
rwolson@ucdavis.edu.

Meet Roxxxy. She’s 5’7″, brunette, large breasted and white. She knows your likes and dislikes, has genitalia and even a heartbeat.

I know, doesn’t sound too out of the ordinary, but get this: Roxxxy is not human. That’s right, this lovely lady is really a lovely robot – a sex robot. If her initial description doesn’t sound like your perfect girl, know that she can have any other breast size and any other hair color or skin color you’d like.

When I first heard about Roxxxy I rushed straight to the website (TrueCompanion.com) where she can be purchased. I was appalled. I should note that Roxxxy is not alone and also has a male version named Rocky, but seeing as how the target demographic is for heterosexual men, he is much less advertised and not given as many features as Roxxxy.

Unlike Rocky, Roxxxy comes with five different personality settings. She can be any sexist stereotype you like, fellas! There’s Frigid Farrah, Wild Wendy, S&M Susan, Young Yoko and, last but not least, Mature Martha (not a joke, I swear). These “women” can be programmed to do anything their owner desires and never complain. That’s the supposed allure of it all. A machine that looks like a woman, but doesn’t come with all the “baggage” that real women have – like, oh, you know, their own motives and thoughts. The website even promotes owners to swap their sex-bots with other owners, saying, “This is the same as wife or girlfriend swapping without any of the social issues or sexual disease related concerns!” Is this the future or what?

Sex robots are not a new idea, and for decades there’s been a community of people who now refer to themselves as technosexuals and have had fantasies about the day they could make love to robots. However, until recent years this has been mostly the stuff of robot-romance fiction novels and films.

Now that Roxxxy has come along, I was under the impression that the fantasy has finally come true, but this is not exactly the case. David Levy, leader in the field of artificial intelligence research and author of the book Love and Sex With Robots: The Evolution of Human-Robot Relationships, insists that a lot of technosexuals want more than just to make love to robots, they want these robots to be their girlfriends and perhaps someday their wives.

My first thought: Why?

In an interview conducted by Charles Q. Choi for MSNBC, Levy states that this is because robots are actually the perfect fit for “people who find it hard to form relationships, because they are extremely shy, or have psychological problems, or are just plain ugly or have unpleasant personalities.”

This is just sad. Levy is perpetuating the notion that certain people cannot find love if they are “social outcasts” of any kind, which presents an extremely narrow-minded view of what men and women look for in another partner. What’s worse is that technosexuals themselves are expressing similar sentiments. One anonymous technosexual writes, “you remove the possibility for rejection or mutual abuse or hurt or misunderstanding. Remove the human equation and all of that possibility for hurting another human being or being hurt goes away.”

So basically, many of the people who want a robotic partner fear the inevitable rejection and hurt that goes hand in hand with pursuing human romance. It makes sense in a way – people can be scary, are quick to judge and hurt one another frequently. If we were to avoid these kinds of people at all times though, we’d be avoiding pretty much everyone we know. Not just lovers, but friends and family, too.

Robot fetishism is evidently a more complicated matter than meets the eye. It appeals to a wide variety of people, most commonly heterosexual men. Some are purely misogynistic and seek to make love to a woman-like machine that will follow its owner’s every command without resistance. I might be sounding too much like a Defeated Debra, but perhaps it’s best they stick to their robots so women with self-respect won’t have to deal with them. Yet the others that are fond of an artificial partner because it will not reject them or bring them emotional pain I’m more on the fence about. It’s far too bleak to just let a person marry their robot under the pretense that this is the only type of love this person can have.

ALISON STEVENSON admits she is not fully immersed in this community like some of you readers might be, so if you have anything to add, dispute or clarify about the issue then please e-mail her at amstevenson@ucdavis.edu.

If you’re over 21, put this paper down as soon as you finish this paragraph. No other story on this page is more important than this one. Now, put on your close-toed shoes and sprint to the Fast and Sleazy on B Street. Bring the debit card attached to your mom’s account and be prepared to empty her savings; today, big government is trying to take away the most essential part of your party experience, your Four Loko. So you’d better stock up like you’re preparing for the apocalypse. You can finish this article later online over a thirst-quenching, cranberry lemonade-flavored Four Loko. Savor it; if you don’t stockpile, it will be the last you ever enjoy. Ok, “enjoy” may be a bit strong. It will be the last you ever … have.

Welcome back. How did it go? Were there still any left on the shelves? Had a violent mob taken over the Sleaze yet?

Not yet? Good to hear. I’m glad you’re safe.

To you responsible readers who sprinted out of your classrooms to buy in bulk a beverage you were woefully unfamiliar with, I’m glad you made the right choice despite your ignorance. If you’d like to learn why this premium malt beverage is being removed from your shelves consider the following:

In 2005, three Ohio State alumni developed Four brand alcoholic energy drinks. Phusion Projects, LLC currently produces them in two different varieties, the availability of which depends on the state in which you live. Californians are best acquainted with the Loko variety, which contains 12 percent alcohol by volume and is most readily available in its 23.5-ounce size. There are many rumors as to what the “Four” represents. For years I thought it referred to each can being the approximate alcohol content of four beers. “Four” actually refers to the four main ingredients that also make this malt liquor beverage an energy drink: caffeine, taurine, guarana and wormwood (an essential ingredient in absinthe).

Four Loko, like the many similar drinks that preceded it, was designed to counteract the effects of alcohol’s suppressant nature; surely, if you can serve Red Bull vodkas or Jagerbombs over a bar’s countertop, they’d be fine in a giant can. Apparently, combining a suppressant and four stimulants can – in only the rarest of cases, I assure you – result in some dangerous and morally questionable situations. Some might even go so far as to call this mixture crazy (or, for my Spanish-speaking demographic, loco).

Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York is one such party. Today, after months of pressure from Sen. Schumer, the FDA will confirm the combination above unsafe, effectively banning all such products from the market. In an announcement on his federal website, the senator goes so far as to say that this should “serve as a warning to anyone who tries to peddle dangerous and toxic brews to our children; do it, and we will shut you down.”

What Sen. Schumer does in this argument against my sweet nectar is a logical flaw taught in most LSAT or formal logic classes called “distorting the point at issue;” the argument mis-describes the position of its opponent – turning the creators of an alcoholic energy drink for adults into poison peddling salesmen parked in your cousin’s elementary school playground – to make the opponent easier to attack. This was not some pedophile’s insidious plot to take advantage of our youth. It was a business opportunity to break into a market that American legislators have failed to prohibit for centuries.

However, as 21st century Americans, we’re used to political hyperbole, so if this flaw were the only issue with Four Loko’s opposition in Sen. Schumer, I’d consider letting it slide. However, by visiting a website like opensecrets.org, a “center for responsive politics,” you can take a gander at the 20 U.S. Senators who receive the most money from the traditional alcohol companies and their lobbies, the companies that compete with this popular alcoholic energy drink. Sen. Schumer received $142,000 in campaign contributions this campaign cycle from major alcohol brand names. This is more than double any other sitting senator.

This important statistic raises the question: Is Sen. Schumer actually concerned with our children, who are no more likely to drink one alcoholic drink than the next, or is he concerned with appeasing the special interests that got him re-elected by a two-to-one margin earlier this month?

Sen. Charles Schumer is ruining my party experience to prostitute himself to the traditional alcohol industry that got him elected. Now how’s that for political hyperbole?

JOSH ROTTMAN will be heading to the Sleaze and getting a little Loko at 8 p.m. tonight at the John Natsoulas Gallery (521 First St.) for the release of Nameless Magazine’s 2010 print issue. Reach him at jjrottman@ucdavis.edu.

Don’t milk while drunk

I am an avid reader of The Aggie. I read a copy of the newspaper every day! I have to say that I was quite disappointed in your “In Other News” blurb Tuesday. It read: “UC Davis bucket list: Milk a cow while drunk. Frat party anyone?”

There are so many problems with this statement. First off, if you were planning on milking a cow at UC Davis while drunk, you would have to sneak into the dairy facility after hours. Then, you would have to gain control of one of the cows, meaning you would cause a great deal of stress to the animal as well as the rest of the animals in the pen. And then you’d have to attempt to milk the cow, which I’m sure being done by a bunch of drunk frat boys would be extremely unsuccessful and harmful to the animal.

Plus, drunk people do stupid things. I’m sure you know this. Encouraging drunk people to be in a pen with a large half-ton animal is not only irresponsible but also encourages animal abuse and disorderly conduct. If any of these “frat boys” were to go as far as to tip one of the cows, it is highly likely they would cause permanent damage to the animal and its young if it were pregnant.

A lot of students read The Aggie daily, and as an agriculture school (hence “Aggie”) it is extremely irresponsible to encourage this type of reckless behavior. We should take pride in our agricultural achievements, not play around with them while we are drunk.

NATASHA DUPRE

Junior, agricultural and environmental education

Students must take action

We find ourselves in a time of change. The people creating these changes are the privileged few who forcefully implement unjust laws and policies to a misinformed majority.

It is unfortunate to say that we are being steered into the muddy waters of great injustice as seen through the student fee increases, the privatization of the university, the perpetual decline of student resources (as seen through furlough days, the financial aid office’s reduction of hours and the underfunded WRRC Library) and systematized racism that scapegoats the undocumented population in the form of such draconian laws as S.B. 1070 and H.B. 2281.

Students everywhere are taking the brunt. Even more so, undocumented students and people of color are finding themselves in restrictive financial situations. The system of higher education is forcing us to pay more for less; the students are being swindled from a just education.

The overwhelming and perpetual waves of unjust policies are taking a toll on the student body, and if nothing is done we are sure to keep experiencing this trend. Times like these require students to reclaim public spaces in order to encourage dialogue and create awareness. In the name of reclaiming student spaces we invite any and all students interested in learning and expressing their opinion on the current state of higher education to the Quad at noon today.

The current state of fee increases and unjust environment will continue and will only stop with student opposition. The student body has waited long enough for the administration and we know that we must take it upon ourselves to create a better university that works for the public, not the other way around. Find up-to-date information on current actions at the blog, peopleofcolorunite.wordpress.com, where we are currently working on revoking the current 8 percent fee increase.

EDWARD MONTERO

Junior, environmental science and management

Tonight’s midnight release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 begins the end of our childhood. (Warning: this editorial contains spoilers.)

A majority of UC Davis students were between six and 11 years old when the tale of the boy with a lightning bolt scar was first published. Parents read the first book to us and we stayed up past midnight on July 21, 2007 – when the final book was released – to find out how the saga ended.

We’ve followed Harry Potter and his group of allies, Ron, Hermione, Hagrid, Dumbledore and a slew of others as they dueled the Dark Arts.

We remember when Sirius Black fell into the veil at the Ministry of Magic. We teared up when Snape’s Killing Curse (Avada Kedavra) struck Dumbledore in the chest. We remember when the snake-faced Voldemort was finally vanquished.

No longer can we dress up in Gryffindor scarlet and gold in anticipation of a new film and be considered normal. We will soon be that weird person when we wear our dress robes for the impending Yule Ball.

The Harry Potter series represents our childhood. He aged as we did. Much like every teenager who read the seven novels, Harry experienced losing a crush and had friends he could share anything with.

The first installment of the Potter finale also marks the end of a worldwide phenomenon. The first six films grossed a combined $5.5 billion, the most for any movie franchise. The seven novels comprise the most circulated book series of all time, with an estimated 400 million in circulation.

Harry Potter was so successful because it appealed to the right crowd at the right time in history. Its whimsical tales of friendship and heavy themes of death could appeal to nearly all demographics.

Once Harry’s final Expelliarmus hits He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named at the end of The Deathly Hallows Part 2, we will officially have to grow up. We will have to tuck our brooms away into the cupboard beneath the staircase and stop chasing the Golden Snitch.

Though the series of our youth will officially end, it doesn’t mean we can’t relive it. There are books to be reread, movies to be rewatched and theme parks to be revisited.

When Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, along with the help of the Half-Blood Prince, the Deathly Hallows and the Prisoner of Azkaban defeat the villain who tried to use the Sorcerer’s Stone, Chamber of Secrets and Goblet of Fire to rule the magical world, the story will be over. The legacy, however, of “the boy who lived” will go on forever.

About a month ago, the Star of David was drawn on the Palestinian flag that stands true on the mural located at Memorial Union. This vandalism of the Palestinian flag should not and will not be forgotten. Yes, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a huge mess, and I can see why it may lead to some confusion among individuals. But I believe that a flat statement of facts will downsize this confusion and lead to some clearing among the foggy skies of the Middle East.

So let’s go back from the beginning and define Israel’s prime ideology: Zionism. In a nutshell, Zionism was created to bring the Jews together, under one land, which we are forced to call Israel.

Here we are already presented with a problem. If a country like Israel really does represent peace and justice for all, then why aren’t all the other inhabitants of that geographic region presented?

Reality is: Israel has one of the strongest air forces in the world, the most advanced nuclear weapon program in the Middle East and their economy is doing great. On the other hand, the Palestinians live in extreme poverty. It was reported by Oxfam International that 46 percent of Palestinians do not have enough food to meet their needs. These people live with less than 50 cents a day! This itself is enough to wave the Palestinian flag and plea for a free land.

My point is, ladies and gentlemen, drawing the Star of David on top of the Palestinian flag is wrong and very offensive to not only Palestinians, but to all of humanity. The settlements, the checkpoints and the wall that separates the “Palestinian territories” and the Israeli land are illegal according to the Geneva Convention laws. As Israel continues to expand, the Palestinian people continue to lose rights to their own land and property. Unfortunately, no one dares to utter a word. The Palestinian issue is very sensitive and thousands of Palestinians have died throughout the conflict. B’TSELEM, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights, calculated that for every 1 Israeli killed, 6 Palestinians were killed under Israeli hands. Now I ask you: With this information, is it really right to draw the Star of David on the Palestinian flag?

I say, absolutely NOT! The Palestinians deserve their right for justice and the dove of freedom raising the Palestinian flag will hold true for years to come, symbolizing the old man who stood true to his olive trees, blocking them from an Israeli bulldozer out to demolish them, or the young Palestinian girl drying up her tears because her crayons were broken after the Israeli checkpoint searched her bag as she made her way to school.

Yes, the Star of David used to represent oppression during the Holocaust. But after being imprinted on the Israeli flag, it has become the symbol of the oppressor.

As far as representation goes, the Israeli supporters in America believe that they’re the ones being oppressed. Last time I heard, Time magazine covered the luxurious life in Israel and Israelis commented outright, “Hey, we’re living the life.”

SANA BENHARCHACHE is a UC Davis senior neurobiology, physiology and behavior major.

Having grown up in a house where cocaine, alcohol and video games are all used heavily, I found Monday’s article, “Video game addiction,” by Hudson Lofchie to be a biased and wholly inaccurate portrayal of both addiction and gamers. To compare a physically addictive, mind-altering substance with a reward-based simulation that rarely leads to a severe behavioral addiction is incredibly offensive to addicts and the gaming community.

To begin with, it is important to note that there are two types of addiction: physical and behavioral. Physical addiction is when an addict becomes chemically dependent on a substance, like alcohol or cocaine, in order to function properly. Behavioral addiction is an illness that has only been medically identified and examined in the past few decades or so. It is an addiction where the addict becomes dependent on the mental and physical pleasures of a specific type of behavior, such as exercise, sex or, occasionally, video games. Nearly all forms of human activity lead to a case of behavioral addiction at some point.

However, the article takes it too far by outright demonizing gaming and marginalizing drug addiction. It does this by leveling stereotypes against gamers, comparing video game addiction to cocaine dependency and describing video games as “anti-social.”

First, comparing video game addiction to cocaine use is deplorable, because a cocaine addict becomes addicted to his drug far faster and becomes far more dependent on it due to the physically addicting nature of the substance. Video game addiction is something that requires a large amount of time to develop, and frankly the trauma that gaming addicts go though during detox is nowhere near that of a drug addict. Going a month without video games is terrible, but no one ever had seizures and died because their body was so dependent on Xbox that two days without it caused their neurons to fire wildly. Video game detox requires a dramatic change in lifestyle. Drug detox is that and a physically painful and potentially life threatening experience. Comparing the struggles of coke or alcohol dependents to gaming addicts trivializes the suffering endured by both the drug dependents and their families. Comparing video game addicts to drug addicts is by proxy a comparison of the games to drugs, which is unfair because the behavioral addiction to games is far less of a threat to a person than the risk of physical addiction to drugs.

The extreme examples of Lee Seung Sop and Daniel Petric are also unfair to gamers. That’s like using anorexics to criticize the practice of dieting. It is a special case where the person’s extreme behaviors create an unfortunate set of circumstances that do not reflect fairly on the lifestyle as a whole. Consider the difference in numbers between people worldwide who die from drug overdoses and those who die in video game-related deaths. Again, the discrepancy between the two forms of addiction is so great that comparing them to each other does a disservice to both.

The greatest issue I take with this article is the blatant stereotyping of gamers as people who resort to games due to a lack of social skills or who constantly fail at real life and need a false reward system to be happy. Very few gamers play only anonymously.

The most fun gaming can be had at an LAN party where a person will invite a dozen of his friends over to hook consoles together and play until the early hours of the morning. This is a loud, social get-together, not some overweight introvert sitting in his basement.

Oftentimes gamers online will have to learn how to coordinate a team effort in winning a match, which can lead to the development of not only teamwork but leadership skills. Most people who play Xbox Live or MMORPGs (massively multiplayer online role-playing games) like World of Warcraft will join up with their real life friends online and play together, because doing so enhances the gaming experience by making it a social one.

Implying that gamers are people who are unsuccessful in real life is also an issue here. Many gamers are straight-A students who use a night of binge gaming to wind down from a hard week of studying and test taking. Look at your professor’s desktop the next time they are preparing for class, and you just might see a Starcraft icon. I know I have.

When my father was sitting downstairs in a cocaine/vodka-induced stupor, my brother and I were staying up late playing video games and bonding. Video games helped me to cope with an unpleasant reality and I am a saner person for it. The treatment they receive in this article is shameful, and the treatment that drug addicts receive by the comparison is even worse.

JONATHAN DYER is a UC Davis sophomore history major.