In a matter of hours, America will be making the fundamental “Decision 2010.” Whether it is change for better or worse is anybody’s guess. What we cannot afford to leave to conjecture is the reality that extremism reeks all over the “tsunami win” prognosis for the Grand Old Party (GOP). If you don’t vote, you’ll see the reversal of all that you think is not enough ‘progressiveness’ under current Democratic leadership. You the people are powerful – at least till the end of today.

Across the country, $3 to 4 billion has been spent on this election cycle – most of it to bombard the citizenry with ads and to staff campaigns. Times are hard, but somehow special interests can pony up lavish amounts to get your vote and support. I don’t know that Karl Rove’s American Crossroads or Citizens United are getting money from corporate investors who love you so much that they want to save you from the Democrats.

There is a clear dichotomy between the Democrats and the Republicans who will return to Washington. Democrats are trying to create jobs, invest in education, infrastructure and clean energy among other things. Republicans want to cut spending and taxes and simultaneously balance the budget. Fantastic! Basically, if the polls hold, they will have the purse strings of the nation in their hands, and health care repeal, Social Security phase-out, tax cuts and more on their minds.

The establishment Republicans are already muttering discontent over the exuberance of Sen. Jim De Mint’s lieutenants, “young guns” like Marco Rubio and Ryan Paul. If sound bites of them and what they stand for are bankable, the word to describe them is actually “extreme.” For that reason above all else, I get this nightmare that all of 2011 will be wasted in a gridlock, while the American people (and their ‘welfare’) will be held hostage for tax cuts particularly for the rich, deregulation of Wall Street and blocking any energy law. The could-be leaders of both houses of Congress (McConnell and Boehner) are clear that they are hellbent on making Obama a one-term president. And Obama has veto power, at least until 2012.

Sure, the Republicans may mistake good fortune and protest votes to mean overwhelming support. They will get emboldened and overbearingly obstructionist. The Tea Party Republicans will set the agenda, as their leaders will be incapable of corralling them. Independents who don’t especially love Republicans will be ticked off enough, and vote in 2012 to stop the extremism.

Even as they are known to be liberals, Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert, in hosting the “Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear,” have done something we are going to need aplenty next year: the return of civility and sanity in national discourse. “Out of the mouths of comedians, cometh words of sanity,” I soliloquized the other day. That is something we have missed for well over a year.

I read with delight the Christian Science Monitor’s account of a woman who flew to the event all the way from Tennessee. She had voted for Bill Hasslam, a Republican for Governor, but she wanted to be counted as “one more body in the sanity column.”

In his 1994 book Out of Order, Thomas E. Patterson detailed the ways in which the 24-hour media drives presidential politics. What Patterson did not see coming is the very partisan, activist, stark and jarringly propagandist media emerging. Blogging and the over-reliance on social math (polls) have not helped, either. Patterson was concerned about the issue of journalists as agents provocateur, but today that seems stale. Now, the road to Senate or Congress passes through some TV and radio talk shows. Absurd! Why else will those millions go into ads if they didn’t know we are suckers for sound bites and ads?

The only way forward for registered Democrats is to go out today and vote to salvage the damage of the so-called tsunami of a victory for Republicans. By so doing, there will not be a landslide that will portend an overwhelming national mandate for Republicans. There has to be some form of compromise reached to avoid government shut down. And we know the arrogance that comes with such overwhelming victories, fortunate or not, right or left. I, for one, am tired of watching our national politics play out as punditry ping-pong on FOX or MSNBC.

This election cycle is not just about a simple mid-term anti-incumbent or anti-establishment wave. This is about the future of democracy and opportunity. Big business is set to buy off regulation and ensure tax breaks. If they have not provided jobs in a decade under George W. Bush, what is the likelihood they could do so now?

FAYIA SELLU can be reached at fmsellu@ucdavis.edu.

When I first lost weight, some friends who hadn’t seen me in a while would compare my loss to someone else they knew who had lost weight. In this way, I learned that you could lose weight on a juice fast, carnivore diet, questionably legal pill, lima bean diet and origami diet. OK, I made that last one up (but in my defense, you probably could uncomfortably lose a lot of weight if all your calories come from paper foods.) Decades of writing on weight loss, combined with the dissemination of information through the Internet, has given unearned credence to weight loss and weight gain urban legends. I’ll go through some of those myths here:

1. Skip meals. This sounds like a viable strategy for losing weight. After all, it is based on the belief that cutting calories leads to weight loss. Cutting calories does lead to weight loss, but there is more to skipping meals than cutting calories.

This is especially the case when you skip breakfast. When you skip breakfast, you’re really skipping meals for at least half a dozen hours. Thinking it won’t have access to food, your body decides to enter starvation mode, wherein it actually slows down metabolism and holds on to fat stores. When you do eat, you tend to take in more net calories to make up for a lost breakfast.

If you’re a serial (get it?) breakfast skipper, or if your daily workout consists of running to catch the Unitrans bus after scrambling through your morning, think about planning your breakfast the night before, or setting aside a breakfast that’s easy to consume on the go.

2. “This will go straight to my thighs.” No, it will go straight from your mouth, down your esophagus, into your stomach. After enzymes digest the food, your body uses the nutrient breakdown in different ways. Excess energy derived from the food could end up in fat stores.

Even then, fat accumulation is a slow process. Your weight fluctuates most rapidly from water. Your actual fat tends to build (as well as shed) at a reduced pace. To gain a pound of fat, you have to eat 3,500 more calories than your body requires to meet its daily energy requirement. If you ate 500 more calories a day in excess of what your energy level demands, it would take a week for you to put one pound of fat on your body. That froyo isn’t going to increase your waist size permanently unless you eat it everyday on top of a full diet.

3. Lifting weights bulks you up. Hardly, and the truth is closer to the opposite. For most people, a little bit of weight training won’t turn them into the Governator. As it takes time to gain weight, it takes time to build muscle. In the mean time, strength training promotes fat loss because muscle tissue burns fat quicker than fat tissue. In other words, you should seriously consider adding strength training to your workout if you want to lose weight.

4. Certain foods burn fat. I know what you’ve heard about the grapefruit diet, but trust me on this one. No food burns fat. If a food promotes weight loss because it has more fiber (which helps streamline the removal of waste from your body), then that’s nothing revolutionary. Lots of foods have nutrient properties necessary to body function. Isolating the benefits from one is misguided, to say the least.

5. X workout will trim my Y. Your diet and exercise determine neither where fat is stored nor where fat is burned. Unfortunately, you don’t get to decide where your fat comes off first when you’re cutting back. Your parents decide that. Really.

Fat stores are genetically determined. People are predisposed to put weight on to certain sections of their body. A given workout cannot claim to give you a flat belly if you have fat all around your body. Likewise, beer won’t give you a beer belly. Too much food will accomplish that just fine on its own.

There are enough diet myths and workout fads to support every lifestyle, healthy or not. Similarly, there are enough pieces of advice that pass for common sense and serve to complicate our choices at the CoHo.

The good news is that your weight won’t be determined by the ridiculous smorgasbord of tips and tricks available on the Internet. But the bad news is that your weight won’t come down to miracle myths either.

On a completely unrelated note, RAJIV NARAYAN heard that voting today would help you lose weight. Contact him at rrnarayan@ucdavis.edu if you don’t see results instantly.

Do you ever find yourself drifting off in thought when you’re really supposed to be paying attention – getting lost in, say, musings of your day or what you’re planning to do this weekend?

Yeah, I do that a lot, too. But I warn you – I’m not like other people. I think about … dirty things.

One particular moment of reverie, for example, had me pondering: Why are penises shaped the way they are?

Thanks to a quick Google search, an article in Scientific American had just what I was looking for. But before the journey of phallic discovery begins, let us stop and chew over the penis for a bit. (No pun intended, but now that we’re here, a tip: Guys usually aren’t too fond their junk getting chomped on.)

Though they come in various shapes and sizes, the average penis is about five to six inches long and about five inches in perimeter, according to the article. They all have a shaft, a head, and some have a little something extra to cover it. Fun fact: We’re the only species with that mushroom-shaped glans, the textbook name for head. You learn the best things in college, don’t you?

Anyway, the article describes a study administered by evolutionary psychologist Gordon Gallup at the State University of New York, Albany. In it, Gallup and his team were focused on testing their “semen displacement theory,” one that attributes the duty of removing unwanted semen from a woman’s vagina to the coronal ridge of the penis. According to the theoretical paper published in Evolutionary Psychology, Gallup claims: “A longer penis would not only have been an advantage for leaving semen in a less accessible part of the vagina, but by filling and expanding the vagina, it also would aid and abet the displacement of semen left by other males as a means of maximizing the likelihood of paternity.”

Now, some of us don’t need to worry about this. (Shout out to my gays and monogamists!) And normally, I wouldn’t support this coital mode of thinking – there are more ways to have sex. But according to the study, the penis developed the ridge between the head and shaft as a way to remove the “semen of competitors” from the female’s cervix, completely “expunging” any threat the sexual rival’s seed may carry.

Sounds silly, right? But it worked: After simulating stimulation using a couple high-tech, state-of-the-art dildos and a “headless” phallus with no coronal ridge, the researchers found that 91 percent of semen was removed, thanks to the ridge. The ridge-less phallus only removed 35.3 percent.

And it gets better the deeper you go, research says: The deeper the thrust, the more semen is removed. Gallup and his team found that any insertion less than halfway fails to get rid of any semen at all.

While all that is really nifty knowledge, I can’t help but dwell on the subject. I then realized that while penises share some common features, they all look different. Having seen a few throughout the years, I thought I’d help you picture some types of peen you might encounter. It’s a big, sexy world out there filled with penises – so, honeybees, here’s a self-made list of some of the available goods out there to finish today’s column. If you’ve only seen a few, or none at all, fear not! I’m here to help you conceptualize.

The Arrow

More commonly referred to as “the pencil,” the arrow may be on the skinny side, but small it is not. Some might enjoy its length, as it’s pretty capable of reaching some good spots. But when playing with an arrow, girth is something you’ll just have to do without – the arrow is not known for its circumference.

The Bow

An archer needs a bow to shoot an arrow. You know, that curved thingy.

Sometimes, a man’s little soldier is curved, too. But whether it bends left, right, up, down, or in some other direction, it’ll do you just fine. Make sure you saddle up accordingly and make proper positional adjustments. It will still hit the target – you just have to work a little harder at it now.

The Obelisk

C’mon, there’s a reason why we chuckle at the sight of the Washington Monument: It looks like a dick! Its shape is wide at the base and narrows at the tip. The extra girth really helps stimulate the entryway, while the narrow end slides up and in with the greatest of ease.

The Button

Deemed so because it is just so damn cute, the button is small, but functional. As a result of its petite build, it usually slides right in without much pain or need for tons of lube. So even if you’re a bit underwhelmed with the little guy, it will still do the job. A word to the wise: Don’t be a size queen – you never know what good things will be in that small package.

The Grower

Aw, man. It’s a button, you might think when your guy drops trou and reveals his little friend. Literally.

But, what’s this? It seems to be … getting bigger. Make room for the grower, ladies and gents, a snake so shy it fools you into believing it’s a mere garter, then surprise! You’ve got yourself a boa. It’s like Christmas … only sexier.

In the name of journalistic integrity and fairness, MARIO LUGO is planning to visit unchartered territory by writing about lady parts next week. Wish him luck at mlugo@ucdavis.edu. And PS – be on the lookout for an “Unedited” version of this column, coming to a Facebook profile near you! 😉

Howdy, Aggies. Did you have a good Halloween? Was it positively spooky? Was it full of debauchery, drunken diatribes and dangerous drugs?

And by dangerous, I mean deadly. I mean invoking chaos. Injurious to society, even.

The L.A. County Sheriff’s Department warned parents to inspect their children’s candy this Halloween. There are evil people out there trying to lace your children’s treats with marijuana, don’t cha know?

Those poor, precious children. They must be the prime targets of evil, drug dealing Mexicans! And crazy leftist fucks.

Really, though. What about our children? Right now I hear ultra-conservative, god-fearing Helen Lovejoy from the “Simpsons,” in her shrill voice, screeching her famous line, “Won’t somebody please think of the children?”

Prop. 19 opponents are certainly thinking of them.

One of their more famed arguments against the proposition includes the possibility of “drugged driving.” Employees that operate heavy machinery and smoke dope needn’t worry about job security, lest they get in a wreck.

You know what that means, right?

Stoned bus drivers causing havoc on neighborhood streets, carrying your screaming children away, giving a whole new meaning to the Hyphy Movement’s saying of “riding the yellow bus”.

The No on Prop. 19’s official website shows it. Before you can even enter the content of the site, you’re faced with the deleterious image of a wrecked school bus, poised sinisterly next to red, boldfaced text on black.

The ominous splash page matches the spooky sounding track of the Chamber of Commerce’s recent No on Prop. 19 radio ad. “Imagine coming out of surgery and the nurse caring for you was high – or having to work harder on your job to make up for a co-worker who shows up high on pot.”

Oh. My. God.

Indeed, imagine that.

I’m imagining a fucked up world where pot suppliers will actually dish out money to get little kids in pumpkin outfits stoned.

Hey, if some crazy wants to pay for these expensive tricked out treats, then the Sheriff should kindly provide me some addresses – I’d be glad to get ’em out of the little hands of innocent children.

Those poor children.

I’m also imagining a world where marijuana is legal and, for whatever insane reason, that would mean that every citizen in California would suddenly feel obligated to toke up all the time in the most irresponsible manners possible – on the road, at the workplace and on school campuses.

There is some logic to what No on Prop. 19 backers are saying. There are plenty of qualms and loopholey-type occurrences that may arise out of the proposition.

But their disaster scenarios and predictions for utter havoc are out of hand.

Their agenda has gone from citing marijuana as a dangerous, harmful drug to mildly accepting the fact that there are benefits to legalization, leading to criticism of the proposition’s language instead. And now that they’re done with that, they’ve moved on to this Reefer Madness type bull.

Maybe it’s working. It doesn’t look like the initiative will pass, with the most recent Field Poll stating opposition at 49 percent.

After tomorrow, Prop. 19 may go “up in smoke”, perhaps just a mere “pipe dream” – and I might go nuts if I keep reading these widely used puns in news articles. But the issue of marijuana legalization certainly will not go away.

People need to get real. Stop supporting exaggerated, explosive claims. Stop creating doomsday scenarios.

If there is an idiotic nurse that wants to care for a patient while high, then yeah, she’s a dumbass and should be fired.

This event may occur, but it’s more likely to be an isolated incident. I question why responsible, jobholding citizens would suddenly feel the need to be high on the job. They could just as easily chug a bottle of Don Julio in the morning, drive to work and proceed with the workday all messed up, gulping forties on their lunch break.

But people don’t generally do that. It’s called personal responsibility.

Marijuana is misunderstood. Many of the most prominent backers of the No on Prop. 19 campaign – like the California Police Chief’s Association and Mothers Against Drunk Driving – haven’t smoked enough doobies to know what they’re talking about.

There’s a reason why the majority of voters that are for Prop. 19 are under age 40 and located in “greener” areas of California. It’s because they’ve experienced aspects of marijuana lifestyle and culture, and realized that the world goes on.

You’re not silly for voting no on Prop. 19 – but you’re severely misguided if your main reason for this vote is based on outlandish propaganda.

MAY YANG wishes there weren’t word limits on this thing. To continue the conversation, send an e-mail to mayyang@ucdavis.edu.

Election day is nearly upon us and it’s time to buckle down and study the voter information guide. Last Friday while visiting home, I was contemplating how I could get in the proper frame of mind to study the guide, and I came up with an unusual solution.

While browsing around in the music section of an antique store, I spotted the Beatles’ Abbey Road album for sale – the actual vinyl album. “Great,” I thought to myself. “This is the sense of authenticity I’ve been looking for that might provide the inspiration I need.” I decided to buy it and take it to my Mom’s to play on her record player while studying the voter guide.

Authenticity and holism have been on my mind lately. Doesn’t it seem lately like we’ve been drowning in a sea of artificiality and futile games of verbal jousting that don’t get to the proper root of any issue? I totally quit watching cable TV news shows because of this.

There’s an incredible song at the end of side A of the Abbey Road album called: “I Want You (She’s so Heavy).” I interpret the “I Want You” part of the title, with its sexually laden overtones, as appealing to the emotions, and the “She’s so Heavy” (i.e., deep, thoughtful) part as appealing to the intellect. It’s the perfect holistic integration of mind and emotion, body and soul. The song is one of John Lennon’s greatest masterpieces. While listening to it, I picture lightning flashes during an ominous nighttime thunderstorm illuminating the dark scenery of a secluded hilltop out in the countryside. Pure power and pure soul.

I ended up listening to the song about seven or eight times in a row while studying the voter guide and did indeed feel inspired. The music seemed to help me think more effectively and to tap into the deeper recesses of my subconscious brain. To me, the most important issue on the ballot is Proposition 19, which would legalize marijuana for the first time. This is a basic issue of freedom, and though, if passed, the proposition would have some loose ends and secondary issues that would have to be addressed, I don’t see how a reasonable person could pass up this chance to vote in favor of the proposition. What people do in the privacy of their own homes, so long as they do it responsibly and ethically, is nobody’s business but their own, no ifs, ands or buts.

The threats made by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to enforce federal law more vigorously if Prop. 19 passes is all the more reason to vote in favor of Prop. 19. Holder’s threat constitutes the quintessence of all that is wrong with top-down, non-grassroots governance. Citizens concerned about real democracy cannot allow such a threat to go unchallenged. California is a bellwether state, so if marijuana is legalized here, then it’s likely that there would be a movement among the people of other states to follow suit. This is what Holder would be trying to stop if Prop. 19 passes: a widespread democratic movement. This is why we must stop him. This is a moral issue above all else, and Holder should know that there’s nothing wrong with allowing immoral laws not to be enforced.

All the other propositions on the ballot just constitute band-aid approaches to create relatively minor fixes (a couple of good fixes, but most of them bad), compared to what we really need, which is the systematic restructuring of government. For this reason, I will probably vote no on all of those other propositions, even though Prop. 20, which would reform the redistricting process, might represent a pretty good band-aid that I might have voted for otherwise.

Let’s stop fooling ourselves. It’s time to call for a constitutional convention to rewrite California’s constitution so that we can get to the root of what’s causing our problems and fix them in a holistic way. Hit-and-miss style propositions that don’t address the root issues represent an unhealthy type of democracy.

There’s a reason why Beatles music has seen a resurgence in popularity in recent years. It’s due to the fact that people long for the return of 1960’s idealism, even if the flower children of those times weren’t able to find many answers and made some mistakes. By and large, though, they favored justice, equity and the search for root-cause solutions, and these are all values that we should eagerly pursue today.

If you agree with BRIAN RILEY that we need to hold a constitutional convention in California, let him know at bkriley@ucdavis.edu.