Every story of vigilante justice begins with someone who has been wronged. In 1962, a New York City burglar murdered Peter Parker’s adopted uncle, propelling Spiderman into the vigilante limelight. In Alan Moore’s V for Vendetta, a fictitious England’s history of scientific experimentation on political prisoners fuels the vengeance of a man who can only be described as the letter V.

In each instance, the story’s protagonist feels his victimization warrants a particular brand of justice that falls well beyond the reach and scope of the law.

In these fictional depictions of what vigilantism might look like, the stakes are high, the personas are larger than life and morality is complicated, but no matter how many burglars Spiderman confronts, or how many villains Codename V lays to waste, we readers remain steadfast in our loyalty to the conduit of vigilante justice.

As such, every American man who has read a comic book (or, for the younger generation, seen a Hollywood adaptation) secretly prays for that moment that an injustice worthy of operating outside of the law finally comes around. He listens closely for suspicious footsteps in the night. He saunters impressively into his apartment’s living room with a lacrosse stick hoping for the opportunity to oust a robber and walk in the company of Maximus Decimus Meridius, Batman and the Punisher.

Every man secretly prays for that moment, and recently I thought HaShem had finally answered my man-prayers. An insightful member of davisfixed.com, a local bicycle forum, called me in response to a “Stolen Bike” post I’d made a few days prior. He told me that he was looking at my missing $1500 road bike on Craigslist with all its distinctive yellow parts. In addition, he was also looking at the thief’s phone-number ((916) 995-4017, check your contacts).

All of my senses became acute. I could feel my blood pressure rising and my Spidey senses tingling. I reached for my Guy Fawkes mask.

I was the Juggernaut, bitch.

I decided to give him a call and act as a fascinated prospective, asking stupid questions about a bike I knew everything about. I told him I was interested in checking it out and that I’d like to meet him at Ikea, a very public West Sacramento location.

I hung up and immediately phoned the Davis Police. I’d already filed a police report so I assumed what would follow would be a simple process: I’d meet our story’s antagonist, and the police would follow and arrest him when my bike was in plain view. Case closed.

The Davis Police informed me that because it was after hours of operation (because obviously no crime happens after 5 p.m.), they could not approach any case outside of the Davis municipality. The police departments in Sacramento told me they could not assist with any case I’d filed in Davis. Meanwhile, my thief had ended our correspondence; it seemed he’d Googled my phone number while he was waiting. The first five entries that my number returns all begin with “Stolen Bike.”

In retrospect, I probably shouldn’t have used my own phone. In my hot-tempered man-moment, I had a lapse in judgment. But I still had a cell-phone number, and I’ve watched enough episodes of “Burn Notice” to know that a cell-phone number can tell a law-enforcement agency everything it needs to know.

Unfortunately, the Davis Police Department is woefully underfunded. Today, my case file sits beneath a stack of violent crimes, wrongful death investigations and allegations of sexual misconduct dating as far back as Picnic Day. Now don’t get me wrong. Comparatively speaking, this is exactly where it belongs, but it doesn’t change the fact that no law enforcement agency ever lifted a finger to help this columnist and aspiring vigilante find the man who had wronged him. Financially, I would have been much better off committing insurance fraud.

What I took away from this interaction is that sometimes the stakes of your vigilante justice story are not as high for others as they are for you. The personas are not as intriguing to a dispatch operator, and the morality is not so complicated to a seasoned detective. However, police reports are futile if the agency responsible for responding to them is too underfunded to allocate resources to those who file them. If our law enforcement agencies can only afford to ticket the speeders and the partiers, yet life is too “real” to don a poly blend mask and fight crime extra-lawfully, then what avenue is left for you and I to explore?

JOSH ROTTMAN writes his columns in the bathroom so he knows they’re the shit. Have your people reach his people at jjrottman@ucdavis.edu.

I never expected to be, but here I am writing for The Aggie again.

I wrote a political column from Spring 2006 till I graduated in 2008, but I never really enjoyed being so involved in politics. Too much hostility, too much stress. In perhaps one of the less logical moves of my life, I decided the solution to my dislike for politics was a career in it. Needless to say, I did not end up happy.

So here I am, seeking certification and vocation from the School of Education and to somehow influence my students positively. And when I managed to win the lottery for a student ticket to the Brown/Whitman debate Tuesday night, this week’s topic seemed predetermined.

Right off the bat, I am a Meg Whitman supporter, but not a thrilled one. I first saw Whitman speak at the California Republican Party convention in March, and it wasn’t perfect. Apparently using a teleprompter, she would deliver a line like politicians often do, with extra emphasis on each word to encourage the audience to applaud. Paraphrasing:

“We must. get. the bureaucrats. off. our. backs. and out. of our. pocketbooks. and. put. this. state. back. on. the. right. track.”

At which point she would lower the microphone and wait for applause, which would slowly trickle into the awkward silence. Really she’s supposed to be interrupted by the applause, but no matter. With the state of our state, I ignore the little things.

At the Mondavi Center I arrived early to find a decent crowd already gathered, mostly composed of unions and other Jerry Brown supporters. Law enforcement and reporters alike had set up camp in large numbers, with countless cruisers and media vans parked all around. Signs-lots of signs-waved over yells, shirts, tents, barriers and checkpoints. Some young Republicans appeared all of a sudden, outnumbered but no less energetic, leading to a delightful “chant-off” for a time before I headed in to the packed hall.

Whitman, much improved in the last six months, argued over the next hour for cutting taxes, reforming public pensions and welfare to reduce costs, creating a more business-friendly atmosphere in this state for additional jobs and putting some of the savings into our UC and CSU systems.

Brown countered with his own reforms of public pensions (less drastic than Whitman’s, which explains the unions marching for him outside), fighting unemployment with green jobs, avoiding tax cuts on the rich to protect our schools and curtailing the salaries of legislators and the governor.

I have to say, Brown had an edge on Whitman in this first debate. He had a smart message of frugality and willingness to make tough decisions, and he got quite a few laughs from the audience. Successful humor – while staying on point and not offending anyone – is no small feat for a candidate. He seemed to speak extemporaneously and with ease, strolling to the podium at the beginning with the comfort of a rock hound in a quarry.

I would guess Whitman got twice as much coaching from her consultants, or more, since she seemed more rehearsed in her pitch. She didn’t fail by any means, but she spoke a little too fast and felt a little too tense. Those are the things that are very hard to work on with a candidate in a short space of time.

But in Whitman’s defense, she’s a businesswoman who’s new to politics, while Jerry Brown has a fossilized star in the sidewalk somewhere on the left side of the Capitol building. It’s easy to chat about something you’ve been working in since Lyndon Johnson was president.

More important is the eternal budget crisis in Sacramento, which has been going on for so many years that no one “in the Building” even feels like it’s a crisis anymore. It’s the status quo. When I imagine Whitman trying to rein in spending without raising all kinds of taxes in the budget, I think we have a decent shot. With Brown, I think it highly unlikely the Democratic legislature wouldn’t get its way. That he’s had a finely-tuned campaign message for the last several months means nothing compared his actions over the last several decades.

And even in a debate, actions speak louder than words.

Start your own debate with ROB OLSON at rwolson@ucdavis.edu.

Marijuana column irresponsible

I seriously object to the encouragement of recreational marijuana use to our new students in the Sept. 27 column “Freshman Green” by May Yang. Although the legalization of recreational marijuana is currently on the ballot, such use is still illegal in our state, and the author clearly recognizes that in the article. Furthermore, the author prompts students to ignore potentially dangerous drug effects when using marijuana. I found that the author and editor are, at the very least, irresponsible in publishing this article.

CALEB CHENG

Staff member

Department of land, air and water resources

Two weeks ago, while the UC Regents were voting on additional increases and bonuses for nearly 40 senior executives, the university’s leadership also heard a discouraging report finding that UC significantly lags behind its competitors in compensation for graduate student assistants.

As the report by Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies Steven Beckwith makes clear, there is a real danger that UC is losing its ability to compete for top graduate students. The yearly stipend of UC graduate students is $1,000 less than that of graduate students at comparable top institutions. Unsurprisingly, a recent survey finds that prospective top graduate students have a decidedly negative perception of UC’s financial support for graduate students. In order to attract top students, UC needs to improve its funding packages.

What is most troubling is that the total amount of additional executive increases and bonuses the Regents have voted on this year, $11.5 million, is roughly the same amount of money it would take to close the funding gap cited by Beckwith when applied to the 12,000 academic student employees (teaching assistants, tutors and readers) currently bargaining for our sixth contract with UC.

If UC is to maintain excellence in research and teaching, it must improve support for graduate students. If the institution can find $11.5 million to continue increasing executive compensation, it can find at least that much to improve life for UC’s prized graduate students.

UC administrators’ continued prioritization of executives over quality education has led more than 6,000 members of UAW 2865-the union for academic student employees at UC-to sign on to a report card failing UC at maintaining quality during the budget crisis (see UCqualityeducation.org for more information) and calling on the administration to improve its performance.

Many graduate students work as academic student employees (ASEs) during our graduate education. And it’s ASEs at the UC who are responsible for a majority of the face-to-face teaching that makes UC a world-class public university: serving as instructors, leading discussion and lab sections, grading student work and tutoring. Undergraduate students deserve to be taught not just by the top faculty, but by top graduate students as well.

While pay is an important issue, we should also be extremely concerned about UC’s level of support for graduate students with children. This is particularly important if we hope to increase recruitment and retention of women in academic research. According to research by UC Berkeley Law professor Mary Ann Mason, the lack of family-friendly policies is an important factor in the loss of women from academia. While ASEs won significant gains in family leaves and a small childcare subsidy in our 2007 contract negotiations, there is still much improvement to be made.

We all know that the current budget climate is difficult. Many stakeholders in the UC system have been asked to make sacrifices over the past two years even as executives rack up bonuses and perks. But times of economic distress are when the institution must stick most strongly to our priorities. UC cannot sacrifice its core missions. It must prioritize teaching and research. To do this, UC must commit to recruiting the best graduate students and recognizing the importance of our work for UC.

The UC administration has an opportunity to make this commitment in the current contract negotiations with our union for ASEs. The result of these negotiations will be a contract that sets compensation levels for graduate students across the UC system. UC cannot pass up this opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to quality education. Increasing graduate student support is essential to ensuring that UC retains its role as a nationwide leader. To carry this out, UC should agree to a fair contract for ASEs.

CHRISTINE PETIT is the president of UAW Local 2865. She recently graduated from UC Riverside with a Ph.D. in sociology.

At a dramatic meeting temporarily interrupted by angry demonstrators, the UC Board of Regents voted last month to increase contributions to the system that pays pensions to retired UC employees.

Currently, 2 percent of each UC employee’s salary is withheld and put into the pension fund. Next July, that number will rise to 3.5 percent, and a year after that it will increase to 7 percent. As the employer, the university will also increase its own contributions to the fund: 4 percent in July 2011 and 10 percent in July 2012. Overall, the total level of contributions to the fund will increase by more than 20 percent.

This decision is long overdue. The health and pension funds face an unfunded liability of $21 billion. If the regents hadn’t taken this action, the unfunded liability could have skyrocketed to $40 billion in fewer than five years. While UC employees managed to get away for 20 years without having to contribute anything to the pension system, times have changed.

There is no question that this decision amounts a pay cut for university employees. Labor leaders and activists are correct in pointing out that the increased take-away from employee paychecks will have a greater impact on lower paid employees than on others. Yet it’s clear that without these changes, it’s likely that employees wouldn’t receive a proper pension when they retire.

In an ideal world, UC would be able to limit the impact on low-wage workers by soliciting better retirement funding from the state. The reality, however, is that the state doesn’t even have a budget yet, three months into the fiscal year. In fact, unreliable state support is part of what took the pension fund from a considerable surplus just a few years ago to the massive deficit it faces now. The university’s entire budget is roughly equal to the deficit the pension fund is currently facing – there are few options left to address this problem.

The solution the regents chose will be tough on some workers, but they will benefit in the end.

Today’s decision by Gov. Schwarzenegger to either veto or enact Senate Bill 330 will have major implications for financial transparency within the California higher education system.

It would be in the best interest of the students of UC as well as California taxpayers for the governor to enact the bill, as it will create a greater openness of university funds.

Part of the bill calls into question the anonymity of donors to California public schools, according to university officials in favor of a veto.

It is only under certain conditions, however, that names, addresses and phone numbers of donors will be disclosed.

Donors will no longer be afforded anonymity if they receive compensation valued at $500 or more in exchange for the donation or if they try to influence curriculum.

These added stipulations are important amendments to this bill. They will allow the public to account for differences in gifts and compensation, making it easier to track the allocation of UC funds.

It is also important to ensure public awareness when donors try to designate their monetary gifts for a particular purpose.

Additionally, there is evidence that suggests that eliminating donor anonymity can actually lead to more donations, not less as UC and CSU claim.

A court ruling in Iowa mandated that records held by the Iowa State University Foundation be disclosed.

After the ruling, the university system benefited from a 26 percent increase in donations. Over the following four years, the university averaged an annual $54.7 million increase in funds.

While it is tough to predict if there will be any negative implications resulting from the bill, UC estimates a $7.5 million loss as a result. However, this is difficult to prove and does not account for the value of transparency.

UC should not be afraid to show how its funds are allocated. Keeping funds secret leads to corruption within the system and will likely cause donations to decrease.

Therefore, enacting SB 330 would be the wisest decision for Schwarzenegger.