It’s a typical Thursday night and Donald Cameron Gensemer is doing what many 21-year-old college students are doing. He’s taking shots of rum to loosen up before he goes to the bars to loosen up some more.

This concept is known as “pre-gaming,” and it is highly effective in two crucial arenas of college life. The first is getting drunk. The second is saving money.

Drinking at home is the equivalent of buying in bulk at Costco. More bang for your drunk – I mean, buck. The difference is you will never regret buying too much alcohol. Well, almost never.

As I sit across from Gensemer, he describes the night he and his friends might embark on.

“We’ll take a couple shots at home or at least sit around drinking beer until we feel like going out,” he said.

Gensemer plans on either going to a party or the bars. There, they will have more drinks.

“It really depends on how much money I’m willing to spend and what kind of mood I’m in,” Gensemer said. “[Getting drunk is] not the most important thing. I want to make sure we’re going to have a good time regardless.”

I watch as the group of people takes shot after shot. One girl smells the alcohol and says it reminds her of vomit. Another is coughing after shooting down his shot of vodka. Some are making wincing faces while others are gulping down soda to take the taste away. One person is still holding his shot glass, staring at it.

Gensemer laughs, holding his 12-ounce can of Budweiser.

A UC Davis study shows that binge drinking has actually declined from 2003 to 2007. Only 20 percent of those sampled in the survey said they have multiple drinks in a row.

This column is about that 20 percent. And, for the sake of safety, it’s about how to binge drink correctly.

The website safeparty.ucdavis.edu is dedicated to making sure we crazy college kids safely party. There are some things on the website that sound kind of contradictory, though. I’m not trying to bag on Safeparty. What they are doing is very commendable. But some of points just make me laugh.

One bullet point describes how alcohol is a depressant and it amplifies feelings that you already have. Another bullet point says, “Trust your instincts.” Will do.

Some other points are just too ideal. It says alternate each alcoholic drink with a drink of water. How is that even possible? It also says don’t play drinking games. What am I supposed to do with this stack of cards and dice then?

But I guess calming down, drinking slowly and just stopping before you black out is a good call. And don’t give into peer pressure. I mean, come on.

“I know what my limit is and I try to look out for other friends, too,” Gensemer said. “I know what’s fun and what’s not.”

Some of the best advice about drinking is to eat beforehand and to always have a safe drive home. After the tragic death of Richard Jung, the 21-year-old senior who was killed on New Years day by a drunk driver, we need to remember how serious drunk driving can be.

Safeparty has numbers to different taxis in Davis, including Tipsy Taxi, which will take you anywhere in Davis for just $2. Visit the website for more information.

Midterm season is almost here. So the drinking will either get A) much better or B) much worse. Either way, just remember some of these tips and try to be safe.

Are you going to party this weekend? E-mail SARA KOHGADAI at sbkohgadai@ucdavis.edu so she can remind you how to be safe. Talk about a buzz kill.

I’ll admit it: I called the Hope for Haiti Now telethon like 30 times trying to get through to Kevin Jonas. Let’s just say it didn’t work out exactly as planned. What’s more, I texted “HAITI” to “90999” because I was curious how they can charge $10 for a simple text-bomb. I now have $2.96 left in my bank account.

The fact that I have enough money to buy three Slim Jims from 7-11 has nothing to do with Haiti. No, it’s thanks to the goddamn overdraft fees that banks have.

Banks like Golden 1-for-me-and-none-for-you Credit Union and Shitty Bank (to borrow from Bill Maher) are mostly to blame. When I first came to Davis, I thought there was some mystical connection between Golden 1 and Nugget Market. Apparently, I was woefully misinformed.

The concept of overdraft fees is the biggest pile of grade-A bullshit I’ve ever seen. Let’s look at an ideal scenario: you put X amount of money in the bank, then you spend X amount of money. Here’s what the banks do instead:

“Say there, Dave. Looks like that McChicken with cheese and extra mayo costs 20 cents more than you thought. Don’t worry – we’ll cover you. But because we’re so generous, we’ll have to charge you $33. It makes perfect sense. Plus, we won’t notify you if you do this one, two, three, four or five time in a day. We wouldn’t want you finding out about this, right? Ha-ha! We want to milk your ass for what it’s worth. Good luck with financing your tuition!”

Assholes! That’s the only way I can describe this system. When the fuck did my debit card turn into a credit card? If I don’t have money, I don’t want to spend it. It’s as simple as that. Now they have this “overdraft protection fee” if you don’t want to get charged 30-plus dollars a pop. What kind of logic is that? I HAVE TO SPEND MONEY SO THAT THE BANK WON’T ALLOW ME TO SPEND MONEY I DON’T HAVE.

I’m no hippie, but it’s annoying nonetheless. But hey, I can’t complain. Our society is to blame. The profit motive is prime, right?

I’m going to downshift for a moment and discuss some more important matters. Recently, I’ve been getting e-mails and suggestions from friends that say I should apply to become an orientation leader for UC Davis. A quick look on the Aggie Job Link website shows that orientation leaders get paid $3,000 dollars for half a summer. That’s an amazing deal, no doubt, and one that is ripe with ferocious competition.

All orientation leaders are eager to help first-years make their transition to college a smooth and educational one. And by that, I mean they’re eager to get paid THREE THOUSAND FUCKING DOLLARS. I guess that’s one way of bringing in talent, right?

Anyway, I’m not going to apply to become an orientation leader this summer for multiple reasons. Chief among them: I’ve already applied TWICE. I never got past the second round of interviews. And the worst part is when I e-mail them to ask what I can do to improve, they give me canned, bureaucratic, generic, bullshit answers like, “We had an overwhelming amount of humanities majors apply this year, and we are deeply sorry for being such assholes.” Well…they didn’t say the last part, but in my head they did.

I know what it is. I know why they didn’t hire me. I’m a colossal, terrorist-looking, brown man with a beard I haven’t shaved in months. Do you think they want to scare parents and students shitless before coming in the fall? That’s the LAST thing they want. I can imagine a generic UC Davis dad whispering to his wife: “When did they start hiring camel jockeys for this job? Bullshit. Jessica is going to Pepperdine.”

DAVE KARIMI thinks you should still text “HAITI” to “90999” because you’ll be doing something good for humanity. If you were offended by this column, then you can 1) go fuck yourself because he’s been called a “camel jockey” before, then 2) send him an e-mail at dkarimi@ucdavis.edu so you can satiate your fragile “offended” egos.

Greetings Aggie Editorial Staff & Ms. Tiffany Lew,

As a leader of the student organization Asian & Pacific-Islander Queers (APIQ) at UC Davis, I would like to message you to express how offended we are by your article in the opinion section.

Everything you have stated in your article is extremely offensive to so many groups of people including those in the queer community. You can preface your column with the fact that you have gay friends and that you watch “The Ellen DeGeneres Show,” but that does not right the heteronormative and heterosexist messages you promote.

Spreading this standard only further promotes what we in the queer community try so hard to deconstruct: heteronormativity, gender norms, gender stereotypes, the gender binary and sexual/identity labels.

First of all, you speak for the queer community saying that we are set on our sexuality and that there is no room for confusion. The lines are not clear-cut and you assume this so readily. Do you also speak for those in the bisexual, transgendered and intersex community? If so, you are utterly mistaken. And you offend these communities who definitely do not fit in your gender binary filled with gender norms for both men and a womyn alike.

You go as far as to call those who do not fit within your gender norm as people who seem to possess some type of epidemic. This only reminds me of the times when being gay/homosexual was considered a mental disorder with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Labeling this as an epidemic only shows that you are promoting some type of disgust or even a phobia toward metrosexuality and those who do not follow your gender norms.

Men and womyn have every right to act however they please. By reinforcing the heteronormative division of what is male and what is female, you are perpetuating the very ideals that create so much queerphobia in today’s society.

In telling men that they have thrown away their manhood, you should think about what right or what privilege you have to decide this, and to say this. You are abusing your privilege, and in turn, offending so many of us in the Queer and API community here at UC Davis.

If you do not like “girly” men, then do not associate with them. Associate yourself with the masculine men you prefer, but do not ridicule communities of people for the way they are. Your freedom of speech is silencing so many communities. In writing this article, you have silenced the voices of many people, and you chastise people over some heterosexist standard that you may believe.

If you have ever attended one of the many workshops on campus, then maybe you would be more cautious of the things you say. Workshops like Safe Zone training through the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Resource Center, educational workshops through the Women’s Resources and Research Center and things like the masculinity/femininity panel (which is being held this week) are all valuable events that you should consider attending if this is the way you feel about heteronormative values.

Your final comments about lesbian feminists in the 1920s, and stating how this trend of “girly men” should disappear, has to be the most horrific paragraph in your entire article. Saying that you have gay friends in no way allows you to say something so utterly heterosexist and homophobic. To justify the line by saying they had a social cause in no way sugarcoats your stance. It is clear that you equivocate “girly men” to the lesbian movement. By writing that you did not realize that, you have offended many members of the lesbian community as well. Intentionally or not, you say you wished them gone along with these so-called “girly men.”

Seeing yet another controversial Aggie column that obviously will offend campus communities upsets us dearly. We hope that articles like this will be screened in the future. We also hope that by responding to these types of horrendous articles, that we are in fact doing our work as a queer organization on campus. We struggle to gain visibility and acceptance. By promoting material like this, our efforts go meaningless if this is what the university newspaper feels is appropriate for our student body to read.

For the first time in California history, a legislative committee voted this month in favor of legalizing marijuana.

The Assembly Public Safety Committee voted 4-3 along party lines to approve a bill by Rep. Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) that would regulate marijuana like alcohol, allowing people over the age of 21 to possess up to an ounce of the plant. The state would collect a tax of $50 per ounce of pot from licensed producers and distributors.

Unfortunately, the bill is now dead. The legislative calendar began anew this month, meaning that any unfinished business from the last session will remain unfinished. Nonetheless, the committee vote was a significant step toward lasting drug policy reform in California.

Many drug law reformers are now turning their attention to a ballot measure being circulated that would essentially do the same thing as the bill. Supporters of the measure are calling it Tax Cannabis 2010, and they say they’ve already gathered enough signatures to qualify it for the ballot this November.

That’s promising, as are the numerous public opinion polls that have found majority support for legalizing marijuana in California. A public vote to legalize marijuana would send an incredibly strong message and would likely galvanize congressional representatives to start applying pressure on the Obama administration to address its federal drug policies.

But we can’t simply wait and hope for the voters to pull through. Ammiano should reintroduce the bill soon so that it has a chance of making it further through the legislature this year.

In terms of money, it’s a good idea. The California State Board of Equalization analyzed Ammiano’s bill and found it could generate as much as $1.4 billion per year in tax revenue. That money could obviously be put to good use in a state crippled by chronic budget deficits.

In terms of strategy, it’s a must. Pundits are predicting a backlash against a Democratic-controlled Congress and an Obama White House. Voters at the polls this November will most likely be more conservative than they were in 2008, and it’s quite possible they won’t be as friendly to the measure as many are expecting. For this reason alone Ammiano should reintroduce the bill.

California is closer than ever before to correcting its flawed drug policy. Supporters of this reform shouldn’t put all their eggs in one basket.

The California Aggie has formally retracted Tiffany Lew’s Jan. 22 column, “The Rise of the Girly Men.” The column made multiple insensitive comments, offending a significant portion of the UC Davis community.

We understand that, but some critics were too quick to assume one person’s opinion column could be reflective of everyone and everything associated with The Aggie.

Readers have called Lew’s column homophobic, heterosexist, transphobic and racist. Many of the accusations are justifiable for this column, but do not apply to The Aggie’s body of work as a whole.

In fact, our coverage is quite the opposite.

The Aggie did a story on the Queer Leadership Retreat just last week. We covered the Davis is Burning Drag Show, just like we do every year. We covered the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Resource Center’s Pride Week in October.

We did a story on a study that showed gays and lesbians typically have the same relationship values as straight men and women in October. We did another when Afsaneh Najmabadi, a visiting Iranian scholar, came to UC Davis to discuss gender and sexuality issues. We also wrote an editorial last winter opposing the planned closure of the Gender Education program.

Some of our opinion columnists are addressing these same issues. Haley Davis discussed transphobia in the feminist community on Dec. 3. She called Lady Gaga a feminist icon on Jan. 7. Mario Lugo, meanwhile, recently wrote about his personal experiences dealing with the homophobia he experienced throughout high school.

We’re not trying to justify the column, but it’s disappointing that the views of one writer have caused readers to lose sight of the overall direction of our coverage. Everyone – including Lew, even though her thoughts are in no way representative of The Aggie – is entitled to their opinion. These blanket criticisms, however, are unfounded and difficult to justify.

This unfortunate controversy has, at the very least, brought attention to the struggles that many members of our on-campus community strive to overcome on a daily basis. If you feel underrepresented by The Aggie, by all means, please contact us so we can continue writing articles about such issues.

After reading a guest editorial that appeared in The Aggie last week entitled, “Tea Party movement cannot be ignored,” I felt compelled to write a response.

The article, which was written by the Stanford Daily Editorial Board, denounced the Tea Party movement. The writers characterized the Tea Partiers as ultra-conservative, militant, racist and filled with hate. They cautioned the readers against extremists, and the tone of the editorial seemed to suggest that the Tea Parties should be treated as illegitimate.

The accusations and recommendations made by the editors are baseless and demonstrate a deep lack of perspective. I can say this with some authority because I personally attended a Tea Party that took place in Sacramento. What I saw there was nothing like what they described.

I can see why the writers have such a low and resentful attitude toward the Tea Parties. It’s a movement that does not conform to their worldview and so it must be bad and dangerous.

They claim that scorn is justified because of the “…rancorous hatred that Tea Partiers have engaged in.” If members of the Stanford Daily Editorial Board had gone to a Tea Party they would have discovered that the demonstrators were angry with Republican and Democrat lawmakers. They were not burning the capitol building or attacking government officials, but booing those in government who they believe have failed them. I’m not sure why that makes Tea Partiers so hateful, unless of course singing “God Bless America” is your definition of hate-speech.

The authors of the editorial also made the claim that the Tea Partiers commonly used the “n-word” with no heed. Many of the protestors brought their families and children, so the use of any kind of profanity was quite rare. Their belief that the Tea Partiers are racist and intolerant is ridiculous. One key speaker was a woman with a thick French accent and another was a black man. Both were greeted with thunderous applause.

Like many other large scale protests there were some offensive signs, but they were really a small minority. I can’t confirm that this was the case at every protest, but I can see how one unhinged protestor might be portrayed as a representative of the whole.

The Stanford Daily Editorial Board is distressed that Tea Partiers are currently more popular than the Republican and Democrat parties. They attributed this to simple ignorance on the part of the general population that can be corrected by knowing the “truth” behind the movement. The truth, of course, can only be provided by the enlightened members of their university.

The Stanford Daily editorial capped off its long list of attacks by claiming that the only foundation of the movement was its anger at-them! They said, “We, the Stanford population, are the highly educated, largely liberal elite that these people love so much to revile. By scoffing at the Tea Party or disparaging its members, we play into the caricature they have created for us and fuel their fire of anger – which, at the moment, represents their only real foundation.” I wonder if all Stanford students would like to be seen as elitist, snobbish, and conceited as the members of the editorial board.

What baffles me is how the Stanford Daily Editorial Board members, with their world-class private school education, can be so arrogant and completely divorced from reality.

My observation of the Tea Party movement is that their foundation is the belief in limited government, protection of individual rights and freedom from overburdening taxation. Tea Partiers opposed the bank bailouts and the stimulus package, which they see as wasteful use of taxpayer dollars that serve the interest of Big Government, Big Business and Big Unions.

Tea Party protestors are generally middle-class people who work hard, pay bills and pay taxes. There were people of every living generation there from toddlers to the elderly-unlike some protests that consist of regular “professional” picketers.

These were people who, regardless of their educational background and personal income, want to make a better life for themselves and future generations. They are concerned citizens who advocate for and try to raise awareness about issues that have a serious impact on their lives and the lives of future generations. This is what the American political system is all about.

JARRETT STEPMAN is proud of and grateful for his world-class public school education at UC Davis, which has been graciously provided by California taxpayers. He can be reached at jstepman@sbcglobal.net.