Say that three times fast. That whacked-out, cracked-out acronym stands for National Novel Writing Month, and it’s on – along with No-Shave November.

Therefore, your mission is to A) write a novel this month, and B) look like the Wolfman. It’s not much to ask.

Did you know that writing the next great American novel ranks fifth on Time magazine’s list of Americans’ most desired ambitions? Did you know 42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot? Did you know gullible isn’t in the dictionary?

Okay, cutting the sass, writing a novel is a cool thing to do. Mentioning you’ve done such a thing is a legit conversation piece. If you happen to write the next Catcher in the Rye, emo kids will worship you for decades to come.

The objective of NaNoWriMo is to get 50,000 words down by the end of the month. If you start tomorrow, that’s about 3,000 words a day. A bit steep, I confess. But it’s not actually the contest itself that matters. It’s the motivating force behind it.

There’s no prize to be won other than the satisfaction of knowing that you’ve contributed to the name of fine literature. Or God-awful fan fiction. Even if you only write, “Then Ferdinand got mugged on the MUNI” and give up, you’ll still have succeeded in expressing yourself through a creative outlet.

It doesn’t matter how crappy they are, for in the words of literary giant Ernest Hemingway, “Write drunk. Edit sober.” Those pondering how a college student can possibly fit a novel into their busy schedule of sleeping, homeworking and drinking, I, along with Mr. Hemingway, can tell you that peak writing hours are conveniently and roughly behind peak getting-kicked-out-of-bars hours.

The time you’ll spend slaving away over your precious can vary greatly. Kerouac’s On The Road was written in two weeks on a scroll, while J.K. Rowling estimates Harry Potter occupied roughly 17 years of her life.

Now, in the realm of inspiration, drawing from any real-life experience works, as does considering the most ridiculous scenario you can come up with and using it as a starting point. Muses come in handy here. You can write an existentialist work for tweakers who like to contemplate the meaning of life, or a Harlequin for old ladies to peruse in grocery store lines. A conglomeration of the two has potential – if well-executed, an existentialist harlequin could be a decent read.

If Lauren Conrad can get a book deal, surely one of you out there can write something better. Although the word “novel” implies fiction, it doesn’t have to be so long as it floats your boat. It can be a collection of episodes from your family’s annual shitshow/Christmas party. Or a memoir of the time Ashley forced you to be her square-dancing partner at camp, which led to the best experience of your pre-pubescent life because she was real trampy and kissed with tongue.

When asked what he would write a book about – presuming he were ever to write a book – my friend who we’ll refer to by his porn star name of Pancho San Juan said, “Probably party life etiquette. It would include the many variations of beer pong (and those crazy kids who call it ‘Beirut’). Stuff like how you should always pass the hookah to the left and never violate the sanctity of rotation. I think it’d be a good seller.”

Don’t think you’re too crazy for this stuff. Chuck Palahniuk wrote Fight Club in order to disturb the publishers who had rejected his first novel. It ended up being adapted into a hugely popular film in which Brad Pitt has a six-pack and is shirtless frequently. You know you want to be responsible for the bestowment of such a gift on pop culture.

If you’re sincerely interested in crafting a masterpiece, though, I recommend Stephen King’s “On Writing” as a starting guide. If you do succeed in becoming the next Tolstoy, and I in any way inspired you to do this, a glowing shout-out on the front page should suffice.

Finally, if you can come up with better subject matter than fairies vampires who glitter in sunlight, mad props to you. You’re ahead of the curve already.

MICHELLE RICK is pleased that this week’s column led her to a brief history lesson on the roots of beer pong. Get in on the wealth of info at marick@ucdavis.edu.

I was in my manor enjoying a cigar while browsing my stock market, uh, numbers, when my butler announced that I had received an e-mail. It was from someone in dire need of assistance. After a trip through my secret, underground tunnel, I read the following:

“Dear Will,

From what I can remember on my last trip to Chico, someone stole my American flag pants. How should I go about finding this good-for-nothing, unpatriotic, son-of-a-bitch without landing in the Butte County Jail?

Much appreciated,

Max.”

Well, Max, that must have been either the best party in town, or the worst. Losing a pair of pants is tricky – though often rewarding – business. It’s nothing like losing car keys or a wallet.

Only rarely do you hear, “I think I left my pants in the restaurant. They must have fallen off of my legs when we left.”

Anyway, onto the matter.

A couple years ago, this would have been simple. The fact that the American flag had been embroidered on these pants would have been the solution in itself. A call to Washington on my private line and one PATRIOT Act later, those pant-stealing hoodlums would be knee-deep in good ol’ fashioned water boarding. You could have had any pair of pants in the world.

(Actually, I don’t know how the PATRIOT Act works/worked. Black Hawk Down came out the same year, and I was much more interested in what Ridley Scott had to say. George Dubya, win an Oscar and we’ll talk.)

Back to the task at hand. Again. If calling in the Feds seems a bit overboard, then you could always fall back on my patented “bait party” offense. (It has nothing to do with jailbait, I swear.)

Allow me to explain. To use this technique, simply go back to Chico and post flyers all over town in churches and bars that say something along the lines of: “American Flag Pants Party! Free Beer!” Then sit back and wait.

When the culprit sporting your pants shows up, clap him in irons and flog his skin into ribbons. Or just take your pants back. Whatever you feel like, I guess. I have no pants resembling any nation’s flag in my closet, and I’d wager not very many people do. Whoever has those pants would probably jump at the chance to show them off.

Then again, Chico is a weird town. Weird. That town could be a regular United Nations of leg wear. I get bad vibes from the place sometimes, and I think it has something to do with their streets.

Here in nice, sane Davis, we have First Street, Second Street, Third Street and what not. We also throw some A’s and some B’s in there, too, but it’s simple.

In Chico, those drunken city planners (they must have been) decided to not only have First, Second, Third Streets, but First, Second and Third Avenues as well. What’s worse is they’re on complete opposite ends of town.

What in hell?

I was with some friends in Chico a while back looking for this girl’s house on 11th Street. We spent a long time staring at an empty field on 11th Avenue wondering if we had been set up.

Me: “Do you guys see a number anywhere? I think this is the address.”

Friend: “There is no number, dude. This is a field.”

Me: “She said she lives on 11th. This is pretty close to the address she gave me. This is it, I think.”

Friend: “I don’t think this is it. She is not a prairie dog, there is no house here.”

Me: “Well, I’m positive there is only one 11th Street in Chico. Either this is the place, or I am a damned fool.”

Friend: “Oh shit, we’re on 11th Avenue. We want 11th Street. Turn around, dude. She lives on the other side of town.”

Me: “Forget that last thing I said.”

Moral of the story: Beware of Chico, it’s a crafty place. You could be looking for a place on 11th Street and follow 11th Avenue all the way to Idaho and wonder what the hell happened. (It probably doesn’t go that far, but it might as well.)

I hate to say it, Max, but I would consider that pair of American flag pants to be lost. They’re swallowed up somewhere in that labyrinth of a town. They must have been quite the pair of pants, though. You’re a true patriot.

My condolences.

WILL LONG wants to apologize to all the idealists with clipboards outside the MU. It’s not that he’s a bad person and doesn’t care; it’s just that he’s a writer, and he doesn’t care. Don’t send any information to wclong@ucdavis.edu.

A 2001 MIT study showed bone marrow transplant donors have only a one in 20,000 chance of being matched with a stranger.

There’s a way to significantly increase these odds, and doing away with an outdated policy is all it would take.

In 1984, the National Organ Transplant Act banned donors from receiving compensation. If an individual is somehow compensated for donating, he or she could face a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

This doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Fortunately, someone is doing something about it.

In the case of Flynn vs. Holder, the Institute of Justice challenges the NOTA compensation ban on behalf of organizations such as BoneMarrowDonors.org.

If the institute wins its case, then BoneMarrowDonors.org will be permitted to compensate donors with $3,000 scholarships for college students, housing allowances or a gift to the donor’s charity of choice.

Sure, some will continue donating marrow just because they’re good people – especially if a close friend or family member is the one in need of a transplant.

The motivation to put yourself through a painful, invasive procedure for a random stranger, however, is significantly lower. It only makes sense for BoneMarrowDonors.org to compensate donors if sufficient funds are available.

Some fear a black market similar to the one surrounding organ donors could develop if people are compensated for donating bone marrow.

This is different, though. Lungs don’t grow back. Your gallbladder won’t, either.

Bone marrow regenerates itself. So share the wealth. There’s nothing wrong with getting paid to save a life.

Soon enough UC Davis undergraduates will choose six new ASUCD senators out of the 15 that are currently running. The nine not elected, however, should not give up.

All 15 candidates have put plenty of time, effort and strategy into their campaign this fall quarter. But the effort should not end if victory is not theirs after results are announced tomorrow.

Candidates, and others interested in improving and changing ASUCD, should still participate and introduce legislation. If their platform goals are genuine – if candidates really do feel the need to make a change without the title of “ASUCD Senator” – then the loss of an election should not be a reason to stop them.

For example, Greg Webb ran for senate multiple times and was unable to obtain a seat in the 12-person senate. However, Webb showed the same enthusiasm as he did when he campaigned. He put forth more legislation than some senators did last academic year.

Only senators need to introduce legislation at meetings, though anyone can author a bill or resolution. A template can be found at ascud.ucdavis.edu, although at press time, that portion of the website was malfunctioning. The ASUCD Internal Affairs Commission also regularly puts on legislation writing workshops that are open to the public.

Perhaps the best way to see how legislation is presented is to attend a senate meeting – every Thursday at 6:10 p.m. at the Memorial Union’s Mee Room – and see the legislative process firsthand. Copies of bills that will be presented are available at meetings or can be found online.

So candidates, show the rest of UC Davis that loosing an election is not the end of the world. If you really feel strongly about the platform goals presented in your campaign goals, then follow through with them and improve this university.

We look forward to seeing you all in action.

This week, the feminist blogosphere has been freaking out. Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, sent out an e-mail on Sunday beginning with the words, “Yesterday was brutal.” People are contacting their senators en masse. You know what this means: another congressional infringement on reproductive rights.

With the passage of H.R. 3962, or the Affordable Health Care For America Act, in the House, people are celebrating another step closer to the end of the health care reform gridlock. But the step away from gridlock has come with a price: an amendment added to the bill prohibiting federal health care subsidies for abortion.

What’s an American citizen to do when forced to choose between the rights of women and the health care reform we so desperately need? Is getting universal health care worth throwing the rights of women under the bus?

According to The New York Times, many Democrats think so, including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

“To save the health care bill she had to give in to abortion opponents in her party and allow them to propose tight restrictions barring any insurance plan that is purchased with government subsidies from covering abortions,” the Times reported. These “tight restrictions,” even more draconian than the Hyde Amendment, are known as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.

Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak is the anti-abortion Democrat responsible for organizing the amendment. By doing so, he is essentially stating he prioritizes health care reform over the rights of a majority of our citizens (yes, women count as citizens).

Although Pelosi is a strong proponent of reproductive rights, she also understands we need this reform ASAP. I don’t agree with her decision, which contributes to the war of attrition against health care for women (and yes, abortion counts as health care), but I can understand her rationale considering what’s on the line.

But Stupak wasn’t faced with the complicated task of choosing reform over rights. Being anti-abortion, protecting the rights of women is far from his mind.

Interestingly enough, anti-choice representatives on the Republican side aren’t entirely happy about the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, either. Its weakness and occasional vagueness may prevent it from sticking around. People like me would be happy about that, of course. But the people for whom health care reform is about limiting choice based on gender and socioeconomic factors want a stronger amendment. Talk about a shit-show.

At least we know that the representatives who are interested in maintaining and expanding the rights of women haven’t given up. In a letter to Pelosi, 41 House Democrats promised to vote against the bill if the anti-abortion amendment remains intact, with more reportedly being canvassed. “We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law,” the letter said.

Though that’s heartening, bear in mind that these representatives aren’t looking to further reproductive rights – as much as the right fears that this is the goal of their leftist, feminist, socialist agenda.

These representatives are just trying to maintain what we already have. Considering they may have to stand up against the influence of people like Bill Clinton, who said of the issue, “It’s not important to be perfect here. It’s important to act, to move, to start the ball rolling,” they have a tough row to hoe. What does Clinton mean when he says “the perfect is the enemy of good?” That “good” is an America in which the reproductive rights of women are under siege?

What’s an American citizen to do?

HALEY DAVIS can be reached at hrdavis@ucdavis.edu.