After attending the maelstrom of logically fallacious arguments that was last Thursday’s ASUCD Senate meeting, I’m going to treat everyone to a segment I like to call “Really?!? With Richard.“

Really, people? An aspect of technology behind the voting website stops working for three-and-a-half hours and this makes for an “unfair” election? If nobody could vote for any candidate for the same period of time, all the candidates were subject to the same conditions. Voters who were unable to vote during that time frame had an additional three-and-a-half hours the next morning.

The Elections Committee didn’t do enough to tell voters about the extension? Really? As soon as the problem was discovered, it was addressed. The Elections Committee posted a note on the elections website saying that it was not working and that people should try again later. They later posted an update with the extended election times. They e-mailed people, Facebooked people, talked to people. They asked the University Registrar to send out an e-mail to all students; that the request was denied by the postmaster because there was no realistic way to e-mail over 23,000 people in less than 10 hours isn’t their fault.

And is one of your complaints really that the results of the election were leaked halfway through the election? Really? This is a huge problem? In national elections watching the results in real-time hasn’t been cause for an election controversy. If anything, the leaked results gave candidates who were behind in the votes an advantage because they knew they had to close a gap. Moreover, if everyone is subject to the same conditions, are they really unfair? (No.)

Are you really using the fact that a lot of people showed up to the senate meeting as a reason to ask for a re-election? UC Davis has an undergraduate population of 23,499 people. Thinking that the guests at Thursday’s ASUCD Senate meeting are an accurate representation of all voters on campus is silly. Arguing for any change based on meeting attendance is preposterous.

Really, that people are upset with something isn’t necessarily a reason for action either. That these potential voters didn’t vote is unfortunate; that their schedules didn’t jive with the extension is also unfortunate. But those reasons don’t mean that the election was unfair.

Another argument raised at the meeting was that the voting extension was unfair because, as I just mentioned, it didn’t work with people’s schedules. Really? That’s a valid reason to re-do the entire election? It takes less than 5 minutes to vote. I can count the number of valid excuses for being unable to find 5 minutes of free time in 48 hours on my fingers and they mostly involve outer space, a gulag or Scarlett Johansson.

For those who were offended by the idea that it would be inconvenient to have a re-election, is that really offensive? The candidates would have to re-campaign, which means devoting even more time from their personal schedules to doing in the space of maybe a week or two weeks what they did over an entire quarter. Doing that again means spending money again (spoilers: they have to get new money). The elections committee would have to set up new debates. There would have to be an actual re-election. Looking at the potential implications of having a re-election and then looking at the ASUCD Constitution and bylaws makes my head spin.

And really, when ASUCD Senator Kevin Massoudi points all this out to you, notes how he can’t afford to go another week on two hours of sleep and how he can’t afford to campaign again, you’re just going to ignore him? Really? (And, contrary to what Senator Mo Torres would have you believe, it is not the responsibility of candidates to campaign; they don’t have any responsibilities until they get elected.)

If you were a candidate in the election and you mentioned how important it was not to raise student fees (i.e. all candidates), can you really ask for a costly re-election?

Really, you don’t think having a re-election would “disenfranchise” some of the 6,142 people that voted two weeks ago?

Really, nobody wanted to comment on the fact that President Ivan Carillo encouraged the senate table to completely disregard the constitution and bylaws? Really? The President did this?

Really, it was important enough for you to vote Thursday night, but not Friday morning?

And really, if we’re being honest, implying that senators are racist in a public forum when there is no proof whatsoever to that effect is absolutely indefensible, I mean really.

Give RICHARD PROCTER your thoughts on the issue at rhprocter@ucdavis.edu.

Last weekend, my cousin Ali came to stay with me. While I’d like to think her visit was prompted exclusively by a desire to hang out with the coolest cousin ever, I think the impetus might also have included checking out Davis as an option when she applies to college.

We had a great time exploring campus, but showing her around made me think about the wonderful things and places that I’m going to miss come the end of this, my last, year.

So, I decided to walk around campus and appreciate all the places we all take for granted.

Here are some of my favorites (I only have so many column inches; this is by no means exhaustive):

The Arboretum: The Arboretum is the on-campus equivalent of an escape.

You can spread out a blanket, have a picnic, take a long walk or go feed the ducks (careful: my friends and I did that once and got swarmed. I still have nightmares). It’s the most relaxing place on campus and a great alternative to the chaos of bike circles and the Coho sandwich line.

The ARC: A state of the art workout facility, a rock wall, an indoor track, badminton courts and countless amazing classes make the ARC incomparable in its fabulousness. All it takes is a swipe of the ID card to get to everything it offers … gotta love the perks of tuition!

CAPS (Counseling & Psychological Services): Everyone has bad days. Sometimes a lot of bad days get strung together, but CAPS can help. They offer drop-in counseling, appointment counseling, group therapy, and a variety of self-help options if you’re finding it hard to make it through alone. You can also go in for guidance if you have a friend in need and you’re not sure what to do. Admitting you need help is the first step to getting it. Head into the building adjacent to the quad, and CAPS can help you with the rest.

The Coho: If spending too much time and money in one place is a felony, I plead guilty for my Coho crime. It’s fabulous and has prices so low you won’t require a government bailout. Between the bagels, sandwiches, hot food line (which you can call for that day’s featured items!), the salad bar, and the tex mex grill, the only problem is decision-making. My personal favorite is the Bakery; I recommend the chocolate chip banana cake. Special bakery shout out to the Coho employees who give us an extra jolt to get us though 2-hour lectures!

The House: Bill Withers was right; we all need someone to lean on. While CAPS is fantastic, and I can’t recommend their services more enthusiastically, The House provides a comfort that cannot be equaled: the support of your peers. There are times when the benefits of talking to someone your own age simply cannot be rivaled. They’re located conveniently on campus and the staff is always friendly and willing to help.

Learning Skills Center: Classes are hard, but the LSC, located upstairs in Dutton Hall, is there to help. Chemistry, writing, calculus and more: there are tutors there during the day to assist you with the classes you’re having difficulties in. Students helping students….how fab is that?

The Quad: The Quad in the springtime is one of my favorite places to be: students with Frisbees, drinking iced coffee, having deep discussions while sprawled out with their best friends. In all the college movies and TV shows, the quad is always the place to be. Seeing students gather on our quad makes me feel like I’m living the real college life.

Student Disability Center: If you find yourself facing challenges beyond those of normal college life, the SDC can be a safe haven. Over by the Silo, it provides a safe-haven and help to those who need a little extra assistance. Be it a learning disability, a physical disability, or any other hardship you’re facing, the people in the SDC are kind, sensitive to student’s needs, and extraordinarily willing to help.

Women’s Resources & Research Center: This place is wonderful. It hosts dozens of programs to benefit women, ranging from the recent Vagina Monologues to empowerment lectures. It’s a one-stop shop for any and all female related issues.

EMILY KAPLAN wants to know your favorite place on campus. E-mail her at eckaplan@ucdavis.edu.

Something very important happened on Tuesday, but it went largely unnoticed.

On the same day that we learned housing prices fell at a record pace last quarter; that the Department of Health and Human Services reported health care costs will top $8,000 per person in 2009; that Barack Obama made Bobby Jindal look like a third grader who fell off the short bus; Hilda Solis, a pro-union advocate of environmental justice and minority and women’s rights was confirmed as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor.

This is a big deal. For the first time since our cohort hit puberty (2001 for most, 2003 for poor ol‘ me), and just in time for us to hit the job market, someone who gives a damn about workers will be in charge of how they’re treated.

First some history. Solis was preceded at the DOL by Elaine Chao, wife of Senate Minority Leader and resident hater-of-the-masses Mitch McConnell. Chao’s most touted accomplishment appears to be reclassifying 5 million “supervisory“ wage earners earning as little as $24,000 a year as “executives,“ thereby making them ineligible for overtime pay.

Woo.

Chao also oversaw a 26 percent reduction in investigations into worker complaints of owed back wages.

Woo times two.

And although Chao’s DOL budget grew 20 percent since 2002, the discretionary portion – which goes towards things like disadvantaged youth training and adult apprenticeships, assistance to dislocated workers and veterans, enforcement of occupational safety and health regulations and wage and overtime rules – was cut 16 percent. But the mandatory spending swelled; since the Bush economy had the worst job growth in over 80 years, there was a surge in unemployment insurance and other “income maintenance programs.“ And in the face of 9 percent population growth since 2000, Chao’s impact was even more severe than these cuts indicate.

Woo cubed.

But now that Solis is running the show, there’s a chance some things might not suck so bad.

For one thing, she’s all about unions, and with good reason. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, full-time union members made 25 percent more per year than non-members in 2008. And 80 percent of unionized workers in the private sector receive health insurance coverage from their employer compared with just 49 percent of their non-union counterparts. Unions also secure the sick leave, paid vacations, maternity leave, day care, cost of living adjustments, pension guarantees, grievance procedures and all the little things that make working in a factory that’s louder, hotter and more physically exhausting than a DragonForce concert a good job instead of a shitty one.

Of course, that all cuts into executive pay, so union membership has fallen from 35.5 percent in 1945 to 12.5 percent today. And this decline goes hand in hand with two other important trends.

The first trend is the federal minimum wage. The best year to be a minimum wage earner was 1968; your wage in 2008 dollars would have been $10.10 an hour instead of the $5.15 you earned in 2005 (its lowest level since 1950) or the $7.25 you’ll start earning in July (Solis voted for this increase in 2006, by the way).

The second trend is inequality. A widely used measurement of economic disparity, the Gini-Coefficient, has increased by 23 percent since 1947. According to the UN, we’re now at the same level as Turkmenistan and Ghana.

While real median household income has generally grown, let’s not forget that it takes two workers today to achieve the standard of living that one worker did in the 1950s.

The result is that Americans have been squeezed ever tighter. So while the median household made $50,233 in 2007 according to the BLS, spending on food (12.6 percent), shelter (33.7), clothing (3.7), health care (6.1), transportation (19.5) and mandatory social security contributions (9.6) consumed for 85.2 percent of it. That means that families have just over $600 per month to be saved, spent on entertainment or, I dunno, used to pay for college.

Americans would have a much more secure and comfortable standard of living if wages were higher, if public transportation didn’t suck and if health care, education, job training, daycare, etc. were paid by the state or won via union representation.

And that’s where Hilda Solis can make a difference; by continuing to push for the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).

The act is pretty simple. As it stands, a union can be recognized through two paths. First, if 30 percent of the workers check cards supporting union representation, then there’s a secret ballot vote in which 50 percent must be in favor.

The second is called card check: If 50 percent of the workers check cards in the initial phase, no vote is needed and the union is recognized … except not.

The business is allowed to demand a vote no matter how many cards are checked; and they always do, because this gives them the opportunity to force employees to attend anti-union meetings with their bosses, start rumors about and intimidate supporters, give organizers crappy shifts or fire them outright and, in the case of Wal-Mart, shut down the whole fucking store.

What the EFCA does is force businesses to recognize unions through the card check process. That is, if 50 percent of the workers check cards in support of a union, there’s a union. End of story. It also mandates binding arbitration within 120 days of union representation and much harsher penalties for businesses that pull the aforementioned shenanigans.

Now, I’m going to let you in on a little secret. If you want to know the implications of a bill or an issue, just look at what corporations do in response to it. From there you’ll immediately know whether or not it will be good for Americans.

So when Bank of America held a conference call in October with co-failed-and-bailed AIG and other conservative fund raisers and business leaders to coordinate efforts to fight the EFCA, I knew immediately that it was a great fucking idea.

And lucky us, Hilda Solis and Barack Obama think it’s a great fucking idea, too.

So the chess pieces are slowly coming into place for the EFCA, and if Al Franken can finally get his ass into the Senate, the kings of corporate America will be one move closer to being put in check.

Card check, that is.

K.C. CODY couldn’t resist. Really. He just couldn’t. Bemoan his corny but a-maize-ing jokes at kccody@ucdavis.edu.

ASUCD elections, though a marginal interest for over 70 percent of nonvoting students, produced relatively radical results this year. Progressive independent candidates were elected to executive office while TGIF, which by all logic should have been favored without reservation, was voted overwhelmingly against.

LEAD’s campaign against TGIF stank of hypocrisy, cowardice and sabotage of the very system they ran.

TGIF was killed. The culprit was LEAD. As I’m certain most of you saw, the ‘No on TGIF‘ campaign that was staffed by 100 percent LEAD members who worked hard to popularize the No vote. The issues LEAD listed against TGIF became pocket rebuttals that were well in mind when Davis students went to the digital voting booth. Every single rebuttal was wrong. Stupid wrong.

The biggest two arguments against TGIF were based on the makeup of the Grant-Making Committee. The fund created by TGIF would be regulated by a board of seven people who would determine which proposed projects to fund.

Opponents argued that the presence of a Student Housing advisor on the board would lead to conflicts of interest – that the SH official would go mad with power and fund only housing-related projects, cackling darkly in a high-backed chair as they stroked a hairless sphinx on their lap.

However, such conflicts simply would not arise. There are built in safeguards against conflicts of interest on grant-making boards that are stringently enforced. If a conflict of interest would arise, the SH advisor would be obligated to make this conflict known to the rest of the board and abstain from voting on the project. Should they not, their nepotism would be publicized and they would be asked to step down from the board. LEAD’s use of this fallacious argument only works if they claim ignorance of grant-making SOPs.

LEAD also asserted that the inclusion of administrative advisors on the board carried with it a taint of status quo. In reality, this was a requirement for the creation of a fund, as otherwise TGIF would simply be a pile of money. The board would be controlled primarily by students, which was one of TGIF’s strengths – giving students the power to determine how a portion of their fees are spent.

Perhaps the silliest of arguments against TGIF was that it posed a financial hardship. First, it’s four bucks. Second, TGIF represented a 0.17 percent fee hike, and UCD student fees are increasing next year by a minimum of 8 percent whether we like it or not (and we don’t). Third, 25 percent of it would be spent to avoid putting pressure on students of financial need or those with need-based Pell Grants. Again LEAD has to claim ignorance of school policy to fly this argument, which should be getting you to wonder why we elect these people.

Another LEAD argument: that similar programs had been tried and failed because of lack in student interest or education in sustainability. This is straight-up denial of fact. Sustainability at UC Davis has gathered so much momentum in the last couple of years that admins created a new office last quarter, one of Environmental Stewardship & Sustainability.

The Sustainability Grant Fund at Davis (basically a miniature TGIF) was so successful in its first year that the cash pool was ratcheted up from $18,000 to $25,000, and they still had to turn away scores of proposed projects. The TGIF at UC Berkeley showed no sign of student disinterest, as the $250K fund got applications that amounted to $1.2 million. Trial balloons had already been floated, so where’s the beef?

Also, it’s worth noting that LEAD is saying in this case that we students are simply too lazy or dimwitted to make use of our own money. They, of course, are fully qualified to command our quarterly $42. The word ‘elitism‘ makes me yawn, but there it is.

Graduate chemistry student and ‘Yes on TGIF‘ campaigner Jay Erker put LEAD’s arguments in summary: “All the issues they listed were only issues if you assumed the absolute worst in people.” Obviously, LEAD is not a fan of free love.

LEAD didn’t just have awful arguments – they had equally awful tactics, which is part of the game as a ‘No‘ campaign. They had nothing to lose. If a ‘No‘ campaign violates ASUCD protocol, they’re punished by community service hours. If a ‘Yes‘ campaign violates ASUCD protocol, the whole ballot initiative is aborted, meaning TGIF would have been dead on arrival if the ‘Yes‘ campaign didn’t toe the line.

The ‘No on TGIF‘ campaign denied breaking any rules, but signs against TGIF appeared in no-sign zones and flagrantly ignored sign content standards. This means either the campaigners lied or they received a phantom assist from; gosh, I can’t think just who.

Also, LEAD was hesitant to debate TGIF, despite their unilateral opposition of the measure. The ‘No‘ campaign was invited to two debate events hosted by the ‘Yes‘ campaign and never showed.

At ASUCD-hosted debates, the Yes-ers were barred from appearing because of ASUCD bylaws. Which is odd, because they had argued against TGIF like they knew nothing about procedure.

TGIF was shut down before the election even began. Independent senator, now president, Joe Chatham brought up TGIF at every ASUCD meeting he attended, but was met by a complete lack of interest. “I think there would have been more support from ASUCD if I had not been running against LEAD for the executive office,” Chatham said, “which would have allowed LEAD to take the political credit.“

LEAD, the largest political party in any ASUCD election, moved to monolithically oppose The Green Initiative Fund. They pulled strings of party lines rather than building on rational analysis. In so much jargon, TGIF was a good and simple thing that was destroyed by systemic inequality that extends from ASUCD law to my very employer. My investigation has been eerie, but after facing down YONET last week, I think I can take any heat ‘The Man‘ has got.

Although defeated, the ‘Yes‘ campaigners remain upbeat and optimistic. After all, their proposal turned out the second-largest voting bloc in Davis history with funds a fraction of their competition. Erker and Jabusch say they plan on reintroducing a similar initiative next year. As you help to nail the lid on TGIF’s undeserved coffin, I implore you to keep your heads about you next year. Vote ‘YES‘ on any damn thing that gives students more say in how their money is spent, especially if it means a greener, cheaper and healthier campus.

CHEYA CARY is being Zen about publishing the abridged version of this column. If you enjoyed this, hated this or are just interested in a flamewar, send him an e-mail at cheya.cary@gmail.com.

Super Senior,

A guy I met recently asked me out on a date a few weeks ago. I had a great time, but he refuses to get physically close. He hasn’t kissed me and even seems nervous if our arms accidentally touch. I can make the first move, but I don’t know how and I don’t want to; call me old fashioned. He asked me out again this week, what should I do?

Confused and Refused

Sounds like he’s just nervous, so it might be worth learning his relationship history. I know guys who hadn’t kissed a girl until college, and if this is the case with him (or more likely if he just isn’t as experienced and comfortable with girls as other guys his age) then it’s completely possible that he just doesn’t know how to be assertive.

It may also be that in his experience the first date is too soon for a kiss … you never know; some people just didn’t get the memo.

And don’t worry about being “old fashioned,“ guys don’t want girls to make the first move because it’s empowering to women; some just like it that way because the pressure’s off them. But you have to ask yourself; do you want him to kiss you because you actually want to kiss him? Or do you want him to kiss you because you want him to kiss you? The distinction is superficially minor, but underlying it is a deeper question; do you like him, or do you like that he likes you?

There’s always a mix; I like girls who like me a whole lot more, everything else equal, than I like girls who don’t like me. A person’s feelings about you are part and parcel to who they are. But if you feel that he’s not being assertive enough, and you think that he might need a little encouragement, do something small and gentle. Find an opportune time to kiss him on the cheek and walk away for a bit; to take a call, to “use the restroom,“ get some water, say hi to a friend, whatever. Something along those lines will signal that you’re interested, but doesn’t force him to commit to a full game of “Who’s in My Mouth?”

If he has no idea how to respond, or if he fails to capitalize, order the steak and don’t call back.

Super Senior,

I’ve always been a little interested in my ex-boyfriend’s best friend. I just asked for his number and might call him to hang out sometime soon. Is this appropriate behavior?

Bro-ostitute

Guys always talk shit about “bros before hoes,“ but it’s been my experience that the canon doesn’t weather well. And in this case, whether or not it holds up all depends on how you left it with your ex. If it was a shitty break up with lots of bad blood and a “that-baby-don‘t-even-look-like-me,“ then you’re on thin ice. If you broke up amicably, the ice is somewhat thicker.

Eventually your ex will find out about this, and, depending on the nature and recency of your split, his relationship with his friend will be strained to varying degrees. One way to prevent this behind-the-back bargaining is to be upfront and honest: Tell your ex what you’re up to. That way it’s out of your hands, and if he has a problem with it it’s something he can hash out with his buddy.

That said, there’s always the danger that your ex will tell his buddy to keep it in his pants, thus ruining your fun.

So my suggestion is to first tell your ex’s friend when things get romantic that you’d be comfortable if your ex knew. Then, no matter what he says, two days later somehow inform your ex that you’re making the beast with two backs with his best bud. If he didn’t know that already, you then know that your date’s a liar and in one way or another they’ll have to figure out their friendship. But, if he does know, everything’s already cool.

Overall, your duty here is not to maintain their friendship, that’s their job, but don’t actively try to fuck it up either.

Super Senior,

How do you tell your roommates that you want to move out next year without them going apeshit?

Fearful of Primate Feces

In game theory there are phenomena called “endgame effects,“ which basically describe a set of uncooperative behaviors players exhibit when they know the game is about to end. They arise because the potential for reciprocation of cooperation and retribution for being a dick become minimal.

So, if you plan on interacting with your roommates or people who know them in the future, the game is not over, and you should part ways peacefully. I’d suggest telling them outright that you’ve found another living arrangement and you want to experience something new; they’re still cool, but you’ve only got so much time in college and you want to broaden your horizons.

Or you could just tell them you have a highly rare and contagious form of ass herpes. They’ll understand.

Super Senior,

How do you kick out a roommate?

Primate Feces

A highly rare and contagious form of ass herpes.

Super Senior,

What’s the deal with parking permits? Cause, like, it’s raining; and fuck the rain.

Cold, Wet and Angry

If you’re only going to drive to campus when it’s raining, forgo the permit and shell out the six bucks per day and get daily passes.

At $456 a pop, it takes 77 days of parking on campus to justify an annual C permit over daily passes. Assuming 150 school days per year, that means you would have to drive 46 percent of the time. Furthermore, there were only 33 days with rainfall measuring more than a tenth of an inch last school year.

If you’re seriously so lazy and environmentally callous that you want to drive to campus when it’s not raining the additional 44 times necessary to economically justify purchasing a C permit, then you deserve to be cold, wet and angry.

Now, environmental and obesity concerns aside, if you absolutely must drive, don’t buy an annual permit. Instead, buy quarter permits. They’re $124 a piece, which means 21 trips to campus during the 55 day quarter makes it worth your while over daily passes; and if you buy the $76 summer session permit plus all three quarter permits, you save eight bucks off an annual permit.

But the best deals are in the monthly permits for durations over six months. The timing is a bit tricky, but if you buy nine months of passes starting Oct. 1, you save $30 off three straight quarter permits. You would still need to drive on the order of 55 times per year to justify buying these permits over daily passes, but it’s an improvement.

Ultimately, I suggest biking as often as possible and buying daily passes when you just can’t handle the shitstorm.

Or you could take the bus; but seriously, who does that?

K.C. CODY would love nothing more than for you to send any and all questions, comments or concerns to kccody@ucdavis.edu.