ASUCD senate and executive elections begin at 8 a.m. tomorrow and to help students make their selections, The California Aggie sat down with each senate and executive candidate to talk about the issues.

This election features a host of qualified and passionate candidates. The following senate and executive candidates endorsed all have good perspectives on the challenges ASUCD faces.

President and Vice President: Joe Chatham and Chris Dietrich

Both executive tickets this year consist of highly qualified former senators, each of whom are already very accomplished within ASUCD. While LEAD candidates Lula Ahmed-Falol and Rebecca Schwartz have good ideas and are well prepared for the job, independents Joe Chatham and Chris Dietrich have tangible, more reform-oriented goals that will ultimately do more for students.

Chatham and Dietrich are committed to bringing student government to the “next level“ by moving past partisan bickering. They want to overhaul the budget to make the necessary cuts, but more importantly they want to reallocate funds from inefficient programs and put them somewhere they‘ll be useful. Chatham and Dietrich also have a better record of improving student life in measurable ways.

In addition to Chatham and Dietrich‘s qualifications, it‘s a good idea for the proper functioning of democracy to have different groups controlling the elected branches of government. An independent executive would provide a valuable check on the majority LEAD senate, and vice versa.

1. Trevor Taylor (LEAD)

Coffee House supervisor and former Interfraternity Council president, Taylor is an experienced leader with concrete ideas to improve student life. Taylor‘s main platform goal of expanding and better promoting ASUCD‘s legal services would be an excellent resource for all students. Taylor, a junior political science and history major, has the professional yet pleasant demeanor that will help him effectively lobby the administration for student services.

2. Justin Gold (ACT)

Sophomore political science and philosophy major Gold is an ASUCD outsider who will bring a fresh perspective and new voice to the senate table. While Gold may be new to ASUCD, he served in student government in high school and has the common sense to identify and tackle problems in the system. Gold is committed to doing the little things that truly matter to students‘ everyday lives like posting bus schedules at all stops and improving campus lighting.

3. Keven Massoudi (Independent)

Massoudi is the kind of person students should want representing and fighting for them in the administration. The sophomore political science major presents himself very professionally and comes across as mature, trustworthy and well-spoken. His philosophy that “the administration works for us“ is a refreshing and appropriate outlook. He has demonstrated previous success in lobbying for Wi-Fi in Wellman Hall and plans to continue efforts at improving student life.

4. Will Klein (ACT)

As an environmental science and management and nature and culture double major, Klein is committed to bringing a green voice to the senate. He has a strong vision for UC Davis‘ potential to be an environmental leader. Klein has a solid idea of where best to make cuts to the budget to preserve services while eliminating unnecessary spending.

5. Momo Newbon (LEAD)

Chair of ASUCD Ethnic and Cultural Affairs Commission and former intern for President Ivan Carillo, Newbon has extensive experience and a deep knowledge of the operation of ASUCD. The junior sociology major is passionate, assertive and has already started working on her platform goals. Her objective of increasing knowledge about academic probation rules would help many students.

6. Chintan Desai (LEAD)

As a former resident advisor, Desai is in a unique position to represent the needs and challenges of UC Davis first-years. It is obvious in speaking with him that he is running because he honestly cares about the students at this university. Desai, a junior political science major, comes across as approachable and will give ample consideration to the requests and suggestions of students.

Unfortunately, an otherwise qualified candidate, Jeremia Kimelman, is studying abroad during spring quarter. Under other circumstances he would be an attractive candidate, but his decision to be absent for a third of his term is irresponsible and would be a disservice to students.

Undergraduate students can vote online at elections.ucdavis.edu beginning Wednesday at 8 a.m. through Friday at 8 a.m. Results will be announced in the Memorial Union at noon on Friday.

In addition to selecting six new ASUCD senators this week, students will also be asked to weigh in on a controversial new fee increase to establish a “Green Initiative Fund.“

If passed, the measure will require students to pay an extra $4 per quarter in fees to ASUCD in order to fund a program that would give students the money to initiate sustainability projects on campus.

Supporters of TGIF say it’s an innovative way to give students the power to improve the campus and make it more sustainable. Many TGIF backers say it will help make UC Davis a national leader in sustainability.

Though the environmental and educational goals behind this measure are laudable, there are two major flaws that spoil the program as a whole.

First is the fact that the $4 per quarter fee will be levied for the next 10 years. This is simply a bad policy.

TGIF has had mixed success at the other campuses where it has been instituted and no one can guarantee much student interest there will be at Davis. Perhaps the TGIF office will be overflowing with applications from students who want to install energy efficient windows or solar panels. It’s just as possible, however, that there will be very little interest from students. That could create a wasteful situation in which hundreds of thousands of student dollars are locked up in an unused bank account.

A better measure would have put the sunset for the fee at one or two years. With a shorter time frame, students would be better able to gauge the effectiveness of the program. If it turned out that there was little interest in the program, its impact would be limited and the campus could move on to bigger and better things. If it were a wild success, students would have no problem approving it again.

The other major problem with the current version of TGIF is the makeup of the grant-making committee.

Of the seven members of the committee, only two student members will be selected without any influence from the administration. Given that this is supposed to be a student-funded, student-driven program, this is a major shortcoming.

Additionally, Student Housing is guaranteed to have a student member on the committee. Since many of the projects are expected to directly benefit Student Housing facilities (such as the Domes) this is an inherent conflict of interest.

A better method of selecting the committee’s student members would be to have the ASUCD President nominate candidates who would then have to be approved by the ASUCD senate. In addition to being simpler, this would eliminate the conflict of interest.

TGIF is a good idea, but the setup as it is currently proposed is flawed, and it must be redesigned. For these reasons, we encourage a “no“ vote on TGIF.

Over the year and a half I’ve been writing this column, I’ve encountered a variety of different responses. Some students have been motivated by my efforts, others have been appalled by them, but so far nothing has caught me more off guard than a displeased TGIF supporter who insisted that I smell her in the middle of a crowded Coffee House breezeway.

That’s right, of all the arguments I put forward against The Green Initiative Fund (TGIF) last week the thing this person found most displeasing was the title, “Dirty, Smelly Hippies.” Fueled by the idea that this bizarre incident might one day make a killer opening to a column, along with a nagging impulse of morbid curiosity, I accepted the invitation. To my surprise, this individual smelt fine; some might even go as far as to call the odor pleasant.

However, none of this changes the fact that the ragged piece of legislation she stands behind still wreaks of failure, ignorance and dishonesty.

Now, in the final days leading up to the ASUCD elections, TGIF supporters have begun to cling to a collection of half-truths, manipulated statistics and downright lies to paint the initiative as something it most certainly isn’t.

Considering that voting starts tomorrow, and that I have nothing better to do than to help defeat this poorly planed ballot measure, I encourage you to follow along as I give the arguments in favor of TGIF what one supporter aptly titled a “sniff check.“

TGIF Claim: “The UC Davis Green Initiative Fund is based on functioning programs present on other UC Campuses.“ Wrong! TGIF has been historically inefficient.

During both of last weeks ASUCD senate debates, candidate Kevin Massoudi claimed that TGIF was “wildly successful” on the UC Berkeley, UCSC and UCSB campuses. Perhaps Massoudi and I have different definitions of success, or perhaps the more likely solution is that he wishes to conceal the fact that the TGIF programs on these three campuses have yielded more that $500,000 of unused student funds.

Independent candidate Joe Chatham, who announced that the TGIF program at UCSB was, “allowed to spend all the money on programs supporting sustainability“, echoed this dishonest claim in last Thursday’s presidential debate. In reality, only $295,000 of the available $364,000 was spent on programs, wasting close to $70,000 of student funds.

Unfortunately, the threat of wasted or misused fees does not end there. According to the UC Student Services and Fees Administrative Advisory Committee, an annual $40,000 would be required to create the proposed staff position, while another $30,000 would go towards administrative details.

These often-ignored statistics make me want to label TGIF a lot of different things, and “wildly successful” definitely doesn’t make the cut.

TGIF Claim: “Even with the proposed $4 a quarter increase, UC Davis will still have the ‘second lowest cost of education‘ of any campus in the UC system.” Time for another fact check, chief.

This gem of a claim, also cited frequently by Massoudi, has never been fully explained. Due to his refusal to provide a definition, I will make the reasonable assumption of interpreting “cost of education” to mean the annual amount students pay the university in exchange for instruction. All UC campuses are subject to the statewide educational fee of $6,262, the $864 registration fee, and the $872 health insurance charge. The only factor that makes one campus more expensive than the next are the “campus based fees,” for which Davis students pay a whopping $1,512.60/yr. Considering the average campus based fees, including those of UCD, are only $901.00/yr, any argument that UC Davis is a bargain when compared to the rest of the system is absolutely absurd. Granted, I’m an English major, but I’m pretty sure the equation $1,512.60 > $901 hasn’t become untrue since I left grade school.

If these glaring attacks on honesty aren’t enough to make you think twice about the merits of TGIF, then I suggest you consider the fact that the campaign has refused to sign the ASUCD Election Committee’s voluntary spending agreement, a measure which the fifteen senate candidates unanimously supported during last week’s debate.

It should come as no surprise that a campaign willing to flood a public debate with half-truths and manipulated facts would have no problem spending an unregulated amount of funds on a flashy website and daily ads in the paper that I’m sure can be found somewhere in this issue. Rather than be duped by this band of liars, I urge students to get out and vote down this slush fund and put this unnecessary tax on students to rest.

If anyone disagrees with JAMES NOONAN’s take on things they should come watch the TGIF debates today. Anyone who still believes him to be wrong can reach him at jjnoonan@ucdavis.edu.

Now that my friends and I are high tailing it out of this ol‘ college town this year, I’ve been noticing that we’re trying to cling onto our old antics. Our collective fear of growing up and entering that blasted “real world” is festering inside us at such an alarming rate; we’re desperately trying to stay young. And I’m not even talking about staying in college mode. Sadly, we’ve been trying to act like high schoolers again.

You may wonder what’s so different about being in high school. Turns out, a lot of things, like riding the bus to go to the Great Mall and then having your mom pick you up before dinner. Also, carrying around a bag of coins so I can use the … wait, I know this one. What’s it called again? Oh yeah, a “pay phone” (whatever that is, I don’t remember). And my favorite, carrying around a CD player that would pause every time it was tapped because it didn’t have the anti-shock feature, accompanied with your top five CDs of the moment.

So if you’re like me and the thought of finding work in this dire economy or filling out grad school applications is keeping you awake at night, here are some things you can do to remind yourself what it was like to be 16.

Loiter. In high school, I would just stand in front of a Wendy’s, or a tree, or a parking lot for hours just to pass the time. Sometimes I was with my friends, sometimes I was alone (those were the hardest days to get through) and sometimes I was still alone but stood adjacent to the popular kids who were actively ignoring me because they didn’t know who I was.

I’ve noticed that people don’t really loiter much anymore because a) they have something better, more active thing to do like study/work, or b) there are other things that still have the same productive value of loitering, but are more entertaining to do, like Puzzle Fighter or being high or whatever.

The only time there’s an influx of people standing around is at two in the morning on G and Fourth, at the Jack In the Box parking lot – and that’s only because they’re all buzzed and need food. Alas, what happened to the good old days when being sober and leaning against your dad’s car-on-loan at 3:30 p.m. (aka: After school) was entertainment enough?

Go where the kids go. Okay, that’s not supposed to be as pedophiliac as it sounds, but if you want to feel young, go where young people go – bad concerts.

I made that mistake about a year ago when I went to Taste of Chaos, which is sort of like Warped Tour but more lame. Still, the screamo and post-hardcore bands were ever present, and so were the pre-teens. I’d call them “teeny-boppers” because that’s what we were called in middle school, but now I hear even the word teeny-bopper is a bit teeny-bopperish, yeah?

Anyway, so these friggin‘ pre-teens were running amuck with their Industrial piercings, checkered neck scarf-wrap-thing, huge sunglasses with the blinds going through them (which renders your eyes useless) and razor-cut hair style. Also, it was tight pants, ballet flats and thin headwrap forehead band (so, are we seriously wearing those now because I for sure thought it would last a month, tops) galore.

Now, I’m not hating. These are what the kids are wearing now so, wear it up. When I was 13, I was all about the Baby-G watches, flared pants (ah yes, remember the days when those were in and the straight-legged were out? Now it’s the complete opposite and I’m forced to put my flared jeans in the attic until they become cool again), and Puka shell necklaces when they were considered “in.“

I suppose being at that concert just made me realize how old I was. Did people in college class of 2003, look at their respective high schoolers like this too? These kids with their first generation iPod fully loaded with this new band called “Evanescence,” running around with a tie and wife beater à la Avril Lavigne? (Answer: probably, yes).

Lastly, work out because you need a lot of energy to roll like a teen again. I remember feeling completely exhausted at the show because I was being pushed around like a rag doll up to the point where my body (still in a standing position) was lifted and supported by the people around me so well that my feet weren’t even touching the ground. Not only did I fear for the life of my glasses (note to self: Invest in contact lenses!), it was only like 7:30 p.m. “Gossip Girl” wouldn’t even be on yet and I’m ready to put those Crest Whitening Strips on and call it a day.

LYNN LA is getting too old for this shit, but is too scared to be an adult. If you are feeling the same impending doom as she is, leave a message after the ldla@ucdavis.edu.

We live in an era of one-night stands and transitory relationships. Many of you have probably never had a meaningful relationship, while most of you likely have had a one-night stand or maintained a “friend with benefits“ relationship. In the fashion of our generation, you embraced your physical impulses while fearing and avoiding emotional ones.

Granted, we are physical beings, motivated by an insatiable longing for human contact. But we are also emotional beings, with the need to love and be loved by others. In essence, our thoughts and actions are determined by an ongoing conflict between lust and love; and lust is winning. Only when our physical and emotional impulses find balance can we experience true intimacy and lead more satisfying lives.

The Ancient Greeks defined three types of love; eros (sensual love), philia (friendly love), and agap? (unconditional love); however, when combined, eros and agap? define the ideal of romantic love we know today.

The god Eros delivered theia mania, the passionate feeling of love, via special “love-tipped“ arrows. Eros was sexual in nature and had two parts; the initial attraction for a person and the gradual appreciation of the beauty within that person. Although eros was often physical in nature, physical attraction was unnecessary for love. Eros was more than pure lust; it was a deep and spiritual connection between two individuals that allowed them to transcend the physical and attain a deeper understanding of our humanity.

The Greeks recognized agap? as an unconditional, thoughtful and self-sacrificing love. This kind of love could be felt for a family member, an activity, and most importantly, for a partner or spouse. When one felt agap? for someone, they placed the other‘s welfare before their own. Although the Greek concept of romantic love differs from our own, their inquiries into the human heart give us the framework to understand how we can find balance between lust and love.

Sigmund Freud believed lust was part of human nature and could be explained by the libido. The libido is the individual‘s instinctual energy force residing within their subconscious that often takes the form of sexual desire.

In the past, societal norms of abstinence kept the lustful urges of the libido somewhat in check; however, today there is no such impediment. By giving into our primordial desires, we often exercise self-destructive and emotionally irresponsible behavior and deprive ourselves the ability to know true intimacy.

The desire to embrace the physical is a rational outgrowth of our urge to maximize our short-term happiness. Although it would be foolish to condemn anyone for being the victims of their own humanity, giving into these lustful urges often leaves a bitter residue within the heart.

As most of us have many days left to live, is it wise to lead such shallow, short-sighted lives? If we allow ourselves to remain obsessed with the physical, then we will never develop the deeper appreciation for beauty that transcends the physical. We will become a society of embittered elders, incessantly driven by the physical urges we can no longer enjoy.

But what if we embrace the emotional, find balance and realize true intimacy? What if we renewed our faith in love, invested in hope rather than fear, and realized a more meaningful existence?

In time, we might find ourselves waking up in the middle of the night embracing the one we care about more than anything else in this world. We might discover an enduring connection with another running so deeply that when we grew old and lost our youthful gifts, our love would remain the same.

If you are one of the many who have never known love, or lost faith in it due to heartbreak, then know this; although to pursue true intimacy is not the easiest path, it is the only path that does not ultimately lead to a dead end.

You may not find what you are looking for today or tomorrow. It will take time, but will arrive when you least expect it. And when it does, do not fear it or reject it, but embrace it, cherish it, and protect it.

MIKE HOWER hopes everyone finds someone special and experiences true intimacy. Contact him at mahower@ucdavis.edu.