Dear Aggie Readers,

Due to mounting budget losses, The California Aggie has found it necessary to make several mid-year cuts. The most visible of these is our decision to cease having a print edition of the newspaper on Fridays. Articles that would have run in the Friday issue of the newspaper will be posted online at theaggie.org. For those devoted readers of The Lineup, it will be moved to the Thursday issue.

A more detailed explanation of the all the budget cuts being made as well as the reasoning behind them appears on Today’s opinion page. Thank you for your time and your continued readership.

Sincerely,

Richard Procter

Editor in Chief

A recent discovery of a hazardous chemical near the site of the new Target store in Davis has some citizens calling for construction on the store to be delayed.

The chemical, trichloropropane, is considered to be a “probable carcinogen” by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It has already been detected at the nearby Frontier Fertilizer Superfund Site, which the EPA has been monitoring and cleaning up since the mid-1990s.

The citizens‘ group that oversees that cleanup project says the TCP could be moving toward the Mace Ranch neighborhood to the north. They have asked the EPA to stop construction on the Target development so more testing can be done in the area.

The discovery of this chemical outside of the original cleanup site is certainly alarming, and the neighbors who live next door have every right to be concerned about their safety. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that Target’s construction is going to threaten that.

In fact, Target has worked with the EPA to take extra precautions.

Target is installing a vapor barrier and venting system beneath the foundation of the store to prevent any toxic vapors from entering the building and harming employees or customers. Target has also put in more monitoring wells around the site than previously existed.

The claim that Target’s construction is going to threaten public health is simply unfounded.

While recent history provides many reasons not to trust the EPA, this is a situation that pits the word of toxicology and cleanup experts against the word of a group of citizens. Unless the citizens‘ group knows something the EPA doesn’t, it is only reasonable to trust the EPA’s judgment that the public’s health is not in jeopardy because of this development.

Dear Aggie Readers,

The California Aggie has been forced to make several mid-year budget cuts in order to try and meet our mounting deficit. The most visible of these cuts, and the one likely to affect you the reader most significantly, is the decision to cease production of Friday’s printed issue. The Friday issue will still be available online at theaggie.org. For Aggie sports fans out there, never fear, the Lineup will be moved to Thursday.

Other less visible cuts that we’ve had to make include closing the front office on Fridays, removing stipends for staff writers and staff photographers, cutting manger pay and slightly reducing the circulation of the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday issues. We have also made an effort to remove anything not absolutely necessary from The Aggie’s budget, including money for staff retreats, special training, certain office supplies and the water cooler.

Historically, The Aggie’s expenses have been fairly even with advertising revenue. For the past several years, however, ad sales, The Aggie’s only source of revenue, have been in sharp decline. This year marks a new low. The primary reasons behind this are two-fold.

First, for approximately the past five years, newspapers everywhere have been finding it increasingly hard to make ends meet due to the increasing popularity of online publishing. Readers can get the same news for free whenever they want, usually at a faster pace. By-the-second updates have made print media less than optimal as a primary news source. By and large, even the best newspapers have struggled to adapt to this new environment. The New York Times, for example, recently started to run front-page advertisements and is facing $1.1 billion in debt. The recent $250 million investment by Mexico based telecommunications mogul Carlos Slim has put off the worst of their troubles for the time being, but their problems are still indicative of the industry as a whole.

The Aggie, along with other college newspapers, has a largely captive audience. As a result, industry ills are often delayed in affecting this newspaper. Those problems, however, have finally come to the fore and are the reason for our increased work on our website as well as our budget cuts.

Second, the abysmal state of the national economy has made advertisers wary of purchasing any ad space, let alone space in a college newspaper. Until the economy improves, it is unlikely that advertising for The Aggie will see any significant increase from what it is right now. Because The Aggie’s budget needs to be based on solid data and expectations instead of hopeful forecasts, it was deemed necessary to make drastic cuts right now in order to address the deficit The Aggie will face at the end of the year.

These cuts, while unfortunate, are not without precedent. The Daily Californian, for example, no longer produces a Wednesday print edition.

These are likely the extent of the publicly visible budget slashes, though The Aggie’s management continues to meet with both the Campus Media Board and a special subcommittee of the media board devoted to the discussion of Aggie finances. The ultimate goal is to keep The Aggie printing for as many days a week as possible for as long as possible. We take our duty to provide the UC Davis campus and surrounding community with news and information very seriously.

We strongly encourage you to continue reading The Aggie’s Friday articles online at our website (theaggie.org); our reporters and editors are still working their very hardest to bring you up to date information about the community you live in.

We thank you for your continued readership and support.

Sincerely,

Richard Procter

Editor in Chief

Anyone with questions or concerns about these changes should feel free to contact The Aggie at editor@theaggie.org

Newly formed ASUCD organization ACT faced controversy last week after it became apparent that members didn’t fully disclose their intentions when interviewing students for a video to be posted online. After it was discovered that more than one interviewee wasn’t aware the video was for an ASUCD group, ACT organizers removed it in order to get permission from everyone it featured.

While it appears the mistake resulted more from carelessness than intentional deceit, it is nonetheless an unfortunate and easily avoidable start to the election season. ACT leaders should have insisted their videographers fully brief everyone they interview to avoid this situation.

In addition to being vague in its video interviews, ACT is decidedly nebulous about its own identity. Organizers say they don’t think of themselves as a slate; yet they talk, act and run senate candidates like a slate.

ACT leaders say they dislike the “slate” title for the partisan politics associated with the term. Organizers claim they want to transcend partisanship and serve the student body as a whole, regardless of slate affiliation.

But ACT is planning to run at least six senate candidates in this quarter’s elections and so far doesn’t look to be behaving much differently than other slates, as evidenced by this video debacle.

It’s best to call a spade a spade, and a slate a slate.

This quibbling over language serves only to confuse. ACT would be better off demonstrating its inclusiveness through actions alone rather than trying to brand itself as something it’s not.

Since this country’s inception, the ability to state one’s views without fear of persecution from the government has been essential to the formation of a free and democratic society. With the exception of a few blemishes, (see the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798) politicians have been wise enough not to tinker with the First Amendment, leaving citizens free to speak their minds and express their opinion publicly.

But in our modern world, full of rapid forms of communication and information transfer, will the current trend of heavy-handed government regulation eventually find its way into the realm of free speech?

The answer to this question could potentially come with the Supreme Court’s decision on the matter of The Federal Communications Commission and United States of America v. FOX Television Station, Inc. The case comes as a reaction to FOX’s broadcast of the 2002 and 2003 Billboard Music Awards, in which Cher and Nicole Richie dropped uncensored “F-bombs” during their respective broadcasts.

Obviously, the Supreme Court doesn’t get called in to deal with every case of celebrity indecency, so there is clearly more at stake here than just a slap on the wrist for FOX Television. As baffling as it may be to imagine that Cher and Nicole Richie have possibly secured a brief footnote in American history through a complete disregard for social tact, it may very well be the case.

The fundamental, and potentially historical, debate focuses on whether or not the FCC can arbitrarily define an isolated use of expletive language as “obscene, indecent, or profane” under federal law. In other words, does the FCC have the constitutional power to interpret the use of a handful of words loosely deemed “inappropriate” by the government as an illegal and punishable act?

Some refuse to believe that FCC v. FOX Television Station will have groundbreaking implications regarding the state of free speech in this country, but unfortunately, it is not the only effort being made by the government to force censorship and regulation down the throats of the American media.

Over the last year, there has been talk on Capital Hill about reinstating the failed FCC Fairness Doctrine, which required media broadcaster to present both sides of controversial political issues in a manner that is honest and balanced. Such a measure would undoubtedly have a devastating effect on media outlets such as talk radio, which usually focus on giving a politically biased perspective on the issues. However, any notion of honesty or balance complete vanishes when one realizes that a massive conservative presence in talk radio may be responsible for the rising support of the Fairness Doctrine by key Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi or John Kerry.

Some proponents of the Fairness Doctrine claim that it has nothing to do with censorship, however, this could not be farther from the truth. Government regulation of the media with the hopes of creating “fairness and equality” is not simply censuring dissenting points of view, but eliminating the rights of citizens to express any opinion at all. How can magazines, broadcasting stations or newsletters openly criticize the government while, at the same time, being forced to provide support for the opposition?

It appears as if the only true beneficiaries of increased government censorship and regulation would be the elected officials who avoid media criticism and the institutions that are responsible for enforcing such measures. Hopefully, American citizens will soon realize that government officials mandating decency and fairness are just as stifling to free speech as state controlled press, and quite possibly the first step in that terribly flawed direction.

JAMES NOONAN thinks that government censorship and regulation of the media is an attack on free speech and affront to the Constitution super duper. Let him know what you think at jjnoonan@ucdavis.edu.

I once read a study by Webster University Professor Monica Moore, about how women behave and nonverbally communicate with men while flirting. The things women do, either intentionally or unintentionally include subtlety touching the favorite part of their own body, leaning in closely, tossing their hair to expose the neck and glancing.

I was pretty unimpressed by what this article told me – namely, nothing I hadn’t done before in attempts to play grab-ass with my T.A. who finds me disgusting. When I read the title (“Nonverbal Courtship Patterns in Women“), I anticipated learning new moves I’ve never thought of doing before, then executing them and in no time at all, I would be fighting men off with a bat because they’d found me so irresistible.

Unfortunately, there is no shortcut to attracting guys (except that really tiny cheat move where you have to be, what is it again? Oh yeah, being fucking gorgeous?!). Alas, if only there was an up-up-down-down-left-right-left-right-B-A code to dating, I’d be a whole ‘nother gal. Good thing for you minions, I’ve cooked up a few secrets of my own to nonverbal flirting that I’d like to divulge.

In the study, Moore wrote that women (who are blessed enough to have them) often touch their breasts slightly in order to gain a man’s attention. Now if your boobs are small, clumpy and oogly (ie: mine), you might have to forego this technique. Instead, let him notice what’s really important: your intelligence.

That’s right, I’m not doing this college bullshit for my health, honey. I might have a body of a two year-old but you know what else is two? My impressive GPA, that’s what. That’s why I say you should continually tap your temple while talking to a man. Sure, if you do it for a second it looks like you’re motioning a signal that means, “Think about it,” but if you do it for a minute and a half, he’ll know what’s up (if he still doesn’t get it, you should look at your finger while it’s tapping the side of your head, then his face, then back at your finger, repeatedly).

Rubbing your two temples with your finger might imply you have a headache, but if you do it sexually, maybe while profusely licking your lips, he’ll know that he’s getting all this and brains too. Also, try subtly, yet vigorously, rubbing your forehead with your palm to get him to notice how smart you are. Be careful when removing your palm though; don’t let him catch the oily residue that might linger on your hand, which I heard happened to my friend that is totally not named Lynn La.

The study also mentioned the “solitary dance,” which is when a woman “while seated or standing … moved her body in time to the music,” which frequently resulted in a man requesting a dance. To this I say, take it to the next level and combine it with Moore’s other observation: smiling.

When dancing alone, don’t just bop your head, dance. Dance and smile while locking eyes with someone and never stop doing either. Especially the smiling. Moore mentions the “coy smile,” which is basically the smile’s stupid cousin, so I’d skip this move. I suggest a smile called “picture day at elementary school.” That’s the kind of smile you do when you sit in front of a sky blue background, wearing a turtleneck underneath a knit sweater (only because your mom laid it out on the foot of your bed in the morning), sporting the same bowl hair cut as 24 other kids in your class, and you plop your butt on that stool and smile the toothiest smile you have.

Combining this with aggressive solitary dancing while never taking your eyes off a man 10 feet away is what I like to call magic. If he tries to look away, just move in closer until you’re about a foot away from him and keep on showing him those pearly yellows. If he still tries to escape, let him. I mean, it’s not like you were dancing with him anyway (hello, just because you were three inches away from him, it’s still called “solitary dancing“), so you weren’t even rejected.

If all else fails, combine every technique at once. Look, I’m a workingwoman. I got an internship in the morning, books to read, prime ministers to assassinate, shows to TiVo. I don’t have time to do these tricks in one-hour increments. That’s why I’m going to fling my hair, rub my neck with my left hand, caress my flat chest with the right, laugh hysterically at everything he says while licking my lips and continually cross and uncross my legs like I have to urinate except only more seductive. I mean, I might look mentally instable, but if I snag a man by 5:30 p.m. while the sun is still out and you don’t, who’s laughing now? That’s right … it’s still you laughing, isn’t it? Damn.

LYNN LA thinks that dim lighting works better for your body than any bra you can ever buy. She also wonders what this thing called “a personality,” is that everyone’s talking about. To tell her, email her at ldla@ucdavis.edu.

“Obama! Obama! Obama!” Thousands of people roared their approval of the next president of the United States. The streets were filled with those eager to witness history. News helicopters hovered overhead and swanky entrepreneurs tempted the swirling crowds with every imaginable form of Obama memorabilia; t-shirts, hats and even condoms (labeled “Durability you can believe in“).

It was miserably cold. In fact, to say it was just cold would be a gross understatement. As my fellow Nor-Calers would put it, it was hella cold. The chill breeze seemed to cut through every layer of clothing, paralyzing the skin. I swear, even my bones were freezing.

It was also crowded. Hella crowded. Nearly 2 million people had come to the capital to witness democracy’s most precious activity; the peaceful transfer of power from one regime to the next.

Surely, there must have been something else compelling such a great number of people to brave the freezing weather and to deal with the frustrating crowds. Some kind of fantastic force fueled these people.

And I was determined to find out what it was.

Amidst the chaos, I met many people, some who had traveled only a few city blocks and others who had traveled thousands of miles to witness Obama’s inauguration.

Many were excited to see the first African-American take the presidential oath.

“I never thought I would see the day,” said Michelle Johnson, a middle-aged African-American teacher and D.C. native. “If you asked me four years ago if I thought this day would come so soon, I woulda said you were crazy.“

For some, the day was important because it meant the end of the Bush presidency.

Mark Robinson, a college student from Wisconsin, said, “I’m just glad Bush is finally out. He really screwed up our country.“

But the crowd itself revealed everything.

Like the heat rising off the crowd’s huddled bodies into the morning air, I could nearly see the aura of anticipation emanating from crowd. One would think people would be impatient while enduring such wretched conditions, but this was not the case. If people got annoyed with one another, someone would say, “Be courteous, it’s Obama Day!”

It was a festival of hope, and Obama was the main attraction.

Two million people went wild when Obama walked down the front steps of the Capitol to the podium. The cheering reverberated in waves, as the sound traveled from one side of the Mall to the other.

Next to me, an elderly African-American woman started to cry. But she smiled as the tears streamed down her face.

When Obama was done with his inaugural address, people all around chanted, “Yes we did! Yes we did!”

A feeling of faith and hope pervaded the air; renewed faith in the democratic process and hope for a prosperous new age. The crowd seemed to transcend all divisions; people were no longer black or white, rich or poor, or even Democrat or Republican. They were just Americans.

I was surprised to meet a Republican amidst the sea of Obama supporters (I had assumed they had all skipped town to gamble their sorrows away in Vegas). His name was John Winters and he was a realtor from Pennsylvania. When I asked him why he had made the trip, he replied, “I am curious. I want to believe Obama is who he claims to be. And that he really can help us out of this rut.” And with this statement, my new Republican friend struck gold.

We want to believe.

We want to believe that our democratic system works. We want to believe that positive change is possible. We want to believe that things will get better.

After years of feeling like we had no voice, like the government existed solely to benefit the elite while ignoring the rest, we have a chance to renew the social contract we hold so dearly. This was why people were willing to spend their time and money to travel to the capital and wait hours in the freezing cold to see Obama’s inauguration.

After the ceremony ended, I walked over to the East Side of the Capitol and watched George Bush leave on his helicopter. As he took off, the crowd began to sing, “Nananana, nananana, hey, hey, hey, good bye!”

And goodbye never sounded so sweet.

MIKE HOWER thinks that if Washington, D.C. decides to have 15 degree weather, then it should at least have the decency to be snowing. Please send all warm fuzzies to mahower@ucdavis.edu.