Beginning fall 2009, the University Writing Program will offer a 20-unit Expository Writing minor.

The minor will consist of four upper division writing classes and a four-unit writing internship. Courses are organized into three categories – Writing in Academic Settings, Writing in the Professions and Theory, History and Design – students take one course in each area and an additional course of their choice.

Writing and effective communication are highly valued skills in any discipline, and the minor will provide students with advanced instruction beyond the basic courses required at UC Davis, including pre-professional training in writing and preparation for graduate or professional school.

Offering courses in a wide range of topics, the minor is designed for students in every field, from majors in the liberal arts to areas in the sciences. Since its requirements include courses that already count toward credit for many other majors, adding the minor would be a logical step for those pursuing writing-intensive careers.

Furthermore, the writing minor was created out of resources already on hand – by using courses that are currently offered on campus, adding the new minor to the course catalog required minimal additional funding.

With this in mind, the university should consider integrating a journalism minor from courses already offered in other departments like communication. UC Davis should also consider expanding the writing minor to a major for those who want an even more focused approach to practical communication and rhetoric.

Human beings, when faced with the unpleasant prospect of the truth, will often cling to feelings of cynicism and doubt rather than admitting that they are wrong. Such was the case when Galileo first claimed the sun was the center of our solar system, or when Columbus fought the notion that the earth was flat. Despite the ignorant opposition, these men stood by their beliefs, effectively showing that one stubborn man can change the minds of millions.

A few weeks ago, I was met with the same blend of cynicism and nay saying when I claimed that a free market had been falsely accused as being the cause of many of our country’s current financial woes. The opposition responded with claims that I was only speaking my opinion, or somehow misunderstanding the complexities of the issues at hand.

My stubborn nature, as well as an overwhelming feeling that I am always right, have caused me to revisit this issue, only this time I have come armed with the expertise of Mr. Don Watkins, a writer and research specialist at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights.

Watkins agrees that laissez-faire is not only innocent when it comes to the causes of the current financial crisis, but has not been seen in this country since before the Roosevelt administration. The true cause, which was been able slowly gain footholds in this country behind the distraction of an overwhelming, yet perhaps unconscious, hatred of economic freedom by the American people, can be boiled down to one simple phrase-unnecessary government intervention.

Watkins cites the current state of the American housing market as a prime example of where government intervention has taken the rightful place of a free economy, bringing about the resulting housing bubble and eventual crash of the market.

“The housing market in this country is not a free housing market. In a free market, banks would demand 20 percent down for those who could afford to purchase a home proving they were financially able to do so. However, our government decided to make it easier for people to become home-owners through the invention of Fannie May and Freddie Mac, or the signing of the Community Reinvestment Act. (CRA)”

Watkins explains that these examples of intervention, specifically the CRA, often forced banks to make loans to lenders who historically would have been rejected because of poor credit. These actions, tied with the manipulation of interest rates by the Federal Reserve, whose mere existence defies the notion of a truly free market, are responsible for the housing crisis seen late last year.

Now, in the apparent peak of the crisis, many are citing the lessons of history, claiming that government intervention and stimulation of the economy like that seen during FDR’s New Deal is the solution to our current situation. Those who cling to such illusions of grandeur might as well shut their eyes and skip over the next few lines, for what you’re about the read may shatter your fragile perception of the world-The New Deal did not end the effects of the Great Depression, instead it made things worse.

As Watkins explained, “It’s important that the Great Depression be evoked, because it relates to what is going on right now. Federal intervention was the problem then, and continued to be the problem now. FDR, through his regulations and intervention, went to war with businessmen, creating a general feeling of regime uncertainty.“

This “regime uncertainty,” fueled by the administrations arbitrary control over economic issues, kept businesses from doing the necessary projecting and planning usually associated with economic growth. Thus, businesses were forced to remain stagnant, and the effects of the Depression were prolonged.

Now, more than half a century later, we find ourselves in a disturbingly similar situation, a situation that, according to Watkins, may very well get worse. “What we need right now are as many deregulatory actions as possible. Unfortunately, Obama is saying the exact opposite.“

Rest assured that whatever terrible end comes from American’s love affair with federal regulation and intervention, you can always stand strong, like the generations of the past, foolishly blaming capitalism for the failures of government.

JAMES NOONAN has a long list of suggested reading. Contact him at jjnoonan@ucdavis.edu to find out more.

One of the most common issues I get from my friends when they complain about their significant other is how much they hate the group of friends that come along with their girlfriend or boyfriend. In all these stories I’m told, three very common characters show up that I’d like to say a few words about, just in case you guys didn’t know about them. So let your reading capabilities take it away!

The Asshole is your boyfriend’s male friend who is a grade-A douche bag. He’s a misogynist who thinks he is God’s gift to women. He sleeps around and because his knowledge of women does not extend outside the desperate bag-of-hoes he meets at bars, he thinks women are dumb and are simply “asking for it.” He views girlfriends as playthings, lets you know that relationships are a farce and that girls come and go – including you. The only thing left is for his friend (your boyfriend) to realize it and he can’t wait for the day when they’ll team up again and become the ultimate wingman machine.

So why is your guy still friends with him? One, he’s not a girl so he doesn’t take any offense to this and two, he’s a “cool guy to be around with.” And don’t even think about expressing your negative feelings about him. If this d-bag were to find out you don’t like him, he’ll put you in the My Friend’s Bitchy Girlfriend File and call it a day.

Furthermore, since the guy’s been your boyfriend’s best friend since they were in grade school, any complaints must be made cautiously. Most of the time though, all your guy ever says is, “That’s just the way he is, you’re just sensitive. Besides, how was he supposed to know you were allergic to peanuts? Just because he held your head back and stuffed them in your mouth doesn’t mean he doesn’t like you!”

Then there is the pining lover. Sometimes they’re as harmless as the nice schmuck that treats your girlfriend way better than you ever could but alas, she’s with you, not with him. Other times, they’re as aggressive as the girl who keeps calling your boyfriend at three in the morning, begging him to come over. Whatever the type may be, whenever you guys as a couple hang out with said person, you always end up saying privately to your girlfriend, “Dude, that guy is so into you, I swear. I mean, did you see the way he was crying in the corner when we kissed? Talk about obvious.“

Lastly, the gaggle of girls is the group of three of four girls that come packaged with your girlfriend. If they don’t approve of you, you can expect rough times ahead. Sure it may not be as obvious as, “My friends have reached the consensus that I should dump you and I am obliged to follow through.” However, when all those late night phone calls, catch-up sessions during brunch and pillow fights in lingerie (it’s true, we really do do that) include shit talking about you, it’s bound to give your girl second thoughts.

When a group of girls wants one of their members to dump their significant other, it will be stealthy and through very subtle dialogue. Instead of “Shit dude, your girl is crazy, you need to hit it and quit it, pronto,” girls would rather ask some condescending question: “I remember last year my boyfriend took me to see Lance Burton Magic Show, did Thomas ever do that for you?” See what just happened there? They planted the seed of destruction into your girlfriend’s mind and now she’s going to ask you to see magic shows out of nowhere – and both of you guys don’t even like magic (unless it’s followed by the words “sexy time“).

Sure, you’re grateful for them sometimes – they tell you what she wants for birthday gifts, occupy her time so you need not to worry about her making you the center of her world, and having four best female friends is a whole lot better than having four best male friends, trust me.

But sometimes, okay fuck it, most of the time, you just can’t stand them. Those dinners send your brain into an aneurism because you can’t handle an entire night of darting glances, snide comments, and duplicitous laughter. (The only reason why I know guys have picked up on this is because my male friends have told me. Believe me, all this time I thought we were pretty keen on being subtle, especially with those looks we exchange that last only half a nanosecond, but apparently, guys notice?) Damn them and their eyes having the ability to see things!

LYNN LA thinks everyone comes with a whole lot of emotional baggage. She just hopes that whatever baggage she has, it at least comes in a Louis Vuitton trunk. To pack it up nicely, e-mail her at ldla@ucdavis.edu.

Washington, D.C. is smitten.

Over two million people from every imaginable walk of life have made the journey to the capital to witness the swearing-in of the first African-American president. America‘s cornucopia of current problems has left American morale teetering between hope and despair, but we finally found a reason to smile.

But regardless of whether you believe Barack Obama‘s policies will actually make things better, something really has changed.

And I have seen it with my own eyes.

I am here in D.C. for the inauguration. I know, you hate me. But I am not here to boast.

I am here to convey to you the electrifying emotion and the sense of renewed patriotism that has captured the nation‘s imagination.

These past few days I have explored the city, talking to the wide variety of people who have come here.

Outside of Cannon Office Building, where I worked over the summer, I saw an aging African-American man waltz out the front door screaming with more glee than Charlie when he found the golden ticket, “I‘ve got my ticket man! I‘ve got my ticket!” His name was Nate Perkins, an eccentric Vietnam vet who makes grassroots political action training videos for a living. My former boss, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, gave him two tickets to the inauguration for his contributions to helping mobilize the Democratic youth.

On Sunday, the inaugural week began with a free concert at the Lincoln Memorial. Despite the fact that my friends and I got there a few hours early, we had to push our way to find a decent vantage point.

I saw my first Anarchist. She was blaring propaganda through a megaphone and trying to pass out literature to disinterested pedestrians. She roared, “What does it matter if an African-American was elected president? The true problem is with the system! The system needs to change!” I‘m not sure what form of a government an anarchist would desire, but her oxymoronic (minus the oxy) blabber was entertaining.

The Lincoln Memorial concert was nothing short of amazing. The area around the reflecting pool, all the way up to the Washington Memorial was filled with people. The concert hosted virtually every famous African-American and celebrity you could think of. Denzel Washington, Samuel L. Jackson, Tiger Woods, Jamie Foxx, and Queen Latifa all made speeches. U2, John Mellencamp, Usher, Shakira, and Beyoncé performed for the crowd. Even Tom Hanks and Steve Carell made appearances. Barack Obama and Joe Biden sat behind a transparent, bullet-proof barrier as they watched the festivities.

The greatest moment of the day came when Barack Obama addressed the people. It was at this moment that I realized the true significance of the next President of the United States. Many people are skeptical about Obama‘s ability to actually make a real change. Skepticism. This is the feeling that has consumed us for so long. But this doesn‘t matter.

The truth is, America has been without a real leader during a time when it needed strong leadership.

America has found the leader it needs.

As Obama spoke, the emotional masses served as a testament to this idea. Thousands of people endured the cold so that might catch a glimpse of him, even if for just second.

For the first time in a long time, we the people, feel like we matter. Like the government is actually of the people, by the people, and most importantly, for the people.

The era of fear, of irrationality and of backwardness is over. We have a chance to build a better, freer society not only for ourselves, but for our children.

Even during these difficult times, we have much more reason to be hopeful than to despair. Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States of America reminds us that our brightest days lay ahead. We have found our champion, to unite us, to guide us, and to inspire us.

We are finally one. And because of this, anything is possible.

MIKE HOWER is freezing in D.C. and can‘t wait to return to California‘s moderate climate. Tune in next week to hear what it was like to be at the inauguration! You can reach him at mahower@ucdavis.edu.

Over 150 people attended the Jan. 13 Davis City Council meeting to take part in a public discussion of a resolution calling for peace in Gaza. The resolution called for “an immediate, durable, fully respected ceasefire” and a “lasting humanitarian truce.“

Dozens of community members who attended spoke their mind on the issue, some arguing for it and others arguing against it. This public comment session took almost four hours. In the end, the issue was referred to the city’s Human Relations Commission.

While the conflict in Gaza is an important issue worthy of discussion, it is an issue that should be discussed at a different place and time – not during a city council meeting.

The Davis City Council is the only body that can hold meetings and make decisions about the city of Davis. There are other legislative bodies (e.g. Congress) whose time can be more reasonably spent debating international relations.

While the high attendance of the meeting to discuss the topic is indicative of how many people in the Davis community are affected by the conflict, issues relating to the operation of Davis itself affect everyone in the Davis community. A planned discussion on the city’s budget deficiencies was postponed due to the lengthy discussion on the resolution.

Controversial subjects should certainly have an opportunity to be discussed in a public forum. Reasoned debate is important for a healthy community. Its place, however, should be in a setting separate from the city council. The meeting on Jan. 13 ended with the topic being referred to an outside commission, something that should have happened much sooner.

Immediately referring this issue to the commission or agreeing to hold a separate meeting with the community about the topic would have allowed for essential business to be conducted at the Jan. 13 meeting.

Changing the protocol of how the council handles controversial resolution topics such as this should be a priority, as the number of hot-button issues in the world is unlikely to decrease.