On Saturday December 6th 2008, 127 students from 8 different fraternities and 4 different sororities came out and cleaned up UC Davis. In a partnership between the UC Davis Interfraternity Council, Panhellenic Council, and R4 Recycling Program this event oversaw the collection of 65 bags of material (27 bags of trash, 20 bags of recycling, and 18 bags of compost), totaling 654.6 pounds of material (311.8 lbs. of trash, 167.2 lbs. of recycling, and 175.6 lbs. of compost). The event started in the Arboretum and covered the entire campus. This was an incredible, collaborative effort that demonstrated the pride that we UC Davis students and we Greeks take in our campus and in our environment.

The fact that 127 students came out on a Saturday, and the Saturday (Dead Day) only two days before finals no less, is amazing. For 3 hours these young men and women dedicated time they could have put towards studying to show pride in their campus and prove their stewardship for the environment. I truly believe that this act and these incredible students deserve recognition. That is why I am writing this letter. To bring attention to the many people that came out on that Saturday to break the stereotypes of Greek life and to help build a new image of Greeks, as patrons of service. Below is a list of the fraternities and sororities that made this effort what it was: an overwhelming success.

Alpha Gamma Omega

Delta Gamma

Pi Kappa Alpha

Sigma Nu

Sigma Alpha Epsilon

Sigma Alpha Mu

Sigma Chi

Tau Kappa Epsilon

Chi Phi

Delta Delta Delta

Kappa Alpha Theta

Pi Beta Phi

Thank You,

Christian Commander

Interfraternity Council Philanthropy Chair

Although I was dead-set on writing about butterflies and daisies this week, my Johnny-Depp-with-a-beard look-alike editor kindly pointed out that there is far more to a douchebag than the mere fact that they are a douchebag, as I had outlined last week.

And that’s when my last two brain cells started thinking. What makes a douchebag such a douchebag? How do you deal with said douchebags?

There are two ways to deal: a) DON’T, and if you must, b) annihilation is the answer, baby. Recently it came up in one of my classes that a once-suggested method of dealing with criminals was to send them to self-governing reservations. If this was how society dealt with douchebags, it would make for some totally fly reality TV.

But to find the real answers, I turned to the people who really actually know what they’re talking about. Namely, psychologists and etiquette experts.

To get a psychological perspective, I sought out Dr. Philip Shaver, a distinguished professor of the UC Davis psychology department.

He explained that it is, firstly, important to establish that there is a distinct difference between self-esteem and narcissism. Narcissism is a defensive show of the ego that people use in response to criticism, i.e. suggestions that they may not in fact be the most amazing people on earth. Things that make them question themselves are likely to upset them.

People with normal levels of self-esteem exhibit fewer signs of narcissism – that sense of entitlement, arrogant behavior and belief that they are “special.” Narcissism can be measured by Raskin and Terry’s scale of responses to statements that range from “I wish somebody would someday write my biography” to “If I ruled the world it would be a much better place.” The range of responses varies from the mild: feelings of authority, to the extreme: feelings of entitlement.

Now that we know what internally causes narcissism, why do some people exhibit massive amounts of it while others don’t? It’s not just as simple as saying that wealthy, successful people become full of themselves and act out. Like everything, it roots back to a variety of factors. Often those who were discouraged by an authority figure and therefore motivated to succeed through negative reinforcement are more likely to be narcissistic.

Take for example football players who share credit for a touchdown with their teammates versus the ones who gloat, “Hell yeah, it was all me,” on ESPN. Or what about those divas you hear about who freak out and cancel concerts because someone forgot to put chilled Evian water with a twist of lemon in their hotel room?

Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are two men who’ve accomplished similar astounding amounts of success, yet one is known for being remarkably arrogant and abusing his employees while the other is more likely to make the news for donating massive amounts of his income to charity.

It’s not that one is completely good and one is completely bad, it’s just that one displays more signs of narcissism than the other. This just goes to show that being full of yourself isn’t really about the level of success you’ve achieved.

There will always be people who feel entitled to treat others like crap. This summer, my friend’s boss asked her to call a list of clients demanding that they pay outstanding money because the boss didn’t want to do it. And she stood over her to monitor as she did it. How are we supposed to deal with people we wish would get hit by buses?

Shirley Willey, an etiquette expert who has in the past run student workshops on campus regarding professional business etiquette, shared some insight. She stated, “What we can do ourselves is set a good example and not lose control when responding in professional manner. The golden rule is to treat people the way you would like to be treated.“

It may not be the most fun or satisfying way to respond, but I guess there are times when you have to leave it up to karma and hope that it’s a sassier bitch than you ever could be.

MICHELLE RICK is now frantically scanning the scale to see if she has Narcissistic Personality Disorder. If you think you have what it takes to be the next king of Australia, e-mail her at marick@ucdavis.edu to learn the truth about yourself.

The Recording Industry Association of America, in an attempt to further expand its influence in the world of illegal file sharing, has decided not to file lawsuits en masse against illegal file sharers. Instead, the RIAA will work closely with Internet service providers and encourage them to increase their own role in protecting music copyrights.

The RIAA’s former approach of targeting students with expensive lawsuits was unfair and ineffective. Though it may have stopped the people who were sued, few others were deterred from downloading illegally.

Currently, if UC Davis receives a notice that a campus network user is downloading illegally, that user is immediately banned from the campus network for two weeks. If the user commits a second offense, the user receives a permanent ban from the UC Davis network. This system of penalties was designed to protect UC Davis from RIAA lawsuits.

While legitimate uses of file-sharing software may be negatively impacted by this approach, the low number of people using file-sharing programs legally is so small as to render this problem irrelevant.

RIAA’s new approach is good for students because individuals are not at risk of litigation and the university will no longer be responsible for policing students.

Soldiers of war are not psychopathic killers – they are victims of robbery, the robbery of a human quality called empathy.

With certain external forces, we have the ability to lose this basic emotion.

Analyzing the Israel and Gaza conflict, I realized that the loss of empathy is the underlying cause of the controversy. My objective in this column is not to prove which side is the victim or aggressor, but to share some of my thoughts on why I think there is such a polarization of opinions in the first place.

I believe the Israel and Gaza debate is being approached incorrectly. Supporters on each side of the argument try throwing facts at each other, as if facts alone will make apparent which side is right. The controversy, however, is fundamentally a case of moral ambiguity. This is why I think a more philosophical approach is appropriate.

But first, I must delineate several assumptions that, in my opinion, aren’t far-fetched to make: 1) Hamas is a terrorist organization in that it intentionally targets civilians. 2) Israel and Gaza have a right to defend their citizens. 3) There are innocent civilians in Israel and Gaza.

Now that the assumptions are out of the way, let‘s scrutinize the situation further. Hamas would not stop firing rockets towards Israel even after Israel’s threat of an attack. Since Israel has the right to defend itself, Israel is allowed to take some measure to deter the rockets. Israel chose to target Hamas and its resources with an airstrike.

These targets were close to innocent civilians, partly because Hamas made that so and partly because Gaza is a densely populated area. The airstrike has not deterred Palestinian fighters from shooting more rockets toward Israel. To date, this battle has led to 900 Palestinian deaths with 45 percent being civilians and 13 Israeli soldier deaths with 3 being civilians according to Reuters.

Polls show that over 80 percent of Israelis are in favor of Israel’s airstrikes. On the other hand, most of the rest of the world believes the attacks were disproportionate. Specifically, the Arab population has been most outspoken about its disagreement. Interestingly, many different populations can be exposed to the same information yet arrive at opposite conclusions.

The reason this happens is because a mixture of nationalism, dogmatism, ideologies and propaganda disconnects each side from empathizing with one another. With different degrees of empathy, people interpret and filter facts differently; conflicting conclusions are bound to be made.

The clearest example of lack of empathy is Hamas and its terrorist tactics. It targets innocent Israeli lives and treats its own civilians like hostages in order to accomplish its objective. This is not to say it isn’t justified in defending its citizens, it is its methods that aren’t justified. Israel also commits a lack of empathy, but in my opinion, in a less obvious manner.

Unlike Hamas, Israel does not specifically target civilians with the intention of killing civilians. However, it does accept that civilian casualties are collateral damage, another cost of war, and a suitable means towards defending its citizens. Collateral damage is an ambiguous moral concept, but throughout the past and present it seems like some dose of collateral damage is accepted.

Most Israelis believe that the airstrikes had the appropriate amount of damage or i.e. the appropriate amount of collateral damage. There does become a point, however, when the collateral damage is too high and is not justified by the outcome. Most of the rest of the world believes the attacks were disproportionate. To me, this means that Israelis care less about Palestinian civilians then does the rest of the world and therefore can tolerate a higher degree of collateral damage. Or, I could say, the rest of the world cares about Palestinians more than they do Israelis and don’t tolerate Israel’s collateral damage.

Maybe both Israelis and Palestinians are just ethnocentric and only care about their own people! I don’t know whether this is good or not, but I believe all three cases are true and that neither side admits it.

We need to overcome our biases and restore empathy back in the human relationship. I don’t believe empathy alone will end the war, but that it‘s necessary in order to formulate an unbiased opinion.

Bringing back empathy is one important step towards reaching an agreement and, hopefully, a solution.

LIOR GOTESMAN wants people to stop filtering information that contradicts their prejudice. Contact him at liorgott@gmail.com.

A strange event is happening. The most powerful person on the planet for the last eight years has seemed almost powerless for a while now. President George W. Bush is almost an afterthought. He has been conspicuous by his absence. In truth, he has become irrelevant.

For President Bush, his time in office, from his disputed 2000 electoral victory to the history-altering attack of 9/11, must have at once been equally shocking and surprising. The events that occurred under his watch have been monumental. His responses, however, have not.

To be sure, President Bush wasn’t solely responsible for America’s many predicaments – events are the consequence of confluent, independent motivations, from historical to cultural to accidental – and 9/11 occurred arguably due more to the built-up intellectual and religious antagonisms than any single failure to heed specific warnings. Moreover, the set of challenges he confronted, including global terrorism and climate deterioration are historically and uniquely novel. These factors, allied to the hyper-magnification and instant dissonance that the information age presents, meant that he was a president in an age without precedent.

But the very greatest leaders rise to the grandest occasions. The greatest presidents adapt to the problems, devise unique responses and implement solutions. Here, President Bush was a disaster. He was rigid as the times demanded flexibility and dynamism. This rigidity has roots in his life experiences.

Bush apologists often cite his embrace of faith and the subsequent born-again moment from serious alcoholism as the defining character behind the man. For many, life-changing events are a deep touch on their deepest vulnerabilities. Some resign and falter; others struggle with recovery. Some embrace faith – often a demand for a personal, complete abdication to a divine inspiration. For Bush, he found solace, strength and salvation in Christianity. He persevered, then ascended to the highest office in the land.

But he practiced his faith in a dangerously monolithic way. He lived a regimented life, subscribed to certain fundamental tenets and stopped doubting himself. Consequently, he ignored scientific reports. He disdained opposition to his authority. He sought constant affirmation; as Richard Cohen suggested, Bush read a lot – contrary to popular caricature – but his range was limited. He was narrow in a realm that was wide.

He didn’t want to be challenged.

For some, this unyielding conviction in a world that is often menacing, fluid and contradictory was admirable. But the repercussions of this certitude to the national economy, foreign reputation and military power were negative, lasting and widespread.

Bush, furthermore, was a broader expression of his party. Like an idealism that succeeds and is constantly repeated until it crystallizes into dogma, the Republican Party’s fixity with Reagan’s policies had come to symbolize rigidity. Bush perpetrated it. He was the participant of the Republican Party’s moral and ideological bankruptcy and partisan zealotry, scorning dissent in favor of loyalty.

Politically, as Frank Rich remarked, Bush thrived. His policies weren’t outstanding, but because of the Republican’s strength for identifiable narratives, he managed to tear down opponents. He practiced the politics of personal destruction, winning votes. But he didn’t win minds and hearts.

The media often lambasted him for his inept reactions to events. Many are not justified; as one president once suggested, observers are detached, mere onlookers. They lack the information and intensity of the moment, a situation that frequently demands courage. For a president, knowing that every choice can affect and implicate the lives of billions, the pressure is tremendous. But Bush failed to translate the pressure into incisive decisions.

President Bush will probably be recorded as a historical failure. But for all that we blame him for, he was a man with certain beliefs and flaws who served in the Office of the President. It was just unfortunate he was unprepared for the job.

ZACH HAN is counting down the days … send him your countdown number to zklhan@ucdavis.edu.