Prominent feminist and political activist Gloria Steinem cancelled a planned speech at UC Davis in December, reportedly in recognition of the ongoing labor dispute between the University of California and members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 3299.

Steinem was scheduled to speak on campus on Jan. 16 as part of the Mondavi Center’s Distinguished Speakers Series for a talk on the role of elders in modern society.

AFSCME Local 3299 president Lakesha Harrison told The Aggie that the union asked Steinem to cancel her appearance because she would be giving the university undue credibility. Harrison said that having Steinem cancel her talk sent a strong message to the university.

Harrison is wrong. Steinem’s cancellation did nothing but deprive a large audience of students and community members of an educational opportunity to hear an influential activist speak about her work.

The students and community members who are being hurt by this scheme don’t have any significant impact on the university’s negotiations. Further, it’s not as if the university is suddenly going to comply with the union’s demands simply because Steinem cancelled her talk.

If AFSCME Local 3299 really wanted to use Steinem’s lecture to make a point, they could have lobbied Steinem to change the topic of her speech to focus on labor and the current dispute. Steinem was given this opportunity by Mondavi Center producers but refused. This would have been a win-win for everyone involved: the union would get attention for their cause, Steinem would still get paid for her speech, students and community members would get the chance to hear Steinem speak and the Mondavi Center would not lose money.

Instead, the union insisted on clumsily wielding the blunt force of its power to the detriment of people who have nothing to do with its problems. We hope that in the future, Harrison and AFSCME Local 3299 will seek ways of making their point that don’t interfere with the educational mission of UC Davis.

In its 100-year history, UC Davis has had only five chancellors. That’s merely five opportunities to choose the person who sets the tone and direction for a campus of over 30,000 students.

The selection procedure for the sixth chancellor has been under way since October, but the lack of transparency in the process is leaving students in the dark – and consequently apathetic.

The Chancellor Search Committee consists of 16 members and two ex-officio members, all of whom are forbidden to discuss the process with non-members. The committee’s closed-door meetings and tight-lipped policies send the wrong message to students or faculty who might want to voice an opinion.

Outside of these 18 people, no one has any clue as to what the committee is looking for in possible candidates. The little information that has trickled out came in October from UC President Mark Yudof, an ex-officio member of the committee not involved in the broader selection process but only in making the final selection out of a pool of three or four candidates. Individual committee members‘ priorities will apparently not be known until after the fact, if ever.

In a ceremonial attempt at inclusiveness, the UC Office of the President set up an e-mail address (davischancellorsearch@ucop.edu) to which people can send comments and concerns about the search. While their hearts are in the right place here, the service would be more frequently utilized and more effective were there an active dialogue between the committee and the population rather than the static exclusion currently in place.

This is not to say that the committee needs to name and discuss individual candidates. It’s perfectly acceptable (and even common courtesy) to keep the applicants confidential, but to ask its members not to discuss their own opinions is overkill and sends the wrong message.

This failure to encourage and facilitate community – and especially student – involvement by hosting an open discussion is wasting an opportunity to engage an otherwise indifferent population. It goes against what a public university should be: open and inclusive.

Welcome to the ‘09 show. If you’re like me, you may have spent a tiny fraction of your winter break wondering why the hell you know the lyrics to “The Bad Touch” by heart but couldn’t remember shit when you sat down to take your finals. It’s sad to think that this may speak volumes about my personal priorities.

Now that we’re all back in school, a.k.a. the second happiest place on earth, it’s time to focus on the year ahead: namely, that self-improvement thing. No, I’m not gonna drop the R-bomb, but you know what I’m talking about. There’s more to a new year than just crowding the ARC in hopes that going every day for a week will make you instantly sexy, though there’s really nothing like Try Before You Buy week to make you realize that all those holiday cookies put you on the fast track to Coronary Row.

Alas, I refer to more serious concerns. The fact is that there are some people who desperately need to get their shit together for society’s sake. These people may not know just how dire they make life, but the rest of us are here to let them know. We need to band together and save the douches of the world! The rest of us don’t deserve to put up with what they bring to the table. And so, craftily, I’ve constructed a guide on how to identify (or self-identify, perhaps) said douches.

The flake is the person who always says, “We should hang out soon!” and you, in turn, nod and say, “Yeah, that’d be cool,” in the most half-assed way imaginable because you know they’re full of rap. They always have the lamest excuses for bailing on you, and it’s gotten to the point where you don’t even take them seriously. Often they’ll just say they’ve been “sooo” busy. Everyone’s busy doing certain things when you think about it; I don’t see what makes them so much busier than everyone else.

The arguer refers to he who argues just for the sake of arguing. They will pick a verbal fight with you over any issue – gay rights, global warming, Ashlee Simpson’s nose job – because they always have to be right. Eventually it gets to the point where they stop making sense but keep arguing anyway because they’ll die if they don’t prove their point. They want to drag you down to their level. Do not fall for it. They’re just as bad as the friend who never fails to say, “I told you so” every time you fuck up.

The whiner simply never shuts up at all. Everyone’s entitled to complain, but these people do it excessively in situations where it not only doesn’t help, but is just annoying to the people around them. I was on a bus last year when it hit another car and everyone started bitching and moaning about how they were going to be late to class. Yeah, because that was gonna make everything better.

The whiner sometimes coincides with the princess, who whines because she’s gotten everything she’s ever wanted and whining has become a way of life for her. So I guess, by her reasoning, it makes sense for her to whine that a party sucks when she knows damn well that the only other option she has is to go home and file her nails while she watches a “Gossip Girl“ rerun.

Perhaps the worst of all the major character flaws is the asshole. These people think the world revolves around them. They are the ones who honk repeatedly in traffic because they don’t realize that it’s not cool to throw a hissy-fit in public. The asshole goes out of their way to be an asshole; it does not just happen. They are the ones who go through the trouble of calling the cops on your party instead of just telling you to keep it down, who speed up to cut you off on the freeway and probably end up being the kind of people found dead a week after the fact because the mailman thought something smelled funky out on the front porch. This is because nobody likes an asshole. I’m pretty sure the asshole usually suffers from either deludedly high or rock-bottom low self-esteem with no middle ground.

And so, for those of you who just skipped this entire column to read the last line because you didn’t want to bother with the whole thing and want me to get to the freaking point (yeah, I do this all the time, too) I say that in 2009 people should make it a priority to chill the fuck out. And if you suck, please stop sucking, ‘kay thanks.

MICHELLE RICK can be reached at marick@ucdavis.edu.

Many enter 2009 disheartened by the events of late 2008 and they should prepare for more disappointments or, at the very least, a moment of pessimism. Ushered in is not a new vigor but a year of uncertainty and unpredictability. We are entering the age of turbulent dissonance, a period without much precedent.

The first change begins at home to our conceptions of the government-individual relationship. Activist government is on the rise, and for good reason. The failure in the housing sector that quickly afflicted and spread in pandemic fashion – illustrating the interdependence among numerous institutions and faculties of power and the powerlessness of individuals within this framework – shattered the myth of the corrective function of the free-market.

Hence, as a majority of Americans are eager for greater corporate oversight and more individual assistance while maintaining civil liberties, they bestowed a massive mandate for Democrats and elected the temperamentally conservative Obama as president. As David Brooks, the New York Times conservative columnist, echoed, our present challenge demands “epic legislation” and “conservative rule.” This period thus promises to be both the era of tremendous and limited government involvement, an uncharted novelty.

Our consumption habits and, by implication, our lifestyles, are also under assault. Mutual trust, the lifeblood for credit flow, is broken after continuous financial frauds and malfeasance. Like a newfound attitude, consumers are curtailing spending and expenditure – festivity sales were reportedly one of the poorest in recent memory – an end to an era based on cheap credit. For many, the need to consolidate, live within their means, save and be prudent will be prominent. Restraint displaces exuberance. The world is getting more productive, but we could be more conservative.

The general attitude towards energy consumption will be seriously altered. As energy depletes at an alarming rate and the global climate change occurs, our oil addiction faces its challenge. According to an Environmental Protection Agency projection, for instance, currently producing oil reserves meet approximately 70 percent of the global daily barrels produced. In 20 years, this resource will only accommodate 30 percent. With prices illusionary – the $100 a barrel last summer was, according to experts, still kept artificially low – discovery of alternative energies and cleaner disposal of carbon-polluting sources are critical. This energy frontier will reshape our ways of living.

Abroad, the rising economic, political and military might of numerous nations means that America’s current hegemonic stature will be diffused instead to a network of important actors. Cities of the world – London, Seoul, Buenos Aires, Madrid – are gaining critical influence, ensuring the easy transference of and access to knowledge, capital and human flow. Consequently, in a system that favors distributive, not solitary, action, individual nations will exert less control over events. For America, this challenge means a struggle between the pursuit of exceptionalism and the embrace of cooperation.

Meanwhile, the recent Israel-Palestine bombings serve as a reminder of the dangerous and fatal threat that international conflict and terrorism pose. The challenge of confronting extremists and democratic transgressors with differing intentions, however, will not be a solitary American quest. Precisely because America’s reputation is tarnished and its soft power diminished, global security is the provenance of many nations and their active participation. With the European Union reinvigorated under the powerful but previous leadership of the French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and Asia continuing its upward ascent as the middle class grows, unilateralism will become a footnote in history.

2009 marks the beginning of a new year, but it is also an entrance into a new epoch without precedent. We’re in for an interesting time.

The New Year felt different for ZACH HAN. Agree with him at zklhan@ucdavis.edu.

During my holiday break, I practiced one of the most valued and celebrated holiday traditions – I went shopping with friends. Being the cheap person I am, I just sat on a bench waiting for something free to fall on my lap. As I was patiently waiting, I noticed a small winter oasis localized in the mall’s hub. This garden of enchanted trees, fake snow, presents and screaming children surrounded what is known as the almighty Mall Santa Claus.

I thought about how wonderful it was that kids get to enjoy a figurative replication of their mythological idol in their local malls. Then I thought about how adults get absolutely nothing, it’s downright ridiculous. Why are there no Mall Gods, but plenty of Mall Santa Clauses? Imagine a Mall Jesus cruising around the mall giving people high-fives, break dancing, forgiving sins left and right, or just standing around handing out discount coupons. Wouldn’t that be awesome?

Oh wait … the lack of Mall Gods isn’t actually a problem. Why, do you ask? Because religious people know Mall Jesus isn’t the real Jesus. If anything, they’ll think a Mall Jesus pretending to be the real Jesus is a mockery of their religion and would be offended. However, using faith as the tool to justify beliefs, Santa Claus is just as real for kids as God is real for adults. Religious adults find it so cute that their children believe in a fictional deity. Well I find it absolutely adorable how more than 90 percent of the American population believes in God. Santa Claus, i.e. God for kids, surprisingly has a lot in common with the Western concept of God.

Santa Claus judges kids on whether they have been naughty or nice. In his holy scriptures he claims you should be good for goodness sakes. Similarly, God will judge your behaviors on the merit of “because I said so.” Both deities punish bad behavior; the thought of receiving coal for Christmas is no worse than hell for a young child. But don’t fret – they will both listen to your repenting via telepathy or the U.S. Postal Service. And if communicating with them isn’t enough, you could always express your love for them by singing Christmas carols or Christian rock music.

The same people who believe humans once lived amongst dinosaurs find the Santa Claus hypothesis absurd, two beliefs that have the same infinitesimal probability of being true. At the same time, they understand that kids eventually need to grow up and detach themselves from comforting lies. When the kid starts living on his own he will experience a rude awakening when presents don’t magically appear under his decorative tree. These parents know that faith alone does not make something true. It takes some real mental gymnastics to believe this and still believe a dead man can read their minds.

I recently read an article (on the telegraph.co.uk website) about a teacher being disciplined by her employer because she told a classroom of 9-year-olds that Santa Claus isn’t real. The 9-year-olds cried to their parents about it, who, in turn, cried to the school about it. Here is a perfect example of religious people and their doublethink. Parents drag their kids to school because they want them to learn things that are true … but simultaneously want them to believe a red-suited fat-ass breaking into their house is perfectly normal.

What makes kids eventually stop believing in Santa Claus? Is it the mounting pile of evidence that contradicts his existence? Or do they just discard faith as a valuable tool to justify their beliefs?

Neither. Their parents just tell them Santa isn’t real. Not only do their parents deny his existence, but so did their friends, siblings, community and entire society! Eliminating faith might require more strength in numbers than in knowledge. Strength in numbers will only happen when our society decides we need to grow up too.

LIOR GOTESMAN doesn’t understand how parents can tell their kids Santa Claus isn’t real and still use faith to justify their beliefs. Contact him at liorgott@gmail.com.