October’s winding down, the leaves are crisping, and school is kicking my ass. It’s like a fat, freckled bully shoving a nerd against the wall and stealing his lunch money in third grade. My room is also littered with tissues and cough drop wrappers. I’m told that my raspy transvestite voice is sexy and that I should appreciate it. I do, though I’d rather be through with the hacking up of my lungs. Seriously, kids, do not sit next to me in class.

But on the bright side, it’s Halloween tomorrow, and I will for sure be dragging my slightly dying self out the door. Rain or shine. Because I’m always down when there’s free candy up for grabs and I enjoy dressing up. Halloween is essentially the biggest themed party there is, and this is a prime opportunity to be completely ridiculous. Oh yes. It‘s going down.

Halloween just keeps getting better as I grow up, especially now that my parents aren’t around to “inspect” (read: steal) the candy I worked so hard to collect on the trick-or-treat hunt. Maybe it’s also because I used to be subjected to KFRC (Bay Area kids know what I’m talking about) by the parental units and had to hear the Monster Mash every 20 minutes on the radio back in the day. It’s the kind of thing that reminds you Christmas and all its overplayed music is just around the corner. Lastly, I’ve found that with growing up comes a bajillion more options. As an 8-year-old girl, the only costumes I would ever consider working with were an angel, ballerina, or witch.

But then I got to be a big kid and watched Mean Girls and discovered all the glory of the skank rule. A wise soul (OK, just a soul) once said to me that you can make anything slutty – slutty nun, slutty grandma, slutty librarian. It’s just a way of life, and if you theoretically only get four shots to flush your cares away and get away with downright scandalous attire on Halloween, why not be a fembot or French maid #938475? I can’t say I haven’t wondered how some costumes could be made slutty. Like a Dr. Seuss character or a ghost or Darth Vader.

Since I’m a Catholic school survivor, skanky costumes used to be completely off the table. I have to say that it forced us to be a little more creative. I sincerely remember some of the cutest costume ideas stemming from that-things like the Jackson 5, Disney princesses, a bed bug and the kid it bit. It was all for fun, but it was a different, more silly, innocent kind of fun.

And of course the first thing I did once I got out of there was find myself a Hooters shirt, throw it on, and do the Russell Walk. As tempting as it may be for some of you to yell at the half-naked girls who’ll be walking down the streets tomorrow night, I ask that you be nice. And refrain. Cause that has been and probably will be me. It’s just part of the fun that comes with the holiday. Don’t be a hater, be a skank too! And if you’re a man, be a man skank! Mad props if you can pull off a Tarzan loincloth or your girlfriend’s new lingerie that she probably paid a fortune for. But you have to wear something, anything, because if you’re streaking you’re just being cheap. Don’t get me wrong, I’m completely pro-streaking (and pretty cheap myself), but you’re supposed to be something you’re not. Anything you were minted with does not count.

There’s a time and place for everything, and now that there are no longer faculty members threatening to detentionize me about my skirt length, I might as well boogie with the rest. Cause this is my last legit excuse to do it for a year – or at least until another Heaven n‘ Hell party comes up in rotation.

MICHELLE RICK will split her trick-or-treat candy with the best slutty Tweedle Dee/Tweedle Dum costume she sees. E-mail her at marick@ucdavis.edu if you think you’ve got a shot.

Proposition 1A: Yes.

This initiative will unite the state, reduce fossil fuel emissions and help take the burden off of California’s already notoriously over-crowded highways. Establishing high-speed rail is an unprecedented step forward in finding alternative forms of transportation for Californians. Though this is an expensive bond measure, the end result is well worth the cost.

Prop 2: Neutral.

The California Aggie Editorial Board was unable to come to a consensus decision on this issue.

Prop 3: No.

The Children’s Bond Hospital Act proposes the allocation of an extra $980 million to children’s hospitals throughout the state to help fund construction and expansion of children’s hospitals. The bond apportions money to an already existent and untapped fund of nearly $450 million along with causing a significant strain the state economy to pay back the bond. It’s unclear why voters should approve such an expensive bond measure when there is so much unused money set aside for the same purpose.

Prop 4: No.

This would require parental notification for minors seeking an abortion, but family communication is something that cannot be mandated by the government. The other alternatives offered under the legislation – a judicial bypass or an alternative family member notification – are not realistic alternatives. Two ballot measures have already failed in the past, and although similar measures in other states have worked to lower the in-state abortion rates, teenagers may investigate out-of-state and out-of-the-country options.

Prop 5: No.

Though the rehabilitation effort behind this measure is laudable, it amounts to a hodgepodge of legislative and sentencing changes that will put an unreasonable burden on California drug courts and prisons. The measure also makes it too easy for drug offenders to get out of real punishment for their crimes.

Prop 6: No.

Prop 6 requires that almost $1 billion be allocated to law enforcement annually, indexed to increase with inflation. Propositions like this are dangerous; when the state is in economic hardship, as it is now, the legislature needs to have options to reduce spending, not a mandate to increase it. Voting no on Prop 6 will allow for smarter budget planning.

Prop 7: No.

This measure requires California to produce half its power from renewable resources by 2025. However, the wording of the proposition has led Democrats, Republicans and the Sierra Club to oppose it, as it would do more harm to California’s renewable energy plans than good.

Prop 8: No.

This proposition would change the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Californians should not eliminate the fundamental right for loving partners to marry. The claim made by supporters of the proposition that its failure would lead to public schools teaching children about gay marriage is simply false. Public schools are in no way required to teach gay marriage and to say otherwise is merely a scare tactic.

Prop 9: No.

Prop 9 would amend California’s Constitution to require that victims be notified and be able to participate during criminal justice proceedings, a change which is unnecessary – victims are already protected by the law. Passing Prop 9 would keep criminals in prison longer, taking up valuable prison space, costing the state hundreds of millions of dollars, money that the state cannot afford to lose in such trying economic times.

Prop 10: No.

This is a bond that would provide $5 billion dollars for alternative energy in California. Bond funding is the wrong way to go about such a task. When the state is in debt, piling on billions more is unwise. The proposition is also a poor choice because its vague language could end up funding projects for natural gas, which is not a renewable resource.

Prop 11: Yes.

This measure would create an independent 14-member commission to establish state Senate and Assembly district boundaries instead of allowing the current legislature to determine districts. The system as it is now makes elections uncompetitive and is a serious conflict of interest. A yes vote on this proposition would help fix our currently broken system by preventing legislators from drawing their own favorable boundaries.

Prop 12: Yes.

Unlike other bond measures on the ballot, the interest on Prop 12 will be paid by veterans who receive home loans through the Cal-Vet program. California voters have approved funding for the past eight decades, and there is no reason for it to stop now.

Measure N: No.

This measure would change the city of Davis from a general law city to a charter city, giving the Davis City Council too much power with respect to giving the City Council more power over how local government operates. Because the charter does not lay out any specific changes to how the city is currently run, the necessity of this measure is dubious at best.

Measure W: Yes.

This much needed parcel tax for the Davis Joint Unified School District will cost Davis homeowners $120 and $50 per unit for apartment owners per year to help preserve already existing programs and teachers. It will positively affect the school district and students without causing any strain on Davis residents. 

There’s a measure on your ballot that doesn’t require hours of pouring over confusing language or a legal expert to figure out … It’s called Measure W.

Clear and straightforward, if you support science, math, English, foreign language, music, social studies, librarians, athletics, debate, journalism, and the teachers who enliven the minds of our next generation, then you support Measure W. The choice is clear.

We are all too aware of the state budget crisis and the impact that has on school funding. Local dollars are needed to maintain our quality programs here in Davis – among the best in the state – because state dollars simply do not.

You may find yourself asking, is the school district running leaner in these trying economic times? Absolutely. DJUSD spends over 80 percent of our discretionary budget on expenses directly related to classroom instruction – teachers, counselors, principals, and para-educators. Of the remaining percentage, we’ve cut $1.1 million, including eliminating one of the top three administrative positions, squeezing site budgets to levels difficult to sustain, and cutting operating costs. Our administrative budget falls in the lowest tier in the state, lower than most school districts, and even lower than many non-profit organizations.

Despite all of this, the shortfall in funding is over $2 million dollars annually. It is simply not possible to cut these funds without severely impacting the classroom and our kids. Vital programs and teachers will be lost. Our school system, our community, and most importantly, our children will lose.

We are parents and longtime community members, as well as Trustees. We know Davis as a community that values education from K-12 to the UC level. As we cast our ballots, let’s make that loud and clear. Measure W protects programs we can all agree on saving. Please join us in voting YES for Measure W – Yes for our students.

Gina Daleiden and Tim Taylor

For an election season that has lasted two years – with candidates firstly and formally entering the race, then campaigning and fundraising, persisting through the primaries, accepting party nominations and now, reaching the final stages of the general election – the experience is presumably a draining one.

But this is a special election, and not just because of the possible election of the first African American president. In addition, there is the sense that America is at a defining moment, one of tremendous historic opportunity. The end is as exhilarating as its beginning ever was.

So to the final contenders: Senator Obama against Senator McCain for President. At once, this is a clash between two personalities, ideologies and parties. Most prominently, it is a battle for the fundamental direction, heart and soul of the country – at stake are the past, the present and the future.

Much of the media’s recent focus has been on McCain’s strategic missteps. But there’s something profound about the way Obama’s poll numbers have been steadily increasing. What the media is underreporting are the numerous brilliant moves of the Obama campaign, coupled with a shifting, seismic paradigm.

From the beginning, Obama’s campaign approached tasks from a novel perspective. If previous presidential candidates won by identifying, narrowing, then focusing on a slice of the electorate – soccer moms, security moms, religious groups – Obama expanded them, during the primary and now in the general election. He conducted the most efficient ground operations in history, empowering constituents to play an active role in the political process, and, in tandem with Howard Dean’s visionary 50-state strategy, dramatically increased the number of registered Democrats.

Furthermore, the media’s continued emphasis on the Red-and-Blue polarization neglected the emergent new electoral majority – the ascension of the increasingly influential Hispanics, Asians and a reinvigorated African American electorate. Early voting patterns across numerous states indicate a broadening electorate, each with their own political motivations, values and behaviors. The traditional state constructs are evolving.

Yet while there are fundamental changes, there are also news cycles and daily polling. How did Obama react and respond to these political battles in a fierce partisan climate? He responded by not responding. As Stanley Fish, the prominent literary theorist, contended, “[Obama] didn’t do much and he said less … and his poll numbers went up.” McCain suspended his campaign to take action, yet polls suggest that this move conveyed a lack of control. Politics is often about strategic and tactical moves. Sometimes, however, it’s about inaction, knowing when to remain poised and when to act authoritatively.

Most importantly, we’re witnessing the public’s reaction to the Capitol’s inaction. Characterizing Washington for the past few years were bitter partisanships, antagonisms born out of a refusal to engage intellectually and cooperate appropriately. Yet ideology only works with context, not against it. Consequent of this subscription to official party lines was a legislature that was often dysfunctional. In the end, Republicans controlled Congress, but it was more correct to say that nobody controlled it. Republicans did not assert leadership because leadership was lacking.

This is where the next president comes in. It is imperative that he cajole the legislature to end their infantile clinging to ideology and finally start acting on the most pressing issues, united by a common purpose and common sense. When Obama remarked, “We are one nation, one people,” he wasn’t just audibly stating his personal belief. He was echoing what many of us felt.

We are close to the end of the election. But we’re also witnessing the opportunity for a new beginning. At this moment, we can play our respective role to shape and define the direction of the nation.

Do not miss this chance.

It’s been almost a year since ZACH HAN began with “The Obama Revolution.” Send your final thoughts on this exciting, unpredictable, and most importantly, important election to zklhan@ucdavis.edu.

1. The wasteful donut

Ever wonder why donut places offer you one free donut with a purchase of a dozen donuts? What additional satisfaction does the customer get with one extra 13th donut? In my local bakery, a dozen donuts cost me $6.00 and a single donut costs 75 cents. The customer’s value on the donut decreases with every additional donut. The value of one donut may start off at 75 cents, but by the 13th donut, the value reaches around 10 cents (assuming the marginal value decreases linearly by about 5 cents). The only reason they would add the 13th donut is if it was a big enough incentive (a mighty 10 cents of value) for their customers to buy more donuts.

Consider these questions: Would an extra 13th donut make you want to buy a dozen donuts when you otherwise wouldn’t have? Would NOT having an extra 13th donut be a big enough incentive to go somewhere else? Most likely not, and that is why the baker’s dozen is a stupid business invention.

2. Halloween, a night of horrifying economics

Halloween is that time of year when millions of dollars of candy don’t get optimized. A large percentage of the candy kids get is not wanted and thrown away. There should be a “National Halloween Free Trade Market,” that opens up the day following Halloween. This will allow kids everywhere to trade candies they don’t like for those they do like.

3. Boycott sweatshop boycotters

Let’s say the boycotters succeed in dismantling Nike’s infamous sweatshops. Great, now they’ve transformed a sob story into a tragedy as thousands of workers lose their jobs. There is a good reason why those workers choose to work in sweatshops. The horrible working conditions of sweatshops should demonstrate how much worse any other available alternative would be. Prostitution and digging through landfills doesn’t look as rewarding when you can work for a multinational firm that can guarantee a wage at the end of the day. They’re stuck in what may be their best alternative.

4. Marriage needs an expiration date

Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships are recognized by the state or by religious authority, according to Wikipedia. The two people are legally bound by a contract that grants them certain benefits. I propose that we would be better off if this contract expires after 10 years; this would force a married couple to renew their vows in order to restore the marital contract and the benefits it includes.

An expiration date on marriage would greatly reduce the divorce rate (not necessarily the separation rate). If a couple wants to separate, they could wait until their marriage expires to separate instead of having to go through an expensive divorce. This would give couples the incentive to stay together for at least 10 years, which gives chance to fixing the relationship instead of jumping to divorce. Couples might work harder at keeping the relationship strong in fear of having the other spouse refuse to renew their wedding vows. This fear would be greater than the fear of divorce because this time the spouse can break the marriage without the high cost of a messy divorce. Ten years would also be enough time to deter people from getting married solely for the benefits. I believe this institutional change would relax the divorce epidemic and would make the country better off as a whole.

5. Music artists are just making what they deserve

With the introduction of file sharing and other destructive technologies, the record industry has reached its lowest point in history. This obviously pisses off musicians that can no longer make millions off their copyrighted material. Even though file sharing screws over musicians, its benefits to the world are too great for us to want to get rid of it. No longer is good, playable music in scarce supply with new technological frontiers like cheap broadband internet, MP3s, P2P file sharing, bit torrent, social networking websites, and the list goes on. Given this fact, musicians are just receiving the fair value of their services. Fair value is determined by supply and demand, not by what musicians want it to be.

LIOR GOTESMAN has the incentive to make his columns controversial so

you would contact him at liorgott@gmail.com