The University of California is the best in the world but it is on a slow financial starvation diet. It’s a diet that forces those who are students to pay more and more and the general public to pay less and less for the university. But the fact remains it will take all of us – students, UC Regents, lawmakers and taxpayers – to stop the student fee increases so we must work together to do it. United we stand, divided we fall. That is why I initiated the grassroots movement called Students for California’s Future (studentsforcalifornia.com) earlier this year. The students are committed to a better, brighter future.

James Noonan’s October 14th column assumed too much when he cited my recent comment to the UC Aggie editorial board that “The students need to rise up and raise hell. If that doesn’t happen, then this fee increase will continue.” I did say that but Noonan assumed I was implying they should raise their voices in ignorance. Nothing could be farther from the truth. UC students have always proven they have their facts straight and information in order when they have attended rallies and committee hearings at the Capitol. They know information is power and they also know that silence is a guarantee for higher fees.

John Garamendi

Lieutenant Governor of California

The Davis College Republicans have been posting a deceptive flyer around campus, urging students to “Save UC Standards” by rallying against the elimination of the SAT II Subject tests as an acceptance requirement. While DCR points out this move may “harm the quality of education provided by the UC system” they neglect to mention that the Republican Minority in the State Assembly and State Senate have already harmed the education we receive here at UC Davis, through not allocating enough funding for education and opposing all tax increases. Because of the lack of state funding, student fees and class sizes have increased, while services and financial aid have dropped. If DCR truly cared about supporting UC standards, they would urge their party leaders to make higher education – and California’s future – a priority.

Maximillian Mikalonis

Note: This is the first in a series of The California Aggie’s endorsements for the Nov. 4 election. We will be stating our endorsements over the next two and a half weeks, and summarizing our opinions on Election Day.

Redistricting has long been an issue in California. Our current system is seriously broken; by allowing legislators to draw districts, the process remains uncompetitive, and a serious conflict of interest to boot. The Yes on Prop 11 campaign notes that there is a 99 percent reelection rate for California legislative seats.

Although the current system may ensure, in some cases, that minority representation isn’t lost, it also ensures that districts will be drawn in favor of the legislator currently in office. This lack of competition encourages our state’s lawmakers to be lazy, and doesn’t make them work to earn their constituents‘ votes.

Prop 11 would take the districting task out of legislators‘ hands and create an independent commission. This group will include Democrats, Republicans and non-partisans. Most importantly, these districts will be drawn without any interference from the legislature. It is this total independence that will allow the commission to draw districts that more accurately represent the California region.

The California Aggie supports Proposition 11. It tackles a difficult issue and draws support from across the political spectrum.

Many diverse groups have united in support of Prop 11 – the ACLU of Southern California, the AARP, and the California Taxpayers‘ Association to name a few.

Despite the concern that some have expressed about Prop 11 limiting the voice of minorities, many representative groups have endorsed this proposition. Organizations representing African Americans, Hispanics and the LGBT community have all united in support of this proposition. This indicates that the concern about minorities losing a voice is not consistently held, even among these groups.

It is important to note that no single districting map will please everyone. Regardless of where the lines are drawn, some will feel disenfranchised and others will feel that they are able to elect the legislator who will best represent their district.

With this caveat in mind, supporting Prop 11 is a wise choice. It is much better to have a system that eliminates a glaring conflict of interest than one that leaves such a conflict in place, with no evident gain.

Prop 11 will make legislators work for their jobs, instead of allowing them to draw in their own job security. 

The Peter J. Shields Library at UC Davis is in a bit of a bind.

In fact, that might be an understatement. The predicament that the library has been in over the past decade is slowly turning into a crisis. Long-term under-funding has seriously damaged the library’s ability to do what it does best: provide an outstanding array of research materials for students and scholars.

A report released last month by the Academic Senate found that the rising cost of books, journals and subscriptions to electronic databases has put a strain on the library’s ability to provide faculty and students with the resources they need. This has been compounded by a near absence of new money for the library – in 1998 the library’s budget was $15.9 million; today it is $16.3 million.

The lack of money has contributed to a decline in the library’s standing and prestige among libraries in the University of California and nationwide. During the 1990s Davis consistently ranked between 35th and 38th place nationally with the Association of Research Libraries. The library now ranks 60th.

Library administrators have had to cut down staff and buy fewer books. In 1991 there were 76 librarians and 204 library staff. In 2006 there were 59 librarians and 144 library staff.

It’s time for more money for the library. Without a fully functioning library, UC Davis will not be able to preserve its prestige in fields like enology and history, two disciplines in which the library has traditionally excelled. In many fields, the library has world-class collections from scholars from all over the country.

This is a matter of critical importance to the survival of UC Davis as a premier research institution. The continued lack of financial support for the library is appalling.

To be fair, the powers that be did not cut the library’s funding as much this year as they said they would. It is unacceptable that the library’s budget is being cut at all, after a decade of a basically static budget and years of cutting librarians and staff.

It is not clear why the library has been under-funded but it’s time we get out of the dark and start dealing with this problem.

Because funding for the library comes from a variety of sources, university administrators need to work with library administrators and with librarians themselves to determine the best way to improve funding for the library. The only other option is to allow the slow starvation of the library to continue and the academic quality of the campus to decline.

That’s an option UC Davis can’t afford. 

God, I love my parents for always trying to keep me safe. There’s really nothing that says “I love you, baby girl” like sending your daughter pepper spray in the mail (which I never curiously decided to play with and misfired) or forcing her to watch a “Too Smart for Strangers” video 238,947 times by the age of seven. I grew up next door to the elementary school I attended and was never allowed to walk home alone, even after I swore to take my little keychain harmonica to use as a whistle. But hey, I recognize that it was all for my own good.

Though my parents may hate each other, they clearly don’t want me getting hacked up and dumped in the woods or waking up in a bathtub full of ice without a vital organ or being used by a villain as bait for my superhero boyfriend. And now that I’m in college, I really think I can appreciate that.

Sure, I probably talk to strangers a little more than I should, and I really do like candy, but that does not make me a target for kidnapping. In fact, I think that my mother’s fear of being lured into the back of some creepy old-school Volkswagen van for a bag of Pop Rocks is just a little out there. Mmm, Pop Rocks. I can distinguish the differences between good and bad for myself. Unlike my mother, the little hobophobe that she is, I have simply learned that muttering homeless folk aren’t bad.

I should mention that it’s not only my parents who have taken the pains to teach me about the importance of defensive awareness. I’m lucky to have had special teachers, like one in particular from high school. We’ll call him Mr. Jones. Gym teachers are notably notable (I particularly love it when they trail running students with a golf cart and a megaphone), and he was no exception. He was middle-aged, not in the best shape, smoked a pack of cigs a day and claimed to be like a seventh-degree black belt. Anyway, given this description, it’s no real surprise that he used to hide in the bushes and jump out at us when we girls were running the mile in P.E. class. This was so that we would learn to be alert should a sexual predator emerge from a secret hiding spot and attack us while we were out for a walk. Now there’s a man who truly scared because he cared. He also taught us how to dislodge an eyeball if we ever find ourselves in a situation where that needs to be done.

I’ve been pretty good about taking care of my personal safety in college. Sure, some dude pulled me into his bedroom once when I was on my way to the bathroom at a party and probably had it ingrained into his mind that I wanted him, but I showed him by pretending to pass out till he went away! Kinda like a gazelle on the Serengeti. And no worries: had that not worked out, I would have been fully prepared to flip a bitch and go all Judo Barbie on him.

It’s nice to know that there are people looking out for me just in case my own competency in that department fails. I’m trying to be more careful, honest. My roommates and I even lock our apartment door sometimes. And I’ve made a personal pledge to try and remember to bring said pepper spray with me at least 10 percent of the time I go out at night.

But should I forget to take the necessary safety precautions, I suppose I’ll have to rely on the general goodness of mankind. Case in point: this past weekend, when I woke up on a couch in West Davis and stumbled out into the cold 2 a.m. night, dressed kinda like a rodeo clown’s girlfriend. Luckily I was able to barter a ride home from some out-of-town girls who were looking for the nearest Jack in the Box. If only I’d had money for French toast sticks.

MICHELLE RICK is looking to buy massive amounts of watermelon Pop Rocks. If you know where she can get this taken care of, e-mail her at marick@ucdavis.edu.

Dear Americans,

You have a tremendous stake in this election. Our nation has reached a pivotal moment, a time that should not and must not be ignored, in her history. We face an imminent choice, and we have to make a decision – soundly, carefully, deliberately and with haste.

The challenges our nation faces are manifold. At home, we confront a recessing economy, dysfunctional administration, gridlocked legislature, tarnished reputation and declining values. Abroad, regimes with skewed interests are proliferating, petro-authoritarian governments are gaining influence, democracy is under assault. These are not trivial.

Most of all, the confidence and energy that once characterized our national character seems to be ebbing away, displaced by a sense of insecurity and hesitation. The world’s trust in America has been shaken. But it seems that ours has been too.

Those are the problems, and Washington is where the problem starts. The problem with Washington is not just excess. It is irrelevance. Take the most recent financial meltdown. At the moment when American financial markets – as well as credit, the lifeblood of capitalism – stumbled and froze, the conspicuous missing element was not only confidence, but leadership. Washington couldn’t exercise authority or influence, hampered by a staggering distrust in the president and exacerbated by a deadlocked legislature.

Why is this? Because some leaders we elected primed politics over mutual resolutions, favored certain special interests, ignored global problems and missed new opportunities for growth and unity. As a nation, we lost collectively.

How do we confront, even resolve, this problem? By taking action. There are certain times when the costs and calculus of inaction outweighs action, and inaction is a luxury we cannot afford and a theme we should not subscribe to right now. To succeed is the need to maintain a keen vigilance. At both an individual and collective level, we must participate and engage actively in the public discourse and the electoral process.

And this begins by demanding Washington start paying attention to the most pressing issues in the country, including health care reform, stricter corporate oversight, alternative energy exploration and immigration review. At a community level, we also can play our respective roles – in classrooms, in schools, in churches, all for the betterment of our nation.

Our roads and buildings are similarly in serious need of repair and upgrades. But investing capital into our infrastructure isn’t enough; our strongest asset, the capacity for innovation, needs to be reprioritized. Exploration of the next scientific frontier – biotechnology – is crucial, as well as our refocus and re-emphasis of math. Education – and a good fundamental education, at that – has to take ultimate precedence over short-term gains. These are the primary arenas that define the new world order, a field we must master to compete in the global economy.

2008 will be remembered as the precise moment when America confronted her cathartic moment, when the very ideals that made her great – an unyielding belief in the power of ideas, a firm commitment to democratic virtues, an undoubted dedication to inspire – came under threat. Will 2008 go down in the annals of history as the moment when a nation regressed and faltered, lost in hubris, or the moment when she reinvented herself and rediscovered her capacity for leadership? Will this moment define her, or will she define this moment?

That choice is yours.

Yours concerned.

Same place, same time, same person, same e-mail! ZACH HAN waits again for your e-mail at zklhan@ucdavis.edu 

I see the same picture over and over again – a horde of fake smiles all bunched together to make one shitty picture.

It appears as if there is an invisible lasso around their necks pulling them in to make a bouquet of smiling heads. Their bodies dangle aimlessly as they get ready to flash their pearly whites. In the process of making this formation, there’s always the collaborator encouraging others to smile harder and squeeze in tighter. After all, the more smiling heads, the better the picture. Motion and thought processes are suspended in time as the photographer pointlessly counts to three. Apparently, three seconds is the allotted time for everyone to stiffen their bodies before the camera accidentally captures any sign of life. In the aftermath of this ordeal, everyone retracts their faces back to the vapid look that corresponds to how they truly feel. For the finished product we get a mass produced image of the same smiling face we have seen hundreds of times before. Judging by some people’s Facebook photos, I would be hesitant to believe these were real people and not life-sized cutout boards.

Forget about context; the plethora of smiling faces floods the camera’s line of view. The only hint of context is the lighting and maybe the clothes that are worn. As a matter of fact, forget about capturing anything but the fleshy mass we occupy in space. The conventional purpose for taking a picture is to capture a moment visually; the more that is captured, the better the picture.

Most cameras can already capture all the required light frequencies emitted at the moment, so how can an image capture more than another? Pictures that tell a story, evoke an emotion, or spur a thought, are ones that entail more than light waves. Nothing robs a picture of its potential more than standing like a bunch of smiling buffoons. ?How often is our true emotion expressed by an ear-to-ear grin? Maybe two or three times a day on average. That figure is so low; it’s impossible that so many people truly want to smile when being photographed. Most people’s smiles only last the duration of the picture being taken; unless they derive some enigmatic joy from being photographed, chances are their smile is artificial.

I didn’t have to prove that to you; it’s common sense that people fake their smiles in front of the camera. If vacant stares and half-hearted grins are the norm, it’s impossible to differentiate between those who are sincere and those who are fake. The finished product is nothing more than a group of people in zombie costumes, masking any hint of humanity. “Oh, but smiling looks nice!” I forgot that pretending to be someone you’re not is the norm in a materialistic society that values superficial qualities. If you think it looks nicer to smile instead of being genuine, then you need to redefine your view of what it means to “look nice.” I know that I prefer not to carry myself like a Louis Vuitton bag.

We need pictures that capture more than meets the camera lens. Why does this guy look uninterested by that girl’s story? What emotion could the girl in the pink be experiencing? Why do I appear simultaneously happy and sad? These are the sorts of questions a quality photograph should make us ask. Rather than, “I wonder what she’ll be wearing in the next 500 pictures?!” If your photo gallery is all smiling heads, then you’ve kept only one emotional memory from your life, and it’s shallow. Let’s embrace our humanity and not fake a smile for the camera.

LIOR GOTESMAN has a few photos on his Facebook where he fakes a smile, but only because it’s ironic. If you also like to be ironic, don’t contact him at liorgott@gmail.com