The central pillar of liberalism is a quest for equality in every form. This is its greatest strength and its greatest weakness.

At the root of the vast majority of liberal beliefs is an opposition to those with greater power. In nearly any political or societal situation, liberalism takes the side of the “oppressed,” the “dispossessed” or the “disenfranchised.”

In foreign policy, America is perceived as being more powerful than other nations, and thus we are assumed to be the bad guy or the aggressor. With the environment, mankind is seen as the destructive overlord of nature, needing to be reined in by regulation, limitation and education. In issues of race, class and gender, the side that is perceived to be weaker is invariably favored: Latinos and blacks, the poor and the downtrodden, women and those “undecided” as to their sex.

The stronger United States endures harsh criticism for its recent trend towards a secure southern border, while the weaker Mexico suffers hardly any consequence for far harsher laws regulating its own southern border. An enduring and dominant Jesus Christ being disrespected is free speech. Barely a whisper against the prophet of a largely third world religion, Muhammad, is “hate speech” and even against the law in parts of Europe.

The solutions of liberalism are nearly always to reduce the disparity of power. The United States must give in to the will of the United Nations. The rich must give in to income redistribution. Humans must slow or reverse population growth and use of resources. Whites must accept affirmative action, corporations must pay higher taxes and longstanding traditions must fall away.

On the surface, it is hard to oppose these measures. It seems that conservatism wants to defend “the elites,” as fellow columnist K.C. Cody so typically charged. In the clash between David and Goliath, James Bond and SPECTRE and UC Davis and Stanford, conservatives would actually support the villains, right?

No wonder conservatives look so bad to so many idealistic young people. No wonder we are so often demonized in the media, in colleges and among the more “refined” demographics of America.

I don’t dispute that the ideology of liberalism does mean well. Liberalism does seek to help those who seem to need it. This reality is why liberalism is so easily marketed,[omit jl] and so appealing to college students like us trying to make the world a better place.

The problem with the liberal mission to reduce inequality using government power is that it doesn’t really work. Taxing the rich at high levels takes money out of the economy and gives it to an inefficient and inaccurate government. Welfare and most other forms of government aid create dependency and perpetuate failure.

Affirmative action values people according to the color of their skin. Environmentalist regulations hurt the poor hardest, and the rich least. And a weak United States inspires Russia, China, Iran and others to challenge the international order, by force if need be. Equality of opportunity is a goal everyone can agree on, left and right. Equality of outcome is a dream only possible through the more severe strains of socialism, or communism.

When we decide to lift people up based on their perceived weaknesses, to which ones do we give priority? Even now the Democratic Party is in a heated debate over which attribute deserves more “help” – being a woman or being black. Do we protect the environment, or do we keep gas prices low for the sake of the poor? The answer depends on which liberal interest group is being interviewed.

Inequality and disparity are not desirable, nor should those who end up less successful be ignored or derided. But the alternatives of central planning, high taxes, vast bureaucracies, quotas, political correctness and books upon books of laws all make for a more homogeneous society, but not a better one.

ROB OLSON doesn’t like inequality in athletic competition and thinks those faster than him should be “regulated.” To be a heartless conservative and disagree, e-mail him at rwolson@ucdavis.edu.

Letter: University disregarding Jewish students

One would think that after UC Davis upset 11 percent of its incoming freshmen in 2006 by having move-in day on Rosh Hashanah, one of the two Jewish Holy Days, they’d know better the next time around.

Low and behold, the following Move-In Day in 2007 fell on Yom Kippur, the other Holy Day on the Jewish calendar. Once again, Jewish students missed an important holiday normally spent with family.

Picnic Day, arguably the most important and exciting day of the school year for students, faculty, alumni, friends, and family, is on the first night of Passover. Picnic Day’s theme this year is a “kaleidoscope of voices.” This kaleidoscope of voices must be broken, because a significant minority group will be underrepresented on Saturday. I know my voice won’t be there. How can Jewish holidays continue to be neglected? Shame on Student Housing, shame on the Picnic Day Board, and shame on this university that takes great pride in its diversity.

TYE GREGROY

sophomore

political science

Letter: Child Abuse Prevention Month

Many of us think of child abuse in terms of the most extreme, dramatic criminal cases and we worry about what to do if we witness or suspect child abuse. For hundreds of Yolo County children, it is not a case of abuse or neglect; it is simply numerous lost opportunities to make a positive impact on that child’s life.

At First 5 Yolo we fund programs and services that support parents and families so children 0 to 5 years of age enter school healthy and ready to learn. We believe the best way to prevent child abuse is to reduce caregiver stress or substance abuse and stop the anger, neglect and child abuse before it happens. In fact, for every dollar invested in prevention, Yolo County can save an estimated $10 that would otherwise be spent dealing with the consequences of child abuse.

April is Child Abuse Prevention Month and First 5 Yolo has joined with the Yolo County Children’s Alliance and Child Abuse Prevention Council in a public awareness campaign encouraging parents and caregivers to “Take a Minute to Make a Difference in the Life of a Child.”

By focusing on the positive: hugging, talking, praising and making children feel safe and secure, they will grow as more loving, caring people and, in the future, become better parents and successful adults themselves. This is a worthwhile way to spend a minute.

JULIE GALLELO

executive director

First 5 Yolo

Senator Barack Obama’s recent remarks about the predicament of the “bitter” working-class, in many respects, provoked a political firestorm. Some accused him of “condescension,” while others called him “elitist.” In retrospect, as he admitted, his characterization of this demographic probably wasn’t the most incisive. But the reaction to his words speaks more about the nation’s state of fragility than about the candidate’s fallibilities.

Uncomfortably, this backlash epitomizes the state our national discourse has fallen to. The question that must be asked, thus, is why has the discourse become so philistine and juvenile?

The most obvious blame lies with the media. To increase viewership, conflict is sought. Reporting on productive – if mundane – community-empowerment efforts are forsaken for attention-grabbing headlines. In national politics, for instance, the competitive aspect of an election is emphasized, with the horserace casting the candidates and their supporters as part of a sporting bloodbath. Here, personalities, not policies or philosophies, confer electoral prospects. As a result, our national leaders have become constantly-scrutinized participants of a large-scale reality show.

But the media isn’t wholly responsible for this mess. They are conscripts feeding such news only because their users don’t denounce this lunacy. The focus of a candidate’s appearance or even cackle – and not one’s governing abilities – has thrived only because the culture has enabled it. The true fault lies in a society that consumes information without questioning its logic.

Societies’ acceptance of such trivialities is partly a function of modernity. Individuals’ fast-paced lifestyles, paradoxically, drain them into demanding immediacy. To provide this ease, news networks frame distinctions in absolutes and construct narratives in black-and-white. Furthermore, given societies’ dwindling attention-span, the media compresses entire chunks of information into sound bites. In turn, long, deliberative and substantive answers are dismissed as “wonkish” and “nerdy.”

Another reason is the elite-commoner dynamic. A leader’s electability is arbitrarily defined according to “likeability.” Appearance of intellectualism is scorned, branded as a pretext to being “out-of-touch.” Elitism, disdained, emerges as a barometer of detachment from reality. Swayed by such factors, the nation ended up reelecting George W. Bush – “Who would you rather have a beer with?” – to a second term in 2004.

As these dynamics converge, a culture that doesn’t celebrate intellectualism, as much as it rewards a visceral gratification, has emerged. Simplicity, not soundness, is exalted. Lost are complexity, context, perspective and nuance. Emotion takes precedence over thoughtful civic engagement. Partisanship is primed above reason. Gut-feeling pervades. Consequently, fear, anger and distrust permeate. This situation is indicative of a society that has grown so dependent, intent and intense on instant longings. It is illustrative of a nation where critical introspection has atrophied.

And certain parties, notably the Republican establishment, have exploited this vulnerability by employing distractive measures. Wedge issues, such as gun ownership, gay marriages and abortion are highlighted, divisions designed to appeal to certain classes. Moreover, when politicians distort the words of opponents, they are not questioned as much as the battle befits the horserace. This bickering obstructs progress.

In the end, critical challenges the nation faces are ignored in favor of triviality. Attempts to solve impending problems fail because the nation is too distracted by, as Senator Obama once characterized, “the smallness of our politics.”

And this situation is unsustainable. America’s international stature is at peril. Asia’s ascent symbolizes a new world order. The nation’s immediate and long-term future is at stake. The choice, then, is to acknowledge the problems that really matter. We can begin first by asking whether working-class Pennsylvanians are “bitter.”

ZACH HAN is bitter about the state of discourse. E-mail him your bitterness to zklhan@ucdavis.edu.

Last month, Rob Olson argued that I had missed the mark in my account of conservatism’s history. He stated that, “[conservatives] in the past defended the elite,” whereas today, they “defend certain principles which apply equally to all.”

And Rob is right – conservatives of the past did indeed defend the elite. But to do so, they used certain ideas; ideas which sound awfully familiar to the ones they use today.

But you don’t have to take my word for it…

Justifying wars: “We want … only that the people of South Vietnam be allowed to guide their own country in their own way. … There are great stakes in the balance. Let no one think for a moment that retreat from Vietnam would bring an end to conflict. The battle would be renewed in one country and then another.” L.B.J., 1965.

“Our men and women are fighting to help democracy and peace and justice rise in a troubled and violent region. Our men and women are fighting terrorist enemies thousands of miles away…, so that we do not face those enemies in the heart of America.” George W. Bush, 2003.

The poor: “The drunkard in the gutter is just where he ought to be.” William Sumner, Social Darwinist, 1883.

“The poor … need to hear the message of personal responsibility and self-reliance…. They need to know, too, that they can’t blame ‘the system’ for their own wrongdoing.” Myron Magnet, compassionate conservative, 1999.

Regulation: “If the government interferes with [the market], it can only impair satisfaction; it can never improve it.”

“Such interference makes people poorer and less satisfied.” Ludwig von Mises, 1949.

“To the extent that governments ‘protect’ portions of their populations from what they perceive as harsh competitive pressures, they achieve a lower overall material standard of living for their people.” Alan Greenspan, 2007.

God’s special interest in their lives: “God gave me my money. I believe the power to make money is a gift from God.” John D. Rockefeller, 1905.

“I believe God wants me to be president.” George W. Bush, 1999.

America’s duty: America has “the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us.” John O’Sullivan, 1845.

America needs “the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests” and “a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad.” P.N.A.C., 1998.

Marriage: “Connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.” Virginia Supreme Court, interracial marriage, 1878.

“Homosexual behavior is contrary to the Creator’s design, and therefore is entirely unnatural.” William Einwechter, same-sex marriage, 2006.

Recessions: “Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate.… It will purge the rottenness out of the system.… People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people.” Former Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, 1930s.

“Recessions are therapeutic. They cleanse excess from the economy. Think about excessive risk speculation, leverage, and housing. Recessions are curative: They restore balance and create the foundation for the next recovery.” Larry Kudlow, 2008.

Terrible predictions: “The ability of the North [Vietnamese] to make war has been greatly reduced.” General Westmorland, 1967.

“I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.” Dick Cheney, 2005.

So there you have it. The themes of “personal accountability, … the individual [and] … the human ability to succeed independent of a fawning and cumbersome government,” as advocated by Rob Olson are all there plain as day, with a little self-righteous godmongering and warmaking thrown in for added flavor.

And I would suggest learning to deal with that flavor – it’s not changing any time soon.

K.C. CODY will see you next time. If you know, or want to know, what TV show he’s just referenced, send him an e-mail at kccody@ucdavis.edu.

The 94th Annual Picnic Day is just around the corner, and the Davis community is sitting at the edge of its proverbial seat. For those unfamiliar with the event, Picnic Day is a campuswide open house that aims to bring together various groups in a celebration of the richness and diversity of student life.

But why do people choose to partake in Picnic Day? This answer may vary depending on who you ask.

To the faculty and administration, Picnic Day is an opportunity to interact with the students and browse various academic departments to see what they have accomplished. It is also a chance for them to outreach to the community and show what UC Davis has to offer.

For visiting families and prospective students, Picnic Day is a chance to get a taste of what UC Davis is all about. Prospective students will see first-hand what it means to not just be any college student, but an Aggie. For many visitors, this will be the first time they’ve been exposed to the campus, and it is the campus community’s responsibility to make a positive first impression.

To many students, Picnic Day is a chance to showcase the past year’s worth of hard work. Engineering students can demonstrate their robotic creations in the annual Micro Mouse Competition. Fashion Design students can showcase their clothing lines in the Runway Designers Club’s annual fashion show. Film students can screen their movies at the annual Asian American Association Film Festival. It is a day to make the admissions office proud.

However, to many other students, Picnic Day might as well be called “Drunken Saturday.” There is an unspoken understanding between students and the administration about the tradition of many to attend Picnic Day inebriated. While this tradition has not yet significantly impeded the overall Picnic Day experience, students are always urged to stay safe and smart.

May heavy drinking not weigh down others. May weiner dogs run like greyhounds. And may Picnic Day, for the 94th straight year, be enjoyed by all.

State Representative Lois Wolk (D-Davis) has introduced legislation regarding oil spills for inland waters. It comes just months after a cargo ship spilled 53,000 gallons of oil into the San Francisco Bay after colliding into the Bay Bridge.

Although it’s commendable that these bills are being proposed and hopefully being passed, they should be put forward before the spills actually take place. This inland oil spill problem has been a constant dilemma. While marine damage gets the majority of the attention, inland oil spills currently make up 75 percent of all spills. So it comes as a shock that this bill was not proposed sooner; inland spills have been an ongoing issue for many years, even before the Costco Busan accident.

This bill will provide an important and clarified structure to deal with spills, enabling response agencies to take prompt action and prevent further damage to the site. Inland spills often occur in or near rivers, which could potentially damage neighboring ecosystems. However, with more developed training, this problem can be better addressed. Appropriately, this would go hand in hand with properly training those assigned to cleaning such sites.

Included in this packet of legislation is a provision to create penalties for inland spills equal to those of marine spills. Hopefully, this encourages oil companies to take more caution with transporting their cargo, as they are now more accountable for their accidents.