Despite protests all over the world, China is keeping the Olympic torch burning as it embarks on a turbulent journey toward Beijing. From London to San Francisco and to Buenos Aires, protesters are strongly demonstrating against China’s crackdown on dissidents and the violations of human rights in Tibet. With world leaders divided on the issue of boycotting the Olympic Games, now is the best time for the United States to take a stand and show its condemnation against the oppressive Chinese rule in Tibet.

Through times, the Olympics have been a symbol of peace and unity in the world. It serves as an avenue for more than 200 countries, which share the same ideals and goals, to come together in harmony to celebrate their aspirations and dreams. But how can the 2008 Olympics be a representation of peace and unity if China itself does not believe in the values of democracy and freedom?

The Olympic slogan “One World, One Dream” is a very profound expression of humanity’s oneness, but it is very paradoxical for China to share such vision with the rest of the world when in fact its actions threaten the realization of “one dream.” China’s claim that it is committed to peaceful development and harmonious society is propaganda to cover up its repressive, manipulative and dark side.

The world does not share China’s atrocity against the Dalai Lama and the Tibetans. It is unthinkable for the Chinese government to accuse the Dalai Lama of instigating the recent uprisings in Tibet because the Tibetans have the inherent right to demand freedom from the shackles of Chinese repression.

Moreover, as the world is working hard to stop the genocide in Darfur and bring democracy in Burma, China does not seem to care about these issues. Instead, it supports the Sudanese government by selling armaments to the militias and protects the Burmese junta by refusing to back any democratic civilian movement.

China has the capability to make positive impacts, but instead, it chooses to suppress human rights, sponsor the destruction of life and undermine the values of freedom and democracy. These are not the values that the Olympics represent and certainly not the aspirations that the world shares. Allowing China to herald its ascension to the Olympic movement in front of the whole world is tantamount to celebration of China’s rule in Tibet and its roles in Darfur and Burma.

The world has witnessed China’s remarkable metamorphosis from a sleeping giant to a thriving economic power. But rather than becoming a champion of freedom and human rights, China has turned into a Trojan panda. Like the deceitful mythological horse, China is using its rise in political and economic power to assuage its adversaries and conceal its surreptitious motives from the rest of the world. If manipulation and deception were Olympic events, China would surely win the gold.

As an influential power, the United States should lead in demanding democracy in Tibet and reform in China’s foreign policies. We can no longer turn a blind eye to the country that brought us Tiananmen Square, Darfur, lead-tainted products and currency manipulation. By boycotting the Beijing Olympics, the United States would send a clear message to China that these unsportsmanlike games must come to an end. China must now stop being a Trojan panda demonizing the world and start giving back what Tibet and its people truly deserve – freedom.

REAGAN F. PARLAN welcomes your comments and suggestions at rfparlan@ucdavis.edu.

For the past 12 weeks, this column has attempted to avoid the appeal of commenting on global and national affairs. However, this week I have decided to step off the proverbial soapbox and reserve my endless supply of regent-bashing comments for columns to come.

In the past months, the world media has been made very aware of the political turmoil surrounding the upcoming Beijing Olympics, and reports of protests and unrest have littered the route of the symbolic Olympic flame. Upon hearing such reports, some people are appalled at the way in which the Olympic Games, arguably the largest spectacle in world sports, have been infiltrated by the several political agendas of participating nations. Talks of potential boycotts only further highlight the fact that the 2008 Beijing Games will serve mainly as a political arena, rather than an athletic one. However, what some people fail to realize is that the tradition of the Olympic Games has been consistently spoiled by politics for close to 100 years.

The 1936 summer games marked an end to the era of the so-called “honest Olympics” and began the proud tradition of countries mixing their sports and politics. In that year, the world community descended upon Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany and watched as Jesse Owens’ four gold metals shattered Hitler’s idea of Aryan supremacy.

Twenty years later, Egypt, Iraq and Lebanon boycotted the games in response to Israel’s invasion of the Suez peninsula, while the Netherlands, Sweden and Spain withdrew from the games after the Soviet invasion of Hungary.

As the years went on, the political controversy surrounding the Olympic Games grew increasingly more violent and severe. In the weeks before the 1968 Mexico Games, hundreds of college students attempted to use the media frenzy surrounding their country in order to bring awareness to their cause. The resulting protest and police action is now known as the Tlatelolco massacre, in which police forces killed close to 100 students. A similar display of violence was seen four years later at the 1972 Munich Games, in which 11 Israeli athletes were kidnapped and killed by terrorists.

Most recently, the United States and 64 other nations chose to boycott the 1980 Moscow games in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. In a similar fashion, the USSR boycotted the 1984 Los Angeles games to express displeasure with the Moscow boycott.

Clearly, the political unrest surrounding the 2008 Beijing Olympics is not a new phenomenon. Perhaps this year, the world community will finally realize that the Olympic Games is meant to foster a sense of international unity, not be a way furthering one’s political goals.

Pierre de Coubertin, the man responsible for the revival of the modern Olympic Games, summed up this idea best in his writing of the Olympic Creed, saying, “The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.”

While it appears that Coubertin’s words have essentially fallen upon deaf ears for the last century, and that this summer’s Olympics will be no exception, the world community is faced with the challenge of examining the lessons of the past and correcting the problems of the present.

JAMES NOONAN is currently taking bets on the number of boycotting nations this summer. Get your picks in by contacting him at jjnoonan@ucdavis.edu.

The state senate recently passed Senate Bill 1168 in order to aid sick college students. The bill, known as “Michelle’s Law,” will allow dependent college students to take up to 12 months medical leave with a physician’s signed consent. This even includes students who are covered by their parents’ health insurance plans.

In addition, this effectively means that students can be absent from school or reduce course load to part-time and still be covered. This is important to students who, due to a medical condition, can no longer be full-time students. UC Davis students are covered by the Student Health Insurance Plan unless they opt to use another plan. Under SHIP, students who have to leave school or reduce their load are covered until the end of the quarter, at which point they can opt to extend their health coverage – at non-student rates.

This bill represents an important step by legislators in regard to aiding college students who are already under the heavy burden of paying for an increasingly expensive education. Students who contract serious ailments should not be penalized for their misfortune by increased health care costs.

One of the most important aspects of SB 1168 is that it solves multiple problems at the same time. Not only does it allow for extended coverage for students under university specific health care plans, but it also accounts for students covered under their parents’ health care as well. If such a student becomes seriously ill, some companies will continue to provide for them for a set amount of time while others stop accounting for them immediately. This bill solves that problem by making the fate of students facing prolonged infirmity universal: You have 12 months medical leave no matter what your health plan is.

It is encouraging to see that health care companies such as Blue Cross support the bill. In order to have an enlightened workforce and population, we need to have an educated workforce and population. Students should be focusing on their class work while in school, which is exactly what this bill is aims to do. The Aggie Editorial Board hopes that this bill successfully goes through appropriations and is eventually signed into law by the governor.

You know, I’m really over this whole friend zone idea strictly being a boys-only club. All these movies, songs and blog entries that paint girls as shallow cockteasers with a penchant to oversight their male friends over gorgeous yet asshole guys are completely inaccurate. They fail to mention that we like them to be mind-numbingly rich too.

Honestly, what’s with this “nice guys finish last” shenanigan I’m hearing about, as if guys were never guilty of committing the same crime? Some say that most guys simply aren’t. Apparently, due to some ridiculous notion roaming out there, a girl can get any guy she wants (given that she’s within a relatively appropriate spectrum of attractiveness) – especially if he’s a friend of hers.

A guy who has female friends will basically whip his penis out for any of them per request, depending on when the little lady wants it. It’s a common myth that’s been numerously elaborated from Chris Rock and Woody Allen, to the ever-intricate “ladder theory.” Well I’m here to say nay! If girls can bonk whomever they want, then my unsuccessful love life means that I’m some sort of exceptional boner murderer. Girls fall into the friend zone all the time, so here’s what you can look out for:

We will help you with your girlfriend problems even though we’re in love with you. If you were really just our “friend,” we probably wouldn’t care how your crummy relationship is going. Now what we would do is join in with all our friends to make fun of your girlfriend and talk about how big of a shmuck you are (sorry John, someone had to tell you).

But for some reason, if we like you, we want to give you a shitload of advice (despite what soap operas and “Degrassi” say). We like martyring ourselves in a sad-but-strangely-romantic-and-melodramatic sort of way by helping you out whilst holding back the waterworks. I don’t think there’s any secret agenda involved; we do it to convince ourselves that we’re so “over” the entire situation. It’s a sort of smug, “Look how classy and understanding I am, sucking up my own happiness to console you. This would be great material for a TV show or a Korean drama. I also look good in pastel colors and a low ponytail,” outlook.

Don’t expect a confession anytime soon. If it’s one thing a girl can do well, it’s biting her tongue. Not that we’re pushovers or we refrain from speaking our minds or anything (think on terms less political); we’re simply good at filtering our inner-monologue when we want to avoid a potentially embarrassing situation.

That explains why most of us don’t have this, “He just has to know!” mentality. Actually, I don’t think guys have this tendency either. It’s that damnèd TV again, with their scenes of some guy stopping a wedding or whateverthehell. It makes girls believe that guys are like that in real life. Sooner or later, we start to believe in the whole, “If he really loved me, he’d fight for me!”

Sure, there are some memorable scenes when a girl confesses her love: Julia Roberts under the gazebo in My Best Friend’s Wedding and Meredith’s famous, “Pick me, choose me, love me” speech in “Grey’s.” And what happened in most of them? Disaster. This has made me personally scared shitless of confessing my feelings. I won’t go into detail since I’ve already written about it, but to sum it up, most of these incidents ended in me crying while slumped over a toilet because I stuffed my fat face with too many Slim Jims™. God I love Slim Jims.

Do expect a disappearing act. Some girls are known for simply vanishing into thin air. We cut ties with the guy until we’re sure we’re over it and normal friendship can recommence. No one knows how long it will be for each girl but rest assured, she’s talking up a storm while you’re not around.

Which brings me to my next point – I’d love to hear about it! I pretty much am crap at giving advice, but I do love to hear a good story. So, let’s make it a date: I’ll be at the Memorial Union in front of the Quad this Friday around one o’clock. I’ve always wanted to meet some of you minions so come visit me. I’ll get out of my comfort level, shake some babies, kiss some hands and make it a day. Hopefully, I’ll see you there!

LYNN LA won’t get sore if no one shows up on Friday. However, it would further confirm her loser-status to her friends and she’ll probably cry herself to sleep. If you want to check it out though, feel free to bring some Slim Jims or your dog, and e-mail her at ldla@ucdavis.edu.