Let the soothing sounds of a stranger’s cough lull you to sleep

The library, or the “lib,” as many refer to it, is a soothing environment for students to study. Some claim it’s permeated with “stress pheromones,” “not enough plugs” and “loud, uncomfortable chairs.” We have no idea what those people are talking about.

KDVS, UC Davis’ student run free-form radio station, also has no idea what those people are talking about. Starting in spring, they will host a new radio show set to run from 2 to 6 a.m. daily (nightly? whatever) featuring the best library sounds.

The songs they’ve prepared so far are as follows: chip bag crumpling interspersed with backpack zipping, gentle coughing with light chair leg scraping and furious typing with a dabble of a person loudly chewing baby carrots.

Julian Egbert, the show’s lead DJ and a third-year peace and justice major, calls this new program “The Profound Silent Sound,” or TPSS for short.

“We think this new show is really romantic,” Egbert said. “You can listen with your boyfriend, girlfriend, your girlfriend’s girlfriend, cat or even a really big pillow. Just grab something and hold onto it and let the tiny noises wash over you.”

Dylan Michaels, a second-year religious studies major, is the genius who makes these transcendent songs. He had this to say about his process:

“I mean, it’s not that hard,” Michaels said. “Basically I just take an object, say a chip bag, and I hold it in front of the microphone and gently rumple it with my hand. Sometimes my hand cramps up, but other than that it’s pretty easy.”

We wonder: Is this just a new hipster trend, like “eating healthy” or “caring about the environment”? Or will people actually listen?

Egbert and Michaels hope it won’t just be a fad. But they also told me they recycle (gross).

We can’t wait to hear these groovy new songs! Remember to tune in Spring Quarter to TPSS at 90.3FM, and don’t forget to hug something — although please ask permission first. Even of your cat.

ALEX GUZMÁN would like to let you know that a third person does not write these away lines. ALEX writes them like this because, well, she’s not sure why. You can reach her at almguzman@ucdavis.edu and on Twitter @cactasss where she tweets hilarious nonsense. You should follow her. Please.

Gary Owen Demille, a second-year student studying law at UC Davis’ King Hall, wrote a fake petition in late January to amuse his fellow legal scholars. The petition, which he initially posted on Facebook, begins as follows:

“To Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, 44th president of the United States of America, we the people propose that this upstanding alien resident be granted automatic full citizenship, with complete rights and protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.”

Who in God’s name was this “upstanding” foreigner that Demille wanted citizenship for?

Turns out it was God himself.

Yes, someone created a petition to make God a flag-waving, beer-guzzling, gun-shooting American. It’s an idea that could only be conceived by someone stepping out of a Tipsy Taxi on a crazy Thursday night at Bistro 33 (which Demille has not denied). After posting the petition online, Demille got many laughs and compliments from his friends for his humorous take on religion in politics. But in the weeks that followed his initial posting of the petition, he started to get a very large reaction from people outside of his friend group.

Demille’s fake petition went viral and amassed over two million online signatures from all over the country. What began as a joke became a reality. Religious groups and politicians praised it as a sign that people finally wanted to make America a Christian nation, as opposed to one that separates church and state. Other believers criticized the petition for trivializing God. They argued that He transcends all nationalities and documented citizenship.

Setting aside the implausibility of the scenario in which God exists or not, legal scholars weighed the benefits and downsides of God becoming a U.S. citizen.

Pros:

1. Unlimited Tax Revenue – If God is the creator of all things in existence, (and possibly himself), it’s logical to assume that he would be the legal owner of “everything.” This means the United States could collect an income tax rate of 30 percent of nearly everything in existence, wiping away all US debts instantly. Schools could be fully funded, Medicare would be secured and the residents of Flint, Michigan could finally drink the water.

2. Civic Duties – Like most citizens, God would also have basic responsibilities, such as jury duty and registering for the draft. Jury service will be much shorter, given that God is an omnipotent, all-knowing being who would know the truth and nothing but the truth in all cases. In addition, God will also be able to answer the call of duty in wartime. It’s one thing when soldiers believe that God is on their side, but it’s another thing when they actually have God on their side. Unfortunately, this could also have repercussions when drill sergeants are obligated to yell obscenities at him during training.

Cons:

1. Prosecution for crimes – Although God is believed to be just, forgiving and tolerant to all his creations, he would be liable to face retroactive charges for crimes on a biblical scale. The following are a few of the many witness testaments in a 3,016-year-old investigation:

-Inciting a father to commit murder against his own son (Genesis 22:2)

-Inciting the genocide of the city of Jericho (Joshua 6:21)

-Voter I.D. fraud in ancient Athens (Keith 4:109)

-Environmental destruction through floods (Genesis 6:14)

-Mass murder of a civilian population through fire and sulfur (Genesis 19:24)

-Failing to prevent the Beatles from splitting up (1970)

-Inciting violence against the LGBT community (Leviticus 20:13)

-Attempted genocide of the entire human race (Genesis 6:13)

-Selling unpasteurized dairy products in the state of Oregon (2004)

2. Country of Origin – Aside from the legal issues God may face with citizenship, another challenge would come from dealing with His current status. Since most records of Him originated in the Middle East, He would most likely be rejected as a possible agent working for ISIS. If he were accepted into the United States, Congress would face public backlash from those fearful of foreigners forcing an alien religion upon them.

So far, Demille has rejected any and all claims that accuse him of trivializing or promoting Christianity. He insists the petition was meant to stay within his circle of friends and co-workers. He has also refused all invitations to Sunday church gatherings, talk shows and a correspondent’s segment on The Daily Show with Trevor Noah.

Demille, who regrets creating the petition in the first place, said in an interview, “God help me if this gets any worse.”

You can reach EVAN LILLEY at etlilley@ucdavis.edu.

Growing up Greek is a one-of-a-kind experience.

My Big Fat Greek Wedding, released in 2002, embodied the real struggles of every first generation Greek American girl (like me) out there. While some things were exaggerated in this film (like the Greek flag painted onto the Portokalos family’s garage door), I never found any of the content offensive. Actually, almost everything was true of the traditional Greek family as far as I knew it. There was the fiercely protective father, who, more than anything in the world, wanted his daughter to marry a “nice Greek boy” to the over-the-top festivities featuring busy-body aunts, every Greek dish you could imagine and blaring ethnic music.

You can understand why I was so excited for the movie’s sequel, which was released last Friday.

While I sort of knew, deep down, that sequels are never as good as the original film, I held out hope that over the last decade, the film’s writer, Nia Vardalos (who also plays the lead character, Toula Portokalos, in both films), had taken the time to craft an equally hilarious and realistically depicted sequel. But alas, I walked out of the screening with mixed emotions.

Despite some generally comic and heartfelt portrayals of the family dynamic, which were mostly derived from the first film (like the Windex remedy and Toula’s daily carpools with her father), in the sequel, Vardalos took good humor about Greek culture to an obnoxious level.

She tried too hard to entertain, and her effort wasn’t fruitful. It felt like an ugly parody, which was obviously disheartening.

So, to set the record straight, here’s a list of truths and exaggerations in the film:

• What’s true: Greek families often live in close proximity to each other, even on the same street.

Growing up in the suburbs of Chicago, I lived two houses over from my cousins. And a slew of other aunts, uncles and cousins lived within a five-mile radius. It was perfectly normal.

• The horrible exaggeration: We don’t engineer our homes to look like Greek island villas (i.e., no white stucco exteriors and giant blue domes).

While the film’s depiction of older Greeks having some, well, garish tastes in clothes and home decor isn’t totally inaccurate from my point of view, Toula’s sister’s home, which featured a white exterior and large blue dome (likely modeled after the blue domed church in Santorini, Greece), was a gross exaggeration.

• What’s true: We are certainly close-knit, and it’s often difficult to keep any important details under wraps.

Greek parents and children never stop being involved in each other’s lives. For example, even at 21 years old, I pretty much tell my parents everything, because I know they’ll find out regardless (they have their ways).

• The horrible exaggeration: Greek kids usually don’t worry about 20 or so family members showing up at a college fair.

It’s true that most big milestones in a Greek kid’s life are well-documented because we always have a plethora of relatives standing by (10 of my relatives are scheduled to fly in for my June graduation). Still, families don’t make such dramatic appearances at low-key events, like Toula’s family made at her daughter’s college fair.

• What’s true: Greek grandmas are always associated with good food.

I can’t really explain this one. It could be that their mastery comes from years of experience, but, in any case, it’s rarely contested that grandmas are culinary sorceresses.

• The horrible exaggeration: Those same grandmas don’t hide in obscure places or creepily stare at you in silence from the corner of the room.

One of the most irksome parts of the movie? When they show Toula’s grandmother dopily sitting under a table at the college fair with a platter of spanakopita. It felt like Vardalos was making a comment on the lunacy of the Greek elderly, and it was rather distasteful.

More than anything, it seemed as if Vardalos was more interested in channeling comedy, and it came at the expense of her credibility as a Greek American.

Of course, there’s something to be said about exaggeration for the sake of making a point about broad truth, but My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2 exaggerated for the sake of getting a laugh.

You can reach HAYLEY PROKOS at hprokos@ucdavis.edu or on Twitter @haroulii14

Sex is a taboo topic in our society.

When we avoid talking about sex, we thwart all students’ ability to enjoy healthy sexuality. Stigmas surrounding the topic still prevent the dissemination of necessary information that includes the definition of consent and the proper course of action to take — like where to go and what to do — when consent is violated. Information regarding sexual health, such as how to gain access to contraceptives and STD and STI testing, as well as discussions about how we talk about sex in different communities and cultures, are further hampered when there is no dialogue.

Sexual assault on college campuses has been referred to as an epidemic. According to the National Sexual Violence Research Center, 1 in 16 males and 1 in 5 females will be sexually assaulted while in college. In addition, 1 in 3 females will be assaulted in their lifetimes. These numbers are significantly higher for gender-nonconforming individuals and those that identify with the LGBTQIA+ community. More than 90 percent of survivors do not report their assaults. This is for a multitude of reasons, including survivors knowing their perpetrator, not trusting the police and/or university to respond appropriately and fear of being exposed as a survivor.

The UC Davis community comes together in each April on Picnic Day to celebrate our campus culture, but we also must come together to promote the safety of all students by being aware of our shortcomings. These issues affect all students, from high-risk communities — incoming freshmen in residence halls and students involved in Greek life — to the average student.

“Let’s Talk About Sex” is a campaign that lasts the duration of April that also needs attention. As part of this campaign, the Students Against Sexual Violence at UCD, Associated Students of the University of California, Davis Senate, Sexual Assault Awareness Advocacy Committee, Gender and Sexuality Commission as well as a multitude of other groups and organizations are hosting events to start a conversation about all aspects of sex. This campaign intends to promote healthy sexuality by discussing these topics — including consent, sexual health, how sex is discussed in specific cultures and communities and ultimately breaking the taboos surrounding sex.

The goal of this month and campaign is to help all UC Davis students break sexual stigmas and provide a platform for students to talk about these issues through the mediums including workshops, spoken word, art and film. Join us in myriad of diverse events, which attempt to include all students of our UC Davis community by providing spaces of education and empowerment for all of these issues.

Find more information at our website and Facebook page.

GEORGIA SAVAGE is a third-year and a double major in Political Science and Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies. She is currently ASUCD Senate President Pro Tempore, President of Students Against Sexual and Gender-Based Violence and Misconduct and Chair of the Student Campus Climate Response Team for Sexual and Gender-Based Violence.

Students at Emory University protested their administration last week after discovering their campus full of pro-Donald Trump chalkings, ranging from “Trump 2016” to “Build the Wall.” It was a well-intentioned protest that was somewhat petty, woefully misguided and frightfully handled.

Though initially reluctant to condemn the chalkings — as would have been the proper course of action — University President James W. Wagner seemed to want to appease the protestors, and he eventually supported an investigation into the matter. He wrote in an email to the Emory community that “immediate refinements to certain policies and procedural deficiencies” would be made.

While he acknowledged the right to dissent in another email, his own actions are remarkably thin-skinned and empower further unsubstantiated protests.

If every school policy regulating practices like chalking, tabling and campaigning were enforced, well-qualified student government candidates wouldn’t be able to send their messages out most effectively. Student organizations would find their outreach hindered. While these rules are important, they should not be used in cases when they have the potential to significantly restrict freedom of expression.

In a university statement dropping the case last Thursday, reference was made to a specific policy at Emory that allows for the chalking of only horizontal surfaces. This does not include walls, benches or staircases — the sites of the pro-Trump slogans — because their “defacement” is considered vandalism. That Wagner supported enforcing such a policy is a de facto prosecution of expression. It shows the extent to which he felt he had to do something to ward off any further trouble.

But boy, did he open up a can of worms.

Ultimately, Emory garnered so much national attention because of the innocuity of the perceived offense, and the utterly confounding response from the university.

It’s hard to imagine a simpler affirmation of a candidate than simply stating their name. That’s why politicians speak of themselves in the third person. What the protesters said about Trump — that he’s racist, xenophobic and sexist — are all true. But it’s also true that Trump is a Republican skeptical of free trade, and that policy position might have been what motivated the chalking.

Or it could be a cynic wanting to make a point about the precariousness of free speech on college campuses.

Or it could be a joke. After all, the entire GOP primary has played out like a cruel joke.

But who knows?

Though Wagner’s response to the protestors suggests otherwise, Emory has no obligation to condemn speech as potentially ambiguous as “Trump 2016.” And it’s a disservice to the progressive movement that some of its members should want to sanitize any alternate opinions.

Emory is a large university, and the 40 or so students who protested should not be considered representative of the whole. But they should realize that they do hold power, and therefore need to pick their battles more carefully. The reaction to their activism has been overwhelmingly negative, and that works right into the hands of Trump supporters, who already believe this nation is too politically correct and who are motivated by the kind of episode playing out in Emory.

The protesters took fair contention with the media narrative played against them, and especially at the perception that they were protesting mere chalkings. They argued that the Trump slogans represented more than just preference for a candidate, but rather an ideology, rooted in hate and discrimination, that ran contrary to Emory values.

Of course, that doesn’t really respond to concerns that their actions are prohibiting speech. It just changes the kind of speech from one scrawled out in chalk, to one with larger, historical consequences. The latter is certainly more interesting to talk about. The protesters should confront the bigotry that has partly helped fuel Trump’s rise not by making demands of their university, but rather of Trump and the voters.

When political slogans are given more attention than the all too frequent hate crimes that even UC Davis can’t escape, or respond to properly, it’s a sign that priorities need to be shifted.
You can reach ELI FLESCH at ekflesch@ucdavis.edu or on Twitter @eliflesch

Reaching the stars is an admirable dream and easily achievable, assuming one has $250,000 to spare for a private trip past the stratosphere through Virgin Galactic. But for those of us (myself included) without the cash to burn, working as a publically-employed astronaut ranks quite highly on the “implausibility scale” of potential jobs. And this is not for lack of desire: the intense combination of required educational training, particular career history and the intellectual (not to mention physical) rigor required to even qualify for the gig makes it seem all but impossible for many would-be spacewalkers. But that doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t achievable.

Despite the odds, astronaut Col. Chris Hadfield managed to surmount (and float) past every hurdle needed to become a full-fledged member of the space community. While I admittedly  enjoy offhandedly describing him as “the contemporary Neil Armstrong, if he were Canadian,” it is far more accurate to classify him as a superstar: he’s an engineer, accomplished fighter pilot, musician, photographer, frequent public speaker on all things space, the very first Canadian to “walk” in space and author of the sensational book, An Astronaut’s Guide to Life on Earth.

His book is an autobiography as well as a lesson to the reader on what he’s learned throughout his life and travels. And in his particular distillation of ‘success,’ he is wonderfully counterintuitive in his interpretation of common sense. For instance, in his third chapter, entitled “The Power of Negative Thinking,” he explains that by intensely examining the possibility of failure, a person can actually make it become a virtue. He writes, “Being forced to confront the prospect of failure head-on — to study it, dissect it, tease apart all its components and consequences — really works. After a few years of doing that pretty much daily, you’ve forged the strongest possible armor to defend against fear: hard-won competence.” Another of my favorite examples of this unorthodox (at least outside the space community’s) notion of success can be found in the following chapter, aptly named “Sweat the Small Stuff,” in which he explains how vigilantly and meticulously examining even the most minute detail in a situation could make all the difference, in his case between life or death:

…you don’t need to obsess over details if you’re willing to roll the dice and accept whatever happens. But if you’re striving for excellence — whether it’s in playing the guitar or flying a jet — there’s no such thing as over-preparation. It’s your best chance of improving your odds. In my [time as an astronaut], it wasn’t even optional. An astronaut who doesn’t sweat the small stuff is a dead astronaut (Hadfield, 61-62).

Hadfield’s tour into the depths of space discovery and the culture surrounding it encourages an intense study of failure. “When [we simulate] deorbit to landing […] dozens of people are [watching], hoping that something new — [a gap] in standard procedure […] a better way of doing something […] will be revealed.”

While what he does in space is awe-inspiring, he makes it explicitly clear that he acts as a conduit for a legion of trained, passionate specialists. He uncovers a culture where the kind of obsession with working together and being prepared might seem ludicrous if not for the severe risks of the profession. Through an obsessive and even-keeled attitude toward scrutiny, he exists within a subculture which sees criticism as just one more thing necessary to ensure their work achieves its goals. And it is abundantly clear he respects and admires the hardworking people within the American, Canadian and Russian space programs where he has worked. He is fully cognizant of the fact he is the representative of their brilliance.

But the work does not simply mean to glorify or sensationalize the profession of space travel, or the various government agencies within the industry. Instead, it’s a startlingly intimate and warmhearted view of an arcane world, one which he makes plain even to those not educated in fields of scientific inquiry. With his strong affection for exploration and uncovering the unknown, he tempers his work with tragic incidents and day-to-day difficulties of the very real, and inevitably flawed men and women who work to make what they do every day a possibility. Sometimes they ascend, sometimes they crash and burn; sometimes they long to be home again; all of them, in their own way (not everyone gets to be one of the astronauts), go into the final frontier to attempt things that have up to that point been unprecedented.

Space is a harsh, indifferent void: as hostile to life as it is beautiful. Back on our planet, life is not simple either. Thankfully, we have Hadfield to thank for so adroitly raising our awareness of how to make our way effectively in both areas.
You can reach RYAN DOWNER at rmdowner@ucdavis.edu.

UC Regents revise Statement of Principles Against Intolerance

The University of California (UC) Board of Regents approved changes to its Statement of Principles Against Intolerance on March 23. The finalized statement now specifically condemns anti-Semitism as a form of intolerance. The original statement, which the Regents published in September, did not include anti-Semitism or any other specific types of discrimination.

As the Regents sought to edit the statement during their meeting, they initially included both anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism as acts of intolerance. However, Regent Norman J. Pattiz requested that “anti-Zionism” be replaced with “anti-Semitic forms of anti-Zionism,” according to UC Irvine’s New University.

The Editorial Board commends Pattiz for requesting and clarifying this distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Criticism of Israeli policies or the Israeli government is not inherently anti-Semitic. One can disagree with a policy or an administration without factoring ethnicity or religion into this criticism.

Many members of the UC community expressed concerns about the statement, believing the Regents should have incorporated other specific forms of intolerance — such as Islamophobia, transphobia and homophobia — into the revised statement.

The Editorial Board agrees with the Regents’ revised Statement of Principles Against Intolerance, considering recent anti-Semitic actions across the country, including at UC Davis. The statement was created partly as a result of a request by the AMCHA Initiative, a group that fights anti-Semitism on college campuses.

However, the Board believes that the Regents should have used this opportunity to outwardly and specifically speak out against other forms of intolerance as well, allowing for a safer and more inclusive UC system.

We hope that the Regents will further revise the statement to include other forms of intolerance and specific action steps that individual UC campuses can take to directly enforce these principles. Only then will the statement hold full legitimacy and begin to create a more tolerant, open and safe climate across the UC system.