Whenever you turn on your sink to fill a glass, you can’t avoid the small frown that graces your face when you see the clouded water that pours out. However, that frown pales to the outright grimace you experience when the water actually touches your taste buds. Living in Davis has made some of us buy stock in Brita.

Luckily for us, and our taste buds, the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency is well on its way to getting approval for the proposed Surface Water Project. All you need to do is vote yes on Measure I on Mar. 5. If passed, the project would replace the groundwater that currently supplies Davis with treated water from the Sacramento River.

Stop the presses! This project will cause an increase in rent, furthering the financial burden on college students. While the actual rent increase is at the landlords’ discretion, everyone can expect to pay slightly more.

But let’s think about cost for a minute. The current water quality in Davis has led people to buy all sorts of water filters for their homes. Brita pitchers can cost upwards of $40, and the replacements filters, depending on how many people are using them, can cost nearly $20 per month.

This Surface Water Project is worth supporting. As the population in the area increases, the new project will provide a new source of clean, treated water. Furthermore, the project will drastically improve the quality of water reaching our homes, and will even improve the quality of treated wastewater.

Residents will not need to fork over money for expensive water filters, and just think of all that extra room you will have in your fridge once you don’t need that massive Brita pitcher anymore…

Here at The Aggie, we dream of a time when we can flush our fish down the toilet, and they will have clean, healthy water to live in and grow strong in. Is that too much to ask? (But seriously, don’t do that. Flushed fish that survive can become highly invasive to natural ecosystems.)

Many people assume that the Republican Party stands for capitalism. If this is true, Republicans have failed miserably.

Critics across the political spectrum agree that the Republican Party needs to change its image. In the most recent election, the GOP suffered a surprising loss against a president who should have been easier to defeat. Obama has explicitly undermined the Constitution in multiple ways, whether it be via the Affordable Care Act, attacking the Second Amendment or the expansion of executive powers.

Commentators have cited many factors that led to this defeat, such as Romney being a bad candidate (his 47 percent remark certainly did not help) or alienating certain voter groups with backward views on abortion and gay marriage. Other events such as Hurricane Sandy helped boost Obama’s approval ratings.

But the GOP has not merely lost this election. If Republicans, or conservatives more generally, are supposed to be the representatives of economic or individual freedom, they have failed. Our government, with a few minor setbacks, has consistently expanded in scope and size since the beginning of the 20th century, regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats were in power.

Remember: truly defending capitalism is not merely about defending some economic freedom or being “pro-business.” Defending capitalism consistently requires defending all aspects of individual rights. This means an unmitigated laissez-faire economic system — as Ayn Rand explained, ”a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.” (The Virtue of Selfishness)

Aside from advocating strict immigration and arbitrary definitions of marriage and personhood — all of which entail violations of individual rights — Republicans have been directly responsible for dozens of instances of improper government expansion.

The Patriot Act and the No Child Left Behind Act, both expanding federal power, were brought about by the Bush administration. During the Reagan administration, Reagan’s inspiring speeches notwithstanding, we saw an increase in protectionism, government spending and bureaucracy, and taxation.

The reason Republicans have failed to defend capitalism is not merely the fact that they have often been unprincipled, though that is true. The reason is that they have not even properly identified the moral foundations necessary to consistently defend capitalism: namely, rational selfishness or egoism — the view that one ought to be the ultimate beneficiary of her values.

For capitalism is the system that rewards and encourages egoism, by allowing people to pursue their values freely for the sake of improving their own lives, not for the sake of any other person or group.

Even Paul Ryan, who has cited Ayn Rand as an influence, has not explicitly identified this. (For him and many other Republicans, accepting egoism is totally at odds with the Judeo-Christian morality of altruism). Rather, it seems that he cares only about economic freedom as a means of helping the middle-class and small businesses, or fixing the government debt.

Those are fair points, but in the long run, such a limited advocacy of capitalism without its moral foundations can only lead to the capitulations we have seen in the past.

Those moral foundations can be found in Ayn Rand’s philosophy, which upholds as an ideal a life dedicated to a productive purpose, a cultivation of self-esteem and the commitment to rational action — all for the sake of achieving one’s own happiness.

Thus, in order to reverse this trend, Republicans need to challenge the views of many liberals that we have a moral duty to sacrifice our values to the poor or for the common good, and that allowing individuals to freely pursue their own interests is morally wrong.

TRISTAN DE LIEGE is not a conservative. He can be reached at tflenaerts@ucdavis.edu.

I am writing to you concerning a column published in The California Aggie on Feb. 6, entitled “In the mood,” in the spirit of firmest congratulations. At first I was concerned that The Aggie had mistakenly printed an article entirely devoid of content, and yet! Yet as I read further I realized the cunning of your craft, your bold intention to give voice to that group so disenfranchised in our society — baked college students. What commendable nobility of purpose!

The more I read the more the fear in me grew, as he spoke with such candour of his travails — I felt for the man, with such consternation that I immediately rushed out into campus and bellowed his name, hoping to hold him close and let his tears run free against my breast.

Without tales such as that of [Leo] Ocampo, of a man’s plight against a universe gone awry, the people of California might be inclined to suspect that students’ partaking of marijuana isn’t newsworthy. But no! Such foolishness must be fought! As the public turns a blind eye to the dashing work of these young rebels so they must be reminded of the heartbreak such a life entails!

Certainly I was enraptured by Mr. Ocampo’s bravery in the face of a palpable lack of crisis, and glad to see it published, as such sterling work must — must, I say — not go unrecognized. In solidarity I am campaigning for a candlelit vigil (in that very self-same almond field!) to commemorate the courage of his efforts, and to make sure such a travesty never happens again. I know I can count on the support of The Aggie in this venture.

Till then, do not let a daunting lack of interest halt your efforts; without The Aggie lifting up Ocampo’s rotund blunt as a martyr to fate, how else can the public be roused to inaction? I hope it is not to forward of me to request your coverage of my own sterling work in this field, his field, which I have been stationed in since the article’s publication with several sacks of lighters.

I remain, glibly, yours,
Samwell Bucket

Author of “Pining for Dodos”, and fourth-year English major “who attended the school last year as a visiting scholar, and remained within the area.”

UC SHIP, the University of California’s insurance program, will retain lifetime benefit caps despite the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Falling into a loophole, self-funded student health programs are exempted from many of the reforms required by Obamacare.

A lifetime benefit cap is the maximum amount of money an insurance policy will pay over the course of a lifetime for a person. Once it is reached, the insurance company is no longer responsible for covering medical costs. For UC Davis students under UC SHIP, this cap is $400,000.

Students are automatically enrolled into UC SHIP each year and must complete a waiver to show they have private insurance if they choose to opt out of the program. Over 128,000 students chose to remain enrolled in UC SHIP in Fall 2012.

It is unacceptable and unconscionable to retain benefit caps on students. To do so is to potentially expose students to not only crippling debt — on top of the crippling debt we already face — but to death.

According to Shelly Meron, media specialist at the UC Office of the President, benefit caps help reduce costs across the board for students and for the UC. However, in exchange for these savings, we place ourselves and everyone under UC SHIP at risk of bankruptcy, incomplete treatment or far worse.

If we are paying $1,275 per year to ensure that we will be safe when the worst happens, we should be safe. There is no excuse to find out, like UC Berkeley graduate student Kenya Wheeler, that your insurance will no longer cover your chemotherapy because your sickness is too expensive. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Wheeler had to hastily marry his girlfriend in order to receive her health care benefits just to survive.

This is unacceptable.

Making changes to benefits “would very likely would mean an increase in premiums,” according to Meron. However, UC SHIP premiums are already going up. According to the Daily Cal, UC SHIP premiums may increase by 25 percent to cover a $57 million deficit incurred by the UC’s miscalculations regarding its self-insurance.

Again, this is unacceptable.

This confluence of problems shows that UC SHIP is unsustainable and dangerous. UC must find a new model to ensure the health and welfare of its students. It cannot coerce students to buy into a program that does not fully protect them.

This column will be encroaching upon a topic that I’ve always wanted to write about but have always shirked away from for a number of rather insecure reasons. I didn’t want to be that columnist writing about clothes and I figured no one would really care about what I had to say. I didn’t want to be pretentious, nor did I want to make a fool of myself. But now, I realize: why does any of that have to stop me?

I like clothes. I feel weird saying that, but I have to be honest with myself and I have to be honest with you. I view it as a hobby. I’d never brand myself as a metrosexual or some sort of couture fetishist. I don’t use Tumblr or Lookbook, nor do I draw inspiration from magazines or celebrities. People could even argue that I look like I don’t even know how to dress myself. That’s all fine and dandy with me though.

More specifically, I will be talking about purchasing clothes in this column, as it will remain vaguely tangential to my overarching column theme. Let’s get to it, shall we?

As many of you have probably noticed, there is a dearth of places to shop for clothing in the immediate Davis vicinity. Sure, there are smatterings of vintage/thrift boutiques around downtown, as well as a Forever 21, but then again, these locations mostly cater to women.

I’ll be frank; I don’t know what it is that most guys wear. I haven’t been aware of what guys have worn since probably the middle of high school when the typical garb was a mixture of PacSun and Hollister. I don’t go around asking my friends where they buy their apparel from. It’s not a typical exchange most guys would be savvy to have.

I, personally, buy all of my clothes online. Ever since I was able to figure out how to set up a Paypal account, I spent my time scouring the recesses of the internet, refreshing page after page in search of certain pieces that I found appealing and that I could work well into my wardrobe. Some people don’t take pleasure in the idea of buying clothing online.

“I can’t try it on to see how it looks!”

“How will I know if it will fit?”

Contrary to what some may believe, your tagged size in one brand may not translate into the same size in another. Wearing an M in “X brand” will not be the same as wearing an M in “Y brand.” So it’s always best to know your measurements. For guys, standard measurements to know would be pit to pit, shoulder to shoulder, waist, inseam, sleeve length and maybe even your neck girth for good measure.

Getting the shoulders right is probably the most important, as the rest of the article of clothing can be tailored to your desired proportions, should you be so inclined (if you’re really nit-picky about the fit of your clothes, or if you have abnormal proportions).

I don’t really have the space to go into depth about how to measure yourself properly, but a simple tape measure combined with some common sense should get you a long way. I haven’t bought a single item of clothing from a physical location in probably five years (save for boxer-briefs, I guess).

I suggest shopping online, simply because we’re in an area where it’s pretty difficult to get your hands on a variety of clothes and styles. A trip out to the Bay may suffice, but shipping can be as cheap or cheaper than gas. A lot of stores offer free shipping and even free returns to boot.

I usually buy my clothes through forums or from out-of-state retailers, so I almost always get to skimp on tax as well. I never really mind buying clothes that are “gently used,” but I do have to advise against buying used shoes.

My philosophy toward making clothes purchases is to buy less but to buy better. Also, I suggest making a list of items that you want/that you need to fill in your wardrobe so you don’t end up buying items just because they were on sale. It just ends up being a waste of closet space and of money. I have a lot more to say, but I’m out of space, so maybe I’ll pick up on this next time.

Until then.

ANDREW POH doesn’t really like to talk about clothes, unless you’re from the future. If you get the reference then you can get in touch with him at apoh@ucdavis.edu.

Happy (almost) Valentine’s Day everyone. As of now, we’re being deluged with tips and tricks for landing a night with that special someone. And, on top of that, we’re receiving advice on how to “spice up” that special night through all sorts of novel bedroom activities.

When such recommendations appear, they almost inevitably involve food. My theory is that most people associate Valentine’s day with two things: chocolate and sex. So, when pressed for topics to write about for their annual “love and sex” issue, many authors go, “we should tell them to have sex with chocolate! It’s two great things in one!”

Now, I’m all for incorporating food into your sexytime (although literally having sex with a chocolate bar is not recommended), but a lot of the advice about it tends to be vague. So, today we’re going to have a quick and dirty primer on how to bring food into your sex life.

As always, communication is key. You need to talk with your partner(s) about any allergies or intolerances they may have to food, so you don’t end up spending your romantic night in the E.R. It’s also a good idea to go over food preferences and dislikes, so nobody ends up accidentally disgusted.

If you’re playing above the belt, you can pretty much use anything that strikes your fancy. The classics include items such as chocolate sauce, whipped cream and fresh fruit, and you can lay them out on your lover in whatever manner is the most pleasing. When selecting your edible pleasure, you may want to keep a few things in mind. First, how much mess and clean-up are you prepared to deal with? If you’re hoping for less mess, you might want to steer clear of runnier substances, like chocolate sauce, and go for more solid, spreadable options like nutella (although they tend to get a little melty due to body heat).

Second, how is the substance going to interact with any body hair that’s present, and is everyone okay with the outcome of that interaction? If you don’t feel like washing honey out of your chest hair (or your partner’s chest hair), you may want to stick with solid foods (like a trail of M&M’s or gummy bears across the stomach, for instance).

Now, if you want to introduce food below the belt, you need to be more selective in your items. The two substances you must avoid are those that are oil-based (like whipped cream) and anything with sugars in it (like chocolate sauce).

Oil-based foods are a bad idea because they break down latex condoms, as well as trap irritants and bacteria. Sugary substances can cause bacteria and yeast growth if they are placed in a warm, moist environment, which is what the area below the belt is. But what happens if you want to spread honey on your honey (sorry, couldn’t resist) and you really want to pay attention to their lower half? I suggest focusing on their legs, which are still nice and sensitive, without being prone to yeast infections.

If you want to add flavor to your oral sex, you have a few options. The first is to use flavored condoms/dental dams. Now, since I didn’t go over them in the contraception columns, a quick word on dental dams. They are rectangles of latex that are used for either cunniligus (mouth to vagina) or analingus (mouth to anus). Most varieties, like those carried at the Love Lab, come in different flavors, so you can choose one that tickles your palate.

One other option is to look for flavored lubricants that are safe to use with condoms/dental dams. Sliquids are a very popular brand, as they are both water-based and long-lasting. Just remember, it’s still not a great idea to bring flavored lubricant into direct contact with genitals, so you should use them to enhance oral sex in combination with a barrier.

I hope these tips have given you a few ideas on how to please your taste buds and your partner at the same time. And, there’s one more incentive to introduce food into your sex life: After you’ve had your tasty, messy fun, you can jump into the shower and help each other get clean.

SAM WALL thinks you should check out the Project Sexcess campaign on Facebook or email sewall@ucdavis for details.