By CLAIRE SCHAD — cfschad@ucdavis.edu 

For many students, attending college would not be possible without financial aid and scholarships. Luckily for myself and many others, California has been a leader in the efforts to make college more affordable to all students. 

However, in early May, a shadow was cast over California’s progressive approach to financial aid when Governor Gavin Newsom unveiled a revision of the state budget which included many cuts and limits to higher education grants and scholarships. 

For many years California has been one of the few states to acknowledge and act on the increasing burden that paying for college has on not only low-income families but also middle-class families who had previously been left out of financial aid opportunities. The disproportional rise in college prices in relation to income has made paying for college more difficult for the middle class, who were once defined by their ability to pay for their children’s college. Now, many middle class families struggle to afford the price of college without spending an outrageous and often impossible amount of their income on tuition. 

Unfortunately, the revolutionary Middle Class Scholarship program, which is designed to alleviate financial stress for middle-income families, was hit hardest in Gov. Newsom’s May budget revision. Since its founding in 2013, the Middle Class Scholarship has provided financial assistance to over 300,000 students attending the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) systems, as well as California Community Colleges (CCC) that have a household income of less than $217,000. 

If the newly unveiled budget revision is finalized in June, the Middle Class Scholarship will undergo cuts totaling $510 million, affecting students as soon as next fall. This means students who currently receive the scholarship could see their award amount reduced by as much as 80%. This will undoubtedly create issues and increase financial strain for eligible students at UC Davis and across the state, who currently receive anywhere from $500 to over $7,500 per year from the scholarship. 

Additionally, if approved, Gov. Newsom’s proposed budget revision would also put a halt to the promised yearly expansion of the Cal Grant, which provides support to over 350,000 students, with awards ranging from $1,000 to upwards of $15,000 yearly. In 2022, Gov. Newsom signed AB-1746, the Student Financial Aid: Cal Grant Reform Act, saying the state would increase the reach of the Cal Grant each year, allowing more students access to the program and increasing the amount of aid many students receive. This promise helped modernize the Cal Grant system, which hadn’t been updated in nearly six decades, allowing the expansion of access to the Cal Grant and making the California financial aid system more equitable and inclusive overall. However, Gov. Newsom’s signing of AB-1746 came with one important condition: the expansion of the Cal Grant would only occur if the 2024-2025 budget year allowed it. This very condition is why we are now grappling with the proposed cuts to financial aid. 

Despite this, the governor has made it clear that he doesn’t want to make cuts to public education funding, saying it ultimately boils down to the fact that California has “a math problem,” referring to the state’s $27.6 billion deficit.

Ultimately, whether Gov. Newsom likes it or not, cuts to financial aid will have lasting negative effects and are not the solution to the state’s budget problems. If these cuts are implemented, thousands of students will see their financial aid reduced next fall, placing more strain on families and forcing students to take on more loans that will take years to repay. California’s budget deficits are undeniably problematic, but cutting spending for financial aid programs that will fund the education of our future leaders is not the answer. 

Written by: Claire Schad — cfschad@ucdavis.edu 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.

The post California must not cut spending on crucial financial aid programs appeared first on The Aggie.

By MAYA KORNYEYEVA — mkornyeyeva@ucdavis.edu

Ah, a lecture hall. The setting of so many power naps, failed microphones, unexpected quiz announcements and powerful waves of midterm stress. 

Beyond being the central setting for learning, a lecture hall should be designed for comfort for both the lecturers and the students and serve as a place that inspires creative thought and conversations. With this in mind, here are some of my thoughts, critiques and compliments regarding some of UC Davis’ most famous lecture halls. 

Rock Hall: This one holds a surprising amount of students, which is achieved by trading in comfort for the capability of squishing as many STEM majors into a single room as possible. The lecture hall contains a classic “slope down” seating arrangement, where about 400 student eyes are directed downward onto the (poor?) professor. Arrive early, because getting a seat right before the start of class will mean clambering over a whole row of annoyed students. Lastly, bring only the essentials, as there’s no way you’ll be able to fit your coffee, computer, notebook and phone onto the teeny tiny desk. 4/10.

Art Building: The best graffiti on campus (the talent level is insane) and great proximity for a ruminative stroll through the Arboretum (extremely necessary when your art final gets heavily critiqued in front of the entire class). 8.5/10.

Cruess Hall: I may be biased as a design major, but this is one of the best halls on campus. Featuring a mini design museum curated by students as well as a makerspace and tool room (with everything your creative soul could ever hope for), Cruess is catered directly to students working in the arts. The two main lecture halls are brand new and are relatively spacious with great projection screens and interior lighting. It’s like sitting in a movie theater! Finally, there are “Cruess Tattoos,” the adorable wall decorations that adorn the Cruess walls, ceilings and floors. Start exploring and you won’t be disappointed. ∞/10.

California Hall: So incredibly big!! So spacious!! So difficult to hear the professor when the mic goes out!! The best part of the hall is the two long vertical windows at either end of the room out of which you can watch clouds float by (while listening to the lecture obviously). 7/10.

Ann E. Pitzer Center: Just seats, no desks, but audio quality slaps. Very theatrical lighting. A perfect place for professors to invite guest speakers. 7.5/10.

Giedt Hall: You can’t get lost, but you may fall asleep because it does get pretty dark and dreary in there. 6/10.

Teaching and Learning Center (TLC): Recently built, this hall contains both classrooms and lecture spaces that are designed for students by students. It includes unique study areas scattered throughout the building and lots of outlets to plug in your devices, and there’s plenty of natural lighting. The architecture and color choices are inviting and thought-provoking, and the location is also pretty much perfect — situated right next to the Silo Bus terminal, the Silo, Latitude and the food trucks. 10/10.

Olson Hall: During orientation all those (two) years ago, I was told that Olson Hall had ghosts. Can confirm. It’s basically a maze of cement and poorly maintained classrooms: one of the windows of my discussion classroom remained broken and boarded up for the entirety of the quarter. 2/10.

The Death Star: Speaking of a maze of cement, that’s exactly what this is. Avoid having a class here unless you love getting lost or feel like wandering around in circles endlessly. The architects who built this place obviously had ulterior motives. -3/10.

Student Community Center (SCC): Personally a big fan of the computer lab and South Coho. A great place to chill and watch whatever cooking show is on the big TV on the first floor. 9/10.

Wellman Hall: This is your standard lecture hall: the water filters are always on red, the bathrooms are mid and the lighting is best fit for corporate offices. “Well man, I don’t know how to break it to you… but this one’s pretty average.” 5.5/10.

Written by: Maya Kornyeyeva — mkornyeyeva@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.

The post UC Davis lecture halls: the good, the bad and the ugly appeared first on The Aggie.

By JOAQUIN WATERS — jwat@ucdavis.edu

“You might not like what you find.” These are the words spoken to Charlton Heston’s marooned astronaut in the 1968 film, “Planet of the Apes.” He is told not to go looking for answers about the ape-ruled world he is trapped in. Sure enough, Heston falls to his knees upon discovering the ruins of the Statue of Liberty, realizing that this supposedly alien planet run by super-intelligent apes is, in fact, Earth thousands of years into the future. “You maniacs!” Heston cries, “You blew it up!” It is an ingenious, thought-provoking sci-fi twist ripped straight out of “The Twilight Zone” (in fact, the original “Apes” was penned by “Twilight Zone” creator Rod Serling), and it is one of the most iconic moments in film history. 

Unfortunately, the scene’s iconic status now means that practically everybody sitting down to watch the film today knows it’s coming, even if they know nothing else about the movie. It’s a problem shared with most of the great film twists: everybody knows that Bruce Willis is dead the whole time in “The Sixth Sense,” that Norman Bates is the killer in “Psycho” and that Darth Vader is Luke’s father (apologies if you didn’t know, but come on, you totally do). 

These twists have a diminishing effect on their respective stories. When the surprise ending is the whole point of the movie, watching it with that knowledge tends not to be nearly as rewarding an experience. So, understandably, the “Planet of the Apes” film series languished for decades, plopping out the occasional limp sequel in the 1970s and an ill-fated attempt at a remake in 2001. None were very successful because, well, where can you go from there?

At long last, an answer was found. In 2011, “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” was released. “Rise” is the seventh “Apes” film, but chronologically, it is a prequel set in (at the time present-day) 2011, explaining the origins of the super-intelligent apes and the circumstances behind humanity’s downfall. Already, this was a strong decision: rather than exploring the aftermath of the original, tackling the loaded implications of the iconic “it was Earth the whole time” reveal allows the series more freedom and intellectual weight. 

The film more than lives up to that promise. Rather than a campy action schlock-fest like most previous attempts at continuing the franchise, “Rise” is a slow-paced, thought-provoking and frequently depressing sci-fi parable about human hubris and animal cruelty. It takes its ludicrous premise (talking apes taking over the world) as seriously as possible. 

A scientist in San Francisco is trying to discover a cure for Alzheimer’s by testing a brain-enhancing viral drug on apes. The drugs work on one — a chimp named Caesar, who is adopted by the scientist only to wind up in a cruel animal shelter. Waking up to the injustice of how humans treat primates, Caesar stages a rebellion among his ape brethren, gradually increasing his intelligence. Meanwhile, further attempts at getting the viral drug to work on humans result in a deadly pandemic that wipes out 90% of the human race. It’s seriously grim stuff, not to mention unapologetically political — as all great sci-fi should be. Rod Serling would be proud.

Even more important than the writing (although the writing’s quality cannot be overstated) to “Rise’s” success is the great Andy Serkis as Caesar. Serkis is a motion-capture wizard best known for bringing Gollum to life in the “Lord of the Rings” films, but as far as I’m concerned, “Apes” is his best work. While the early films occasionally used hokey makeup and prosthetics to bring the apes to life, “Rise” and its sequels use motion capture, which, to the uninitiated, involves filming actors on set and layering a Computer Generated Image (CGI) character over their performance. The influence of the modern “Apes” films on motion capture cannot be overstated. The “Apes” films legitimized the craft. The entire team who worked to bring Caesar and his ilk to the screen — actors and VFX artists alike — deserve Oscars, especially Serkis himself, whose powerful, layered acting as Caesar is one of the great on-screen performances of the modern age, CGI be damned.

“Rise” was a sleeper hit, resulting in two sequels helmed by acclaimed director Matt Reeves: “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes,” released in 2014, and “War for the Planet of the Apes,” released in 2017. These three films chart the life of Caesar, from precocious child to grizzled old simian statesman, as he attempts to make peace with the fractured remnants of humanity in “Dawn” and begrudgingly battles them in “War.” The trilogy unfolds like a Greek tragedy, with each installment adding new layers to the foundation “Rise” built — from Biblical imagery to allusions to the rise and fall of Ancient Rome (fitting, given Caesar’s namesake), to the American slave trade, all coming back to the same central question: can intelligent beings live together in peace, or are even the best of us doomed to repeat the same cycle of war and tyranny for time immemorial? It’s dark and heady material, punctuated by thrilling action sequences and truly astounding VFX. It is, in short, a perfect film series. So why isn’t it discussed more?

For what it’s worth, these films are not languishing in obscurity. They are big-budget mainstream Hollywood productions that have received rave reviews with each passing installment. But they seem to fade from public consciousness far too quickly, never making as big a cultural mark as their immensely high quality suggests they should. The modern “Apes” films are a genuine contender for the best film franchise of the last 30 years. Yet, they are rarely mentioned this way and often brought up only in passing statements like “Hey, those movies are surprisingly good.” 

The latest installment, “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes,” released just this month and set hundreds of years after the previous three, continues that tradition. It has received rave reviews and a solid box office, yet it still sits in the vast shadow of other recent hits like “Dune: Part Two” and “Civil War.” It’s just as well. Time will tell how the “Apes” films are remembered, and I suspect their reputation will vastly grow with time. Until that day comes, I will continue to espouse the gospel of Caesar: watch “Planet of the Apes.” You will like what you find.

Written by: Joaquin Waters — jwat@ucdavis.edu 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.

The post The modern ‘Planet of the Apes’ series is a sleeper masterpiece appeared first on The Aggie.

By MOLLY THOMPSON — mmtthompson@ucdavis.edu 

The Kennedys — a family so quintessentially American that Olivia Rodrigo sang praises of their “class and integrity.” But the proverbial black sheep of the group, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is set to be on the presidential ticket this fall without the support of the rest of his famously heralded kin. In fact, the rest of the Kennedys have come out in public endorsement of President Joe Biden.​​​​ 

This wasn’t a surprising move, given that RFK’s political stance is quite misaligned from the rest of his family. He’s running as an independent  — though he initially entered the race as a democrat — and has been vocal about how he views the American two-party system as “rigged.” He’s focused his platform on environmental action, “transforming” the police, ending U.S. involvement in proxy wars, border control and immigration restriction. He’s also loudly anti-vaccine and even started a non-profit organization that spreads anti-vaccine messaging: the Children’s Health Defense. In the past, he’s spread COVID-19 conspiracy theories and misinformation as well. He’s also very focused on taking down large corporations. He blames “the corrupt merger of state and corporate power” for… a lot of the issues he identifies as central in the US today such as unhealthy food, immigration, chronic disease and more. 

The big question now is whether or not RFK’s involvement in the general election will affect the outcome; is he going to throw a wrench in the race? Historically, third parties aren’t often successful. But that’s not to say they don’t make a difference — third-party candidates often act as election spoilers, which happens when they draw enough votes away from major party candidates to affect the outcome of the election. 

One of the most notable election spoilers in recent U.S. history is Ross Perot, who won nineteen percent of the popular vote in 1992. His participation has been cited as a defining reason for Bill Clinton’s win, as experts suspected that his votes might have gone to incumbent President George H. W. Bush if Perot hadn’t been on the ticket. 

Projected votes for this year’s general election didn’t initially paint RFK as a spoiler. But as we approach November and campaigns begin in earnest, there seems to be a possibility that he could actually affect the outcome. 

The Washington Post polled four states that flipped in the 2020 election (Trump won them in 2016, Biden won them in 2020) — Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania — to gauge the likelihood that RFK sways their outcome this year. It’s important to note that Kennedy is not currently on the ballot in all states, but he is working fervently to get his name on the ballot across the country. He recently announced his running mate to be Nicole Shanahan, which is expected to accelerate the petition process. What the Washington Post’s study found was that in two of the four states (Wisconsin and Pennsylvania), adding RFK to the mix changed the winner. In both states, polls that excluded Kennedy were evenly split between Biden and Trump, but once Kennedy was included Biden pulled ahead in Wisconsin and Trump pulled ahead in Pennsylvania. In Georgia and Michigan, Trump won in both polls but by slightly different margins. 

Disclaimer: Because we are currently still quite far away from election day, these polls are going to change dramatically. As we get closer to November, predictions will get more accurate, but they will always still be only guesses. This is especially true in today’s political climate, where the contest is so close that the outcome is incredibly difficult to predict. In fact, it’s the very reason that the race is so neck-and-neck that RFK even stands to be a spoiler. When we’re talking about just a couple of percentage points being the deciding factor, any votes cast for Kennedy that take away from one of the other candidates can make a real dent in the outcome. 

This is also only true because of our plurality winner-takes-all electoral system — we can only have one winner, so it doesn’t matter how large of a percentage the winning candidate gets as long as they get more than the other candidates. In a system of proportional representation, a minor party wouldn’t be able to sway the race one way or another because parties would win legislative seats proportional to the number of votes they received. It wouldn’t matter if a minor party took a few of the votes; the majority of the population would still be represented by the top-winning candidates. 

But in our system, the “first past the post” of 270 electoral votes wins the whole race. In an atmosphere where, for example, Biden won states like Arizona and Georgia by 0.3% of the vote in 2020, any candidate taking any small percentage of the vote can sway the race. 

RFK hasn’t been taking votes away from one candidate in particular (though some sources have cited him to be impacting one party or another more at certain points in time), and it remains unknown whether or not he’ll dig more from the voters that would have otherwise supported Biden or Trump. His following is relatively small as of today, but as we know, that’s all it takes to affect an election in our current political climate. 

So will Kennedy be a spoiler in the 2024 presidential election? We don’t know. But there’s a very real possibility that he could, a much more likely possibility than was initially posed. As frustrating as it is, the consensus is maybe. But maybe is significant — maybe is all it could take. 

Written by: Molly Thompson — mmtthompson@ucdavis.edu   

The post Kennedy strikes again appeared first on The Aggie.

By MAYA KORNYEYEVA — mkornyeyeva@ucdavis.edu

Coffee, as a beverage, is well-known for its versatile flavor profiles. One brew could contain notes of chocolate, spice and caramel, while the next could taste of honey, orange and plum. No single coffee bean is alike; each is shaped by the regional characteristics of the environment in which they are grown and harvested, such as soil composition, elevation, sun exposure and neighboring flora. 

With the right combination of elements, farmers can cultivate a unique coffee profile. One particular flavor note which recently experienced a surge in popularity is floral. A floral flavor gives coffee a delicate and aromatic taste, which, when cultivated as a natural tasting note in coffee, can range from lavender and rose to elderflower, peaberry and jasmine. On the other hand, a floral flavor can also be added to any type of coffee drink (like espressos, lattes, cold brews and iced coffees) through the use of flavored syrups, with some of the most common being rose and lavender. 

In fact, Peet’s Coffee recently launched its new line of lavender drinks in spring of 2023,  with Starbucks following suit in the spring of this year. While both rely on different methods of delivering that floral flavor — with Peet’s using a flavored syrup and Starbucks introducing a purple lavender powder — the drinks have garnered plenty of media attention and customer discourse. 

Why is floral coffee so popular? I believe the answer lies within the complex, unparalleled flavor, as well as its happy pairing with alternative milks such as soy, almond and oat, which have rapidly gained traction on the coffee scene in the last decade.

First and foremost, floral flavors are vastly different from what has typically been associated with coffee beverages: mainly vanilla, caramel and cocoa. Every coffee shop with an espresso machine serves some form of mocha (chocolate) beverage, along with your die-hard vanilla. However, flavors like lavender and rose typically reside in the realm of specialty coffee, where baristas experiment with anything and everything to deliver spectacular, never-before-seen flavor combinations. 

Naturally floral coffee notes also tend to appear in acidic, light to medium roasted coffees as opposed to the richer, dark roasted ones. Lighter coffees are typically less commonly produced, although the demand for this type of roast has increased quite dramatically in recent years. A reason for this shift can be credited to a lighter roast’s ability to retain smoother, less intense flavors that a lot of coffee drinkers prefer — especially if they are drinking their coffee black. Floral is one flavor attributed to light roast coffees that often appeals to tea drinkers, who find solace in the herbal flavors of the coffee.

Floral syrups are also easy to make and can be remarkably potent. The most common recipes include steeping food-safe dried petals or flower buds in equal parts hot water and sugar, and to let the flavors infuse slowly for up to several days. After draining the dried flowers, you are left with a syrup that packs a punch of sweet, perfumed flavor. 

Beyond floral flavors being a signifier of more gentle, fragrant and herbal brews, they are also delicious when coupled with alternative beverages, such as oat milk. This milk substitute in particular stands out above the rest, due to its creamy, nutty flavor profile which elevates and transforms soft flavors such as lavender. Both Peet’s and Starbucks recommend their lavender drinks paired with oat, and many other coffee shops in downtown Davis also suggest adding an alternative milk at the counter.

If you ever get a craving for a coffee that is subtly sweet and beautifully aromatic, a floral latte is sure to lift your spirits. With spring being in full swing, a floral cup of coffee is exactly the way to celebrate flavors that come straight from the colorful flowers we all know and adore. It is a unique and relatively novel trend that will soothe and tickle your tastebuds in the very best way possible. 

Written by: Maya Kornyeyeva — mkornyeyeva@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.

The post Coffee and flowers: the emergent flavor phenomena appeared first on The Aggie.

By CLAIRE SCHAD — cfschad@ucdavis.edu 

It is no secret that Taylor Swift’s fans are willing to do almost anything to support their favorite artist. Whether it’s spending hours in a virtual queue trying to buy concert tickets or spending thousands of dollars on merchandise, Swifties are nothing if not dedicated. However, despite Swift’s almost incomprehensible level of stardom, many people have criticized her for promoting potentially damaging norms of consumerism. 

Swift’s success, while largely due to her talent, is also undeniably dependent on the brand that she has built around herself. From vinyls and CDs to jewelry, clothing and journals, you can find almost anything on Swift’s online store. Love her or hate her, there is no denying that the brand she has created is unprecedented and impressive. But how much is too much? Is this abundance of merchandise actually good for anyone? 

Recently, Swift has come under fire from fans and fellow artists alike for her contribution to the harmful systems of consumerism. Earlier this spring, pop singer Billie Eilish called out fellow artists for releasing multiple different vinyl packages, each with “a different, unique thing, just to get you to keep buying more.” She went on to explain that this mass production of merchandise, especially multiple vinyl variants, is frustrating when artists like herself are focused on ensuring their merchandise is produced sustainably. While Eilish didn’t mention Swift by name, it was clear that she was alluding to Swift and other widely popular artists as she went on to say she was referring to “some of the biggest artists in the world.” 

Eilish’s comments are not unwarranted, Swift’s 2020 Grammy Album of the Year, “Folklore,” had nine different vinyl variants available for fans to purchase. Similarly, “1989 (Taylor’s Version)” came in five different vinyl versions, each with a different pastel color theme. 

The most recent example of Swift’s disappointing commitment to consumerist culture, however, came on April 18, with the surprise double album release of “The Tortured Poets Department.” Despite being a continuation of the original album, the second part — released just two hours after the initial album, “The Tortured Poets Department: The Anthology” was treated as a completely different album. Meaning, those who preordered vinyls and CDs would have to purchase another if they wanted all 31 songs to be included. 

As a Swiftie myself, Swift’s commitment to consumerism is frustrating. I personally don’t have any CDs or vinyls of her albums because I don’t have a need for the physical album itself as I listen to all of my music through streaming platforms. However, I can understand people wanting to have a keepsake or physical copy of the album to decorate their room. Given this, the problem is not the mere existence of physical CDs and vinyls, but rather the sheer number of variants that Swift and other artists are releasing.

By constantly releasing new variants, some with bonus songs only available on the limited edition physical copy, Swift is encouraging her fans to buy more items than they could ever possibly need. For many of her fans, this creates a situation where they get into a cycle of consumerism that normalizes the constant influx of new items, even when it is damaging to the environment, or even their financial well-being. 

Swift’s unique position of fame has given her the opportunity to switch to a more sustainable method of marketing and merchandising, yet she has failed to take advantage of it. Meanwhile, artists like Eilish have switched to more eco-friendly vinyl options made from recycled materials, they also don’t release nearly as many variants as Swift does, showcasing that it is possible to have satisfied fans while also paying mind to sustainable practices. 

In the past, Swift has showcased her power to motivate and mobilize young people to vote, so it is clear that she has the power to inflict social change. It would be encouraging to see Swift acknowledge the wastefulness of her merchandising strategy and commit to producing merchandise that is ethically and sustainably produced. She clearly has the resources to make this switch, and it is far past time for her fans to call her out for her unsustainable merchandising practices. If Swift doesn’t do it herself, we as fans must not buy into her marketing ploys. After all, does anyone really need eight vinyl variants of the same album? I don’t think so.  

Written by: Claire Schad — cfschad@ucdavis.edu 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.

The post Taylor Swift’s excessive merchandising practices are not sustainable appeared first on The Aggie.

By MALCOLM LANGE — mslange@ucdavis.edu

Ding, ding, ding. The first round is over. Both boxers are bruised and tired. They both return to their respective corners, take a sip of water and wipe the sweat off of their moist foreheads. They both exit the ring and sit at a table facing each other. The first opponent taps the clock, which indicates that the chess game has now continued. Their goal? First to checkmate or a knock-out. This is chess boxing!

Chess boxing has risen in popularity after the pandemic alongside the growing interest in chess. Chess news and streamers hit all-time highs during the quarantine as it was a fun way to keep your mind engaged while also staying safe at home. After isolation ended, the chess fad continued but started to steadily die down. So what was the next natural step for a dying trend? Do what the Paul brothers did: start boxing. 

No, chess boxing was a thing before the pandemic — and it’s great that it still exists after the pandemic. However, it did become increasingly popular as chess influencers competed in a chess boxing tournament, with the help of famous streamer Ludwig. 

If you have never seen chess boxing, it is incredibly entertaining. Not only do you get to watch a boxing match between two people who most likely have never boxed in their lives — but you also get to watch as their chess gameplay slowly deteriorates the longer they box. However, there is a big problem. What should we do with such a fun sport now that it has started to gain some traction?

My proposal is that we make it a part of the Olympics! And yes, this is my second article about what should be added to the Olympics, but think about it. It is not only a physical challenge but a mental one as well — this way, we can see which country has the best chess player who can also beat the living daylights out of someone. We already have a bunch of silly sports in the Olympics, like regular boxing. So let’s just add the better version of the sport to the event. 

I see no real downside to this; I mean, how long does boxing stay entertaining anyway? Something that breaks up the monotonous hitting of the opponent with something that takes a different form of strategy and foresight would be a great addition to the Olympics. It truly is, in my opinion, a more difficult sport, because you can’t just be good at boxing or chess — you have to have some skill in both to make it past the first couple of rounds. 

That is why I am campaigning to get chess boxing added to the 2024 Olympics in France. I mean, it seems like the only real candidate if you ask me. What else would they add instead? Breakdancing? That would be ridicu– oh, um… This is awkward. I am now just being informed, they did in fact add breakdancing. Well… we will try again in four years. 

Written by: Malcolm Lange — mslange@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie. 

The post Chess boxing — where brains meet bronze appeared first on The Aggie.

By JOAQUIN WATERS — jwat@ucdavis.edu

So. TikTok. For at least six years, if not going all the way back to its 2016 launch, it has been the most popular social media platform in the United States. It is a trendsetter, a ubiquitous outlet and a cultural phenomenon. And it might be off all our phones in nine months. 

For those who don’t know, the Senate and the White House have recently signed into law a controversial piece of legislation that gives ByteDance, the Chinese parent company of TikTok, nine months to sell TikTok to another company, with an additional three-month grace period should a sale be approved, or face the app’s removal in the United States. So far, ByteDance has shown no sign that it will sell — in fact, they are taking the bill to the Supreme Court to debate its legality, arguing that a United States ban would be an infringement on free speech. The truth of the matter? Well, in this author’s opinion, it’s a bit more complicated than an absolute one or the other.

Arguments in favor of banning the app in the United States all tend to lead back to potential national security concerns. TikTok does harvest huge swaths of user data — as does basically every social media platform of note, from Facebook to Instagram to X, the site formerly known as Twitter. The difference here is that those other platforms are American-based, while ByteDance (and by extension TikTok) is Chinese. The validity of these concerns continues to be heavily debated. After all, regarding data harvesting, it’s not as if the soulless lizard-people known as Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk are inherently more trustworthy than a board of Chinese executives. That we trust the former over the latter, even subconsciously, contains more than a whiff of xenophobia. 

But this is not to say that there are no genuine concerns regarding ByteDance’s data harvesting. The Chinese government is notoriously far more restrictive than the United States with the foreign-based content they allow. Facebook, Instagram, X and even YouTube and Google, are all banned from Chinese app stores, only accessible through virtual private networks (VPNs), because, ironically, they do not comply with China’s restrictions on data sharing and types of content shared. Meanwhile, an article in the country’s National Intelligence Law requires Chinese corporations of all types to “assist and cooperate” with their intelligence agencies. Admittedly this is a fairly vague ask, but then governments historically get away with a heck of a lot through loopholes and vagaries. It is not unreasonable to question why they are so restrictive of foreign-based companies’ data sharing while so demanding of their own companies’ compliance.

With all that said, there is also a reasonable counterargument that states that the TikTok ban would be a stepping stone on the United States’ part toward the restrictiveness of governments like China’s. Would the ban give China a taste of its own medicine regarding app restriction, or would it be one further step on our own part down the slippery slope of fascism? It’s a tough question to answer because, while there are genuine concerns in what ByteDance does with our data, there are genuine concerns from our own companies as well. Data harvesting is the trade-off for all social media platforms. How many times have we paid glib lip service to our own implicit paranoia about data sharing by joking that “our algorithms are spying on us” or that “my CIA agent isn’t gonna find much interesting on my computer, LOL?” The simple truth of the matter is that we do not know what they — our government — know, either about Chinese intelligence agencies or American ones. It may well be that ByteDance is a foreign spy tool; it may well be that Meta or X are domestic spy tools; it may well be that this whole issue is born from xenophobic paranoia. We don’t know, and until we do, it’s near-impossible to definitively give an informed answer.

What we do know is that the impact of the TikTok ban (assuming it goes through) will be enormous, and not entirely positive. There are content creators who make their livelihoods through TikTok, either as a side hustle or because they have no other options. And whatever the behind-the-scenes truth of the matter is, TikTok has, at least partially, become an outlet for artistry and free speech in the United States. Dissenters might say that it has also become an outlet for propaganda, and that isn’t untrue, but so has any platform that allows for the dispersal of a wide range of opinions. The absence of TikTok from our app stores will be keenly felt, probably even more than its arrival there in 2016 was felt.

So the question remains: will ByteDance bite (no pun intended) and sell its most profitable platform, or is TikTok’s time in the U.S. nearly up? In this writer’s opinion, the latter is more likely. Let’s face it — more than an artistic outlet or a potential security tool, TikTok is a business, and its parent company will do whatever does the least damage to that business. While a ban in the U.S. would be a blow to that business, it would not be fatal; they get the majority of their income from China. And the other question remains as well: should this happen? Well, this was a long-winded way of saying “I don’t know.” We can’t know, because we have not been given all of the information to properly make that call, so we gravitate toward the uninformed opinion that best suits our worldview, be that xenophobic paranoia or defensiveness of a platform that has brought us joy. Whichever view we embrace is entirely in our hands, but in my view, ambiguity is the most truly informed opinion as the clock winds down. Tick, tock.

Written by: Joaquin Waters — jwat@ucdavis.edu 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.

The post TikTok’s time is running out, but why? appeared first on The Aggie.

By MOLLY THOMPSON — mmtthompson@ucdavis.edu 

Taylor Swift may just be the most known and seen person in America right now, even in the greater Western world. She’s been incredibly central for more than a decade now, and we’ve all watched as she’s navigated her personal and public growth. Her new album “The Tortured Poets Department” is a reflective departure from some of the boundaries that defined her previous bodies of work — she’s able to be more expressive and open than ever. 

Swift has cited her storytelling as her niche in the music industry. Her albums are virtual diaries filled with notoriously autobiographical lyrics, and her vulnerability is one of the most enticing facets of her songs. She’s always been vulnerable, but she’s never been more raw than in her newest album. At every point in her career, she’s had something to protect: a relationship, a reputation, her own feelings. Now, she’s been through it all. She’s in a place where she has nothing to lose, so she doesn’t have to try and tailor her writing to “cater to all these vipers dressed in empath’s clothing.” It’s not that she’s so high and mighty that nothing can reach her — it’s that, in the past year, she’s broken out of a six-year relationship, toured the world with record-breaking shows that empirically altered society, released multiple rerecordings of her old masters, had a situationship that gone torn apart by the public, started dating another major American household name and whatever else that she hasn’t shared publicly. She doesn’t have anything that hasn’t been dissected by the media. 

“The Tortured Poets Department” is built on the amalgamation of Swift’s portfolio. It’s been compared to her other albums in different ways and for different reasons (one of my personal favorite analogies is the idea that it would be the product of “Lover” and “Folklore” if they were both high), but it’s not a combination; it’s not laterally comparable. It stands apart from her other records in its maturity, it’s a learned older sister of Swift’s other records. It’s got a lot more intrinsic hindsight and retrospection — not in that it knows better, but in that it’s more jaded. 

Obviously Taylor Swift has grown up over the past five years, but listening to songs like “London Boy” and “So Long, London” back to back gives that notion an incredibly visceral meaning. “The Tortured Poets Department” looks back on all of the other albums and is comprised of what Swift learned from them and how that manifested in her life and her subsequent relationships. 

In anticipation of the new album’s release, the speculative consensus was that the tracklist would focus on Swift’s recent breakup with British actor Joe Alwyn. And while conclusions about the songs’ content are always assumptions, a greater proportion of the album seems to surround her brief relationship with “The 1975” star Matty Healy. She received a lot of flack for engaging with the controversial singer, and many people guessed that he was nothing more than a superficial fling or a rebound for her. The songs that (allegedly) came out of their relationship suggest a much deeper connection than that though —  with lyrics like, “I would’ve died for your sins / Instead, I just died inside,” and “I love you, it’s ruining my life” suggesting a deep, tormenting kind of infatuation that ended when Healy left her: “They just ghosted you / Now you know what it feels like.” 

In contrast, the songs referring to Alwyn feel more past-tense. They evoke a sense of closure; she’s put that era of her life to bed. The songs about Healy (and the few about her current boyfriend Travis Kelce) feel much more recent, like the emotions she’s currently dealing with. 

A theme that comes up in a few of the songs that reference her tryst with Healy is the role the public plays in her relationship dynamics. Of course, in any relationship that’s in the public eye, unwanted intervention from an audience is going to be a factor, but Healy is a more controversial figure than most of her previous lovers. “But Daddy I Love Him” sends a strong message that puts everyone who felt the need to comment on her choices in their place. She’s telling us all that she’s more than capable of forming her own opinions and judgements of people, and telling her to stop dating someone is unnecessary, uncalled for and inappropriate — “I’ll tell you something about my good name / It’s mine alone to disgrace.” As viewers, we can truly only see so much. We’re too far away to be able to make judgment calls that have any merit. She even calls back to the earlier point of having nothing to lose with lyrics like, “What if I roll the stone away? / They’re gonna crucify me anyway / What if the way you hold me / Is actually what’s holy?” — essentially denoting that the public is bound to find something to berate her for, so she might as well pursue someone she feels like she loves. 

One thing that I think goes overlooked are the elements of humor and irony that are woven intrinsically into the tracklist. “I’m havin’ his baby / No, I’m not, but you should see your faces” — that’s so funny. It’s easy to get caught up in her reputation as a poet and a genius lyricist and assume that everything is meant to be taken seriously, but she’s phenomenal at being self-aware and poking fun at herself, her fan base (“All the wine moms are still holdin’ out, but fuck ’em”), her peers and her partners. Even the album’s title is a little overdramatized for the sake of ironic indulgence; Alwyn once mentioned that he was in a “boys” groupchat called “The Tortured Man Club,” and if Swift is evoking a few layers of meaning with this title (as we all know she is apt to do), then it takes on a whole new level of irony. Taylor Swift is hilarious, we need to embrace it. 

“The Tortured Poets Department” is catharsis. Swift said, in the lead up to its release, that it was the album she needed to write more than any other. That notion is tangible, you can hear it. She has something to say. It’s beautiful, it’s tormenting, it’s ironic, it’s raw, it’s haunting and it’s loud. It’s dense, and there’s a lot to unpack. It’s a relic that’s come out of so many layers of events and emotions and growth. 

Written by: Molly Thompson — mmtthompson@ucdavis.edu   

The post ‘The Tortured Poets Department’ is not what you thought it was appeared first on The Aggie.

By JOAQUIN WATERS — jwat@ucdavis.edu

My favorite book I read for my high school English classes was “The Great Gatsby.” I know, I know, basic as heck, right? But hear me out. Most analyses of the book focus on the titular Gatsby, and the ways in which his rise and fall serve as an analogy for the illusory nature of the American Dream. But reading it myself, I was more interested in the POV character Nick, and the ways in which his interactions with the narrative say something about human connection — and the lack thereof — in circles of wealth. There’s a lot to unpack about that character: from how and why he allows his life to become the stage for someone else’s drama to moments of (in my reading, quite obvious) homoeroticism. 

So, I was disappointed when, despite my promptings, absolutely none of that was discussed in class. Instead, we simply parroted the same old interpretations about America and the pursuit of a goal. Then we proceeded to jot them all down in our composition notebooks and restated them in the quiz that Friday, and that was the end of it. This is not to downplay these conventional interpretations of the novel; they are widely discussed for a reason. But I believe this unwillingness to engage in less-discussed interpretations is a symptom of a wider “to the test” way of teaching art. 

We all know the drill — we’ve been through it a thousand times in a thousand different classes: find the meaning. Write it down. Repeat it on the test. Never think of it again. As if art is an equation, with a single variable to be accounted for that will shed light on everything once we uncover it. I half expect to see this on the whiteboards of half of all art classes: “Politics – Spirituality + x = ‘The Great Gatsby.’ Solve for x, and if your answer is anything but ‘The American Dream,’ you will fail this class.” 

As an English major, perhaps it does not behoove me to be saying this. After all, overanalyzing things is kind of our whole deal. But I can’t help but notice a pattern in literature classes (not all, but some) that ascribes, even subconsciously, “right” and “wrong” meanings to all pieces of writing. On some level I understand this; authorial intent is always important to keep in mind. But treating a book or a painting or a film as something to unlock rather than experience makes art so dull. It sucks all of the playfulness out of art, all of the irreverence that is so crucial to making it. Uncovering the One True Meaning of a text tells students, “Okay, that’s it. We solved it. Now put it back on the shelf, and let’s move on to the next thing.” Art is not mechanical like this — it is vitally alive, and like any living thing, it has so many depths and facets that it does not readily show.

Art is, by its very nature, purposeless. It’s not an equation, it’s not a recipe, it’s a great big mirror through which human beings project their own purpose. A work of art has meaning not in itself, but in what is reflected back in the eyes of the viewer. Some people look at the Mona Lisa and see nothing more than an unflattering portrait. Other people watch a Bugs Bunny cartoon and come away with a thesis about cultural appropriation and homoeroticism in modern America. We should not chastise people for seeing these things; we should not reject them as the “wrong” ways to look at these pieces. We should encourage them, add them to the great big pile of interpretations. Curiosity is crucial not just to art but to academia. Yet too often its early stages are defined by a gatekeeping kind of incuriosity to a fundamentally curious medium. 

In no way do I mean to suggest this is rampantly true of every art class I have ever taken. I have had plenty of professors who encourage creativity and do the exact opposite of what I have discussed here. But that just makes the negative examples stand out more. Every time I come across a joyless, mathematical approach to a joyous, messy medium, it just makes me sad. There is no One True Meaning. There are as many ways to read “The Great Gatsby” as there are people on this Earth, and that is what makes it a classic. Only bad books can be so simply reduced. 

Written by: Joaquin Waters — jwat@ucdavis.edu 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.

The post Art is not an equation appeared first on The Aggie.