Big Cal basketball game tonight on the road against UCLA. After the team's dramatic success against No. 23 USC, a win at Pauley over UCLA would probably solidify the Bears' tournament hopes and put it in strong position in the dominant Pac-10 Conference.

Which brings me to another point. The Pac-10 doesn't seem to get the respect it deserves as a powerful sports conference. While it is considered a major conference, when it comes to basketball the ACC and the SEC are invariably mentioned first as the "strong" conferences. Even the Big 10 is given privilege. The Big-10 sent 6 teams to the NCAA Tournament last year, only to have all but four lose in the first round. Conversely, the Pac-10 sent five teams and only had one lose in the first round. Now, of course that was unfortunately Cal.=^) My point is, sure the ACC has the best team in the country in Duke, but the Pac-10 has more consistent competition across the board with perennial strong teams like Stanford, Arizona, and UCLA along with the emergent Oregon and the consistently competitive Cal and USC. While Duke fills up on mediocrity, playing only two ranked teams before their conference schedule, Arizona started out the season 5-2, playing 6 ranked teams, going 3-1 against teams in the Top 10.

Football has seen the Pac-10 emerge as a powerhouse conference as well. There are very few people in the country who honestly can say that Oregon wouldn't have put up a better fight against Miami then the embarrassment that was Nebraska's performance. And with Washington, Stanford, and Washington State all finishing in the Top 25, the Pac-10 had more teams nationally ranked then either the Big 10 or Big East, and the same number of teams ranked as the Big 12.

What will it take for the East Coast Media to pay closer attention to what goes on athletically on the West Coast?

Good news! The Clinton lecture is going to be simulcast for free to any interested member of the UCB campus community. The live simulcast will take place in Haas Pavilion, so it SHOULD be able to fit the remaining interested parties. Read the article on the UCB website.

Here's something that's really been bothering me.... I have to walk up Telegraph every day to get from my apartment to class, which is cool for the most part, but can also get really annoying. Constantly I am bombarded with requests for spare change. When this happens, I oblige as often as I can, usually giving change to the ones who (in my ever-so-infinite wisdom) really seem to be down on their luck types, not the neo-hobo gutter punk types with signs that say "Spare Change For Pot."

However, being that I'm a student I'm not exactly rolling in money. At most, I'll have a few bills in my wallet, but the only times I ever have change is immediately after I buy stuff, which isn't that often on my very tight budget. So, many times I'm unable, or also, to be truthful, unwilling, to give change to those who ask for it.

What ticks me off is when I'm hit up for change and I do not give and I follow that with a cursory "sorry." Now, I know it's not any kind of really meaningful word in this day and age, but I've always figured it's better to say something then to just ignore the requests. Sometimes though when I say this from the gutter punks' mouths comes the words "No you're not."

How the fuck do they know? How dare they tell me how I truly feel? I honestly DO feel sorry that I can't give money to every needy person I meet. I really, truly am. And I'm also sorry that their are assholes like those people trying to live their "bohemian" lives on the streets and cause a drain on the resources and patience of those who honestly want to help out those people in need. I'm going to give people change to help them get food, or to get off the street, or to lead I better life.... I once gave $60 to a man so that he could renew his Commercial Driver's License.... Do I think it was possible he was scamming me? Sure. Did I believe him and talk with him for a while before I gave him money? Absolutely. The way he talked about his life on the streets and this $14/hr job running deliveries that he had lined up for him was honest and endearing. If he scammed me, so be it because he made me, impossibly jaded me, believe. I want to help people how I can and I truly am sorry when I can't.

What I'm not going to do is give money so that a bunch of teenagers who can't resolve issues with their parents at home so that they can smoke out or get drunk, causing the overall perception of street people, including those legitimately homeless and in need, to falter in the public view.

Those are my thoughts.

I'm going to refrain from talking about the Clinton fiasco, since it's pretty much been discussed thoroughly. Still, feel free to read more about it at the Daily Cal's website.

More inanity from the City of Berkeley. Apparently, some citizens disapprove of an emergency response antenna which allows for POLICE DEPARTMENT AND FIRE DEPARTMENT VEHICLES TO COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER. This antenna is supposedly an "eyesore." This despite a recent blackout (before the new antenna was put into commission) that caused emergency vehicles to be unable to respond for an hour.

It seems that Berkeley's citizenry would rather spend $300,000 on dismantling the current antenna and build a new one, risking interference and communication blackouts, then deal with a very large antenna that, according to the paper, "Rucker (City Planner) hired a consulting firm to explore alternatives to the tower, but they found using the tower to be the best option for the city. The consultants said the current location is ideal because the signal transmitted by the tower can be received anywhere in Berkeley without interference from neighboring cities. The tower is also safe from vandalism and earthquakes at the police station that was specially designed to withstand temblors."

And yet even though the City Planner STATED that he hired a firm to investigate alternatives, idiotic Councilmembers still seem to believe that proper measures weren't taken with regard to hazards and alternatives. Here's the whole article.

All I have to see is that I'm glad that I can look toward the UCPD and LBLFD for most of my public safety concerns. If I was a citizen of Berkeley I'd be angry that there were people elected to look after my safety and didn't want my emergency response vehicles to be reliably able to communicate with each other.

Aidan Hughes of BRUTE! fame is having an art show in SF until Feb. 4th, including a reception this Saturday. Truly one of the unique artists of the modern era, learn more about his work and the showing at Brute! Propaganda.

Had my first real day of class today (not counting the one class I had yesterday). Should be an interesting semester, really involved professors that should make the material fascinating. Classes are Contemporary Political Theory (Rhetoric of), Individualism and American Autobiography, and the Physics of Music. Also I have Contemporary Rhetorical Theory. I know that humanities majors are often criticized for their coursework being soft and the material being irrelevant. Honestly though, I challenge those out there to sit down with Nietzsche or Derrida or any of the countless other landmark theorists of the last 150 years and read them. Honest to goodness read what they have to say and consider the relevancy to law, business, politics and society. Are the prospects good for a six-figure income right after graduation? Not particularly. But the relevant information and the chance that Humanists have to make an indelible impact on life and society is great. Rather than learning one skill set, dynamic modes of thinking and interpreting the world are acquired. The work and thought processes are intense and heavy and far from "soft." Maybe some day I'll tell you my feelings about the Social Sciences....=^)

Anyway, in the news:

Lyndon H. LaRouche seems to already be kicking off his campaign for the nomination in what should be a hotly contested Democratic primary in 2004. He had volunteers passing out campaign information at Bancroft/Telegraph today. I was probably the only person who actually read in its entirety LaRouche's manifesto. He has a lot of good things to say and he seems to be very well read with a strong knowledge of political history.

The basic jist of his ideology is that we need to return to a stronger level of party politics. But it is party politics in terms of two organizations having methodology by which the common good can be worked for. LaRouche believes that politicians need to work toward this communal welfare rather then cater to the public opinion when that opinion is, in the minds of the leaders, incorrect. He declares a need for more leaders like Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt who are willing to take command of the nation and lead it toward a higher state of being, not leaders who are caught up in pandering to public opinion.

He has a lot of good things to say and a pretty revolutionary look toward the future of American politics, I don't know enough to really support him, but I wish him the best of luck. To find out more, visit: LaRouche in 2004.

It's disturbing to me how little regard the City of Berkeley has for the University that makes such an impact on society. Mayor Shirley Dean (as quoted in the Daily Cal).:

"The university needs to realize it is geographically surrounded by a town and physically cannot move further into it, or the city will disappear"

Ms. Dean needs to realize that the University has existed in Berkeley before Berkeley became an independent city and that the City came in to being in large part because of the University and its rapid growth and success. Ms. Dean again:

"The question is does the University contribute more (revenue) than it causes the city to spend?"

The University brings hundred of millions of dollars into Berkeley and provides thousands of jobs for the East Bay. The impact on City infrastructure is significant, but just as BPD and BFD respond to campus problems, UCPD and LBLFD perform vital services for the City as a whole. And if Mayor Dean honestly believes that the additional strain on Berkeley infrastructure is even HALF of what the University gives back to the City, it only shows her blind devotion to Berkeley's ignorant radical aristocracy.

It'd be one thing if the City was protesting the University constructing parking lots over city parks, but the City seems to not want the University to build HOUSING FOR STUDENTS. Not even on the University's own land. It would seem that Berkeley would rather perpetuate the filthy (although endearing) student-ghetto that has developed in the City north of Ashby and east of MLK. Not to mention the considerable traffic and congestion that's caused by so many commuting undergrads and grad students. Theoretically, constructing more student housing would allow for redevelopment to provide more local housing for faculty and staff as well, thereby reducing the traffic and parking congestion even more. It's unfathomable why the City wants to perpetuate this environment rather than allow for the University to house its students. How the City can even justify blocking the University from developing on its own land is ludicrous.

It makes you actually start to belive the bizarre editorial opinion of the Daily Cal.

Greetings! Welcome to the Journal of Dave Duman, the Pragmatic Liberal. I'm a student at UC Berkeley studying rhetoric and public discourse. My roommate is the quasi-legendary Kevin Deenihan. We share many of the same views with regards to poltics, economics, and society in general, but we also differ on many things PRIMARILY in how we perceive the UC Berkeley campus and what goes on here. As the name of this site suggests, I'm definitely pragmatic and I deplore the kneejerk and ignorant protest movements that spring up here on campus, but at the same time I don't believe that deploring them requires me to exist in opposition to them. I'm not as reactionary, I guess. Anyhoo, enough about me. I hope to hear from those of you out there and encourage to visist daily for the latest news and comment.