Talked with Senator Kagan. Apparently my Chess Bill (SB 146[?]) passed unanimously in the Senate. As written. No changes. So it's up to me now to get this thing rolling. A truly great victory, indeed. For more hard-hitting ASUC legislation, vote David "Do the" Duman for Senate. Squelch! #60.

That's not entirely true. I'll keep writing bills whether I win or not.

There was a death plunge from Evans Hall today, apparently.

Got this in the ol' mailbox this morning. Very weird.

How can you sleep at night knowing you support a FASCIST REGIME????
How can you live with yourself, knowing that it is your dirty votes that allow the continuation of a TOTALITARIAN REGIME????
Stop the Bullshit! Eliminate Student Action's chokehold on the ASUC!!!
Vote for candidates that will serve Cal's interests, and not their own.

Always remember...
Jesse Gabriel, Jimmy Bryant, Tony Falcone and Han Hong are tools of the fascist overlords!!!!!!!!!!

This message brought to you by SQUID and all those who support an end to corruption in the ASUC.

I guess I do need to clarify some of my statements following Angry Clam's response to my writings on his "Rightwinger" column in the Patriot.

My issue, primarily speaking, is the implication of Leftism in general as being the abusers of progressive thinking in specific. I'm a liberal, but I don't see everyone who's conservative as being Jesse Helms, Mussolini, Pat Buchanan, or King Henry VIII or any other prominent examples of extreme rightism. It's Angry Clam's habit of dismissing leftism BECAUSE of the abuses of certain dictators that I take issue with. It wasn't leftism that made them brutal, it was their nature, leftism allowed them an easier path to power.

I very much enjoyed his point that leftism does create a more pervasive and oppressive power if abused. I agree wholeheartedly. When you can make the claim that what you are doing is the mandate of the people, you can justify much more to those whom you dominate. We see so many more leftist dictators for several reasons. Primarily, there really weren't any leftist dicators prior to Russian Revolution, so that gives us examples which are fresh in our minds. Secondly, as I mentioned before, leftism is a much easier route into the hearts and minds of the people, which is necessary for a regime to legitimate itself. Legitimacy is necessary before power can be seized and abused wholesale. Simply think of it this way: You have two dictators, one is seeking power on the platform that his opinion should be viewed as divine law of God, and that he rules based solely on these divinely inspored whims; the second dictator says that he will move power around, take away money from the wealthy and redistribute it, and in general provide for more rights and a fairer shake for those impoverished. I know that that was a terrible example, but it more or less makes the point that Leftism is an easier route into power because it appeals to the masses of abused and impoverished. Both the Right and Left dictators will end up dominating their nations and abusing their power, but not because of their political ideologies, but because they are megalomaniacal human beings.

My George Wallace point was poorly phrased, and I apologize. Miller's point was that Wallace was a Democrat yet an individual who blocked integration of schools, somehow making the connection that Democrats (the Left) blocked integration. Later interviews with Wallace revealed (depending on how much you believe them) that Wallace didn't give a flying fuck about segregation. He said something to the effect that "I talked about better schools, nobody listened. I talked about more support for labor, nobody listened. Finally, I talked about ------- and they listened." If you look at Wallace's record, he helped pass many labor reforms and he greatly improved the education system in his state. He was a liberal. That being said, he was also a populist who listened closely to his constituency. His constituency believed in segregation, and he followed through for them. He's very much like Angry Clam's prominently advertised Joseph McCarthy. He was a man who found an issue that could keep him in the public spotlight and in the political minds of the nation, whether he personally had any moral attachment to those ideas or not. In many ways they were consummate politicians who were incredibly popular, not despite BUT BECAUSE of some their political behavior that is now viewed as horrendously offensive and devastating. It's interesting that Angry Clam can deplore George Wallace but extoll Joseph McCarthy, given the number of lives that the latter ruined. Both of those men are brilliant politicians who lack personal morals and any concept of an ethical code.

Good to see we've reached the point that we've recognized our great dividing point on the Hitler issue. I don't think THAT will ever be resolved. I really enjoyed the photo of Hitler with al-Husseini. I really can't stand SJP and their mindless dronings. I've always been very pro-Israel, but being at Berkeley has finally made me a true Zionist. Anyway, thanks to Angry Clam for the very fun inter-blog debate. Keep it up. Godspeed.

I almost forgot. Paul Thornton's column today was terrible.

As promised, here's my discussion of the most recent issue of the California Patriot.

The cover is good, albeit a bit busy for just a cover. Don't quite understand the symbolism of the big-breasted women. Moving on.

Both the Patriot and Berkeley Political Review use the first page to have a little overview of the issue and recent events written by the Editor-In-Chief. Now, this is a more procedural then content issue I have, but I just don't see the point. It's also curious that editor-in-chief Kelly Thomas doesn't write anything else in this issue. Ah well, I must be coming from a different publishing background.

The letters were FINALLY good! The editors finally decided to stop replying with snide and snooty comments and just the letters speak for themselves. I enjoyed the Maganda letter because I'm of the belief that any publication that receives ASUC money should be required to distribute that publication on Sproul Plaza for at least 3 days/10 hours or something similar. It's only fair. The ASUC isn't giving money to publications so that you can share it with your friends, the money is going to creating an interest-publication that can enlighten the campus community and make the campus a more diverse place. Cheers to Boback, as well.

The tribute to Daniel Pearl was very touching. We've had several talks about Daniel Pearl at the Alpha Delta Phi fraternity house here in Berkeley, and this article from a person who knew Brother Pearl personally was moving.

Randy Barnes' Israel article is something that belongs in BPR. Nothing to really comment on since I agree more or less wholeheartedly with what he has to say. Just remember that there are many many liberals, myself included, who are staunchly pro-Israel, and can't stand the moronic leftists that form the vocal minority on this campus.

This is my own pet peeve, but I don't think the Patriot should have done the spread on the senate candidates, it seems somewhat unprofessional. But I guess since they're not ASUC funded they can do whatever they want within their pages.

Similar feelings with the Executive endorsements. I don't think that ANY student publication that is distributed on Sproul should be allowed to endores candidates, the Daily Cal included. It's just my own personal feelings. On that note, Praglib will probably be voting for Sean Byrne for President, Boback Ziaein (a protest vote) for Executive VP, Kenny Byerly (a protest vote) for External Affairs VP, Kevin Deenihan for Academic Affairs VP, and Romie Littrel for Student Advocate. I was surprised on the Sajid Khan endorsement, given his voting record.

Robb McFadden's article on Free Speech was well-written but formulaic. Most logical people are well aware of the history of free speech on this campus, it's sketchy recent history, and are saddened by the irony.

The article by Josh Morgan on the Sexuality DE-Cal controversy was a laughable, polemical opinion piece with no rational argument. I'm very upset that your own individual religious sensibilities have been tarnished, but the DE-Cal class is, by and large, a good program that does make its students earn their 1-2 units.

Rory Miller's article on Bill Simon shows good analysis but a lack of real insight into the race. I will say that it is possible for Simon to beat Davis, but there hasn't been a truly conservative governor in California since Reagan (more about Reagan later). Simon's stance on abortion and religious issues will not play well with most of the California voters. Miller's assertion that liberal states don't pass initiatives like Propositions 209, 227, 21, and 22 is not a very powerful one. I considering myself to be a very liberal person and I voted (or would have voted had I been old enough at the time) for all of those initiatives except for Prop 22, the utterly offensive hate-mongering Defense of Marriage Act (which appalled me by passing in every county in California except for SF and Alameda). Actually, I'm not sure how I voted on Prop 21 either, I'll need to reread it, but I do support the ban on race preferences in public education and employment as well as English-only schooling provided that programs are put in place to facilitate the learning of English for non-native speakers. If anything, California's varied voting record shows a reasonably informed electorate that doesn't necessarily vote party lines but also one that is want to grab ahold of hot issues and can be swayed by the rhetoric of the times. I don't think Simon's platform has those issues that can get a conservative elected to the governorship of California. Davis hasn't done himself any favors over the last 18 months or so, but he is slowly rebuilding his image and putting together another strong campaign. Simon will be tough and it should be a very close election, but I think that he lacks the crossover appeal (to put it bluntly, he's pro-life) necessary for a Republican to win in California.

Parts 2 and 3 of the MEChA series by Juan-Carlos Leal Solis was more or less a repeat of his previous article, but it was interesting to get a bit of a recap from the O'Reilly Factor appearance which I regrettably missed. MEChA and the over-arching group the Nation of Aztlan are two very questionably organizations. However, if MEChA honestly isn't in any way affiliated with the violently racist and anti-Semitic Nation of Aztlan, then why haven't they made any outright statements to this effect? I know that if my well-meaning group was all of a sudden being associated with a Chicano version of the KKK, I would move to clearly and unmistakably sever any and all ties with that group. Very strange.

And Seth Norman.... Yes, you were drunk when you wrote that incoherent babble.

I liked Bret Manley's "things to think about."

Closing out with Rory Miller's column on being a right-winger. I definitely agree with him on his discussion of the terminology, although in my mind I wouldn't want to be called a left-winger either, I think I'd find that moderately offensive, at least as someone who characterizes himself as a Liberal Democrat. Once again, there's the political statement that I disagree with him on. Hitler was not a Socialist. In addition to Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, and Milosevic are totalitarian dictators first, leftists second. They're all terrible human beings who would've still committed their atrocities regardless of political ideological identity. The everyman rhetoric that communism allows its leaders to adopt is one that makes it easy for a charismatic individual to achieve power on a message of total equality, and then seize and utterly abuse that power with horrendous consequences. In addition his example of George Wallace is also a poor one because, as I'm sure he's well-aware, after Abraham Lincoln, very few people from the Republican party could ever be elected in the South for a very very long time, well into the 1960's. Thus, Wallace had to be a Democrat to obtain power. Wallace was a populist, and for a populist to be elected as governor of a southern state, he couldn't associate with Republican party (hence the Dixie-crats). That being said, with the exception of the segregation issue (which was a populist issue), Wallace's policies were fairly liberal. Oh, and Abraham Lincoln, while he was a Republican in the sense of that being the name of his party, if Lincoln were alive today he would be wholeheartedly a Democrat. It was in the postwar Reconstruction period that the Republican party shifted from being the progressive northern reform party into the party of big business. And Teddy Roosevelt wouldn't be considered a Republican either. In his own political lifetime he abandoned the Republican party. I guess if the Patiort wants to claim them as Republicans that's fine, but it would definitely be incorrect to term either Lincoln or Roosevelt a conservative.

So that's that. Overall I'm very pleased with the increase in the quality of writing in the Patriot. It's now a publication that a liberal can read and enjoy, even if he or she doesn't necessarily agree with it. And yes, I've read every issue of the Patriot (I think) that has been put out since Fall 2000.

Cheers.

It's early and I have other stuff to do. But I just got this in my email, from the esteemed Hoku Jeffrey:

***Call to All Parties and Candidates in the ASUC Elections***

Dear ASUC parties and candidates,

Your attendance in this Thursday's press conference will be very important.

Please RSVP through email if you agree with the call on the UC Regents to
increase underrepresented minority student enrollment and eliminate the SAT
and intend to be present at this press conference/speak-out. Please email me
your name, and what position you are running for ASAP.

If you agree with the call and want to speak please email the above info PLUS
your phone or other contact information ASAP so we can contact you. Every
party candidate or independent who wishes to speak is encouraged to do so

- Hoku Jeffrey, ASUC senator, DAAP, Co-chair of ASUC Diversity, Affirmative
Action, and Women's Issues Committee, BAMN
cell: 510-757-8426, checkmate9@yahoo.com


***Call to All Parties and Candidates in the ASUC Elections***

----------------------------------------------------------
Speak-Out for Increased Enrollment of Underrepresented
Minority Students and to Eliminate the S.A.T.
----------------------------------------------------------

The announcement of admissions numbers for this fall's entering class of 2002
will appear in the press THIS THURSDAY. Because of the continued maintenance
of the SAT, chances are that once again the UC System will admit an incoming
freshman class onto its campuses that is characterized by segregation. There
may be a slight increase in the enrollment of underrepresented minority
students, but overall the flagship campuses, UC-Berkeley, UCLA, and San
Diego, and the UC graduate and professional schools will continue to close
the doors of opportunity to black, Latina/o, Native American and other
underrepresented minority students. It is unjust and unacceptable for the UC
System to continue to systematically marginalize black, Latina/o, Native
American, and other underrepresented minority students and to oversee the
recreation of separate and unequal educational opportunities.

Students must stand up against racism and fight for integration now! The
Defend Affirmative Action Party (DAAP) is calling on all parties and
candidates in the ASUC elections to a joint press conference in front of
Eshleman Hall Thursday to speak-out against these results and call for an
increase in underrepresented minority student enrollment and the elimination
of the SAT. Campus organizations and interested individuals should attend as
well. These ASUC elections can provide us with an excellent opportunity to
demonstrate our unity as a campus of for integration and equality. We must
take a joint stand against institutional racism.

Last year, our new student-led civil rights movement succeeded in forcing the
UC Regents to reverse the ban on affirmative action in the UC System. Since
that time, the fight for integration in California has been centered on the
elimination of the SAT as an admissions requirement in the UC System. The
Regents have equivocated around this central question, and as a result,
chances are, they have sacrificed for another year the aspirations of
thousands of underrepresented minority students in California. California is
now a majority-minority state, and we must demand the doors of our university
be opened now.

---------------------------------------
DAAP will also be sponsoring a picket on Friday, the day after the admissions
statistics are announced, at 12 noon at California Hall, UC-Berkeley.
---------------------------------------

JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE OF THE ASUC ELECTIONS PARTIES AND STUDENT
ORGANIZATIONS THE DAY THIS YEAR'S ADMISSIONS STATISTICS ARE ANNOUNCED
Noon, in front of Eshleman Hall, UC-Berkeley

PICKET & SPEAK-OUT AT CALIFORNIA HALL
THE DAY AFTERWARD
Noon, California Hall, UC-Berkeley (north of Sather Gate)

-- Hoku Jeffrey, ASUC senator, Defend Affirmative Action Party (DAAP), BAMN

They're protesting something before it even happens. Fascinating.

Isn't this a campaign violation? Either DAAP used this mailing list without permission (a censure) or Faisal Ghori granted permission which would be of highly questionable ethics.

Ahoy! I'm back and I'm back to blogging. I'm also in a much better mood. I've been busy preparing for my campaign to kick-off, so look for me on Sproul later today (Wednesday) as well as the rest of the week. I'll try to be funny, honest. The California Patriot came out this week, and what kind of pragmatic liberal would I be if I didn't review it and discuss it? I will say that the Patriot has been getting more and more well-written with each issue. Check in tomorrow for a discussion of the latest issue, especially Rory.

Now I'm off to bed. Vote Squelch! #60: Dave "Do the" Duman for Senate.