ProgCal: Do you even want to be taken seriously anymore? You responded to a post about Americans interned in Japan without even reading it. The poster was referring to American CIVILIANS (not soldiers, I understand how you could get "soldiers" from "civilians." It's a common mistake for people whose minds are clouded by their own agenda to make) in Japanese territories who were displaced and interned. He was not talking about the imprisoning of American soldiers. His point was not (overtly anyway) to dishonor those affected by the great tragedy of EO 9066 but to bring up the oft-forgotten point that the Japanese government did the exact same thing (albeit on a smaller scale) in World War II. This, I think, is just another example of taking someone's words not just out of context but interpreted COMPLETELY inaccurately so as to further your own political needs. It's pretty sad, honestly.

I'd like to take this time to extoll the virtues of Goats: The Comic Strip. It's just a really weird, irreverent, and hilarious online comic centered around two guys, their pet/confidant chicken and goat, and the assorted supporting characters. It also focuses a lot on beer, which is also good. The humor takes some getting used to, and some storylines are just plain silly, but it really is a good read. It's updated every weekday and every strip is stored in the archives. Kill some time and read a few. "Neil and Bob's Big Adventure" is my favorite series of strips from Goats, for what it's worth.

Another email from the Chancellor's email list. It's nothing secret, but you should all check out the budget proposals since there's some interesting and potentially controversial shite.

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 18:02:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Robert M. Berdahl, Chancellor"
To: "Academic Senate Faculty, All Academic Titles, Staff"@uclink4.berkeley.edu
Subject: BUDGET UPDATE FROM PRESIDENT ATKINSON
--------
President Atkinson has issued a second communication updating the
State budget situation and clarifying the effect of the May Revision
Budget proposal on the University of California. The communication can
be viewed at http://www.ucop.edu/news/budget/issue2.htm.


Managers and supervisors, please print out this communication for
distribution or posting if there are employees in your unit who do not
have an email address.


Robert M. Berdahl
Chancellor

ProgCal: Sorry about the misunderstanding. I'm aware that many of the studies were sponsored by ETS, but that doesn't necessarily make them inaccurate. I don't disagree with you, I'm just not as willing to immediately accept one source of information and privilege that over another (FairTest.org wants to eliminate the SAT [and has financial/lobbying interest at stake] as much as ETS wants to keep it). The SAT needs to be overhauled/eliminated/replaced, but it needs to be done responsibly and pragmatically. I've done volunteer SAT tutoring in Oakland schools and have seen firsthand what some very basic instruction can do for increasing test scores, regardless of race or gender.

Very nice to see another rehash of the SAT problems from ProgCal. I think this really is information that doesn't need to be repeated again and again and again and again. I think we're all aware of the problems of the SAT, however most of us also realize that you can't just completely overhaul long-held admissions procedures overnight. President Atkinson has embraced the cause, and over the next few years admissions procedures will change. In addition, to use the highly dogmatic FairTest.org as your source of SAT information is a pretty one-sided source. There are studies out there that suggest that the SAT just might be ok at doing its job, with the only real problem of the test the ability for wealthy students to take expensive prep courses that increase scores, leaving low-income test-takers at a distinct disadvantage. Every race or gender-based study I've read has been hotly contested with regard to the significance of its data and how that data was interpreted.

This article's fairly old news, but I hadn't seen it posted or even mentioned anywhere in the media I read. It's from March:

Pubs win pint-size battle
British government rules 95% full equals a complete pint

MAR 18, 2002 - Pubs owners celebrated a victory Monday when the British government ruled they must serve a 95% liquid pint, up from 90% but less than the 100% consumers groups pushed for.

"Pulling a pint is not a precise science but at the moment the worst offenders are consistently giving consumers a short measure," Trade Secretary Patricia Hewitt said. "This change will give consumers better value for their money."

She said the new measure would put 60 million pints of beer into British bellies each year, or about four pints per drinker.

The Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) quickly criticized the decision. Mike Benner, Head of Campaigns and Communications said, "The Labour Party has been promising a full pint since 1997 and now appears to be bowing down to big business and sticking two fingers up at Britain's 15 million beer drinkers by proposing to make it legal to serve pints of beer up to 5% short," said Mike Benner, Head of Campaigns.

The pub trade has long fought a 100% liquid pint, claiming it would cost millions of pounds in new glassware and wasted beer. The Department for Trade and Industry agreed and said changing glasses would cost the pub and brewing industry £95m.

"This debate has been going on for 25 years and it is really very pleasing that in the end it has been resolved in the best interests of the industry and the consumer," said Mark Hastings, spokesman for the British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA).

As long ago as 1991 the previous Conservative government announced it would enforce the 100% pint. It never did. The full pint was one of Prime Minister Tony Blair's election pledges, and as recently as January a government minister assured the House of Commons that "any short measure is a clear public scandal."

It's good to see that there is an entire nation that takes its beer drinking so seriously. The Prime Minister is involved in the fight. Could you imagine President Bush speaking out against short-pouring at bars? Could you imagine him even mentioning alcohol in any sort of positive way? Our outmoded alcohol laws are going to be staying on the books for an eternity at this rate. In the same vein as Albatross' Perch'srant in favor of marijuana decriminalization (which I also wholeheartedly support), I'd like to call for:

1. Removal of the drinking age for beer and wine altogether. (With an 18 year-old requirement for beer/wine drinking in pubs).
2. A reduction of the overall drinking age from 21 to 19. Bars could still enforce their own 21 year-old limit, but there would be no federal punishment for states lowering their drinking age to 19. I see 19 as being less problematic then 18 because high school students would rarely be at this age while still in school (which would create problems at mixed-age parties).
3. Responsible alcohol education taught in schools as part of the Health curriculum and also the encouragement of parents to teach responsible alcohol use to their children.
4. Harsher penalties for alcohol-related crimes, including driving under the influence, but also harsher penalties for crimes that were proven to have taken place while under the influence of alcohol (assault, battery, rape, vandalism, trespassing).

It really is in the best interest of this country to get rid of our religiously-influenced Temperance Era drinking laws.

Cheers.

Three total goobers: right here.

Countdown to June 8th! That's when I get my next paycheck and pay to have the Blogger ad removed!

Apparently, there's been some confusion. You see, blogspot lost my first batch of archives. I've been operating PragLib for only a couple weeks less than Kevin's had CalStuff (since early February). While I'm nowhere near as widely-read or campus news oriented, I would like to consider myself an "OG" of this little incestuous Berkeley-blog circle.

EpikDave: the Harvard Lampoon makes me angry.
EpikDave: they have a goddamn CASTLE that they live in and work out of....
EpikDave: national ciruclation.... millions of dollars....
zero01cool: they are spoiled, grade inflated bitches
EpikDave: but they aren't that funny.
zero01cool: but everyone hates them
EpikDave: seriously.
zero01cool: i would not like to be hated
EpikDave: you would if you had a castle.
zero01cool: no
EpikDave: no?
zero01cool: the castle probably has spiders in it
EpikDave: true.
EpikDave: bats, too.
zero01cool: and damsels in distress
zero01cool: and round tables
zero01cool: and swords
zero01cool: and jousting things
zero01cool: oh man that would be so cool
EpikDave: the damsels are in distress because the lampoon writers always come too soon.
EpikDave: hey-o.
EpikDave: ::rimshot::
zero01cool: hahahahahahahaahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahha
zero01cool: that's profile worthy!