praglib

2003-04-07T22:15:00.000-07:00

Laides and gentlemen! At long, long, long, long, infinitely long last, PragLib has returned frrom the dead to offer you that pragmatically liberal commentary on Berkeley and the world that you've missed out on for so many long, agonizing months.

My first comment:

Andy Katz is a hack who feels obligated to be entertained on his own whim. Read his column from Monday. I imagine he also posts comments on narrative inaccuracies at alt.tv.simpsons.

Overall, I've been disappointed with the Daily Cal's coverage of the ASUC elections. In the past, they've given space to every candidate who was interviewed, even indulsing the joke platforms of Squelch! candidates.

I myself was interviewed for an HOUR AND A HALF by a Daily Cal reporter, only to have four sentences of the most quotidian stuff that I told the reporter be put in the newspaper, only furtheriong the indignity of being grouped as a "Minor Candidate" with fellow Presidential hopefuls Sean Byrne and Yvette Felarca.

Made up for it at the endorsements forum, though.

Anyway, keep reading. I'll try to be posting at least daily again.

2002-10-20T21:58:00.000-07:00

Silence broken:

Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 12:25:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Chancellor's Office"
To: "Berkeley Students"
Subject: UC Berkeley accreditation renewal

Dear Students:

On October 30 and 31, the campus will host the first of two site visits by
an external team of evaluators in conjunction with the renewal of our
accreditation, which occurs every ten years. The Western Association of
Schools and Colleges (WASC) has radically redesigned the accreditation
process to allow member institutions to engage in meaningful work on their
campus priorities.

We have chosen to use the accreditation process to improve the quality of
undergraduate education. Under the leadership of Professor Christina
Maslach, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, we are using the process
to focus on three topics, proposed by the campus and endorsed by WASC.
These are Enhancing Academic Engagement at a Large Public Research
Institution, Re-thinking the Delivery of Education, and Improving
Undergraduate Program Review.

This summer, we completed our Preparatory Review Report, reaffirming our
commitment to functioning with clear educational purposes, institutional
integrity and fiscal stability, and setting the stage for the upcoming site
visit. The Preparatory Review also lays the foundation for the final site
visit of an expanded team of external evaluators in Fall 2003. At that
time, the results of the study of our three topics will be examined.

I invite you to participate in this important project by viewing the
campus's Preparatory Review Report at the accreditation website
http://education.berkeley.edu/accreditation/index.html and by sending
comments and suggestions to accreditation@uclink.berkeley.edu.

Sincerely,

Robert M. Berdahl
Chancellor

{end radio transmission}

2002-09-23T00:05:00.000-07:00

After spending the last three hours editing and proofing the current content for the next issue of the Heuristic Squelch, I must say that this next issue will be a quality one. Look for it to push your conventional perceptions of college humor. And also have lots of cock jokes.

Everybody loves cock jokes.

2002-09-20T13:54:00.000-07:00

Alright guys, it's Praglib back from an extended hiatus. This hiatus was due both to my own uninterestedness and Blogger's repeated technical problems (at least for me). Anyway....

I hit up the Bear's Lair last night for liters with some Squelchers. A group of BCR folks came and sat down at another table and you know what, I'm sorry, but I'll I've got to say is Republicans? When it comes to drinking I think they're more like RepubliCAN'TS. Hah, I am so witty.

But seriously, a table with over 10 people and the only booze consumed were two liters of hefeweizen and another liter of indeterminate beer. And a pitcher of Coke.

I put up a two liters of porter challenge to BCR folks. You talk the talk in the Patriot. It's time to walk it.

That being said (and this is all in good fun), I wonder what it is that attracts so many men to the hefeweizen at the Bear's Lair. It's good, I'll give you that. I've always enjoyed the wheat beers, but it's not very beer-y. It's not my choice for evening consumption, it's more a hot afternoon refreshment beer. If I'm drinking a liter, I want each gulp to be a wonderfully powerful slap in the face. But in a good way. The best drunk I've ever felt was after drinking a liter of amber, a liter of porter, and a pint of Guinness later that night at Henry's.

But enough about beer.

2002-08-26T19:32:00.000-07:00

Some interesting strike observations:

First of all, I fully support CUE's cause and would like to see them receive better compensation for their services. That being said, some of those out there striking are total boobs. Right in front of the protestors at Bancroft/College a police officer had pulled over a woman for some traffic violation, and given UCPD/BPD's relative leniency on writing traffic tickets, it was probably for a pretty good reason. Rather than continue with their own presumably important cause, they strikers began to chant "No ticket let her go" over and over again. This does not seem like a productive use of your time, CUE. Let's stick to the point.

Second, the push by CUE for students to not cross picket lines is depressing. It seems that CUE picked a way to protest that gets in the way of nobody on campus except for the students.

They have a good and just cause, but their methodology for going about having their message heard is flawed greatly.

In other news, Squelch meetings will be held in 122 Wheeler on Wednesdays from 7:00-8:00PM.

2002-08-24T17:45:00.000-07:00

Hey kids, I'm back after a two-week or so hiatus. Lots of interesting stuff turning up recently. Kevin has adopted the Alcohol Moratorium as his breaking news baby, so keep tabs on CalStuff for the latest.

In other news, the Back-to-School issue of the Heuristic Squelch was sent to Fricke-Park printers on schedule and should be set for distribution as early as Monday, but most definitely on Tuesday. It's a very strong issue, lots of good content, great graphics, and a drop-your-pants hilarious cover. The first Squelch Comedy Night of the year will be held on Tuesday, September 10 at 8:0PM in the Bear's Lair. A very funny comic, Jim Short, will be headlining with local favorites David Spark (feature) and Louis Katz (opener) supporting. Tickets ($5) will be available on Sproul for the next couple weeks, or you can email me at: david@squelched.com. For those interested in participating in the Squelch this year, meetings will be held Wednesdays at 7:00PM in an as-of-yet to be determined room. I'll let you know where as soon as I find out.

So, school starts on Monday, I'm in my own spiffy single room and I'll be posting more or less daily again. Keep on reading, friends.

Cheers.

2002-08-10T20:28:00.000-07:00

So, the present of the Ford Motor Company made an announcement today, saying that America's love affair with the automobile is growing stale and may even be dying.

This is a very closed-minded and myopic statement in my mind.

It's true that Americans are falling out of love with the big engined rear-wheel drive American monster machines that Ford and GM crank out every year like it's still 1969. The buying public, especially the youth markets, are looking for cars that handle well and can be worked on and improved cosmetically and from a performance standpoint with low-maintenanc bolt-on parts. Thus the rise of the rice-rockets and similar cars and the popularity of Hondas, Toyotas, and Volkswagens. These cars are also quirky and unique cars. Interest clubs spring up all over the place for cars that aren't terribly fancy: VW Sciroccos (cars that don't even Blue Book for $1000), Saab 900's and 9000's, Honda Civic SI's and old CVCC's. These cars aren't particularly expensive, flashy, or even fast. But they're all unique, fun-to-drive cars that develop intensely loyal followings.

My circle of friends and I are big car fans, but we don't care about sleek looking tailfins or big block engines, we want to know how well this car can handle curves; can I take a 90 degree turn at 45 miles an hour and not drift? The engines we like are the powerful naturally aspirated BMW inline sixes or the fire-breathing turbocharged Porsche flat-six engines. Why waste time and fuel with big block V-8's when you can turbocharge a four-banger and beat most anything the weekend warriors have to offer off the line in a heartbeat and you'll be hugging corners while that GTO is plowing into mailboxes.

Ford and GM just haven't been staying attuned to what people want from cars. It should be a clue that the stylish, sleak, and more compact Japanese, Korean, German, and Swedish cars are, in terms of percentage markets, outselling most everything Ford and GM have to offer in the West Coast and Northeast markets. While Honda Accords and VW Jettas sell like hotcakes in the desirable 16-30 year-old market, Michigan is still cranking out Cavaliers and Tauruses, cars that just are not any fun and are not very stylish. Ford's finally on the right track with the Focus, but it took them a couple years to market one with decent power, the SVT Focus pushing close to 200 horses, as opposed to the piddling 110 in the base Focus. Still, these cars simply lack the comfortable handling of their Japanese and German counterparts.

And don't get me started on the fact that Chevy still cranks out the Corvette with a pushrod V-8.

I leave out DaimlerChrysler, both because those cars aren't 100% American and they're doing a pretty good job at following the lead of the imports. Cars like the Neon and the LHS are definitely tops in their classes for American cars and compete admirably with the Japanese and German imports.

American manufacturers still rule the road when it comes to full-sized trucks: the Silverado, F150, and Ram are all great trucks, but the Toyota Tundra is quickly catching up with the big boys. American manufacturers are fighting even harder in the compact truck division against Mazda pick-ups and the ever-popular Toyota Tacoma. Even SUV's, for a long time owned virtually uncontested by Ford and GM, are branching out, with Honda/Acura and Toyota doing brisk business. Lexus, Merceders-Benz, Rover, BMW, and now Porsche fight it out in the luxury SUV division that Michican still hasn't offered up a decent competitor in other than the over-the-top gaudiness of the Cadillac Escalade and its counterpart the GMC Envoy.

Ford and GM will always be able to sell their cars in the Midwest and South, where everyone wants to be the next guy on the block with a Monte Carlo and Towncar in their driveway, but in the competitive markets in the West and Northeast, they have quite a way to go to break into the mid-sized car market dominated by VW, Honda, and Toyota, and even farther to go in the sports sedan/luxury division where BMW, Audi, Mercedes-Benz, Lexus, and now even Saab have iron grips. Nobody's going to drive to work at their Bay Area biotech firm in a Cadillac and nobody's going to cruise Santa Monica Boulevard in a Buick. At least no one from California.

Take a clue from the Japanese and Germans, Michigan. Ditch the obnoxious moulded plastic on every single thing Pontiac has to offer. Put out something small and tight with a turbocharger. I can count the number of American cars available from the manufacturer with forced induction on one hand. Basic entry-level cars from VW and Subaru are equipped with turbochargers. Every Subaru on the market is all-wheel drive. These are things that people want in cars and that's where America's love-affair with American cars will be rekindled. Follow Ford's lead with the Focus and in a few years markets should shift and American cars can again be competitive in the auto markets in the West and Northeast. But come on, don't blame the American public for falling out of love with American cars, take a look at what you've offered to the domestic market, particularly the 20-something crowd (the demographic you have to hit if you want love-affairs to last) in the last 15 years.

Cheers.

2002-08-04T22:18:00.000-07:00

One thing.... While I agree with Kevin's assessment of Yalda Ashfar's conflict of interest, it should be noted that the name appears at the top of the list due to alphabetical order.

2002-07-31T13:29:00.000-07:00

While it is true that Playboy as a magazine does have an affinity for large-breasted blondes and this no doubt played into their selection of the college campuses with the sexiest coeds, I think there is more at play here than Kevin's simple dismissal of the judges' lack of worldy appreciation of all forms of feminine beauty.

As one who has traveled many a mile and visited many a college in our own state and beyond, I am squarely of the opinion that Cal does not have a terribly sexy student body and that, overall, the sexiness of most women is well below "mean coed sexiness," whereas the sexiness of most men are more or less at the mean (some previous rankings have actually ranked Cal men in the top 10 for sexiness).

Now, of course, sexiness by Playboy's definition could easily be correlated to sluttiness to some extent. It's not the Cal women you see, by and large, on the GGW videos or at Mardi Gras; it's the ASU girls, the Chico girls, the Florida girls, the Georgia and Texas girls. If more Cal women got out to these Playboy-frequented fleshfests, perhaps rankings would go up.

It is also untrue that all these schools in the Top 10 have seas of white women, at least half the schools have significant black populations (Georgia, Alabama, East Carolina, Florida, Florida State) and only two have really whitewashed student bodies (Arizona, Colorado). Although it is true that all of these schools (except UCLA) have very small Asian populations and perhaps that did play a role in decisions.

But the judges panel, while all middle-aged white men, are a bunch of people who have been looking at naked women for dozens of years, and Playboy's history does show that, while it prefers big-breasted blondes, it in no way has had any deliberate agenda against other types of women. They have a firm understanding of an "objective" standard of female sexiness that A: is popular and B: will sell magazines.I think that these judges would not simply dismiss candidates because of "breasts too small" or "butt too big." These are also two very suprisingly generalistic and stereotypical comments to my ears. Saying something like that is no different than saying all Asian men have small penises and all black men have enormous penises: they're based much more on the perpetuation of stereotypical perceptions than they are on reality. There are scores of Asian women with large "Playboy breasts" and there are scores of black women with small, round "Playboy butts," for lack of better terms. Simplistic explanation on the dismissal of candidates.

So why then does Cal rank dead last? Is it sexiness in general? Absolutely. But sexiness is more than just looking hot. Sexiness is attitude and behavior. Playboy's definition of sexiness is very much the Girls Gone Wild approach. Will you get drunk and take off your shirt? Do you participate in wet t-shirt contests? Are all your swimsuits thong bikinis? Will you go down on your roommate on camera on the back of a boat in Lake Havasu? And yes, herein lies the biggest point: Warmth and proximity to warm beaches and lakes also equals sexy. Look at all the schools in the Top 10. With the exception of Colorado, they're ALL in very warm climates. These climates are conducive to party schools. It's no coincidence that very few prestigious colleges are in hot climates.In the world of Top-Tier universities, Cal and UCLA are among a handful that aren't in extremely cold climates. For you see, big public schools + hot weather + exhibitionist people + non-stop parties = Playboy Sexy. Other than being a big public university, Cal is noticeably deficient in all the other categories.

Potato Chucker does have it wrong, though. Cal women are definitely NOT ugly. They just aren't sexy in that Playboy sense. This is not a bad thing. The appeal of the Cal woman is a strong one: empowered, opinionated, forceful, passionate, and independent. This is always appealing to many men and downright sexy to some, myself included. Although, for the sake of full disclosure, let it be known that I am a big fan of Playboy and the great influence that that magazine has had on our popular culture.

So embrace your non-sexiness! But don't try to fight the Playboy lists, because I'd be the first to put Cal women at or near the bottom on a list like that, because what Cal women have is not what Playboy and their readers are looking for in a list like that.

But that's not a bad thing. Cheers.

2002-07-24T18:04:00.000-07:00

Sorry for the lack of posting. I was in South Lake Tahoe for the weekend, and then just plain busy after that.

Tahoe was incredible. The weather was flawless, the scenery gorgeous and the company outstanding. I've been to South Lake every year of my life since I was born, and I love it just as much if not more every time.

In other news, I wholeheartedly agree with Kevin's assessment of Governor Davis' message to UC President Atkinson. This Anti-Semitism is not the fault of the university in any direct way, but rather a symptom of the university's laissez-faire attitude toward the activities of certain student groups that foster Anti-Semitism amongst members. This is not to say that SJP or ISO are intentionally anti-semitic, but it would be naive to suggest that either of those organization on this campus as a whole are void of anti-semitic members.

I hope the Chancellor cracks down on ethnic hatred and racism of all kinds and realizes that letting people like the Wheeler Group go free with barely a touch on the wrist, or to allow Snehal Shingavi to continue teaching without even a formal censure is counter-productive and makes it seem like the university is complicit with these anti-semitic undercurrents.

Those're just my thoughts. Godspeed.

2002-07-16T20:36:00.000-07:00

Amusing conversation with "A Berkeley Student" regarding The Bill. Conversation is entirely tongue in cheek, take things grossly out of context at your own risk.

A Berkeley Student: i see ur bill
A Berkeley Student: can more than one person buy into a tree?
EpikDave: at this point it's mostly Kevin's, but we're tweaking it....
EpikDave: I don't see why not.
A Berkeley Student: as long as it fits the plaque i guess
EpikDave: ah, no plaques....
EpikDave: just certificates and polaroids.
A Berkeley Student: oh
A Berkeley Student: that's fine
EpikDave: yeah, plaques bring PP&CS into the mess.
A Berkeley Student: ya, that's no godd
A Berkeley Student: good
A Berkeley Student: what happens if ur tree dies
A Berkeley Student: do u have to replace it?
EpikDave: no.
A Berkeley Student: can u get a refund?
EpikDave: but you can't get another tree until the stump is ripped from the ground.
EpikDave: I don't know if we're charging.
EpikDave: I think it's just going to be 1st come, 1st serve.
A Berkeley Student: and u thought clinton tix were a mess?
EpikDave: well, we have a system.
EpikDave: women with nice breasts, followed by Jews, then the Falun Gong practitioners.
A Berkeley Student: oh?
A Berkeley Student: if there are any left, they'll be divided evenly between the Papists and Mohammedans.
A Berkeley Student: so i'm 4th, yet splitting with hte infidels
EpikDave: more or less.
EpikDave: but the bill is still in its nascent stages, so you never know.
A Berkeley Student: if u do women
A Berkeley Student: they'll have to take the poloroid topless, of course
EpikDave: yeah, that was part of our collective-bargaining agreement.
A Berkeley Student: ur what?
EpikDave: our agreement with the powerful and influential Women With Great Breasts Lobby.
EpikDave: in exchange for being first, they pose topless.
A Berkeley Student: they have a lobby
EpikDave: yeah.
EpikDave: very powerful.
A Berkeley Student: u mean the 3 of them at berkeley actually know each ot her?
EpikDave: hey-o.
EpikDave: ::rimshot::
EpikDave: that was good.
A Berkeley Student: thanx

2002-07-15T18:18:00.000-07:00

I really do like Rush.

2002-07-14T01:00:00.000-07:00

It's very telling, I think, that in less time the anti divestment-petition petition already has almost as many UC faculty signatures (174) as the divestment petition (180). Some heavy hitters on that former list too, perhaps most notably the very respected linguistic theorist George Lakoff.

I was dismayed to find a full four professors from the Rhetoric Department represented on the divestment petition: Department Chair Judith Butler, Rhetoric/Film Studies Professor Linda Williams, Professor Daniel Boyarin, and Professir Pheng Cheah. Now, I had already vowed never to take a class from Butler and Williams, and I experienced the tedium of one of Cheah's classes last semester, and Boyarin I know little about, so I'm not really surprised by their names being on this list. It's just that I had always touted the department as teaching objectivity and teaching the ability to sift through the layers and layers of half-truth and emotion-tugging rhetoric that shrouds every side of every argument, only to see some prominent members of the department signing a petition that really does represent the epitome of a myopic and naive argument.

I was pleased to see many very good and talented professors' names absent from both lists. This makes me happy, knowing that there are many professors who realize that this is not what they are put on this earth to do.

Anyway, to all of you reading, sign a petition, whichever one you agree with, and lets see which really does end up with the most names in the end. You'll find my name firmly emblazoned on the anti divestment-petition petition.

2002-07-13T12:19:00.000-07:00

I just can't believe that "symbology" is actually a word.

Honestly, SYMBOLOGY? What a horrible, horrible word that stands in the way of all things right and true about the English language.

2002-07-11T20:01:00.000-07:00

From the big chief over in Oakland himself:

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 18:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Robert M. Berdahl, Chancellor"
To: "All Academic Titles, Staff"@uclink4.berkeley.edu
Subject: A Message to the UC Community -- Health Plan Update

--------
A MESSAGE FROM PRESIDENT ATKINSON TO THE MEMBERS OF THE UC COMMUNITY

Dear Colleagues:

As I am sure you are aware, the health care industry in California and
throughout the nation is undergoing some significant changes. These
changes are affecting the range of health plan options that employers
can offer and increasing the prices that employees must pay for health
benefits. The Office of the President wants to keep you informed
about these important changes and what they may mean for the
University and for you.

We have established a special section on the UCOP Bencom Web site for
this purpose, and you can access it at http://www.ucop.edu/bencom/news/hc_index.html. We also will publish a
variety of electronic and print communications over the coming months
as we finalize our health plans for next year.

I encourage you to visit the Bencom Web site and return to it
periodically for updates on this important topic, so that you may make
informed decisions about your health benefits.

Fiat Lux,

Richard C. Atkinson
President

2002-07-11T18:15:00.000-07:00

Hey kids. Sorry I haven't updated in a while, I've been out with a cold. But it's almost gone, so here's some highlights of the last few days.

I went and checked out two Drum Corps International shows last weekend at CSUH in Hayward on Saturday and at DVC in Pleasant Hill on Sunday. Some thoughts on the corps I saw:

Division III:

Blue Devils "C" - Honestly, I know they're cute and this is the most talented BDC hornline I've heard, but I can't shake the feeling that they're just some sideshow for parents' amusement. Ah well, it was fun nonetheless.

Senior Corps:

River City Regiment - Embarrassing. From the totally inappropriate recitation of the unconstitutional version of the pledge of allegiance at the beginning of the show to the total reliance on one soloist for the bulk of the musical prowess, this corps (and this is to some degree true of all senior corps) should not take the field in any marching capacity.

Renegades - They have chops, it's true. But here's my thing: I don't think you should be marching drum corps shows after you've aged out of junior corps. It really is bizarre. I'm all for groups like the SCV Alumni Corps, getting together and blasting standstill shows out on the field, but to watch a bunch of 40 year-olds march around on a field playing, it's just awkward and sometimes even ridiculous. Still, this show is wildly entertaining with some stratosphere-breaking soprano work.

Esperanza - Really talented hornline, this corps is making great strides in its short existence. Nothing about the show sticks out, though, which is always unfortunate.

Mandarins - Dirty as sin. Sure it's a difficult show, but the stationary horn run opening the show should NOT be that dirty. I imagine they'll run away with DCI-Pacific Div. II, even though Vanguard Cadets and Esperanza had cleaner and more interesting shows. If they win the DCI Div. II championship, though, it'll be a travesty. I don't even think judges pay attention to Mandarins' shows anymore.

Vanguard Cadets - I really was impressed with their cleanliness, especially given the difficulty of the show. I really thought they had it won last night. Still, the inaccessibility of the music is a definite downer and will make it hard for this corps to make it over the top to another title.

Impulse - Total cheeseball but fun. Powerful but dirty hornline. Drumline was nothing remarkable, but the colorguard had some really good moves. They know their purpose and execute it well, I just wish the the cleanliness was their. Even during VK's decline they still had some rocking hornlines.

Blue Devils "B" - Now, I marched with these guys for two years and have an unique perspective since I marched the last dominant BDB year (1998) and the first of the fall-out years (1999). I wish this corps could muster up ten more horns. The hornline really has some balls and had the loudest per person output of any of the Div. II hornlines. Unfortunately, the balance just wasn't there because it's simply impossible with so few horns. The drumline was killer as always and the colorguard was pretty good with great uniforms and showmanship. As usual, BDB had the cleanest feet of any of the Div. II corps (and cleanest of any of the Div. I corps except BD and Cascades), but the drill design left something to be desired. I know it's hard to write for such a small group, but even the drill that I marched in 1999 had a coherent flow, this just seemed to be random spaghetti splats.

Division I:

Pacific Crest - Not as strong as last year's great show, but still a very formidable performance. Although easy drill (as usual) the marching still wasn't all that clean. The hornline was very loud and very clean. Drumline was also clean and had a pretty difficult book. I know a lot of people say that Pacific Crest could make Top 12, but I disagree. The show is great, but it's written to max out in July. It's not a difficult show and I don't think could break an 82 or 83 ever simply due to difficulty. And with the0 Top 12 scores getting higher and higher, I see this show falling a little bit short. But that's fine. I'm sure if Pacific Crest starts touring nationally, the shows will be written differently with the idea of maxing out in August and Pacific Crest could easily break into the Top 12 given the ability of their talented staff.

Seattle Cascades - Holy shit. I remember in 1998 when we beat these guys by 14 points at Drums Along the Rockies in Colorado. My how things have changed. I was surprsied and pleased to find that John Freeman from The Blue Devils was handling their visual caption. He's a great instructor and drill writer, especially with younger corps and I thought he was languishing with too many chefs over in Concord. Their visual book was great, with really clean marching for such a very difficult show. The music was rocking and, although I wasn't familiar with the music at all, left me humming a few bars. This show should place Top 12 in Madison EASILY. It's pretty damn hard (not Top 6 hard, but hard) and very clean, especially for July. Really killer hornline, too.

Madison Scouts - Look, the Scouts are great. They're entertaining and their screw-the-judges attitude is endearing. But they're also dirty and not on the way up any time soon. The first thing I noticed was their music selection. If you're going to be playing shows for the fans, why would you pick such unusual and down tempo music? Very odd. The hornline was loud and pretty clean as usual. The drumline was very clean, but my friend who I was with at Precision West noted that, despite the cheers, the drum book is not very hard. The bass line is great, but the snares and tenors don't have all that many notes. The colorguard was really bad. They really seem to be limiting themselves by only taking men in the guard, both in terms of numbers and choreographing abilities. I've always believed that a guard with more or less equal numbers of men and women are best (e.g. BD and Cadets). The drill was pretty entertaining, but the feet were dirty. Of course, dirty feet are one of the hallmarks of the Madison Scouts and their marching style. These guys need to go back to their killer shows from 1995-1999 where they just blew the walls down and brought the crowd to their feet. The last few years have been very disappointing. The closer was good though, reminding me a lot of "Remembrance," the closer from the 1998 show.

Santa Clara Vanguard - These guys are good. Hornline is good and clean and the drumline has monster chops. But they lack passion. I haven't seen passion in a Vanguard show since 1998 and 1999. They're simply too professional and too caught up in that unflinching "Vanguard image" to really cut loose. And my other pet peeve: I'm a pretty musically-knowledged person and I've heard and played A LOT of stuff, but this show left me in the dark. Why do corps like the Vanguard and the Cadets insist on playing such esoteric music? Anyway, a very difficult and demanding show with a pretty strong degree of cleanliness, but the inaccessibility of the music and the and the dry performance style may keep it out of the extremely competitive Top 3 this year.

Blue Devils - Man. This is one hell of a show, especially the first three numbers. The hornline is probably the best since 1997 and the drums are as good as they were in 1999 (when they were robbed of the High Drums title). The corps plays with trademark BD intensity and they blow past all other corps in terms of volume by several decibels. The colorguard is not as strong this year as in recent years, and may lose its hold on the DCI colorguard trophy. The closer, a condensed version of Channel One Suite, was flat and uninspiring, but I'm certain that the rewrites are already underway. That's what really sets BD apart, their ability to make their show an ever-changing production that keeps being tinkered with until its perfected. The drill is TOUGH, but BD marched it very cleanly. Jay Murphy's drill design is also phenomenal, really accompanying the music well. The horn book isn't the hardest I've heard BD play, but it's flawlessly written and played with skill and passion. I expect this show to be Top 3 and the corps may make a run for the championship, although I haven't seen Cavaliers and Cadets yet this year, and I probably won't until the PBS broadcast.

Those are my thoughts. To all of those out in Berkeley Land reading this blog who don't even know what drum corps is, I apologize.

Cheers.

2002-07-03T17:11:00.000-07:00

CalWatch responds to anonymity complaints by linking to a very nice excerpt giving an historical perspective on anonymity/pseudonymity, citing most notably the example of the Federalist Papers. I would extoll the myriad reasons that Jay, Hamilton, and Madison had for publishing pseudonymously, but I really don't have the interest and it would be irrelevant to my point, anyway. People have their reasons for being anonymous, it's true, but nothing in that paper suggests that people have more to gain from being anonymous than not being anonymous, unless their life and livelihood is at stake. Anonymity is a fun game for people to play, but ultimately it's still just a game. And that's the last I have on the subject.

2002-07-03T17:05:00.000-07:00

Special missive from our AD Steve Gladstone:

To: cal_bench@uclink4.berkeley.edu
From: mkgpromo@uclink4.berkeley.edu
Subject: Letter from Steve Gladstone regarding NCAA Sanctions

June 28, 2002

Dear Members of the Cal Family,

Through the Bay Area media, you may have learned recently about the academic and extra benefit improprieties, which have resulted in NCAA sanctions on our football program.

While this misconduct occurred under a past athletic administration, we clearly feel its impact today. As you know, the University believes the penalties were unreasonably harsh and will appeal the ruling.

I would like to underscore that Cal has a new athletic administration and a new football coach. To a person, we fully embrace all aspects of the academic mission of this university. I would encourage you to read the statements made by Chancellor Berdahl and myself on our university web site (www.berkeley.edu).

The Chancellor and I and our colleagues in the Athletic Department strongly believe that intercollegiate athletics at its best can mark positively the lives of our student-athletes. I can assure you that the athletic administration and coaches who represent our university are people of integrity. As a group, we have a clear vision of what Cal athletics can and will be in the future.

We have in place procedures that will protect us against the reoccurrence of this type of impropriety. These unfortunate aberrations obscure the outstanding academic work of the majority of our athletes (the cumulative grade point average of our student-athletes last year was 3.04.) Nearly 150 of these young men and women earned recognition on conference all-academic teams, and countless graduating seniors have plans to pursue graduate degrees at elite institutions of higher learning.

As we begin a new era of Cal athletics, I assure you that appropriate conduct, as well as high achievement in the classroom and on the field, is our goal.

Sincerely,

Stephen C. Gladstone
Director of Athletics and Recreational Sports

2002-07-01T20:45:00.000-07:00

I picked up the new David Bowie album "Heathen" today and I must say that it is absolutely brilliant. I'm a big fan of Bowie's, and I like both his 1960's-1970's folk/glam era and his pop/prog stuff from the last 20 years or so. This album is something else, though. A lot of it does harken back to his older stuff, with less emphasis on electronics in the songs and a driving folky feel. But it still has that powerful and richly textured sound that has he's cultivated on his electro-influenced albums of the last decade.

Anyway, pick it up at Tower when you have the chance, it's a double CD for "only" $18.99, so head out there before it gets jacked up to $22.99.

2002-07-01T20:33:00.000-07:00

For those of you who don't also read Kevin's blog, I must reiterate that this article tells one of the most beautiful stories I've read recently.

I haven't been this moved in quite some time.

2002-06-30T21:45:00.000-07:00

While I don't necessarily agree with Kevin's decision to remove the links to the anonymous blogs, I do see his point. I often question the reasoning behind anonymity. My thoughts are:

1. If you're going to write controversial or potentially incendiary material, have the bollocks to back it up. If you're not willing to have your name attached to something you write, then you shouldn't be writing it.

2. If you're involved in an organization that would frown upon what you're posting for whatever reason and that's why you choose to remain anonymous, perhaps you should reconsider your rationale behind publishing such material, or else you should question your loyalty to that particular group.

Ultimately, what do you have to gain by anonymity? Unless one's life or livelihood is at stake, I find it difficult to come up with compelling reasons to be anonymous. These are just my thoughts, I still enjoy many of the anonymous blogs and don't see any reason to penalize them, but I do strongly encourage those anonymous folks out there to just bite the bullet and reveal your identities, it'll be better for everyone in the long run. That is all.

Cheers.

2002-06-27T19:29:00.000-07:00

Well, I'm back from Coronado/San Diego and back into the swing of things. Nothing terribly new to report, although I do promise to post my remarks on living amongst the Irish in the next few days. Or something. In the meantime, enjoy this new "top secret" message from the UC Berkeley "Academic Senate Faculty, All Academic Titles" email list.

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 18:02:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Horace Mitchell, Vice Chancellor-Business & Administrative Services"
To: "Academic Senate Faculty, All Academic Titles, Emeriti, Staff"@uclink4.berkeley.edu
Subject: New Directions--The Commute Alternative Program for UCB Faculty and Staff

--------
Berkeley's Parking & Transportation Department (P&T) is offering a
variety of new incentives to encourage and assist Cal employees using
alternative transportation to commute to campus. The New Directions
program provides a variety of new benefits for the 2002/2003 year.
The enhancements include:

-Greatly reduced and free carpool parking rates. Create a two-person
carpool and each member pays 75% less for standard F or C parking;
create a three-person carpool and park for FREE. (Free, reserved
carpool parking spaces are provided throughout campus.)

-Pre-tax purchase of up to $100 a month in tickets for BART, AC
Transit and more, plus an additional monthly subsidy from New
Directions. Purchase transit tickets with pre-tax dollars and save up
to 46% on costs. New for the coming year, employees enrolled in the
Pre-Tax Transit program will enjoy even greater savings with a $10 a
month subsidy offered by P&T toward their transit purchases. There are
many new transit ticket combinations available.

-The monthly transit subsidy will increase from $6 a month to $10 a
month. Transit commuters not eligible for the pre-tax program or
those who vary transit use month to month can enjoy a $10 per month
subsidy toward transit tickets purchased at the Berkeley TRiP store.

-All New Directions participants (bicyclists, pedestrians, transit
riders, carpoolers and vanpoolers) receive a guaranteed ride home in
the event of a personal emergency, can purchase up to 48 days of
discounted parking for days when they need to drive alone and receive
free rides on campus BEAR Transit Shuttles.

Remember: Any employee can try a New Directions program risk free.
It's free and easy to change programs or opt to purchase a parking
permit!

For more information on these programs, please see the Parking &
Transportation website at:

http://public-safety.berkeley.edu/trip

or contact Berkeley TRiP at 643-7665 or berktrip@uclink.berkeley.edu

Nadesan Permaul
Director, Parking & Transportation

2002-06-21T18:06:00.000-07:00

Hey kids, PragLib's Summer California Tour will head down Highway 101 this weekend with stops in San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Oxnard en route to San Diego for a nice little family vacation on Coronado Island. Expect posts very infrequent or not at all until late next week.

Cheers.

2002-06-21T17:48:00.000-07:00

Oakland wants to have its cake and eat it too, with regard to the latest development in the Grizzly Peak Road controversy. After firmly staking its claim on the road last year when it blocked the University's attempts to curtail parking on Grizzly Peak, Oakland needs to take care of its OWN guardrails. To expect the University's assistance because Grizzly Peak Road overlooks University land is assinine and indicative of Oakland's poor city management and understanding of basic and logical administrative procedures.

What is really ironic, is that Oakland is bringing up the risks of wildfire from crashing cars careening over the edge (just to note, there've only been some 20-odd crashes in the last 70 years on that road, so we're not exactly dealing with a "Blood Alley" here) when the very reason the University wanted to curtail parking was, among other things, prevent accidental fires started by hot exhaust pipes.

If anyone has seen this road and how cars park on it, it is intrusive and extremely hazardous. But after denying the University in its attempts to make the road safer, Oakland should not be surprised to find an unwilling partner in its efforts to install guardrails along Grizzly Peak Blvd. In addition, statisitcs suggest that guardrails aren't even necessary. Typically, single-car accidents are the result of reckless/careless driving, driving under the influence, or falling asleep at the wheel. Once those accidents are removed from the statistics and we look only at accidents caused "by the road" (meaning unsafe conditions, etc.) I don't think Grizzly Peak will come across as being any more unsafe than other stretches of windy two-lane road.

Also, I can't believe this coffee legislation that is trying to get passed in the Berkeley City Council. At first I thought that it was just something silly (especially since I don't drink coffee). But then when I read that the bill includes a provision to fine and/or IMPRISON offending businesses, I found that just plain scary. Should the bill pass as written it would be thrown out on constitutional grounds the first time any business sought to challenge it.

A more productive and less divisive method would be to offer some form of "gold star" recognition that coffee shops could advertise if the VOLUNTARILY complied with these regulations. That way, the prissy little Berkeley residents who boycott Safeway but don't mind being raped in the ass for prices by Whole Foods could have a clear conscience when they enjoy their coffee, but it won't force shops to comply and it won't cause civic embarrassment when their little Big Brother legislation is torched upon constitutional review.

And in other news, Salar Jahedi is an idiot. I'm glad that he doesn't vote. His logic is flawed. His message is dangerous. Why is he a columnist?

2002-06-18T19:00:00.000-07:00

So it seems that the latest hot-button issue in education (something I didn't even know WAS an issue), is the idea of weighted grade point averages. It seems that there is a proposal in the state legislature to make the UCs and CSUs not weight GPAs for AP/IB/honors courses, because it puts those students who are at schools where weighted classes aren't available at a perceived "disadvantage." I think this is all a pile of horseshit, and here's why.

I find it highly suspect at first simply because this is coming from legislators. Legislators are influenced by lobbyists, constituencies, and hot-button issues, not cold objective facts or even rational thought. If these sentiments were coming from the universities themselves and the administrators in charge, it'd be a different story, but the University of California has remained notably silent so far on this issue.

Second, I had always been under the impression that the university grants admission based on the degree to which you excel given the options that were presented to you. This is even more the case now then when I applied because of the new comprehensive review plan, a very good plan with only one big flaw. This is why someone with a 3.5 GPA and 1300 SAT from Los Altos Hills doesn't get into Berkeley, while someone with similar statistics from Kennedy High in Richmond or Mission High in SF does. This makes a lot of sense because you are comparing success contextually. The student who earns A's taking the most difficult classes at school X that doesn't offer weighted grades is viewed as achieving just as much as the student who earns A's at school Y that DOES offer weighted grades. Sometimes even more so because of particular hardships that the student may have had to overcome.

However, why should it be that students should be PUNISHED because they're going to a well-funded high school? It's not the fault of those students that their schools offer advanced classes while other schools do not. These advanced classes, as I'm sure everyone reading this is aware, are signifcantly more interesting and educating than their non-AP/IB counterparts. The argument that I hear to that point is that the very nature of the class should be encouragement enough. But under these guidelines, the person who graduates from high school with a 3.9 UC GPA in advanced classes is at a distinct disadvantage to the student who graduates with a 4.0 UC GPA from the same school in standard-level courses in terms of distinctions like valedictorian or certain achievement-specific scholarships.

And here's where my logic's going. A 4.0 is not a 4.0. Just as we shouldn't PUNISH people who earn a 4.0 without taking advanced courses, we shouldn't PUNISH those students who DO take advanced classes and succeed. The GPA of someone taking standard college-prep courses and who earns all A's should not be the same as the GPA of someone who earned all A's in AP/IB/Honors courses. Something needs to be done to show delineate numerically (as archaic and cold as that sounds) and distinguish those students who take advanced courses and succeed from those who take standard courses and succeed, at the same school.

This will only close the achievement gap inasmuch as the numbers are concerned by punishing students who by happenstance go to well-funded schools without making any real effort to INCREASE the performance and funding of underperforming and underfunded schools.

Effort should instead be spent on increasing funding toward underperforming schools, a gradual development of AP/IB programs at all schools, and a continual effort to expand comprehensive review to all state universities. In this way, the context from school to school is evaluated, but we don't punish those students within the same school who do and do not take advanced courses.

Otherwise, it's like a garden where not all the flowers are the same height. Do you cut down the ones that are tall and healthy so they match they height of the sickly ones, or do you provide nourishment and care to try to get the other flowers to grow taller?