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?

2002-06-15T12:17:00.000-07:00

The summer California Tour found its way back to Pleasanton this weekend for a reunion-ish party of sorts up at a local mansion. Saw many folks I hadn't seen in years, this was both a good and bad thing as some people were good to see, others not so good. Anyway, I rekindled some old friendships and added a few more stops to my Vast Network of Free Places to Stay in the Western USA.

What was really pleasant to see were a lot of guys I graduated with who went off to junior college making plans to start up at Davis, UCSD, UCLA, and several other schools in the fall, with a definite drive and interest. What was not so pleasant was seeing some people who had been out of high school for 2, 3, etc. years with still no real understanding of themselves (or other people, for that matter). Ah, but such is life in a rich white community.

It was a productive evening.

Stay tuned in the next couple days for an update on life amongst the Irish.

2002-06-10T20:38:00.000-07:00

PragLib's California Tour continued last weekend with a trip to Southern California. Andy and I headed out from Pleasanton at 2:30 on Friday and made a brisk trip down south.... Until we hit LA County. It took over two hours to get from Magic Mountain to Orange County. We finally crashed into Tustin at 9:00 and hung-out there with friend Kathleen, who plays Pluto, Goofy, and Eeyore in Disneyland. Saturday morning we met up with Cassie and Boback from Squelch and hit up Disneyland and California Adventure all freakin' day. We rode pretty much everything worth riding and saw a lot of killer attractions. Here are some pictures from Disney Resorts:

The Happiest Place on Earth

Cassie took the picture, which is why she's not in any of them. I'm the guy in the Cal shirt.

Saturday night we stayed in Laguna Beach, enjoyed a tasty Persian breakfast and visited downtown Laguna. Headed out at 12:15, got back to Pleasanton around 6:00 or so.

Cheers.

2002-06-04T15:46:00.000-07:00

I've decided that if any blog to which I link goes without an update for 2 weeks (14 days) that I'm going to move it to the new "Defunct/Hiatus" links section.

2002-06-03T18:50:00.000-07:00

Went and saw KMFDM last night at Slim's in SF. It was a very strong show, with a good mix of new songs from both KMFDM and PIG as well as some (moderately) older stuff from the albums NIHIL and XTORT.

Noticeably absent was Tim Skold, who elected not to tour with KMFDM. If anyone knows why, please drop me a line. Sascha, Raymond, and Lucia did a great job splitting up the vocals, and the killer dual guitar attack of Steve White and Joolz Hodgson was great. There were at times as many as three pounding guitars when Raymond occasionally picked one up and riffed on a few songs. The show saw Bill Rieflin, suprisingly, playing bass rather than sitting behind the drum set. The set drummer did an admirable job and it was nice to actually see Bill's face. Highlights were the performances of "Rules," "Attak/Reload," "Urban Monkey Warfare," and "Preach/Pervert." The show closed out with a phenomenal in-your-face encore of "Spit Sperm," "Hot Hole," and a great version of "Godlike."

Some problems with sounds, primarily the vocals not being loud enough (especially Lucia's), detracted from the show, as did the interesting absence of "Superhero," which is probably my top pick off of the newest album ATTAK.

Definitely not as strong as the MDFMK show I saw a couple years ago at the Fillmore (which was impeccably produced), but on par with the show I saw in 1997 out in Sacramento at the El Dorado Saloon.

Check them out tomorrow night and Thursday in SoCal if you're around there.

Later.

2002-05-31T20:32:00.000-07:00

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.

2002-05-31T20:12:00.000-07:00

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.

2002-05-29T22:00:00.000-07:00

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

2002-05-27T23:37:00.000-07:00

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.

2002-05-27T10:45:00.000-07:00

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.

2002-05-27T10:34:00.000-07:00

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.

2002-05-26T17:44:00.000-07:00

Three total goobers: right here.

2002-05-26T16:05:00.000-07:00

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.

2002-05-26T13:53:00.000-07:00

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!

2002-05-24T02:34:00.000-07:00

It's time to reveal my secret. For some reason I'm on the mailing list from the Chancellor's office so I receive all the mass emails meant for faculty/staff. Here's the latest:

UC Travel Policy Change for "Meals and Incidentals"

Effective April 19, 2002, the reimbursement allowance for "Meals and
Incidentals" has been revised. The minimum amount of time a traveler
must be away from home or headquarters in order to be eligible for
reimbursement for "Meals and Incidentals" has been increased from 10
to 12 hours. (Incidentals are typically tips and gratuities.) Here
are the new allowances:

Travel less than 12 hours = $0
Travel equal to or greater than 12 hours but less than 24 hours = $33
Travel equal to or greater than 24 hours but less than 30 days = $50
per day

Please remember that "Meals and Incidentals" is not a per diem.
Reimbursement is based on actual expenses and substantiating receipts
are strongly recommended. The full UC travel policy is available at
http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/policies/bfb/g28toc.html.

State of California airfare contracts are now available to UC Berkeley
business travelers:

The Travel Office is pleased to announce that the State of California
airfare contracts are now available to UC Berkeley. Business
travelers can arrange travel between 263 city pairs at discounted
fares offered under contracts with Southwest and United Airlines. To
view fares, visit the State Travel Management Program website at
http://www.ofa.dgs.ca.gov/default.asp?mp=../services/airfare.asp

Since this is a State, not a UC, program, city pairs cannot be changed
or added. Prices shown are one-way. Fares are limited to business
travel only. Benefits of using the State airfare contracts include
low fares, no restrictions, and reservations that can be changed or
cancelled without penalty. Current State-negotiated rates are valid
from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002.

Tickets purchased under the State of California airfare contract are
issued by State-certified travel agencies. UC Berkeley business
travelers can contact Philip Martin Associates (PMA) by phone
(510-xxx-xxxx), fax (510-xxx-xxxx) or email (xx.xxxxx@xxx.net) to
make reservations. Once your reservation has been made, complete a
Central Travel Service (CTS) form
(http://fbs.berkeley.edu/forms/default.htm#travel) and fax it to PMA.
Remember to include the appropriate authorizing signature on the CTS
form since unsigned forms cannot be processed, and check the stated
itinerary for accuracy. Tickets can be issued the same day for CTS
forms received at PMA by 4:30 pm.

Campus travelers are encouraged to use State of California airfares
whenever possible. If the traveler or travel agency can locate a
lower airfare than the State-negotiated rate, and the traveler can
accept any restrictions that may be associated with the lower fare,
then the lower fare should be used.

Please don't hesitate to contact Travel Manager Joe Knowles with your
travel questions or comments.

Exciting, no?

2002-05-22T14:13:00.000-07:00

CalStuff has this to say:

Diversity, sure. Although I bet that has a different context in Cuba. I'm even willing to grant Music, although you can do a lot better than Berkeley just in the Bay Area. But Medical Research? Berkeley has no medical research. It's kind of unusual that we don't; most large institutions of learning have a Med School. Berkeley has just about everything but one, which makes its absence kind've glaring.

Geez. If you go 20 minutes across the bay you will find yourself at UCSF, one of the highest-regarded Medical Schools in the country. Top-notch medical training and research goes on over there, and it is one of the earliest UC campuses. There's no reason to have a med school at Cal, because there is one IN SAN FRANCISCO and is part of the same University system. It's not much different then Johns Hopkins, where the Medical Center is a good 15+ minute drive through Baltimore from the college campus. The UC system (it really is just one big university, folks) has five top-notch med schools (SF, LA, SD, Irvine, and Davis), which I think is quite remarkable for a single public college system. But, regardless of that there is still lots of medical research going on right here at UC Berkeley. The School of Public Health is home to cutting-edge medical research and additional medical research is going on in the genetics and biology labs every day.

And folks, that's why I started this blog.=^)

2002-05-22T11:46:00.000-07:00

PragLib's correspondent "Monsieur Z" reports that the Alcoholic Beverage Control is in town this week. Kip's was raided a couple days ago, and most of the bars in the campus area on pretty high-strung. The word is that if you're in a bar and underage (heaven forbid!) and two middle-aged black women come in who look extremely out of place in the college bars, leave immediately. Both for your sake and the sake of the proprietors. Trust me, it'll be better in the long run to cut your revelry short this week.

2002-05-22T03:28:00.000-07:00

Many cop cars were outside Phi Kappa Tau at Piedmont/Channing tonight, right around 3:00AM. I wonder what's up.

2002-05-21T18:10:00.000-07:00

Hey kids, here're some pictures from my trip down to San Luis Obispo over the weekend. Many of those people you see hail from Pleasanton, home to myself and our good friend Kevin. Please note the exponentially greater hotness of the people in SLO then those you see in Berkeley. Oh yeah, I'm the guy with the sunglasses and the blue Cal shirt under the brown and tan overshirt. Also, it may take a little bit longer than expected for the images to load the first time you view them, don't worry, they're worth it.

Margaritaville 2002

Beer bonging down the stairs

500+ people gathered at the SLO town Kappa Sigma house

Me and fraternity brother Joe representing ADPhi proudly

Joe after 4 hours of drinking, note the colorful scenery behind him

High school buddy Keith

For the ladies

The Pleasanton Crew(l to r: Lindsey, Keith, Scott, Me, Mike, Matt)

Me and Lindsey (btw, Lindsey lived next door to Kevin)

A little bit drunken

A little bit MORE drunken

Watching from on high

Try to match THIS crowd, Chi Psi

At the tap

It's been a long day

Two VERY red faces

Feel free to link to or use these pictures for whatever reason. If you do post them or link to them anywhere publicly, please give me photographer credits and link over here to PragLib. That's all that I ask.

Cheers.

2002-05-21T01:52:00.000-07:00

Hm, first of all to ProgCal: Could you be any more self-serving?

Moving on:

The Problem With Berkeley

Now, I know that with a title like that you may be expecting something pretty straight forward, something I've talked about before: Berkeley students take themselves too seriously, leftist activists don't use rational thought, not everyone is as handsome as Dave. All of these are good points. But I'm really talking about more frivolous matters.

People here don't know how to have fun. I mean that in a very specific way. Everybody here can go out on the town and have fun, go dancing, hit up a party or two. But can anybody just have fun? Can any of you out there just pack up a bag and go hit the road for the weekend? Can you just get together with friends and drink some beer and (to use a dangerously outdated expression) shoot the shit?

Can you appreciate the value in cracking jokes about passersby while driving around town? Can you just sit at a coffee shop for hours on end and enjoy good company?

I know I'm projecting my own values as to what's "fun" onto others. So be it. Not enough people here in Berkeley can have just mindless, relaxing fun. There always has to be a purpose, a point, an agenda: a sense of humor is pointless unless it gets you somewhere.

Now this is going to sound like a smattering of stoner philosophy, but bear with me. What we do is essentially meaningless (in a cosmic sense, at the very least), so why not get out and enjoy yourselves? Go out and do something just because. Find meaning in a meaningless existence. Please. At least for my sake. It'll keep me sane.

Oh, and to my fellow bloggers out there: for the love of God, don't publicly analyze this post. It's just a random essay written at 1:45 in the morning. There might be something good in here that I said that perhaps you should take to heart. Otherwise, just ignore it. See you at the bars.

Here's to summer

2002-05-21T01:02:00.000-07:00

Well, as of about 2:00 on May 20th, I've been a free man. I've scooted back to my hometown for a night to enjoy some homecooking and good company. I'll be back in Berkeley tomorrow afternoon for more or lest the rest of the summer. Here's what you can expect from PragLib this summer:

1. Intermittent posts - I plan to keep posting, but the nature of summer just may prevent any semblance of regularity.
2. Summer life - This'll be my first summer sticking around here, and it seems like it's going to be a really interesting time.
3. PragLib's Super California Tour - I've managed to find a job at which I don't have to work weekends, so expect to find me up and down all over this state. I'll post some shite up about what's going on in our fair land.
4. Virignia - I'll be in Virginia for a week this summer, I'll let you know how that goes.

Stay tuned, o h loyal readers, for a very good time. I'll try to get some Berkeley/SF Bay Area comment up too.

Have a good summer.

Cheers.

2002-05-16T20:51:00.000-07:00

Randy Barnes joins the blog fray!

Just in time, too.... I think we're going to see a whittling down of blogs over the summer. I'm going to be here though, living it up in Berkeley this summer. I'll keep posting as long as interesting (to me) things keep happening.

2002-05-16T11:57:00.000-07:00

Two papers down with one more to go,
Then I'm away to S-L-O.

2002-05-16T03:15:00.000-07:00

The next round of Celebrity Bobxing, May 29th:

Manute Bol vs. William "Refrigerator" Perry
John Wayne Bobbitt vs. Joey Buttafuoco

My money's on Perry and Buttafuoco.

Night.

2002-05-12T21:57:00.000-07:00

A recent AIM conversation with my friend Andy (Paradox133).

Paradox133: I made Nikki(?) (tall asian) a drink using blackberry schnapps and triple-seq. tasty.
EpikDave: ah, that was you who rearranged my liquor cabinet!
Paradox133: I think kevin got there first, but I did move some things for access reasons.
EpikDave: you disrupted my alcoholic feng shui.
Paradox133: perhaps that's why I've had such a bad hangover today. Karma man, Karma.

2002-05-12T19:22:00.000-07:00

Here's a sad and interesting article from Australia about the dangers of infants and rice milk.

I don't think that the parents will be convicted of negligence, but it still is a warning to overly-zealous adherents to vegetarianism and alternative medicine that sometimes it's good to remain traditional in some respects. The speed with which the baby's health detoriated is remarkable and shows how tenuous life can be for a newborn child.

2002-05-12T15:33:00.000-07:00

Here's a question for you, oh loyal readers.

What's the point of studying for something that you will fail?

I don't ask for my own personal reasons, Rhetoric majors don't take tests, we write miles and miles of papers. But if you spent hours and hours studying for a test, but failed, wouldn't it just have been better to have gotten hammered or gone out to meet and get to know new people during those hours?

I think I'd be really really depressed. I'd just plead that you keep priorities in mind as we embark on this final leg of the semester, ladies and gentlemen.

2002-05-12T12:52:00.000-07:00

Thanks for the (more or less) kind words from Political Cullitonholic. I agree with you wholeheartedly about Negativity. I'm glad it's out there, but the writing needs to get stepped up a bit. We'll see how it goes. I'm particularly annoyed with the anonymous articles, that just looks bad.

Oh, and just so there's no confusion, that's NOT me in the pictures that accompany my article in Negativity.

2002-05-12T12:30:00.000-07:00

Happy Mother's Day.

Also, happy end of the weekend, which was probably the last chance for any of you guys to go out and get drunk before buckling down on finals.

The college schedule is not one that is conducive to the development of the well-rounded individual. So be it, I suppose. At least some of us will have a summer off coming up to relax, make some money, and hit the beach.

The move to year-round college just to graduate in four years is a most unsettling one. I may be crazy, but it would seem that it should be no problem to put together your degree in four years (assuming you don't start switching majors your junior year or something like that). But somehow it's not. Even people who stay with the same major from day one can't get out of here in four. If all goes well I should be able to get out of here in 4 years with no summer school, but only because nobody seems to want to enroll in the classes I do, whatever that means.

Something needs to be fixed. I'll tell you when I find out what that is.

2002-05-09T19:07:00.000-07:00

Albatross' Perch writes:

Strange... nothing at all in the Daily Cal about a hospitalized sorority girl. What's going on here?

Well, the Daily Cal is never known for reporting all the news that happened. In addition, it was never stated that it was a serious incident. For all anyone knows, it could've been an asthma attack or some other medical condition. I don't see why the Daily Cal would report on it unless it was life-threatening or directly related to alcohol consumption. I have the utmost faith in "Monsieur Z" and take him at his word for what he saw.

I think we should all just be relieved that it wasn't a life-threatening incident.

In other news, for those of you who don't like the direction that some of the classes in the English department are headed, you should drop your major and join the Rhetoric department. Rhetoric is pretty much the art of objectivity, at least as far as I'm concerned. Best department in the school, with Classics a close second.

Education the way it ought to be.

2002-05-08T23:50:00.000-07:00

Just so there isn't further confusion.

The Onion was founded at UW Madison in 1988.
The Heuristic Squelch was founded at UC Berkeley in 1991.
The internet has been used for the purpose of mass-dissemination of inofrmation since 1995 or so, and the Onion was one of the first to take of advantage of that new resource.

Both the Onion and the Squelch have been doing fake news-style reporting since their foundings, and both are not that old in terms of college humor publications (just look at the Lampoon or Chapparal). The Squelch has been running Newsflash-type articles long before The Onion was available nationally. The Squelch is no more a rip-off of the Onion then the Onion is a rip-off of the college humor magazines that came before it. Certain humor styles work and have worked for decades, so it carries over into new publications that are formed. It is only because the Onion has moved to national prominence through the web that it now SEEMS like other college publications are derivative.

Do your research.

Cheers.

2002-05-08T23:22:00.000-07:00

So, apparently the Dean's committee this summer is going to be made up of only two students, the respective IFC and NPC safety chairs. This is, I think, bullshit. Every fraternity that wants to be represented should be. They don't necessarily need voting rights or anything like that, but the opportunity for debate and discussion should be there. The last thing we need is a committee made up of clueless administrators and Berkeley residents.

How much you wanna bet that Gerry and Joanne will be on this committee?

This is what I've heard, if I'm mistaken please let me know.

Godspeed.

2002-05-08T10:28:00.000-07:00

Unverified firsthand information from secret correspondent "Monsieur Z":

thought you guys might be interested in this. tonight
around 1:40, i was walkin home from a gal's house and on the figi corner of the round about, there was an
ambulance picking up a sorority gal that looked pretty dead to me. there
was an invitational that had just offloaded. they
weren't in to big of a hurry, so i guess she was breathin.

Gee, maybe now out-of-house social events will get moratorium-ized too.

More info as it becomes available.

2002-05-08T01:33:00.000-07:00

Libelous personal attacks aside, you're definitely on the right track.

2002-05-07T11:10:00.000-07:00

A senior member of the Squelch staff (not myself) sent this in. Author's name to be released pending approval.

Witless Blogster Deemed Hilarious by Self

A Berkeley blogmaster known as "The Original Dancing Bear" posted a scathing critique of the latest issue of the Heuristic Squelch in a Saturday update to his satirical "blog" (short for "insignificant weblog") at http://thedancingbear.blogspot.com. The posting followed the familiar "fake news" comedic format popularized by countless other humor sources including The Onion and The Dancing Bear's target, the Squelch. Utilizing every satirical device at his disposal, The Dancing Bear proceeded to systematically eviscerate numerous articles whose lack of humor were deemed worthy of ridicule.

"See, the person I quote about the Starfish piece asks 'How long did it take them to come up with that?' as if it were hard to think of," explained The Dancing Bear proudly, basking in the warm glow of his own smug self-satisfaction. "But I actually don't think it was very hard to think of. See how that works?"

The same tactic was used to mercilessly demolish any perceived comedic value of numerous other pieces. "This other guy calls the joke about Britney Spears' boobs original, but it wasn't original at all," said The Dancing Bear, chuckling heartily to himself. "Do you like how I say one thing while meaning the exact opposite? That's sarcasm. I learned about it yesterday."

Other pieces, dubbed "comic genius," and "brilliant," did not escape The Dancing Bear's unrelenting, even monotonous sarcasm.

Asked how he can condemn the humor of these articles without ever citing specific weaknesses, The Dancing Bear credits his complete failure to comprehend actual satire or absurdism despite purporting to run a satirical weblog.

"Hey, to me, that shirt was just a Jew in an oven," shrugged The Dancing Bear while eating his own shit and pronouncing it delicious. "Don't ask me to connect it in context with the premise of the piece in order to comprehend the satirical critique of Abercrombie & Fitch's flippant abuse of racist Asian stereotypes. I mean, come on, I skipped reading the whole cell phone piece based solely on the title, and for some reason I thought the piece parodying Rachael Klein's treatment of sex as incredibly commonplace was a parody of the state lottery. I mean, it doesn't even make fun of the state lottery. Who would even think that? I'm obviously an idiot."

"A genius clever idiot, that is," added The Dancing Bear.

-The Heuristic Dancing Bear

Zing!

Like I said, if you don't like something, attempt to do it one better.

2002-05-07T00:43:00.000-07:00

Dancing Bear responds to my post with an "ironic" flair, quoting myself. I'm sorry if it seemed ambiguous. I was in no way offended by what you wrote. I've got no problem being skewered and satirized, I'd just like to see it done well (this is all in my opinion, of course. There may very well be people that find your particular brand of humor amusing, though I've yet to meet them). If you don't like something, try to change it or fight it. Don't just sit back and armchair quarterback the humor scene, 'cause that's the easy way out. I'd be the first to support the creation of a new humor magazine. I've already backed the new humor/comment magazine Negativity. I say go for it.

In other news, the Squelch crisis with the Ukrainian Jews was more or less peacefully resolved today. Now there's just the TBTN folks who are still offended. Oh, and Rachael Klein. Apparently she wasn't amused by the "Lottery Winning on Tuesday" spoof in the latest issue.

Oh yeah, and elections happened. I managed a respectable 41 votes. Some surprises in the executive seats, primarily Han Hong and Jimmy Bryant winning, as well as in the Senate, where conservatives picked up 2.5 seats, and CalSERVE had a great showing. That's all the comment I'm going to give on the elections.

Night.

2002-05-05T22:56:00.000-07:00

Perhaps if The Dancing Bear has such strong opinions about the comedic value of the latest Squelch, he should attempt to write something funnier and turn it in. Any response?

I thought so.

2002-05-05T12:30:00.000-07:00

Fuck Krispy Kreme and their undersized, over-priced pastries. I won't even dignify their products by calling them donuts. If you are a true donut connoisseur: if you are one who understands that donuts are cake, raised, old-fashioned, jelly-filled (also known as "bismarcks" for those in the know), and not froofy, frilly-pants-wearing, phallic, oozing, creme-filled pastries, you know that Kingpin is far superior. If you want a fucking eclair, go to a fucking bakery, not a donut-shop. Fight Krispy Kreme hegemony!

Viva la resistance!

That is all.

But if you wanted to bring a Dunkin' Donuts to Berkeley.... Well, hmmmm....

2002-05-05T03:06:00.000-07:00

Cullitonholic responds to my statements regarding his comments. He makes the somewhat dubious claim that he was clearly asserting his opinion. A stand-alone statement like "It's not funny," in no way necessarily implies opinion. But that's just a semantic issue, and I take him at his word.

He reasserts the need for an apology, which is interesting. I thought my explanation was pretty clear. Writers SHOULD apologize if something unintentional results in offense. But do you honestly think that what was run could possibly have been run without thinking that some people might be offended? Some people were offended, many others laughed their asses off. Students on this campus take themselves too seriously. Check out the Angry Clam for an example over at Swarthmore of a campus that knows how to have some tongue-in-cheek fun.

Anyway, hopefully no hard feelings over to Cullitonholic. I've added you to my sidebar as well.

2002-05-04T17:29:00.000-07:00

There is a blog out there who seems to be commenting on aspects of Berkeley life, even directly linking to my blog, without making any statement of his existence. Interesting. He doesn't even link to me in the side bar. Anyway, he has this to say:

"re: the latest Heuristic Squelch ... not only are some Jews upset, campus feminists are also furious at a terrible joke about rape. Already there are rumblings of trying to call for a yanking of ASUC funds. I believe in free speech, so I don't think I would support that. But I think writers for the Squelch should do the decent thing and choose to apologize to both groups for causing offense. Personally, I can understand the satire in the case of the T-shirts, but I see no satirical merit in the comment regarding rape. It's not funny."

Why do people feel that they can unequivocally say something is funny or not? As far as I know, all you can say is that it's not funny to you. Many things in this Squelch are funny to some, not funny to others. So be it. It's not for the Squelch to decide how the audience will respond to jokes and satire. The joke in the small text is funny. Rape is horrible. Rape is also pervasive and essentially institutionalized in our society. That short joke comments to that fact. The greater issue of complaint, it seems to me, is not over the joke itself but over the mocking nature that the joke has toward Take Back the Night. Could it be construed as offensive? Sure. But as I mentioned before, don't assume that just because you feel you have the moral high ground you can use that to make blanket statements and tell others what is and is not funny.

Regarding apologies. Please note that although I write for the Squelch, my opinion is my own and is in no way meant to reflect the views of the Squelch editorial board. Apologies are made over a mistake. The Squelch did not make a mistake in running what it did this issue (despite what others may think). Every entry was put in intentionally, fully aware of what the possible ramifications and consequences could be. I personally am sorry that certain peoples' feelings and sensibilities were hurt, but I am not sorry for any of the content that was run in this issue, everything had a purpose and a point. Insensitive? Sure. Offensive? Probably. Funny? For many people, it was very funny. So protest the issue. Write angry letters and incoherent letters. Engage the editors in peaceful dialogue. But don't sit and stew and try assert a moral superiority that somehow says that you can dictate what others should feel, because neither you nor anybody else has that right.

Please, enjoy the issue. For those of you who were offended this time, think about how you felt when other groups were satirized besides your own. Did you feel indignant? Did you feel insulted? Probably not. Everybody gets skewered at some point in their lives, it's just the way things are. Calm down, have a drink, and take a minute to actually laugh at yourselves. It's a good thing.

Cheers.

2002-05-04T02:20:00.000-07:00

Check these guys out:

Sleepytime Gorilla Museum.

2002-05-03T17:24:00.000-07:00

Regarding CalStuff's column on Greek parties, it's strangely appropriate that he writes about the Dean being uninformed from a standpoint that is, by and large, uninformed.

From someone who actually attended the Greek Council at which Dean Kenney spoke, the reaction from the fraternities is not one of appeasement and capitulation to get alcohol back at all costs. The goal is to put IFC and the University on the same page with regard to rules and regulations. It's interesting that CalStuff cites the IFC Social Code, when the IFC Social Code is one written by the IFC, there is an entirely different Social Code that is the University's, one of the big problems being that these two codes don't line up.

The Greek system is annoyed that their autonomy has been undermined without any notice from the University. Despite the University's claim that there has been increased warning, the incredulity from the IFC would indicate that there may perhaps be a communication issue.

Anyway, I'm getting on this committee this summer and hopefully get everybody on the same page.

Bring alcohol back to the fraternities where it belongs.

2002-05-03T02:09:00.000-07:00

It was a great day for the Heuristic Squelch today.

At 12:45 or so I arrived at Sproul Crescent to chat with the Squelchers about the events of the day. This was in the midst of the pro-Palestine rally. It soon became apparent at 1:00 that they were mobilizing for a march and that this would inevitably move through Sather Gate, right where we were standing. Rather than move, we asserted our right to be there. The four of us managed to bring the forward march to a complete halt. With megaphone blaring in our faces, we kindly offered the protestors the Squelch. They were declined. One of the folks in front gestured for us to move, I mentioned that we were there first. She got frustrated. It was funny. Eventually we moved to the side, opening up about an 8-foot gap and the march pushed through. An English woman in the march asked me, "Don't you think this is a little trivial right now?" To which I replied, "No more trivial than what you're doing right now ma'am." They kept marching. It was a good day.

I don't like protestors.

Night.

2002-05-01T17:49:00.000-07:00

There's some misinformation going about re: Squelch distribution today. So, being as I was there, let me clarify. At around 2:30 two Russian Jewish students came and confronted Squelch editors and staff distributing the issue regarding the offensiveness of part of the content. After some debate, they departed. At 3:00 (when I arrived) the same two returned to request an apology which was (rightly) denied. Another heated debate ensued. Shortly after, a third person arrived to express his disgust. This was one the group began to make vague intimations of violence through aggressive words and gestures. The protestors refused to even read the article in its entirety or listen to any reason, despite numerous attempts at explanation by the staff, including the Jewish members of the staff. Eventually, one of the protestors walked away with two stacks of issues, which were retrieved immediately but not without threats of violence. While there was no physical violence, intimidating tactics and vague intimations of violence were made.

Here's my little spiel. Yes, it's offensive. That's the point. For some reason, we can piss all over Asian people (as shown with the Abercrombie ads) but we can't do it to any other minorities/ethnic groups. This was to draw the point that the Abercrombie shirts were just as fucked up as these shirts. For people who had direct relatives murdered in the Holocaust, I understand how this could have been found particularly offensive. Because it is offensive, however, shows that emotions regarding the Holocaust still run strong and that we will never, ever forget the Holocaust. The article in no way was meant to support or condone anti-Semitism, and, as exemplified but other people's reactions, to read that into the article is a very extreme reading. It is a reading, however, to which they are entitled.

As a descendant of Jews who fled Russia during the pogroms, I think that any canonizing of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, etc. is incredibly offensive. There are many times that I want to tear the Stalin posters off the walls of Revolutionary Books, for instance. But people have the right to express their views, however offensive it may be to me. I know that my personal feelings do not apply universally.

Prominent members of the Jewish community have expressed their enjoyment of this issue. Some people will be offended by one or several of the things in the issue. So be it. But please try to take things in the proper context and please try to realize that the feelings you feel are not necessarily shared by everyone. Don't read the issue. Fine. Write letters of complaint. Fine. Protest the issue. Fine. Dandy. But don't try to claim a unilateral moral high ground or assume that you speak for everyone. It is not the business of a publication to take into account everyone's feelings who may or may not be hurt by content. The Squelch is a satirical magazine.

Godspeed.

2002-04-30T01:09:00.000-07:00

Regarding the new Squelch: All I have to say is please make sure that you have fully considered the satirical points that are being made before coming at us with torches and pitchforks. If you've done that and are still interested in complaining, feel free to email me. But remember, it is satire (and pretty good satire at that).

Godspeed.

2002-04-28T19:57:00.000-07:00

Brandon Mills has a very interesting analysis of Tidal Wave II. The question I have, why hasn't the university simply upped it's minimum unit requirement to 14 or 15 units? Also, there are many Cal students who already take 18+ units, how would this affect them? Is money the only issue at hand?

2002-04-27T09:32:00.000-07:00

I had a dream last night in which Wally Adeyamo stole my leftover egg salad sandwich.

I don't like egg salad sandwiches.

2002-04-26T15:12:00.000-07:00

My first thought was Jonny Moseley? Wtf? But the more I thought about it, the more this makes a whole lot of sense. Although recent history has had very prominent political figures speak at commencement (and I had my money on another former Clinton administration member, given his warm welcome to campus, perhaps even Hillary), but there is a history of eclectic and entertaining speakers coming to campus for commencement.

While Moseley doesn't have any direct ties to Berkeley, he is a Bay Area native and does have a good story to tell. He also seems like a good and comfortable speaker, based on his appearances on talk shows and Saturday Night Live. Kudos to the Californians for deciding to go for a speaker that is (potentially) not controversial, calling for class and campus unity in this particularly tumultuous period. That decision took courage, desptite what others might say. Of course, we still need to see if he does, in fact, give a good speech. I look forward to hearing the reports.

Now, just out of curiosity, who do you think should be the next two commencement speakers? Weigh in fellow bloggers and students and let me know who want for your commencement speaker.

For Spring 2004, I'd really like to get a prominent author up to speak. Kurt Vonnegut and Lawrence Ferlinghetti are both on list, though they're also quite old at this point. A good surprise/counter-culture pick could be punk-rock/literary polymath Henry Rollins.

Hmmmm, Henry Rollins for Commencement 2004. Not a bad idea.

Oh yeah, I hope all 41 members of SJP up for hearings get suspended at least for being self-righteous and stupid, if nothing else. Also, anyone else notice that Salam Rafeedie was strangely silent in this article?

2002-04-25T12:22:00.000-07:00

Ronald Cruz is a fucking irrational moron. Trying to use the UC system to make up for inadequacies in high school education is like trying to cure a brain tumor with aspirin.

Angry Clam is very very anti-Gray Davis, I don't see anything particularly wrong with this. While I will admit that it is a veyr politically-driven move, it is something that could stand to be corrected, particularly since the reparations would go to non-profit groups and not to individuals. I wouldn't exactly call it slavery reparations either, it's very focused and specific, unlike the broad-based reparations proposals that have been bandied about in the past (and which I'm adamantly against). This, however, is essentially rectifying insurance fraud by providing funds to disadvantaged communities as a whole. Seems more or less kosher to me, more so if this wasn't an election year.

2002-04-25T12:06:00.000-07:00

Thanks, Rory.

2002-04-25T10:53:00.000-07:00

Hey, Rory Milner! While I appreciate your referencing our conversations on Nazism/Socialism in your blog, my name's Dave Duman, not Durham.=^)

CalStuff is more or less on the nose with regards to the Greek violations, although if there was a staffing issue at Chi Psi Luau it must've been an amount of staff and/or alcohol-serving staff issue, since they did have some security there, at least guys working the entrances and the street in front of the house.

2002-04-24T15:34:00.000-07:00

With regards to the issue of Greek sanctions, I don't see this as having much of an impact since only a fraction of parties were ever registered anyway. If anything, the rules for throwing parties should become more lax, this would allow more houses to have parties that were university-registered since they wouldn't have to deal with red tape. Leave in the requirements of outside security and the time curfew, but cut back the ohter restrictions. There will be more registered, and thereby safer, parties.

Glad Berkeley decided not to vote on their moronic divestment proposal in any form.

Also, to CalStuff. To be fair, if you look at timing, I was the first to post on the suicide from Evans, although I didn't write anything expansive since I didn't want to speculate and make unfounded statements and then subsequently have to remove posts out of embarassment.=^)

Cheers.

2002-04-22T22:23:00.000-07:00

We just had a blast with this all afternoon in the Squelch office. For your greater edification:

World RPS Society

Here's to wasting time and not studying.

Oh yeah, please read AngryClam. His feelings on this potential Berkeley City Council resolution is echoed by me.

It's a steaming load of hypocritical horseshit.

2002-04-22T01:29:00.000-07:00

I just couldn't resist. For those of you who are interested, here is my exact post (from April 11th) that this mysterious "Alicel" took issue with. It's good to see that the SA political machine is at work trying to remove any damaging material about their candidates (as if this really affected any votes).

NOTE: Repost from 4/11/02
"For the first time, Praglib is posting ASUC insider information. Apparently, beloved icon of ASUC-lifers, his chin-ness Tony Falcone, is already recruiting people for the Academic Senate. This is particularly strange considering that he is the AAVP candidate and has not, in fact, won the office. He is using the Office of the President to do this right now. Now, this tactic is definitely unethical (not sure if it violates bylaws) because he could be influencing votes in this manner by making recruitments and appointments for authority he doesn't have. Wait till you've won the election, Tony, then you'll have all the time in the world to buy friends with appointments.

Also, many ASUC politicos say that Tony will win because he has the frosh dorm vote. This may be true, but I have a friend in the dorm in which he is an RA, and nobody that I've talked to there can stand him.

And of course, in one last tasty detail:

Tony Falcone, that intrepid RA, is one of the RA's in Putnam hall, where the now-infamous UC Berkeley amateur porno was shot. Read about the video at Angry Clam.

2002-04-21T21:35:00.000-07:00

I got this in my email today. In the grand rhetorical tradition I'll just let the text deconstruct itself.

To:
Subject: criticism about a posting

Hi,
Awhile ago I read an entry about the suspected spammer of the anti-student action emails. I remember you writing that he/she lived next door to ASUC candidate Tony Falcone, and that "Noone can stand him." This opinion about Tony was either written at the same time that you talked about the spammer or at the same time you talked about the sex video in the units in which Tony was an RA. (I forget which.)
My point is this: I think that "Noone can stand him" is an extremely inappropriate thing to post. It does not serve to make any sort of point. Even if it DID serve to make a point, you STILL should NOT be posting things such as that.
I would like you to reply to me saying that you will delete that part of your entry from your website and that you will post an apology.
Thanks.

Alice

2002-04-18T10:48:00.000-07:00

Two quick things on which to comment:

Just received an email from Elections Council. Apparently tabulation is not going to take place until Friday, April 26th at the earliest. Seems that they can't tabulate until the J-Council is done with their hearings. It seems strange that we had election results a full week earlier last year despite all the controversies until you realize that we have new elections laws that force all hearings to wait until after elections are completed. Two things about that: 1. This is obviously too long to wait for elections results, why can't we hold hearings while elections are going on, but wait until afterwards to release the rulings? 2. Elections have been over for ahilw, why weren't any hearings held last week?

Second. CalStuff comments on Take Back the Night Week and the contentious factoid that 1 in 4 women on a college campus are raped. He also says he hasn't seen this yet in distribution. I received a flyer from Jessica Quindel herself that said something to the effect of: "15,000 women at Cal = 4,000 rapes at Cal" or something like that, I don't remember exactly. So yes, this statistic still won't die and continues to cheapens the tragedy and trauma of rape as a pervasive and real crime.

Later.

2002-04-16T18:50:00.000-07:00

Seems like CalStuff seems to be taking issue with the Daily Cal application process. I'm curious as to what he would like the applicants to do. God forbid we require our columnists to turn in sample columns. Somehow, I think it's good that we get columnists who can write on deadline. His unfounded and ignorant assumption about columnists being "english majors with too much time" is just weird.

He seems to mistake columnists for investigative reporters.

Plus, honestly if you can't write 2100 quality words in ten days, you shouldn't be a columnist.

Godspeed.

2002-04-13T21:50:00.000-07:00

I added sidebar links. Strange that I hadn't done that earlier. Apologies to my fellow bloggers. I hope I linked to you guys enough that it wasn't too much of an issue.

2002-04-12T17:58:00.000-07:00

As someone who has been to Japan and used their "squatting" toilets, I find this intriguing....

Nature's Platform.

All of there claims are, perhaps, true.... But what about injuries from falling off?

Plus, it's hardly conducive to reading the Sunday comics.

2002-04-11T19:35:00.000-07:00

First of all, cheers to good old Pleasanton bud Anand Upadhye for spearheading the demolition of Wally Adeyamo's disgusting waste of words One-Campus Campaign. Some good money out there now for some end-of-the-year efforts of student groups. Is a 3-D Squelch on the horizon? No.

I have some more direct information on the Putnam Porn Star. Although I do know his name and other more personal details, I will not disclose that information. Apparently, the room in which it takes place is not his room, but the room of two other guys on the floor who set up the webcam and everything for him, making one wonder just how secret he wanted to really keep this little escapade. In addition, word around Putnam is that he is not just showing his face but he's walking around like some sort of star. I dunno if that's wise since he did show the entire campus his three-inch wang, and that can't be good for his game.

More to come.

Cheers.

2002-04-11T01:04:00.000-07:00

For the first time, Praglib is posting ASUC insider information. Apparently, beloved icon of ASUC-lifers, his chin-ness Tony Falcone, is already recruiting people for the Academic Senate. This is particularly strange considering that he is the AAVP candidate and has not, in fact, won the office. He is using the Office of the President to do this right now. Now, this tactic is definitely unethical (not sure if it violates bylaws) because he could be influencing votes in this manner by making recruitments and appointments for authority he doesn't have. Wait till you've won the election, Tony, then you'll have all the time in the world to buy friends with appointments.

Also, many ASUC politicos say that Tony will win because he has the frosh dorm vote. This may be true, but I have a friend in the dorm in which he is an RA, and nobody that I've talked to there can stand him.

And of course, in one last tasty detail:

Tony Falcone, that intrepid RA, is one of the RA's in Putnam hall, where the now-infamous UC Berkeley amateur porno was shot. Read about the video at Angry Clam.

And in more bittersweet news, it's good to see that a memorial has been established at the corner frequented by the late Dwight Leeray. You can read more about this at Angry Clam as well. There are already some things in the planning stages to establish something permanent.

Godspeed.

2002-04-10T17:10:00.000-07:00

It's time for election projections! That's right, if you love mindless predictions based on very little evidence, today is your lucky day. Praglib believes that this is a wide-open elections, rendering predictions meaningless. Nevertheless, here are my 2002 predictions for the ASUC.

President: Sean Byrne. This is going to be a very very close race, but between the Daily Cal endorsement and his networks among transfer students and RallyComm I think he can pull it off.

Executive VP: Totally up in the air. My head says that it'll be Sajid Khan, despite a mediocre campaign and flipflopping endorsements, but my heart thinks that Sunny Lu is going to pick it up after her (relatively) suprising Daily Cal endorsement. So my prediction is Sunny.

External VP: Evan Holland. Evan has the support of more or less everybody (except the Patriot) and is far and away the most qualified and popular candidate.

Academic Affairs VP: Although he'll hate me for saying it, Kevin Deenihan will win, I think. He has the support of most of the campus with the huge exception of freshman in the dorms. Tony has that locked up. It'll be close, but I think Kevin will barely edge Tony out, striking a blow for low-budget campaigns and a non-existent presence on Sproul.

Student Advocate: Salam Rafeedie. As much as I can't stand this arrogant and self-righteous bitch and I personally voted for her dead last on my ballot, she will win.

Senate: This should be interesting. From Student Action, I see Clifford and Shawn getting in definitely, and probably John and Pierce but it's tough to say after that. It depends on how much Sproul presence = votes. Apple's going to put Juan in, as well as Shaudi, with Elana and Misha near-locks as well. I don't think BCR has the votes to put Paul in, but we'll see. Cal-SERVE will get Patrick in, and probably Taina and Dan too. As much as it pains me to say, I don't think Squelch! will get any Senators this year, although Ryan has a good chance if he can milk his Bowles Hall connection, given our general campaign apathy though, it probably won't happen. Goatmilk will get put Adnan in the senate and DAAP will probably put Hoku back in for another term. In the world of independents, I see both Anand and Noah as dark horses who can easily win seats with their connections, but they haven't been campaigning on Sproul at all. The Free Weed candidate Ian is a really good campaigner and has a pretty good chance to get in. Also, Daniel Frankenstein, running independet, is a popular figure with a good chance of being elected. And I think CalDems will be able to elect Eric to the Senate.

And those are my predictions. We'll see how it works out.

Good luck.

2002-04-10T16:23:00.000-07:00

Apparently fellow bloggers Angry Clam, CalStuff, and CalAnon were all linked to by InstaPundit for their coverage of the Palestinian thing. Because I was not linked to by InstaPundit, I'm formally protesting InstaPundit. Nobody should ever again go to InstaPundit for any news or information. InstaPundit has made a mockery of the Berkeley Blogs by failing to include mine! Nevermind that I didn't write about the pro-Palestine protest, it is still a mockery! If you hate InstaPundit as much as I do you should never go to InstaPundit again. In fact, I hope I never see another one of InstaPundit's links on the internet. I wonder if there are any people who would put a link to InstaPundit ten times in their blog? They must be losers. InstaPundit.

2002-04-10T00:30:00.000-07:00

Angry Clam reports that the homeless man who died recently at Alta Bates after being assaulted and robbed of $2, Dwight Leeray, was the same man who often stood on Bancroft Avenue by the Wells Fargo ATMs wishing passersby luck on their midterms and in general a good day.

I really don't have anything else to say, but I am shocked and saddened. I wonder if there's anything that can be done to establish something to remember him by. He made the days brighter for many people. What a tragedy for it to have happened in such a senseless and brutal way.

2002-04-09T19:33:00.000-07:00

The results of the hard-hitting scientific testing are in!

discover what candy you are @ stvlive.com

Who'd a thought?

2002-04-09T00:10:00.000-07:00

CalAnon has a nice little post today regarding the news stories in the Daily Cal. Nolo asks:

"IN CASE you've forgotten what mom and dad told you, don't take rides from strangers. A part of the article that I wish had been expanded on is how the Berkeley Marina seems to be a place where rape happens quite often. If one of the reasons is because it's so dark, why hasn't there been a push to install more lights?"

Though I have no proof, who wants to bet the Berkeley residents complained about "lightposts blocking our views" or the "excessive light making the sky unenjoyable" or some similar shite? These are the same citizens who protested the construction of a radio tower so as to have uninterrupted police and fire communication in the case of an emergency.

I wouldn't put it past them.

And I have relatives who live in this town.

2002-04-08T17:01:00.000-07:00

Elections start tomorrow!

Praglib has decided to revise his ASUC endorsements:

President: Sean Byrne
He seems like he'd do a good job, with a wide-range of supporters and an interesting background. Primarily, he seems genuinely devoted to Cal as an institution with particular attention to its history.
Executive VP: Joe Henchman
Joe is an interesting and polemical character, who I don't think has any chance of actually winning, but if he did he'd do a good job. Unless he seized power in a fit of megalomania, in which case it'd still be amusing.
Academic Affairs VP: Kevin Deenihan
Simply the most qualified candidate, he has worked the last year in the Academic Affairs office.
External Affairs VP: Evan Holland
I don't agree with much of her politics, but she is a very dedicated member of the ASUC Senate and would do a good job.
Student Advocate: Romie Littrell
Romie is a charismatic individual and a good leader who could do some decent things with the office. Primarily, though, I can't vote for an anti-semite like Salam Rafeedie with a clear conscience.

Senate picks (in no particular order): Anand Upadhye, David Duman, Shawn Fried, Noah Kagan, Ryan Pauley. These individuals have independent minds, strongly support the needs of student groups, and want to enrich campus life through simple means like expanding entertainment opportunities and amenities for students. Plus, they don't take themselves too seriously and don't get caught up in the bullshit and symbolic gestures that have run rampant in the ASUC this past year. Most importantly, though, pick a senate candidate you really identify with and vote for him or her as your number 1, the Senate is an extremely important post and should be filled with free-thinking and non-partisan individuals.

Propositions:

A: I will vote no. Senators should for no reason miss 30% of their meetings. There is no way that a religious reason could possibly consume that many meeting nights. If there was a Prop to remove the medical excuses section too, I'd vote in favor of it. The 30% of meeting you're allowed to miss should be enough to cover any medical/religious/personal reasons for somebody who really wants to be a Senator and anybody who has missed more than 30% for any reason shouldn't be in the Senate.

B: I'll vote yes. I met some really cool extension students in the dorms last year, and I have many friends who were extension students. Living in the dorms your freshman year is very important to the transition into college and all freshmen, whether Fall or Spring admits (provided that they are enrolled in the extension program) should live in the dorms. I don't know exactly what can actually come from this, but it can't hurt. Definitely vote yes.

C: This is a no-brainer. Conversations between a student and the SAO should be protected by a code of cofidentiality.

D: Vote yes. Why shouldn't the SAO continue to hold its publicity events and plan additional ones to make every aspect of the office known to the student body?

E: No. Hiring should always be based on merit and qualifications. Race/gender should only be used as a hiring consideration in the event of two similarly qualified individuals. In addition, I do not feel that this is the sort of proposition that should even be on the ballot.

F: No. This is actually true, I've never read the "ASUC Monthly." However, if you have read it, but you think it's a useless waste of paper, then you should vote No as well. Very strange thing to have on the ballot, but when you see how much money goes into publishing the "ASUC Monthly," it would be good to get some sort of statistics on its readership.

G: No. I'm not even going to get into this one other than this statement: the University should maintain a population of research animals adequate for its needs, if someone were to show me evidence of there being an excess of animals in the research population, then I'd vote for a reduction.

H: Vote yes, but not for the reasons you may think. This bill will actually give the Executive Vice President something to do during the school year. Plus, using recycled paper and making reasonable environment-friendly decisions is never a bad policy. I just hope this bill doesn't result in irresponsible spending.

There you go. Now just get your asses out there and vote Tuesday-Thursday.

2002-04-04T21:27:00.000-08:00

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.

2002-04-04T20:34:00.000-08:00

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

2002-04-04T10:54:00.000-08:00

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.

2002-04-03T23:53:00.000-08:00

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.

2002-04-03T17:25:00.000-08:00

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

2002-04-03T17:23:00.000-08:00

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.

2002-04-03T09:16:00.000-08:00

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.

2002-04-03T01:24:00.000-08:00

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.

2002-03-25T00:42:00.000-08:00

I swear, I need to get the fuck out of this town. Too much to do around the SAME GODDAMN PEOPLE EVERY DAY. I don't know what it is, but every 6 weeks or so I just get fed up with Berkeley and need to hit the road somewhere for a few days just to relax, unwind, and drink a whole fuckin' lot. I've never been more fed up with this town than I am now. I'm seriously annoyed, peaved, bordering on downright angry.

Just because I graduated in the top 5% of my high-school, scored pleasantly high on my SAT, am holding down a 3.7+ here at Cal, and hope to graduate with honors and go to grad school, doesn't mean I didn't take time to learn how to wipe my own ass.... To use hyperbole, of course. I'd like to think that I could get by if all of a sudden I was without a computer for a week, that I could cook my own food over an open fire that I started myself with maybe one match..... That I know not to walk in front of moving cars, or that at the very very least I can hold a conversation with a girl and not automatically think that she wants to jump my bones. Seriously though, there are some people at this school who couldn't do one or all of those things. There's something about prestigious academic institutions, where our future leaders are made, that bring out some of the most utterly ignorant and self-absorbed people in our fair state; whether they be student, faculty, administration, or staff. Or even city councilmembers.

Berkeley kids, by and large, lack something I call common sense, or even practical sense. I don't know whether that's because their parents sheltered them too much because they were "gifted" or because they just have no interest in worldly knowledge, but there are certain things that you'd expect college-age people to know. If the light is red and there is a car driving down the road at a pretty good speed, DON'T WALK IN FRONT OF THE CAR. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. I wish people would stop protesting for a minute to learn how to change a flat tire or sew up a hole in one's pants.

My life is too complicated. Too much shit to do, too much shit that I own. I need to get a job where I live out of a suitcase; quantify my life into a couple of bags and just travel, maybe stay in a hotel here and there. That's the one thing I miss about my drum corps days, just getting on a bus for a week, sleeping on gym floors, nothing but one suitcase, a sleeping bag, mattress pad, and a bugle. Man that was great. Whenever I'm in Berkeley I'm a slave to the internet, to cable tv, to homework, to social life.... I'm not complaining, but it's just not streamlined....

Good news is after work tomorrow I'm going to head down to San Jose, catch the No Doubt concert with a friend of mine and the she and I are going to head down to San Luis Obispo/ Santa Barbara. Visit some friends, hit the beach if the weather's good, and just generally simplify. One suitcase, a sleeping bag, and a pillow.... Good times.

Catch you when I get back, fuckers. I should be in a better mood.

Godspeed.