CalJunket |
|
|
Campus personalities present and past Rebecca C. Brown and Tommaso Sciortino tackle the issues. This week on a very special CalJunket: Rebecca learns not to chew with her mouth open and Tommaso finds out his best friend is addicted to no-doze. Site feed: caljunket.blogspot.com/atom.xml
AIM Rebecca:
Archives
|
Saturday, December 27, 2003
Also, the thin line between semi-universal value judgments and faith. I hope each reader's reprive from school work is going well. I just got back from Long Beach today after five enjoyable days with my family in my former city. My parents, sisters, father, and grandparents were very generous with their money and creativity this Christmas season, and I really appreciate every gift I got. The unplanned though not surprising hiatus was due, of course, to my time being absorbed by holiday travel and gift preparation. Plus my parents don't have an internet connection at home. Sigh. On a political note, I'd like to yet again commend Dennis Kucinich for not confusing values with religion. He is a spiritual man, and undoubtedly his politics are infused with his conception of faith. But he does not let religion specifically determine his political decisions or messages, nor does he unwittingly use religion as a means of alienating his non-spiritual constituents. While your average Republican (let's take GWB for example) may say things like "This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government, it comes from the Creator of life" in reference to abortion policy, Dennis likes to keep things non-denominational. Vaguely spiritual, maybe, but never specific. (Take a gander at his holiday message here. Not even a word about Christmas.) I enjoy Dennis' response to this question. (Full interview here.) Q: The current administration is ideologically bent toward Christian fundamentalism. General Boykin's recent comment about a Muslim warlord - "I knew my god was bigger than his" - went un-condemned by the White House. Is religious extremism in the White House causing a problem for America? A: [Long pause and a smile.] I think that we should pray for the people in the White House, or not, depending on our religious disposition. This approach of 'my god is bigger than your god' is, shall we say, unsophisticated, lacking in common sense, and provocative. It is not mindful of the founders' intention that this country achieve a separation of church and state. On the other hand, the founders never wanted us to be separate from spiritual values. It is very unspiritual to claim that anyone has cornered the market on ancient wisdom, on metaphysics, on transcendence, on paths to redemption. So, I think that we should pray for these people. This universalized attitude toward spirituality may put off many if not most Americans; despite the fact that we celebrate diversity, we also as a nation feel defensive (would "proud" be a less abrasive term?) about our collective Christian identity. For as long as I can remember, I personally have never felt any vestige of spirituality in me. I'm of a mind that everything that exists, even emotionally, exists physically in some form. I believe that the desire to be good ("good" as defined by your personal values) and the ability to feel empathy does not necessarily derive from faith or from a soul, but rather from the ability to simply put yourself in the shoes of another man or woman or culture or chimp or cow or any other living thing. To me, pain is bad, and I do what I can to keep pain to a minimum for every creature around me. (Expect maybe my immediate family, who has to deal with my wacky vegan diatribe.) You can call me an Atheist for Jesus, if it helps. You don't need to be a Christian to be kind. Further, Christianity (and Islam, and Buddhism...) is just one set of values. I can't believe that there is any objective standard of right and wrong. To me, murder is wrong, but homosexuality is not. Anyhow, back to politics. I don't think W's faith-based politics are in keeping with the original objectives of this nation, nor the objectives that its people have continued to support until this day. We claim to be the beacon of freedom of religion, yet we let distinctly Judeo-Christian values decide our laws and inform our prejudices. I think Kucinich presents an interesting compromise in acting under a universal faith rather than proposing that the values of a certain religion can accurately represent America. (0) comments Merry Christmas. Also, I hope Rebecca is not dead. Friday, December 19, 2003
I don't want to become the RIL truth squad (it would take a team of dedicated workers to do the job properly) but how off your nut do you have to be to wish that your own home state gets weighed down by crushing debt? Don't they appreciate how great a state this is? They say its because they want to end "Californian socialism". But that just underscores how mean and vindictive they are. They would rather see the Californian people hobbled and unable to act collectively to defend themselves than to admit that California just doesn't buy the political snake oil they're selling. The election of Arnold Schwarzenegger just underscores my point. After being voted out of office the only way the Republicans were able to weasel their way into the governor’s mansion was to hire an actor who doesn't want to "talk about numbers". There's a reason that Republicans like Arnold don't want to talk numbers: if they did, most California voters would put them to the curb. Maybe some districts in Irvine where everyone is rich enough not to need government services this kind of talk will fly. But in the California that regular people live in, it's not going to happen. If they presented their plans honestly and in a straightforward manner "We cut taxes and in exchange we get rid of the following programs" California would favor the Democratic vision nine times out of ten. Even with a slime ball like Grey Davis running the show. That's why McClintock (who, as far as I know, is an honorable man) got shut out. It's just not popular. I look forward eagerly to Schwarzenegger's budget proposal. Let's see if he has the guts to name what programs he wants to cut. My guess: we won't see it. There is a Conservative vision for America that is relevant. It is possible for the state to spend too much and for government bureaucracy to waste taxpayer dollars. It's good to have people looking to make government do more with less. But these extremists don't just want to trim fat, they want to cut the meat down to the bone. Maybe someday the guys at Res Ipsa Loquitur will finally scrape together enough money from their parents to charter that bus to Brazil, where the taxes are low, the government services non-existent, and the state crippled by enormous debt. For me at least, that day can't come soon enough. (0) comments A not so quick reply to bcr boy's post on Homosexuality Tuesday, December 16, 2003
I grew up in the unincorporated community of Rancho San Diego. For those of you not familiar with the phrase “unincorporated community” this means that it’s an area large enough to be a town, with enough people to be a town, but without an actual government. Why? Because sadly, the frontier spirit of democracy and participatory government are nigh dead. Growing up, my most immediate US government representative was one of five San Diego County board of supervisors. Check it out. That’s me in section 2. It never even occurred to me that this was weird. Politics after all, seemed like something that was only important in large cities or on the state and federal level. When a mini-mall opened up on top of what used to be my favorite section of the local creek, it never even occurred to me that I or my neighbors might have had a say in the placement of said mall. So alien was the idea of people actually being able to affect what the government does. Coming to Berkeley then, was like a refreshing blast of cold No-Cal air. Here was a town where everyone seemed to have an opinion on every topic. Even ones they couldn't affect. Sure, the wave of hyper-participation also washed the crazies along with it; With their protest signs and kooky ideas. But in the end, that’s what democracy is all about: Everyone agitating, complaining, working and striving to improve the damn place. I had read Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, but I didn’t understand it till I came to Berkeley. His described ruckus, fully attended, town meetings with citizens forming ad hoc committees and associations for every common cause. He described every hick and yokel being familiar with the minutia of local politics and government. He saw a citizenry empowered by knowing that they could trust their government because they kept a close eye on it. Citizen's not afraid to raise the taxes needed to do what they wanted to do. He saw that Democracy is not about efficient government. It’s about inefficient government with an amazing resource: The minds and will of all its citizens. Heart and Oxford is a dangerous intersection. As it already has a full stop light and crosswalk, you’d think that there isn’t much more the city could do. Last time I went however, I found that there were little buckets set by each crosswalk, filled with little orange flags. That way, when you walked across you could wave the flag and not be hit by a car. It’s the dumbest idea I ever heard. But it’s remarkable in that the government is trying. It’s responsive. It’s how American cities used to be. And it’s how they all should be again. (0) comments |
I hate finals. I hate writing essays that I don't want to write. I hate having to defer my desire to bake cookies and crochet wall tapestries so that I can instead pretend to know something about postmodern photography for eight pages.
But I love Lord of the Rings. See you in Dublin (CA) tomorrow night.
(0) comments
Thursday, December 11, 2003
I've got some beef with Ted Koppel
First, I hope all my readers are finding this finals season agreeable to their health and happiness. Per my own personal philosophy, I've adopted the "Study Schmudy" attitude that has served me so well for the last seven years. But with 15 pages of writing and a photo book (in addition to my lone timed final) due this year, I've been keeping busy. Not to mention all the painting, crocheting, and baking I need to complete for Christmas gifts. In short, sorry for neglecting my blogging duties.
If you didn't catch it the first time around, I rebeccommend that you watch the most recent Democratic presidential debate on C-SPAN.org. (Find the link on the homepage that says "Democratic Presidential Debate" from 12/9/03 or 12/10/03.) It's 90 minutes long, but it'll give you an excuse to stop studying for a little while and still feel intellectual. My problem is that the first third of the debate, as mediated by Ted Koppel and his hair, is spent almost entirely discussing polls and Gore's endorsement of Dean. Koppel insists upon making Gore's endorsement an issue for all nine candidates, even though only a few (Dean, Kerry, and Lieberman) appear to care. Further, he presses the four "non-serious" candidates (Braun, Sharpton, Edwards, and Kucinich) about their low rankings in the polls.
Skip through the video to listen to Dennis' response to these proddings. He tells Ted what for.
(0) comments
Sunday, December 07, 2003
The Moral Hazard of Universal Health Care
Howard Dean and other Democrats have suggested the United States should work toward adopting a universal health care plan. This is a bad idea. As Republicans have warned us repeatedly, if there were no monetary repercussions to getting sick, people would be tempted to get sick all the time, just for fun.
Everyone understands that people love money. And even a child can grasp that if you make people pay for a service, they will ration their use of that service. This is simple common sense. But clear eyed conservative realists understand even more: Making people pay for services is bar none, always the best way to ration those services. It doesn’t matter if every other industrialized country in the world has decided otherwise. In the entirety of God’s creation, there cannot be conceived any kind of service, good, or tangible object which is not best distributed with this system. Except for national defense of course, pure capitalism must reign.
…Or agriculture, since we need our own supply of corn in case we declare war on the rest of the world.
Furthermore, this knowledge does not need to be demonstrated by fact. It is so fundamentally true that in the odd case that data seems to contradict it, like how the US spends more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country ($4270 per person vs. $2000 in 1998) and that it has a larger percentage uninsured than any other industrialized country (18% also in ’98), those facts must be suspect. After all, it could be that the remaining 82% of Americans are enjoying their healthcare 350% more than the average Canadian. Only the keen and perceptive eyes of a Republican leader can see through such distractions.
Lastly, let us understand that there can be no middle ground. We cannot say that, since we do not want the poor dying in front of hospitals, we will admit anyone if they will die otherwise. This is foolishness. Universal health care would be cheaper than having the poor wait till their ailments were critical and costly, so this kind of thinking is a priori wrong. No, Republicans understand that the potential damage done to poor person’s character is far more serious than anything that could possibly be going on in their spleen.
So next time someone suggests that or current health system needs to be changed, take a good long look at them. This is not a serious person. Serious people understand that life is ugly. Serious people understand that those born rich, who have never worked a day in their lives, (like Steve Forbes of George W. Bush) deserve medical attention far more than people who sweat 40 hours a week picking fruit in the hot sun. Serious people know that if someone were to go around curing the sick and the lame, everyone would go out and get Leprosy.
(0) comments
Wednesday, December 03, 2003
Oh Ralph. Will you ever not lose?
Poor Ralph Nader, the Linux of politics. I'd be shocked if he came out victorious in a game of checkers. He loses more than just elections. He also gets beat up by 97.3% of this nation's voters and pundits at every opportunity. This week, his publicist announced that the Ralph Man is starting to raise money to start thinking about considering running for the White House next year. (Full article here, via Paul Bruno via Kevin Drumm, but you hafta register and activate your account with your email and give out your address. Way to be a pain in the ass, LA Times. Pfffttt.)
In short, Dems who feel Nader "robbed" the election from Al are yet again devising unflattering terms and vitriol to the Man in Gray. They fear once more that he will prevent a Democratic victory by giving uber-liberals an alternative to Dean/Kerry/Clark/Gephart/InsertInoffensiveDemocraticCandidateHere in November. The phrase "handing Bush a victory" is undoubtedly waiting in the bullpin along with the cute monikers "thief" and "spoiler" and "stupid Green poopy pants."
I'm registered Green, I've voted Green at every opportunity, and I've even given $11 to the party during my lifetime, so my personal insight into the matter may be appreciated here.
First, I don't buy the Green argument that Democrats are just as bad as Republicans. Democrats, or at least certain ones, have proven to be just as nefarious as our friends at the GOP at accepting lobby money, supporting war, destroying Welfare, supporting vouchers, supporting the death penalty, not standing up for gay rights, etc. But the good portion of Democrats only participate in these un-liberal tactics in a watered-down form (accepting less lobby money; supporting war, then changing their minds; supporting "civil unions;" etc.). And some Democrats, like Dennis Kucinich, refuse to water down a thing. I think the current House and Senate Dems have been decidedly aquiescent to Bush's Hate Machine. I can only attribute this trend to the desire for reelection in an increasingly conservative environment.
But back to Nader. No, the average Dem is not just as bad as the average GOPpy. I can respectfully disagree with Ralph on that one, and I'm sure he won't harbor any hard feelings. He's cool like that.
But back to Nader. Nobody can make you vote for Nader. Nobody in Florida was forced to vote for Nader. Those voters could have cast their ballots for Gore or Bush or Buchanan (ha ha) if they had so chosen. So the idea of Nader "stealing" votes is ridiculous. Would those Nader voters have voted for Gore had Nader not run? Probably. Some of them wouldn't have voted at all, but the vast vast vast majority of them would have probably voted Democratic in 2000, and Gore would be in the White House right now. (If Pat Buchanan hadn't run, Bush would have been elected without any controversy at all.) So why not "blame" the voters instead of casting Ralph Nader as a hateful jerkface who hates Democrats and is a big jerk and wants to make life Hell for liberals? If Nader were really that persuasive a public figure, he'd have gotten enough votes to be in the debates.
But back to Nader. (Boy, if I got a nickel for every time I used the word "Nader" in this damn post...) I personally don't think a Nader presidential campaign will accomplish anything this upcoming election, except to engender a little more bitterness all around, and to give disgruntled liberals like myself who live in states that are so far Democratic or so far Republican that the Green vote won't matter thanks to the asonine Electoral College someone for whom to vote in good faith. I also believe that a strongish third party will help keep the two big parties on their toes.
Having Bush around for another four years will be tenfold more destrucive to this nation and this planet than will having a three-quarter-assed liberal like Gephart leading the Free World. The chances of another Bush term are increased if Nader runs. But when it comes down to it, a Democrat victory is in the hands of the Democrats and in the hands of the voters, not in the hands of one skinny unenigmatic man with a lazy eye.
(0) comments
ITEM!!!
ASUC Apple Senator Paul La Fata spotted eating alone at Gypsy's at 5:48pm. La Fata was seen sprinkling parmesean onto his unidentified entree. Several weeks ago, the Senator was also seen in line at CUBS, the University credit union located on Lower Sproul. On both occasions, he was wearing his shirt tucked in.
This can only lead me to several conclusions: First, that Republicans tuck their shirts in. Further, they enjoy Italian food from local eateries. Lastly, they support non-profit banking systems.
These conclusions happen to be uncorraborated by the actions of the other Republican whom I know personally, namely a Mr. Hovannes A. (I've not included his last name for the sake of his anonymity. And I can't spell the dude's last name.) Though I'm uncertain of his eating preferences, previously obtained intelligence would lead me to believe that he uses a commercial bank. Also, I've never seen him with his shirt tucked in.
This can only lead me to one conclusion: You just can't trust a Republican. They always try to keep you guessing.
(0) comments
Saturday, November 29, 2003
Fascists and Femenazis
A post by Ornicus got me hating Rupert Murdoch even more.
Conservatives and Liberals throw word Fascism around a lot. And while it’s easy to point to a swastika and say “Never again”, it’s much more difficult to recognize fascism in general. Its traits are nebulous: a delegitimization of difference and dissent (both in and outside the party); the desire for unfettered leaders without corrupt parliamentary procedure; and exalting power and moral clarity over cooperation and logic.
Rush Limbaugh is a fascist. Just like Bill O’Riely and Ann Coulter. In Rush’s world, anyone who disagrees with him is a Liberal. Liberals never act in good faith. Latte-Liberals (any liberal really) indulge in luxury and are aloof wasting time in ivory towers, theorizing without doing. They are morally base and groups in league with the Liberals (Unions, environmental groups) are corrupt. Republicans on the other hand agree that “Rush is right”. They always act in good faith. Republicans do not indulge in extravagance not do they bother themselves with difficult issues when moral clarity can lead you true. They are morally superior, and understand that America’s military power should not be hampered by international law or the treaty of Versailles.
The problem with Fascism is that it doesn’t exactly attract the best and brightest. You need to be a personal failure to have enough hate to lead a fascist movement, and that doesn’t make for a good business plan. It’s necessary to have an outsiders fund your loser group of fascist rabble-rousers.
Corporatists fit the bill. Their goal: advance the interests of corporations and the rich. That’s why we see Republican implementing regressive taxes while removing irksome American traditions like the Estate Tax. Surely, the idea to tax earned money (Payroll tax) and not unearned money (Capital gains) could only be supported by a rich person, or a person who doesn’t really understand economics.
In places like post WWI Germany and Italy, the rich found a sure fire way to avert socialism: support Fascists! Without German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, Hitler and the Nazis would have been historical also-rans. Republicans, which pre-Nixon looked a lot like a reunion of stunt doubles from the movie Arthur, realized it would take more that alcoholism, money, and cockney charm to get power. The innovation that brought Nixon-Republicans (like Rumsfeld to Cheney) to power was to appeal to racism and anti-communism to gain votes. They learned the lesson of those that went before them, though: let the Fascists talk, but do not let them drive.
Modern Day Australian industrialist Rupert Murdoch might have shown up late in the game, but his work would make Adolf cry with joy. Here’s a corporatist who knows his interests. In China, his network has helps support the world’s last communist power. In America, Fox news empowers failures like Bill O’Riely, allowing him to say whatever he wants as long as he supports media deregulation. It’s a dangerous game Murdoch plays, but if America ever falls to Fascism, you can bet that Murdoch will be some where else, delighting people with his irascible charm and down-under wit.
(0) comments
Friday, November 28, 2003
Sorry for the absence.
I'm keeping too busy to do any substantial posting. But this one won't be without purpose.
It turns out that the cornbread recipe below sorta blows. Here's a better one.
3/4 c. white flour
1/2 c. wheat flour
1 c. cornmeal
1/4 c. white sugar
1/2 c. crown sugar
1 1/2 c. soy milk
1 c. soy margarine
2 tbsp vegetable oil
1 tsp cinnamon
1 tsp cayanne pepper
dash allspice, nutmeg, ginger, and cloves
2 tsp honey (half to drizzle on top)
40-50 minutes at 375-400 degrees. I got several compliments on this recipe yesterday from non-vegans.
(0) comments
Wednesday, November 26, 2003
Rebecca C. Brown's Hearty Cornbread Recipe
Thanksgiving is tomorrow, and probably most of you will be participating in some sort of family meal celebrating such. And chances are that as primarily male college students, you will be helping out with the baking and cooking (just to defy paradigms and all). You may be at a loss as to what to prepare for your loved ones. Here's a recipe for some surprisingly good cornbread:
1 1/2 c. cornmeal
2 c. whole grain unbleached flour (or white flour for a less hearty bread)
1/4 c. brown sugar
1/4 c. white sugar
1 tbsp baking powder
1 tsp egg substitute powder
1 tsp ground cinnamon
1 tsp (plus or minus) ground cayanne pepper (a surprising yet always well-received ingredient)
pinch ground allspice, nutmeg, and ginger
dash salt
1/2 c. vegetable oil (no trans fats, unlike in margarine)
1 3/4 c. soy milk (or cow's milk if you insist)
Preheat your oven to 400 degrees. Mix all your dry ingredients. Then add your milk and oil and mix thoroughly. You can either mix your ingredients in a big bowl and then pour it into a greased glass or metal 8" sqaure pan, or just mix the ingredients right in the baking dish (with the greater likelihood that your bread will stick a little to the pan). Then cook it for 45 minutes to an hour, depending on how broken your oven is. You'll know your bread is done when you can poke a knife in all the way and it comes out clean.
I'm also making pumpkin pie and a yam & carrot dish for the holiday; I'll make sure to tell you how they turn out. Happy Thanksgiving!
(0) comments
Sunday, November 23, 2003
Rebecca C. Brown gives thanks on this the most thanks-inducing of weeks
It's the time of year when the last yellow leaves shiver off the trees (unless you live in Southern California, in which case all your trees have been replaced with convenient Wells Fargo ATMs); when turkeys outsell US Weeklys at the grocery store; when we Jews, Christians, and Christmas-loving atheists alike begin to splurge for our loved ones; when "The Year in Retrospect" specials begin airing a month prematurely; and when we are prompted to list in semi-aescending order the things in our lives that make us feel truly gifted. Here is a incomplete list of the aspects of my recent life for which I give the most thanks.
My family in Long Beach whom I miss so much. Sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night longingly to a harsh Berkeley that simply hasn't given me my daily dose of crazy. Sure, I can find plenty of substance abuse or aimless bickering on the streets, but it just isn't the same when that substance abuse or aimless bickering isn't sharing a 2 litre bottle of Diet Pepsi and a dry bean cassarole with you. In all honesty, I love you. You made me the creative and fearlessly opinionated rascal I am today, and I wish it were less cost prohibitive to visit you more often. Thank you, Lynn-Brown-Goertz-Gibson-Glowacz-Valejo-Meschek brood! (Thanks to the Dumans/Lauries for being my surrogate family for so many occasions.)
California tax-payers. Seriously, guys. Your help means a lot. You pay the taxes that go to the state Department of Education that goes to the Long Beach Unified School District that pays for my mom's health insurance that (until September 11, 2006) pays for nearly all my medical and dental costs. With your kind donations, I have a $0.00 co-pay on all hospital visits, a $2.50 co-pay on all prescriptions (generic or name brand), and I only paid $127.60 for a $1,200 oral surgery procedure. Thanks to you, I don't need to choose between medical care and my expensive food habit. You rock! (P.S. Thanks Karl Marx for the great idea in the first place.)
B. M. Patakas, DDS. My recovery from my wisdom tooth removal has been seamless so far. I'm especially impressed that you yanked out all four of them completely intact. (Now I just need to figure out what to do with that quartet of picture-perfect molars sitting in a little bath of water on my dresser right now.) I'll Rebeccommend you and your extraction team to all my friends.
The soy farmers of this fine nation. I don't know where I'd be without you. You've made the last six years not only tolerable but enjoyable. Now that I'm not allowed to chew for a few days, the milk and powdered protien of your distingushed bean has made a perfect base for my fruit smoothies and pancakes. Cheers to you!
The owners and operators of all my favorite novelty websites. Thanks, men and women of menwholooklikekennyrogers.com, cameltoe.org, homestarrunner.com, explodingdog.com, and foxnews.com! You're always good for a quick pick-me-up.
David Duman. You've proven to be the kindest, most loving person in my life the past few weeks, if not past year. I wish there were a more adequate way (besides stripping you of any anonymity or privacy by thanking you on my blog) to tell you how much your remarkable patience and giving nature have made me happy, especially since they stole the teeth out of my head. Some ladies and gents out there might think their men are top-notch, but they're all big suckers. I'm indisputably the luckiest of them all.
(0) comments
Saturday, November 22, 2003
It would take one pea brain, one unqualified man, one liar slipped into this White House to bring a decade of horror like none we have ever known.
The RNC (not President Bush himself) has decided to start spending millions of dollars in the primaries to get a leg up on making sure Bush gets the nomination. Or maybe they're spending this money to encourage Democrats to stay home during the primaries, which is ineffectual because a Democrat will be nominated even if only eleven Democrats show up to vote. Or maybe they're priming swing voters to jump on the Republican hate wagon before it leaves town. Whatever the motivation, it's a big waste of money.
This ad will start airing in Iowa on Sunday.
I'm on a Kucinich e-mailing list, and I think my good friend Denny had some strong and important words to say about the RNC's depiction of the terrorist threat on America: "The Republican National Committee is using money that derives largely from the wealthiest few in America to pay for advertisements aimed at keeping all Americans scared. We will not be frightened into submission. We will not forget the lies we were told about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We will not forget that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. We will remember that for the hundreds of billions we are spending on an unjust and destabilizing occupation in Iraq, we could have an investment in American education that would include free pre-kindergarten and free college tuition. We need to get our priorities straight and not give in to the fear-mongering. I offer America the hope of a new approach and a clear choice in the next election."
Similar attacks against the RNC's fear machine appear on the other Democrats' homepages. In pouring over websites and watching debates, I am very pleased to see the Democrats unified in their pledge defeat Bush. I'm inspired to see so many of the candidates, both viable and long-shot, resist the temptation to play the middle of the road. (Svae for Lieberman. He's a sellout.) My only fear is that when the primaries are over, the Democratic candidate's current dedication to a rejuvinated left will deteriorate into moderate (read "right of center") pandering.
Oh, and Go Bears. I'm not into rivalry at all, especially not in the athletic realm. The only grudge I hold against Stanford (with an "O" - misspelling has never equated to clever zinging for me) is that their tuition is through the roof and thus only kids with rich parents or exceptional sports abilities can attend. So that "Go Bears" was apathetic and obligatory. In fact, Go Bears, Stay Bears, Sit Bears. I don't care. So long as the Squelch is better than Stanford's "humor" mag the Chapparelle, I'm content.
P.S. My tooth extraction went very well. Only minimal throbbing in my gums and jaw so far. Luckilly, my cute boyfriend got me a Cuisinart food processer for our first anniversary just days before my surgery, so even the most challenging meals can be instantly transformed into soft food that my swollen mouth can handle. Like pasta pate. Actually, I'm sticking to friut and soy protein powder smoothies. Mmmmm.....isoflavones.
(0) comments
Thursday, November 20, 2003
Bad news and more bad news
A self-centered introspection into my personal crises
I thought the deadline to apply to go to dinner with Dennis Kucinich was midnight EST last night. I got my email in well before 9pm, but it seems the deadline was earlier than that. I even submitted a cute picture of myself. Rats. Well, I guess if I want to have dinner with Denny, I'll have to do so on my own dime.
On an unrelated note, I'm broke. Or almost broke, at least. My basic policy since entering college was to keep my checking account over $3000 at all time, just in case an emergency popped up. (Such as needing to pay for my tuition and fees before my loan check got processed, as was the case this past August. I'd never written a check for over $2900 before in my life.) I checked my balance about a month ago, and it might have been just a little over $2000. Today when I checked it it was at under $1200. The moral of the story is that my approximately $580 a month income that I get for working thirteen hours a week is only enough to cover rent and food. And just barely at that. My loan money ($5500 this year) will cover only my Univeristy fees. This doesn't leave much room for books, studio supplies, Summer tuition, minmal health care costs, or travel expenses to go home for the holidays. (I've opted to stay in the Bay Area the past two Thanksgivings and Spring Breaks to save money on air fare.) Admittedly, I like to spend money on gifts for my loved ones, maybe about $300 per year now that I have a boyfriend. Also, since entering college, I've probably spent an average of $30 a month on "frivolous" things like clothing, CDs, bakeware, soap, toothpaste, tampons, and the like. In other words, I'm not living the Jesus-esque life.
But from my observations I'm living much more simply and cost-effectively than many of my immediate friends. It's not that I'm bitter that a good portion of the kids I know at Cal have parents who are paying for their tution and books and rent and food. It's just that I'm...um...I think that...well...dammit I am bitter! I got a triple in Unit 1, not because I got stuck there, but because I couldn't afford any other option. Most of you will be walking out of this university with no job prospects. I'll be walking out of this university with no job prospects and $23,000 in debt.
Unfortunately, I'm not the only one at Cal in this shitty situation. We're probably in the minority, but we're here. I wish I had a solution. But I don't. The only way I can console myself is to think that me paying my way through school is a character-building experience; that my peers who have a job for spending money instead of rent money will have a bigger shock than I will once they enter the "real" world; that struggle makes you a more compassionate person; that the ones whose grandparents can afford to send them to Europe couldn't appreciate that vacation as much as I could as a poor person. But these consolations aren't fair and probably are not even true. I've got a bad case of reverse-elitism. Maybe the middle-class values and lower-middle-class bank account (namely the one with negative numbers) I inherited from my parents are only hurting me.
(0) comments
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Politeness vs. Truth
One of the lesser known fronts of the Cold war was the field of brainwashing. A couple returning POWs had inexplicably turned Marxists and the US military was interested in why. Several branches of the government worked on the project and in the end, the trick turned out to be no trick at all. A straightforward program of incarceration, isolation, and group punishment that would have been familiar to any prosecutor of the Spanish Inquisition was the best any captor could do. The reason the Communists seemed to have the upper hand was that they were willing to do things our American morals would not permit.
I think that the liberal-conservative meme war might be like that. For those of you not familiar, Berkeley’s own George Lakoff is part of the Rockridge Institute, a progressive think tank whose focus is reframing political debate through language. The idea is that Republicans have found political advantage by using a very precise language specially designed to frame things in a conservative light. For a specific example of bad framing see Nixon’s “I am not a crook.”
(As a better example, think of how Republican politicians always seem to keep the topic of discussion on taxes and “tax burdens”. That is a framing trick all by its own. Of course, everyone wants lower taxes. But only by mentally separating them from public services can Republicans hope to bamboozle people into supporting plans to undermine popular institutions like social security.)
It’s a good idea. But while it’s important that liberals have the right language to use, it even more crucial is the willingness to say it unashamed. What conservatives have, and what liberals really need, is the media with the will to deliver our message.
Conservative leader can trust any of a number of journalists to repeat their spin point or even to blow the cover off a deep cover CIA agent for that matter. Liberals have to contend with the regular media who seem to keep one eye on the news and the other on the number of angry letters they get accusing them of liberal bias. Fox doesn’t care about bias. The wall street journal doesn’t care about bias (or even basic economics if it gets in the way of their ideology). They probably don’t even get letters complaining of bias. Bias is a red herring and liberals should take their queue from conservatives and be unashamed of their own politics.
I’m not suggesting that Liberals stoop as low as Fox News (Michael Moore has come close). What I am suggesting is that liberals, and particularly, liberals in the media, stop letting their gentlemanly code of conduct prevent them from saying mean things when mean things need to be said. Otherwise we’ll all end up sounding like NPRs Terry Gross trying to explain how it’s politically balanced to give O’Reilly a hard time during an interview. (Answer: It’s not politically balanced. But it is the best way to treat a guest you believe is dishonest.)
Our country didn’t have to give up our morals or our freedoms to win the Cold war, but we did have to learn to give up our isolationist “everything is fine” attitude and take threats seriously. Aggressive, lopsided, and one-sided reporting from the right threatens to unbalance our informed electorate. Liberals need to stop pining for the polite old days of newspapers, and start getting the truth out there. We don’t have to compromise our morals, just instinct to be polite.
(0) comments
Monday, November 17, 2003
Only 37 hours left! Get on the Kucinich date wagon NOW!
Submissions to enter PoliticsNH.com's Go To Dinner With Presidential Unhopeful Dennis Kucinich are due by midnight on Wednesday, November 19. Here's why I would be the best candidate:
- I'm a damned hippie, but I'm also pragmatic.
- I love single-payer health care, and I can never get enough peace.
- Did I say peace? I meant peach. I love peaches. But I also love peaces. No, peace. I love peach.
- DK and I are both vegans, so eating dinner together would be a breeze. No Sizzler for us.
- I have a hairpiece fetish.
- I agree with him on all political fronts except affirmative action and bilingual education. (And believe me, the dude has a really long list of political beliefs.)
- We've both got cherubic good looks. Our kids would look like elves.
Also, check out this rad audio postcard from Willie Nelson endorsing Denny. Nice tanktop!
(0) comments
Sunday, November 16, 2003
Now that doesn't seem fair, does it?
Some numbers on blacks and marijuana.
Here are some fascinating charts about reported marijuana use among Americans of different age, gender, and ethnic groups. This is a chart of the percentage of black drug offenders in state prison.
For those of you who don't enjoy pouring over charts, here are some highlights:
- (Table 3.2) At the time of the survey, 9.9% of black participants had smoked weed in the last year, while 9.1% of whites had. (Among 18-25 year-olds, namely kids people our age, 24.2% of whites had used marijuana in the last year, while only 20% of blacks had.)
- (Table 3.1) 37.8% of white participants reported using pot during their lifetimes, while 28.5% of blacks had. (Again, look at the higher weed use among white people in our age group - 46.7% v. 31.6%.)
- (Table 3.3) The delineation in which the black pot use is largest compared to white pot use is among those who had used within the last month, and even then the proportion was low - 6.1% of blacks v. 5.2% of whites.
Now comes the crazy part.
- (Second link) 63% of drug admissions to state prisons are black, compared to 12% that are white.
Okay, let's think about this. America is 80% white, but only 12% black. Let's go with the least flattering figure for blacks and assume black marijuana users outnumber white users 6 to 5. Even then, in raw numbers, there are about 5.7 times as many whites using marijuana than blacks, so, by extention, there should be about 5.7 times as many whites in jail for weed as blacks. Instead, blacks outnumber whites over 5 to 1 on marijuana incarcerations.
In short, the criminal justice system is anti-black, for one reason or another. Those of you who doin't think it is can maybe counter my emperical data with a reasonable explanation. Maybe "Blacks love to turn themselves in," or "Blacks like to carry their weed out inthe open when they walk past cops." But no, it couldn't be that police are more likely to pursue marijuana use in black neighborhoods, or more likely to look the other way when a white college kid smells like pot, or that a judge is more likely to sentence a black person than a white person for the same drug charge. Of course not. This is America.
(0) comments
Thursday, November 13, 2003
An update for all my family and close friends
I don't often find the time to personally contact my loved ones and update them with my happenings, but in case said loved ones are reading my blog, here's a summary of the next few weeks' activities:
- Tue., 11/18/03: Paper due in History of Art. Stupid paper.
- Fri., 11/21/03: Wisdom tooth extraction (all four of them) with Dr. Patakas in Alameda. My two bottom molars have soft tissue vertical impaction, meaning my jaw isn't long enough to accommodate these teeth, so the back half of each tooth has grown in under the gum. Here's an informative diagram:
- Sat., 11/22/03: Be in a lot of pain from previous day's procedure.
- Thu., 11/27/03: Thanksgiving with the man-pal's family in Sacramento. As a swollen-mouthed vegan, I have planned to bring my own delectable T-day treats, including vegan cornbread, vegan pumpkin pie, and a healthful yet exciting vegan yam dish. Mmmmm...yam dish.
I hope you all feel as if you were right here with me. I sure do.
(0) comments
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Whither progressive income tax?
On the face of it, it’s pretty difficult to argue against the progressive income tax without seeming like a jaded jerk. The most handy argument for it is that a flat tax would mean way higher taxes for you (millionaires don’t read this blog so it’s safe to say that). Though it is the actual reason we don’t have a flat tax there is something deeply unsatisfying about this argument. Heck! I could just as easily argue that everyone who reads this blog should get free money from the government, but I think it too would assault our basic sense of fairness.
Of course, every single flat tax proposal made by conservative leaders (it comes up in congress almost every year) aren’t really flat at all. They aim to levy a flat tax on earned income (the kind of money you and I make at pizza hut) and lift all taxes on unearned income (the kind of money the rich make off of us when they use out student loan interest to buy homes in the south of France). Furthermore, even Republican leaders aren’t heartless enough to tax the homeless and those not making a living wage. Again, being “two-tiered” their flat tax isn’t really flat at all. Clearly then, you could easily argue against any given “flat tax” plan, but still, the platonic ideal of a flat tax is still there, floating in space: Wrong… But why?
It’s an issue of fairness. Sure, Bill Gates is a better programmer than me. Heck, he’s probably even a better salesman then me. But is he really 43,150,080.03* times better than me at anything? Even at darts, which I am exceedingly bad at? No, although it is plain that Bill Gates should rightly own far more than I do, we can also freely admit that what he does own is due in some part to good fortune. Of course, Bill Gates is a particularly deserving case. What about flat tax proponent Steve Forbes? His main talent is the ability to be born to outstandingly rich parents. Quite a skill. Then again, I’m a really good whistler but our society has decided that this particular talent, though also inheritable, does not merit multimillion dollar rewards.
The flip side is less dramatic but probably more common. While it’s difficult to get rich without deserving it (barring accidents of birth like our sitting president), it is very easy to not get rich even though you totally do deserve it. If you see Philo Taylor Farnsworth in heaven, thank him for inventing television, since no one ever did down here.
Of course, this doesn’t even take into account the people who are rich specifically because they are jerks (see John D. Rockefeller civil-war profiteering) and those who are poor exactly because they were good Samaritans (all the George Baileys of the world).
In the end, a progressive tax is (amongst other things) really just a luck tax. It asks of the most probably lucky ducks sitting on their piles of gold to kick back a little to us unfortunates. Until we invent that magical machine that can tell us how much each person’s soul is worth, we’re just going to have to trust to the law of averages.
* Ratio of my current bank account balance to Bill Gates’ net worth. Including my student loans this number is negative.
(0) comments
Sunday, November 09, 2003
Our personal connection goes deeper than idealistic liberal politics and diminutive stature
I discovered today that Ohio's favorite lawn gnome and Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich, like myself, is a vegan:
"Congressman Kucinich is one of the few vegans in Congress, a dietary decision he credits not only with improving his health, but in deepening his belief in the sacredness of all species."
Awesome! Then again, he's also really good friends with Shirley Maclaine, but nobody's perfect. Denny's biggest downfall is that he's crazy.
Crazy for equality!
I'm not going to stop vouching on K-Dog's side. I don't believe he can win, but I do believe that he can give disheartened Democrats an inspiring alternative in the primaries. I think he's helping many liberals who may have shunned the Dems remember why they or their parents were Democrats. I hope he's illustrating to a few million Americans that the two major parties don't need to be so eerily similar on certain issues.
And I love that big black rug he wears on his little dome. My step-dad Travis said that he looks like "an uncolored coloring book." Touche, Trav. Touche.
(0) comments
Friday, November 07, 2003
Sometimes It's Hard to Be a Woman
Volume Two: Keeping America (and God) out of my uterus.
"Every person has a special dignity. This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government, it comes from the creator of life." Thanks President Bush. Maybe he should have repeated this cute little maxim when he gave the final order to put over 100 people to death during his Texas governorship. I was also under the impression that, even if you believe life is derived from a divine creator, that law comes from the government, not said creator. But this post is about abortion, not about hypocricy or comingling of church and state.
I have no doubt that the United States government's most recent attempt to stifle a form of abortion will die a bloody death in the high courts. I am, however, frightened that this anti-"partial-birth abortion" (no such medical term exists) bill even got past congress. It bothers me that a few hundred men and women (oh, but mostly men) in Washington are attempting to dictate what occurs inside a woman's own body. I'm peeved that a rare procedure that is almost only used to protect the life of a woman or to prevent the birth of a baby who cannot survive outside its mother's womb falls under the jurisdiction of a select few, the vast majority of whom don't have the capacity to get pregnant, and the even more overwhelming majority of whom have no medical experience.
I believe this issue goes beyond the right's attempt to protect the health of fetuses. (Otherwise it would be illegal to smoke in the same room as a pregnant woman.) As I've stated before, I think this blind anti-abortion sentiment is rooted in a disrespect for a woman's self-determination. I believe that, subversive though this mentality may be, there persists an idea that the female body does not bear the capacity to take care of itself. Women menstruate, they have "hormonal" outbursts, they're physically weaker than men, they have bodies which are believed to be tied to nature because of their reproductive functions. The idea is that women have an inability to control their bodies (we can't really opt out of our periods without negative health repurcussions, and our hormones follow suit), and thus that men, and by extension the men in government (and religion), should have jurisdiction over the feminine physical entity.
Many conservative figures in religion and politics are attempting to get "morning after pills" like Previn off the market, claiming that life begins at conception, despite the fact that a 72-hour old embryo is composed of only a few hundred undifferentiated cells. (It's comparable to biting the inside of your cheek and "killing" the skin that comes off.) This opposition to the "abortion pill" (what a charming and inaccurate name) is based not only on a distorted definition of life, but also a resistance to grant women control over their bodies. If abortions are available quickly and (relatively) painlessly, so the argument goes, then women will have sex whenever they want without worrying about the consequences. Drugs that prevent implantation are not going to encourage women to have willy-nilly sex (as much as Pat Robertson would love to picture that); it will give women and men who made a mistake a chance not to give birth to an unwanted, unaffordable child. Also, given that fathers of unwanted pregnancies out of wedlock rarely have to suffer the same consequences as the mothers, it provides women with a limited opportunity to decide for themselves what consequences their bodies will suffer.
On a lighter note, when I gave blood today I got a free 15 minute phone card. Woo hoo!
(0) comments
Sometimes It's Hard to Be a Woman
Volume One Point One: Giving my stupid kids a last stupid name.
In addition to having a husband, part of my life-plan is to have 2-3 children (and a few dogs and cats). And my kids are going to need last names. (Unless, of course, they plan upon becoming wildly successful mono-monikered super models [I'm 5'1" - an unlikely event], soccer players [again, I'm 5'1"], or pop stars.) So whose will it be? Mom's or Dad's?
Ehhhh. Now I'm uncomfortable.
I'm not taking my husband's name. He's not taking mine. (To do otherwise, as I explained, would be dishonest to the pursuit of equality in a relationship.) So there goes that "convenience" (chuckle) of having a happy family with the same surname for all. But what of little Timmy and little Sally and little Habib? If they take "Brown" that would would be denying the other parent's contribution. Likewise if they take "HypotheticalDadName" instead of mine.
The yuppie option "Brown-HypotheticalDadName" might be cumbersome, but is it really that awful an alternative to perpetuating patriarchism? And the name Brown is like a pair of black slacks - it goes with everything.
But what happens when Habib Brown-HypotheticalDadName falls in love with and raises children with Dora McCallister-Rosenberg, and Habib and Dora are also progressive, symbolic equality-seeking Americans? Meet Phineas McCallister-Rosenberg-Brown-HypotheticalDadName. Now, the likelihood of this happening is slim. But that's pretty cumbersome. (Note also that by the time I'm a grandma turn of the century names will again be en vogue. My money's on "Horatio" as the 2050's anser to 2000's "Madison." Mark my words.)
If I give my boy(s) Dad's name and my girl(s) Mom's name, that creates artificial alliances. Same if I did the opposite.
Sigh.
Maybe the dude I marry and I can dole out last names in alphabetical order. If I have babies with Harold Agajanian, the first kid gets his name, the second kid mine, and so on. If I have babies with Grover D. Caterwaul, I'll get first dibbs. Like home-ice advantage in the hockey playoffs.
Oh Jesus. That's a terrible idea.
A good idea, on the other hand, would be for you to donate blood. Do it!
(0) comments
Thursday, November 06, 2003
You gotta fight for your right to get free cookies and orange juice
That's right kids. Blood drive tomorrow in Wozinak (I probably spelled that wrong) Lounge in Soda Hall from the morning to the afternoon. I'll be there at about 10:30, as will Paul. The two of us have a friendship based on the mutual love of Elvis Costello and giving blood.
There will also be "Get the Red Out" Big Game week blood drives from 9-4 in Pauley Pavillion on Monday Nov. 17 and Friday Nov. 21. Even if I were eligable to give on the 21st (you have to wait at least 56 days between donations), I wouldn't. Instead on that day I shall be getting four of my teeth hacked out of my skull. And I'm paying almost $200 for the honor.
GIVE BLOOD!!! First, you save some lives. Second, you usually get a free t-shirt (you can choose among large, X-large, and XX-large). Lastly, needles are way cool. Trust me.
(0) comments
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
Sometimes It’s Hard to Be a Woman
Volume One: The Name Game.
For one reason or another, as I’ve mentioned before, there seems to be a dearth of female participants in the Cal political blogsphere, among both blog authors and commentators. (I cannot prove that women aren’t reading, thanks to the genderl anonymity of IP addresses.) I won’t speculate as to the source of this disproportionality (though I may do so later). But I can say that as a female I might represent, however inaccurately, a woman’s voice to my male blogging peers.
One topic of debate, often though erroneously labeled as a “women’s issue” (as if any issue existed in a sexual vacuum), is that of a woman’s last name when she gets married. As I foresee my life, I will get married, and I will not change my last name. Is this some subvert (or overt?) anti-male behavior? Is it rooted in the hatred of men inherent to my feminism? Am I simply being defiant in an empty, symbolic way for the sake of defiance itself? Am I trying to piss off my husband? Or am I trying to eliminate the possibility of even snagging a future husband?
Well, no. First, I don’t hate men. Neither does my mother. Or my sister. Nor do my aunts. Or almost any other feminist. Here lies a great myth. Feminists don’t hate men. A critically thinking woman (or man) will, however, despise hierarchy in which women are as a group disadvantaged due to the social structure created by men and reproduced by men (and women). Second, the symbolic battles are often the most difficult ones to win. I will gladly combat symbolic repression with full zeal. Further, no symbolic triumph is empty. Lastly, no, I’m rarely defiant for the sake of pissing people off. (Maybe my parents, but never an entire gender.)
My visceral argument against changing my name is that my identity as Rebecca C. Brown, not as Rebecca B. Smith or Rebecca B. Jones or Rebecca C. Brown-Jones, has been in the works for over two decades (longer by the time I will be asked by convention to alter it by adopting another name). Though a name is little more than a word, I will entreaty my readers to think about the power of words and how language infuses social action. In this case, a woman taking her husband’s last name represents very clearly that her individuality and self-ownership (both physically and psychically) belong not to her but instead to her husband. Just as a father gives his offspring his last name (then adopts a role of authority over them), he so gives his wife his name. Quite simply, it’s nominal slavery. To make a less dramatic argument, it is entirely counterintuitive to equality for one person in a relationship to take the name of the other. I challenge you to assert otherwise.
Your mother or aunt or grandmother may have taken her husband’s name, maybe had children, maybe worked, or maybe stayed home. And despite relinquishing her symbolic identity, was perfectly happy and content. I will not disagree with you. I don’t think something as small as a last name can dictate a person’s happiness; however, it can contribute to her perception of self as a female. Further, the collective inability of women to maintain their last names defines in part what a woman’s role is in the family and in society in general. And though there are no laws dictating that we must change our names, if we don’t, we will, well, get a lot of shit for it.
(0) comments
Monday, November 03, 2003
Baby Boomers: Ticking Socialist Time Bombs
Here’s some brain food: I’m confused about “Starve the beast” conservatives’ plans to run government deficits in order to force a government breakdown when Baby Boomers start to draw on Social Security. Completely getting rid of the social safety net is open goal of a lot of righty policy makers. They see it as a way of promoting personal responsibility. But while it’s an interesting if risky way of enacting policies which a majority of the country doesn’t agree with, I wonder if they aren’t biting off more than they can chew? I mean, it’s all nice and good to force a showdown between low taxes and public services, but is it wise to have that showdown at the exact time that a larger percentage of the voting public is depending on social security and other public safety nets?
We’ve all heard about how the Baby Boomers are the “lump in the python” of demographics, slowly working their way to old age. But I wonder if anyone has tried to explain political power shifts in terms of this giant section of the population growing through different phases of life? Couldn’t you just connect the 60’s to the innocent exuberance of youth, the 70s with the disillusionment, the 80’s with the family man who just wants to make a buck and so on? Of course, this kind of touchy-feely analysis usually makes me sick to my stomach, but a good old fashioned statistical analysis could easily reveal if politics were being changed by increased representations of a particular age group.
Anyhow, it’s food for thought.
(0) comments
Sunday, November 02, 2003
What's next? A gay pope?
"The Episcopal Church consecrated V. Gene Robinson as bishop in a heartfelt ceremony Sunday, making him the first openly gay man to rise to that rank in any of the world's major Christian bodies. But while pageantry mixed with exultation in the ritual elevating Robinson to bishop of New Hampshire, it seems unlikely the church will hold together in its aftermath." (Full article here.)
I think my loyal readers shold be able to predict my view on the matter. I completely support the right of the percentage of the Episcolpalians who oppose homosexuality to splinter off from the Anglican Church. But they're being archaic and childish. I'm just glad that this matter does not have to be mediated by law, given that God and state are separate entities (despite frequent evidence to the contrary). That's why I'm confused by the last paragraph from the news story:
"Some predict this will develop into the worst Episcopal split since the denomination was founded in 1789. And depending on the shape things take, a spate of church lawsuits may well result."
Lawsuit? Maybe someone with a more acute understanding of law could explain how the church could file any suits. On what basis? That consecrating a gay bishop defies the rules lain out in the Bible? I very honestly don't see what actual laws have been broken.
On a seasonal note, I hope you all had an enjoyable and, more importantly, safe Halloween. David, Andy, and I went down to Scott and the other Andy's place in Santa Barbara for the weekend. We fastidiously avoided Isla Vista, lest we be arrested en masse, until the day after Halloween, when we drove down the main celebration stretch to laugh at all the hungover kids walk home. Ubiquitous red party cups and half-torn sparkly costume butterfly/fairy/standard-female-quick-costume wings littered the road. It was glorious. On the night of the 31st we played Beirut, a delightful game of agility and coordination. Scott and I are currently World Champions of the World. Last night I further solidified my role as designated driver. My plan is to get my license in December, at which point my DD assignment will from then on be unequivocal.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
(This being my inaugural CalJunket entry, I will stick to the humorous. It is a little known fact that the squelch doesn't publish half the things I write, mostly because they aren't funny. I think most of the creative editors have had a slight bias against political humor, but that’s their prerogative. You make the call.)
Republicans find 300 billion in government waste
Tommaso Sciortino, Affairs Betterer
In a shocking revelation today Republican lawmakers have found a government department that has been wasting upward of 300 billion dollars each and every year that it has been operational.
“When our first tax cuts created a 300 billion deficit we explained that we would pay for it by cutting government waste instead of raising taxes.” Explained House Majority leader Tom DeLay, “Well, that’s exactly what we did.”
The government office responsible for this historically unprecedented level of waste, the Department of Betterin’ Affairs, is thought to have escaped detection for so long because of confusion between it and the much more well-known Department of Veteran’s Affairs. A relic from the New Deal, most of the Department’s 300 billion dollar budget was spent on “Just making things better…” said one newly unemployed staffer, “like sidewalks. Maybe they got gum all over ‘em… or maybe you see some guy and he’s got a bad hair cut… we’d buy that guy a hat.”
Republicans have not rested after their victory but have instead planned to pass more tax cuts. Quoted Grover Norquist, “We hope that at the current rate, no American will ever have to pay taxes after 2008. Also, the government will be so lean that it'll be able to run on the change that government workers find lying in the streets.”
(0) comments
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
NEWSBREAK: Democratic Party Dusts Off Pair of Severely Atrophied Balls
ALSO: Rebecca C. Brown Engages in Extended Third-Person Critique Describing Her Views on this Election's Viable Democratic Candidates
General Wesley Clark said today that the Bush Administration and, more specifically, George W. Bush himself need to take responsibility for their failure to respond to intelligence leading up to the September 11 attacks. (Full article here.) The comments of Clark today represented one of the stronger assaults on Bush's deception and incompetance by a plausable Democratic candidate.
(What amused me most from this article was this paragraph: "The Bush-Cheney campaign declined to respond to Clark's criticism, referring calls to the Republican National Committee. Christine Iverson, spokeswoman for the RNC, said Clark 'sounds exactly like Bob Graham, the failed presidential candidate from Florida who launched similar attacks against the president a few month ago, and was forced to drop out of the race because his message of protest and pessimism failed to resonate with the American people.'" So Iverson isn't saying that Clark is wrong, she's just saying that his views are unpopular. That's cute.)
Surprisingly enough, the cynical feminist Green with a strong disdain for corruption and pandering (namely Rebecca C. Brown) is relatively pleased with the Democratic candidates for the upcoming election. She even thinks that a few of the reasonably electable ones (Clark, Dean, Kerry) might somewhat represent her.
She does, however, feel that Dean and Clark each falter on selected issues. For example, while Howie (as she likes to call him) wants to protect women's reproductive rights, he also feels that the death penalty is an acceptable form of justice. Wes may present an overall liberal point of view (which will especially impress the American public because he is a four-star general and former Republican), he represents too steep of a compromise with the Right, according to Rebecca, on matters such as free trade and gun control.
Miss Brown would like to encourage all of her left-leaning readers to consider Dennis Kucinich, the Little Clevelander Who Could if He Was Only Given a Chance, for their Democratic pic these upcoming primaries. The author entreaties you to check out his fearless views (and facts) on the death penalty, the war on drugs, IRV, gay rights, trade, and many other issues. She feels that Dennis represents the most progressive and exciting option in the Democratic party.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
When they clean the street I'll be the only shit that's left behind
Bush is poised to sign a bill banning partial-birth abortions. I, oddly enough, am not wrangling up my picketing materials. But, though I think partial-birth abortions, which take place in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy, are ugly and should be discouraged, I don't feel that the law has any place in the matter.
By week eight into a pregnancy, the fetus already has a developing nervous system and will, even if the feeling isn't perceived by the fetus' brain, react to a physical stimulus. By the thirteenth week, the second trimester, the fetus has a fairly devolped nervous system and can move on its own volition. Premature fetuses that are born after only five months of gestation can survive, indicating that a "baby" has at that point been developed. I reluctantly say that I cannot support terminating the pregnancy in the second trimester, though nor do I feel particularly strong about this. Abortions in the third trimester, which represent only about 1% of abortions in the US, are fairly gruesome and should be strongly discouraged unless bringing the pregnancy to term would be harmful to the mother (or if it is discovered that the fetus will not survive through childbirth).
One very disturbing aspect of this bill is that it represents a stepping stone to the abolition of all abortion, no matter at what point during the pregnancy or under what circumstances. And by "circumstances" I am alluding to more than rape and incest; I believe that the sincere desire to not have a baby is a circumstance that justifies abortion.
What disturbs me most about the standard Republican stance on abortion is that they claim very ardently that they want to support a "culture of life" and eliminate a "culture of death." Wait, huh?! Is this not the political party whose platform supports the death penalty? The death penalty. Or the party (with congressional help from the pandering Democrats) that is currently waging a war in Iraq where Americans, Iraqis, soldiers, and civilians are being killed? (That's correct. I said currently.) Or the party who is more comfortable letting pollutants (pollutants that deplete the quality of and/or shorten life) into the ecosystem than regulating pollution and potentially stifling the economy on a temporary scale?
I don't belive Republicans are attempting with this bill to encourage a culture of life. At the risk of sounding radical or making a potentially offensive analysis (new territory for me), I believe this party's stance on abortion is rooted in anti-feminism and a distortion of Christian ideals (the latter obviously engendering the former). The word "God" has managed to litter the politics of the right to this day in such an un-Christian way. I have read Biblical texts for myself, and though I do not believe Jesus would support partial-birth abortions (if only we could ask him his stance on this, and stem cell research, and comprehensive admission standards for public universities), I also do not believe he would support putting criminals to death, or for that matter participating in any war.
The only good that will come of the soon-to-be passing of this bill is that the issue of abortion will once again, I predict, be taken to the Supreme Court and once again the Supreme Court will decide in favor of abortion rights. I don't know how many times the precedent will have to be set on this matter.
Dammit, I hate Republicans!
(0) comments
Elliott Smith dies in apparant suicide.
Plus, comedy show tonight at the Bear's Lair at 8pm.
Not that it's easy to get excited about a comedy show when one of the best songwriters of the last decade dies. I'm terribly sad about this. I just happen to have had one of his albums, Roman Candle, in my CD player for the last week. Come to think of it, probably not a week has gone by since I was 17 that I haven't listened to Elliott Smith. His music has had the amazing ability to console me in my down moments, despite his own meloncholia. This is very sad to me. I hope that if you haven't heard his work extinsively that you now give it a try. This is so incredibly disappointing.
(0) comments
Saturday, October 18, 2003
For those about to rock.
Yet another subtle reminder to check out the very good If Six Was Nine blog (ifsix.blogspot.com), wherein six sexy coeds offer their insights into the world of music. Also note that we now have a neat-o masthead at the top of the page with pictures of all six of us in alphabetical order. (That means I'm the one on the far right, kids.) My initial plan when I got into the blogging madness was to never let my readers (besides the ones whom I know in person) know what I look like. Well, now you do. Sexy. That's what I look like.
I'd also like to remind you that the Heuristic Squelch will be hosting a swell comedy show this upcoming Wednesday at the Bear's Lair at 8pm. It's only $5 for a whole night of laffs. Find us on Sproul.
What, by the way, did you all think of the most recent issue of our fine little humor mag?
Make to sure to celebrate the end of midterms responsibly. For example, don't celebrate the end of one midterm by ceasing to study for a week, only to remember that you have another midterm within the next few days.
I drove around the streets of Berkeley and Albany for the first time last night. I don't have my license yet, only my permit, but I am a very fast learner. I didn't drive when I was a teenager because I simply didn't have the money for insurance and gas and a car. (I, like a sucker, was saving my earnings for college. Psshh.) But now I'm an excellent driver. Definitely.
(0) comments
Sunday, October 12, 2003
Everyone's stupid but me
Also, pardon my hiatus.
A dangerous, covert terrorist lurks in our midst. A greasy, scrumptious terrorist. A capitalist terrorist who is poisoning Americans with its life-shortening and money-sucking death substance. That's right, it's the restaurant industry, and it's killing our nation's citizens with fat. Fat! Fattening fat deep-fried in 100% fatty fat. Or not. Who knows. Whatever.
This article is about how the three-fifths of RedWhiteAndBlueicans who are overwieght may have spurred legal action taken against the restaurant industry, who has facilitated rampant fat consumption. One option is to legally mandate that nutrition information be included on restaurant menus.
Every person (over the age of, let's say, thirteen, at which point if you can't cook your own dinner than you're a big loser) has complete control over what he or she eats, and every person has the option of asking for vague-to-specific nutrition information about the food he or she receives from a restaurant, so conceivably every person should know semi-accurately how many calories and fat grams he or she has consumed per meal, thus every person who is overweight has no one to blame but him or herself. Thus I think suing McDonald's or Chili's for America's obesity is frivilous and unfair.
But why not mandate that nutrition information, specific and accurate information, be available for all food no matter where it is being eaten? If people want to eat lard all day, oh for god's sake let them. But if some people ardently do not want to chug lipids for sport (and as a result possibly suffer heart disease, heart attack, diabetes, stroke, snoring, etc.), they should be able to have information assisting them in their pursuit readily available. There's no need to sue the restaurants that have helped this nation devolve into 250,000,000 corpulant turban-fearing cowboys (I guess they're only responsible for the first adjective), but there's also no need to withold information from the consumer.
An argument could be made by those of you who believe in individual self-determination and oppose institutional interferance with consumers' decisions. That argument might go something like this: "If folks are surprised that they're getting a spare tire after years of Big Macs and pepperoni pizzas, then they're big durfs who obviously don't understand how eating and digestion work. Man, are they big durfs." Hey, I agree with you. Especially about the durf thing. If there's one thing I can't stand it's a durf who doesn't understand stuff.
But I also believe that an informed consumer, perhaps even and over-informed consumer, is an ideal in a capitalist economy. Further, a citizen cannot truly be self-determining and free of interferance until he has every fact about what he is consuming at his disposal. Every person has the right to decide what is best for his body, so long as he knows exactly what is going into it.
[This is the part of the post where I reminisce longingly/disgustedly about my years back home in Long Beach.] When I was home for the Summer in the months between my freshman and sophomore years in college, I stayed in my home town of Long Beach for the season and chose to get a job at McDonald's because no one else would hire me for just eight weeks. As you can imagine, the menu at McDonald's hinges upon fat. I would leave that place with beef tallow caked between the treads of my non-scuff shoes. It's all fat. Fat plus more fat. Everyone knows that. Except kids. A five year old should not have to concern himself with calorie-counting when he goes out to eat with his parents. And it would be one thing if his parents took him for fast food once, even twice a month. But when you work full-time at McDonald's in a dense urban area, you come to see that some families eat there twice, thrice, four times a week. The parent are already obease. The children, through no fault of their own, are quickly on their way. They are being introduced very early into our culture of fattening foods. It's a culture where eating animal fats and proteins is encouraged for fear of anemia and/or sissiness, but I'd wager more on the latter. It's a society where convenience takes precedence over health. Most importantly, it's a culture that has developed out of ignorance, and it reproduces itself everyday because consumers aren't demanding to be informed.
If people could see, could read, could process with their own eyes that a medium order of french fries at McDonald's has 22 grams of fat (30% of your RDA of fat), or that a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese has 47 grams of fat (and thus that a #6 on the big picture menu gives them 69 grams total) as they're ordering then they may reconsider their options. Or not. Who cares. Let them eat fat. Just let them know how much.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
IT'S OFFICIAL!!
I now officially have no trust in the ability of the populous to elect the right people. I'm surrounded by 35 million doofers. Down with democracy! Up with highly centralized federal government!
On a lighter note, both propositions failed. Proposition 54 did not pass in any county at all, in fact. Even in Orange County, the coast's beacon of conservativism and illegal immigrant labor force, Prop 54 failed 51% to 49%.
In San Francisco County, Peter Camejo received about 1,300 more votes than McClintock. Yay! Gary Coleman got 21 more votes than drop-out candidate Peter Ueberroth. Yikes.
In Alameda County, write-in candidate Daniel Freedman received one vote. The Squelch Publicity Coordinator voted for himself.
Again on the lighter side, cheers to such high voter turnout. About 2 million more voted yesterday than a year ago.
On a curious note, how many of you were asked to provide photo ID when checking into your polling place? I was not asked, nor were any of the several other people I asked. Isn't such slack behavior conducive to voter fraud?
Here's how I voted:
Triple No plus Camejo.
I encourage you all to go back in time and do the same.
Here are all the exciting election returns from around the state!
New Squelch on Monday.
(0) comments
Sunday, October 05, 2003
Peter Camejo Rocks the Boat, My World
For those of you who didn't see Pete speak in Evans Hall on Firday at 6pm (which would be everyone on the planet save for about 400 of us), he was fantastic as always.
Seemingly the Green following in the Berkeley area is comprised of a bunch of hippies; who knew? Peter's appearance was hosted by the ISO, and apparantly socialists run on "commie time," wherein events start 15 minutes late (so much for the trains running on time), but the introductory speakers were few and brief and Camejo was speaking by 6:35pm.
In good third-party tradition, he came armed with some very indicitive and interesting graphs, including a chart showing that, when income and property and sales and all other state taxes are added together, the bottom 20% pay an 11.3% tax rate while the top 1% pays 7.2%. (Here's a link to that graph and report.) He also had a graph showing that taxes on corporations are as low as they've been since the mid-90s (I don't remember the exact numbers and I can't find Camejo's graph - I'd make a lousy political intern). Further, he outlined how the number of businesses in California is on the increase, as are their revenues; in fact, California's GDP was bigger last year than ever, which makes the current deficit that moch more amazing. In other words, Peter was artfully dispelling the myth so ardently perpetuated by Schwarzenegger and McClintock: that corporate and income taxes are driving the money out of this state. This simply isn't true! The Republicans may offer anecdotes saying otherwise, but emperical data cannot support the theory that California's current fiscal policies are forcing companies to move elsewhere.
But enough about the economy. The economy bores me to tears. (Luckilly, Camejo is a financial advisor and can find money exciting on my behalf.) What really incited enthusiam in me were Pete's invigorating stances on IRV and gay rights.
First, the latter: For him and the rest of the Green party, the issue of "gay rights" is not an issue. Gays are citizens and receive the rights thereof. No concessions, no compromises, no policies treating them as if they were legally different from "regular" people. Somehow, this is a stance that every plausable Democratic candidate (c'mon, no one's voting for Kucinich, and it makes me really sad) refuses to take, perhaps for fear of wierding out a good number of Americans, or perhaps because they genuinely don't believe gays are the same as everybody else.
Second, the former: I strongly believe that instant runoff voting would make government far more representative of the public's wishes. If progressives who like like the Greens or conservatives who like the crazy Libertarians or the nut jobs who like the wacky nut job Reformists got to vote their concience, these underdogs could receive the recognition they deserve and could further play a role in the political process, without their supporters feeling like they're "stealing" votes. I can't see any reason to oppose IRV.
Lastly, the previously unmentioned: Sumbit articles to the Squelch. Especially newsflashes. submit@squelched.com
(0) comments
Friday, October 03, 2003
RCB Guide's Cheers and Jeers
Jeers to Arnold Schwarzenegger for groping unwilling women. Jeers again to him for admiring Hitler in any capacity. Then again, maybe Adolf had a stunning physique that only Arnie knows about.
Jeers to Arianna Huffington for bowing out of the race. She was giving many Californians a good reason to go to the polls, and has subsequently abandoned them, no doubt under pressure from more likely victorious liberal candidates.
Cheers to Peter Camejo and Tom McClintock for not.
Cheers, further, to the people who made it possible for Peter and Tom to be involved in the gubernatorial debates. Cheers to a minor undermining of the strict two-party/two-candidate political system that limits the democratic potential of America.
Jeers to whoever decided to have the Giants' first three playoff games take place while most people are at work or school.
Jeers to midterms.
Cheers to the Heuristic Squelch, which stands as a beacon of entertainment in the face of said midterms.
Jeers to President Bush. For any number of things.
Jeers to "The Simpsons" for not being funny for almost half a decade.
Cheers to having all three seasons of "The Family Guy" on DVD to compensate for the previous Jeer.
Cheers to all the cool kids who run If Six Was Nine.
Jeers to this idiotic TV Guide format.
Update:
Cheers to Luna Bars, Clif Bar's high-density food chunk designed specifically for women. Each bar has 10 grams of protein (22% of its calories); 350mg calcium; 100% RDA of folate, vitamins C, B1, B3, B6, and B12, and some other stuff I've never heard of; and only 180 calories. Furthermore, Luna bars use no animal products, and because B vitamins are normally so difficult to find in large quantities in plants, these mid-meal snacks are ideal for us vegans. Yay!
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Heuristic Squelch sneak peak and entreaty for submissions
I'll let you in on a little secret....don't tell anyone....alright? Shhhh... The cover of the next issue of the Squelch is gonna totally zing Chancellor Berdahl! Zing!!!! Sorta. I guess we're not really zinging him at all. I don't even know any more. I'll be happy as long as the magazine makes reference at some point to the Chancellor's jowels.
We're getting started on our second issue of the year, and my prediction is of pure hilarity. Keep those submissions coming! submit@squelched.com.
(0) comments
Monday, September 29, 2003
Oh, Florida! Will you ever win?
In one of the more flagrant examples of defying a stupid law with an even more stupid (and harmful and disgusting) protest, the Florida band Hell on Earth (whose music I can only assume is sub-par... Can you blame me? They're called Hell on Earth!) plans to include an onstage suicide in one of their performances and broadcast it on their website. The groups is attempting to speak out against a new law in their city of St. Petersburg that prohibits physician-assisted suicide.
Call me old-fashioned, but I take life pretty seriously. So seriously that I won't even eat a crab, who probably has the neurological capacity of my left thumb. Furthermore, I take quality of life pretty seriously. So seriously that I refuse to drink the milk of a cow who was treated like anything less than a valued house pet. Thus, and I do not belive I am contradicting my previous contention that all life is equally valuable, I respect a person's desire to end his life if he is truly in pain and has no desire to continue living. But, in keeping with that whole "life is valuable" argument, I think the option of suicide should be evaluated and ever so carefully scrutinized with a professional physician and the patient's family or friends. I think the state has a right to legally mandate that its doctors discourage suicide and refuse to assist death unless there is no alternative pain remedy. But a terminally ill adult should have the final say on his condition. Therefore, I think it's a dumb law with good intentions.
There are no good intentions, however, behind Hell on Earth's stunt. Death is tragic and, moreover, personal, not commercial or sensational. If the group genuinely saw injustice in their city's law, they could very well work with health care officials and local politicians, armed with research and first-hand testimonial, to revoke the law. Instead they have chosen to make a mockery of the pain of suicide.
In unrelated news, I had a fairly successful trip to the dentist today. (If any of you with Delta PMI need to find a dentist in the area, I'd highly recommend this one. Berkeley Hills Dental Care. On Telegraph and Woosley. Not in the hills.) I had the base filling for a crown put in after a good 30 minutes of drilling. If any inordinate pain or breakage occurs in the next two weeks, a root canal will be my ultimate fate. While in my mouth, Dr. Nikfarjam also noticed that I need to get at least one of my sprouting wisdom teeth removed. I can't wait.
(0) comments
Sunday, September 28, 2003
Another blog for your blog-visiting repotoire
That's right. More words from me and five other students who love music enough to write about it. The title will be changed shortly, but I suggest you start reading now. Click here.
(0) comments
Saturday, September 27, 2003
CAL WINS: 34-31!!!!
(Rebecca Loses: Her Sunglasses; Subsequently Finds Them Between the Cushions)
Excellent game.
I hail originally from Southern California. Long Beach to be precise. A few of my high school aquaintences attended USC. They're now spending five times what I do for a comparable education. Not that it has anything to do with football. Just saying is all.
"Take off that red car!"
I viewed the game from the comfort of a frat house. A dozen or so alumni came over to the house for today's event. It seems the majority of frat boys age to become frat men. The Frat Graduation Package includes a baseball cap, khaki shorts, a blond wife, and a sense of entitlement. Just saying is all.
On an 80's flashback note, the Cal band is currently eating hot dogs at the frat after playing a few spirited songs for the brothers and alum; one alum requested "Lady in Red." Ouch.
(0) comments
Friday, September 26, 2003
NEWSBREAK: Doors of East Elevator in Eschleman Hall Opening Very Slowly
More news as it comes in...
(0) comments
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
ACLU declines to appeal recall election decision, diverts resources to delaying outdated and unreliable Christmas.
San Francisco, CA - The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided today that the unprecedented California recall election will take place on October 7 as originally scheduled, despite the contetnion from the American Civil Liberties Union that outdated punch-card ballots are less accurate than electronic voting systems and thus disefranchise thousands of voters from dense minority populations in six counties throughout the state.
The ACLU took today's ruling in stride, and shortly after the court's decision announced that they have more ambitious plans on the horizon. ACLU presidnet Nadine Strossen told reporters Tuesday that their next project is to delay Christmas, which the organization beleives is inaccurate and unreliable, and which is specifically unfair to minorities.
The case will be heard by the US Supreme Court this coming Friday.
Said Strossen, "Data from all around the nation indicate that poor and minority children are the most likely to receive crappy Christmas gifts, if in fact they receive gifts at all. In nearly every community included in the study, African American and Latino youngsters more than any other ethnic groups were the victims of pre-used gifts, gifts from Walmart, a piece of fruit in lieu of a real gift, or simply no gifts whatsoever. This is unfair. Absolutely unfair."
ACLU spokespeople are citing outdated equipment and profiling as the source of these discrepencies. According to the group, Santa Claus' sleigh, deer, and elves do not have the technology to serve every American child equally, prompting Claus to distribute his limited resources disproportinally to rich white kids whose parents have wider chimneys and superior cookies.
The group is asking for a six month delay of the holiday, which should give Claus and his faculty ample time to update toy production and distribution systems, including speedier, more ergonomically sound toy-building technology and more accurate electronic checking-it-twice devices. They are also requesting that diveristy training be legally mandated for each North Pole staff member.
Claus' spokesmen Jingle and Jangle deny allegations that his distribution techniques are unfair, and are confident that the court will rule in his favor.
(I'm not sure why I wrote this. I'm actually on the ACLU's side. On both issues.)
(0) comments
First, I hope all my readers are finding this finals season agreeable to their health and happiness. Per my own personal philosophy, I've adopted the "Study Schmudy" attitude that has served me so well for the last seven years. But with 15 pages of writing and a photo book (in addition to my lone timed final) due this year, I've been keeping busy. Not to mention all the painting, crocheting, and baking I need to complete for Christmas gifts. In short, sorry for neglecting my blogging duties.
If you didn't catch it the first time around, I rebeccommend that you watch the most recent Democratic presidential debate on C-SPAN.org. (Find the link on the homepage that says "Democratic Presidential Debate" from 12/9/03 or 12/10/03.) It's 90 minutes long, but it'll give you an excuse to stop studying for a little while and still feel intellectual. My problem is that the first third of the debate, as mediated by Ted Koppel and his hair, is spent almost entirely discussing polls and Gore's endorsement of Dean. Koppel insists upon making Gore's endorsement an issue for all nine candidates, even though only a few (Dean, Kerry, and Lieberman) appear to care. Further, he presses the four "non-serious" candidates (Braun, Sharpton, Edwards, and Kucinich) about their low rankings in the polls.
Skip through the video to listen to Dennis' response to these proddings. He tells Ted what for.
(0) comments
The Moral Hazard of Universal Health Care
Howard Dean and other Democrats have suggested the United States should work toward adopting a universal health care plan. This is a bad idea. As Republicans have warned us repeatedly, if there were no monetary repercussions to getting sick, people would be tempted to get sick all the time, just for fun.
Everyone understands that people love money. And even a child can grasp that if you make people pay for a service, they will ration their use of that service. This is simple common sense. But clear eyed conservative realists understand even more: Making people pay for services is bar none, always the best way to ration those services. It doesn’t matter if every other industrialized country in the world has decided otherwise. In the entirety of God’s creation, there cannot be conceived any kind of service, good, or tangible object which is not best distributed with this system. Except for national defense of course, pure capitalism must reign.
…Or agriculture, since we need our own supply of corn in case we declare war on the rest of the world.
Furthermore, this knowledge does not need to be demonstrated by fact. It is so fundamentally true that in the odd case that data seems to contradict it, like how the US spends more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country ($4270 per person vs. $2000 in 1998) and that it has a larger percentage uninsured than any other industrialized country (18% also in ’98), those facts must be suspect. After all, it could be that the remaining 82% of Americans are enjoying their healthcare 350% more than the average Canadian. Only the keen and perceptive eyes of a Republican leader can see through such distractions.
Lastly, let us understand that there can be no middle ground. We cannot say that, since we do not want the poor dying in front of hospitals, we will admit anyone if they will die otherwise. This is foolishness. Universal health care would be cheaper than having the poor wait till their ailments were critical and costly, so this kind of thinking is a priori wrong. No, Republicans understand that the potential damage done to poor person’s character is far more serious than anything that could possibly be going on in their spleen.
So next time someone suggests that or current health system needs to be changed, take a good long look at them. This is not a serious person. Serious people understand that life is ugly. Serious people understand that those born rich, who have never worked a day in their lives, (like Steve Forbes of George W. Bush) deserve medical attention far more than people who sweat 40 hours a week picking fruit in the hot sun. Serious people know that if someone were to go around curing the sick and the lame, everyone would go out and get Leprosy.
(0) comments
Wednesday, December 03, 2003
Oh Ralph. Will you ever not lose?
Poor Ralph Nader, the Linux of politics. I'd be shocked if he came out victorious in a game of checkers. He loses more than just elections. He also gets beat up by 97.3% of this nation's voters and pundits at every opportunity. This week, his publicist announced that the Ralph Man is starting to raise money to start thinking about considering running for the White House next year. (Full article here, via Paul Bruno via Kevin Drumm, but you hafta register and activate your account with your email and give out your address. Way to be a pain in the ass, LA Times. Pfffttt.)
In short, Dems who feel Nader "robbed" the election from Al are yet again devising unflattering terms and vitriol to the Man in Gray. They fear once more that he will prevent a Democratic victory by giving uber-liberals an alternative to Dean/Kerry/Clark/Gephart/InsertInoffensiveDemocraticCandidateHere in November. The phrase "handing Bush a victory" is undoubtedly waiting in the bullpin along with the cute monikers "thief" and "spoiler" and "stupid Green poopy pants."
I'm registered Green, I've voted Green at every opportunity, and I've even given $11 to the party during my lifetime, so my personal insight into the matter may be appreciated here.
First, I don't buy the Green argument that Democrats are just as bad as Republicans. Democrats, or at least certain ones, have proven to be just as nefarious as our friends at the GOP at accepting lobby money, supporting war, destroying Welfare, supporting vouchers, supporting the death penalty, not standing up for gay rights, etc. But the good portion of Democrats only participate in these un-liberal tactics in a watered-down form (accepting less lobby money; supporting war, then changing their minds; supporting "civil unions;" etc.). And some Democrats, like Dennis Kucinich, refuse to water down a thing. I think the current House and Senate Dems have been decidedly aquiescent to Bush's Hate Machine. I can only attribute this trend to the desire for reelection in an increasingly conservative environment.
But back to Nader. No, the average Dem is not just as bad as the average GOPpy. I can respectfully disagree with Ralph on that one, and I'm sure he won't harbor any hard feelings. He's cool like that.
But back to Nader. Nobody can make you vote for Nader. Nobody in Florida was forced to vote for Nader. Those voters could have cast their ballots for Gore or Bush or Buchanan (ha ha) if they had so chosen. So the idea of Nader "stealing" votes is ridiculous. Would those Nader voters have voted for Gore had Nader not run? Probably. Some of them wouldn't have voted at all, but the vast vast vast majority of them would have probably voted Democratic in 2000, and Gore would be in the White House right now. (If Pat Buchanan hadn't run, Bush would have been elected without any controversy at all.) So why not "blame" the voters instead of casting Ralph Nader as a hateful jerkface who hates Democrats and is a big jerk and wants to make life Hell for liberals? If Nader were really that persuasive a public figure, he'd have gotten enough votes to be in the debates.
But back to Nader. (Boy, if I got a nickel for every time I used the word "Nader" in this damn post...) I personally don't think a Nader presidential campaign will accomplish anything this upcoming election, except to engender a little more bitterness all around, and to give disgruntled liberals like myself who live in states that are so far Democratic or so far Republican that the Green vote won't matter thanks to the asonine Electoral College someone for whom to vote in good faith. I also believe that a strongish third party will help keep the two big parties on their toes.
Having Bush around for another four years will be tenfold more destrucive to this nation and this planet than will having a three-quarter-assed liberal like Gephart leading the Free World. The chances of another Bush term are increased if Nader runs. But when it comes down to it, a Democrat victory is in the hands of the Democrats and in the hands of the voters, not in the hands of one skinny unenigmatic man with a lazy eye.
(0) comments
ITEM!!!
ASUC Apple Senator Paul La Fata spotted eating alone at Gypsy's at 5:48pm. La Fata was seen sprinkling parmesean onto his unidentified entree. Several weeks ago, the Senator was also seen in line at CUBS, the University credit union located on Lower Sproul. On both occasions, he was wearing his shirt tucked in.
This can only lead me to several conclusions: First, that Republicans tuck their shirts in. Further, they enjoy Italian food from local eateries. Lastly, they support non-profit banking systems.
These conclusions happen to be uncorraborated by the actions of the other Republican whom I know personally, namely a Mr. Hovannes A. (I've not included his last name for the sake of his anonymity. And I can't spell the dude's last name.) Though I'm uncertain of his eating preferences, previously obtained intelligence would lead me to believe that he uses a commercial bank. Also, I've never seen him with his shirt tucked in.
This can only lead me to one conclusion: You just can't trust a Republican. They always try to keep you guessing.
(0) comments
Saturday, November 29, 2003
Fascists and Femenazis
A post by Ornicus got me hating Rupert Murdoch even more.
Conservatives and Liberals throw word Fascism around a lot. And while it’s easy to point to a swastika and say “Never again”, it’s much more difficult to recognize fascism in general. Its traits are nebulous: a delegitimization of difference and dissent (both in and outside the party); the desire for unfettered leaders without corrupt parliamentary procedure; and exalting power and moral clarity over cooperation and logic.
Rush Limbaugh is a fascist. Just like Bill O’Riely and Ann Coulter. In Rush’s world, anyone who disagrees with him is a Liberal. Liberals never act in good faith. Latte-Liberals (any liberal really) indulge in luxury and are aloof wasting time in ivory towers, theorizing without doing. They are morally base and groups in league with the Liberals (Unions, environmental groups) are corrupt. Republicans on the other hand agree that “Rush is right”. They always act in good faith. Republicans do not indulge in extravagance not do they bother themselves with difficult issues when moral clarity can lead you true. They are morally superior, and understand that America’s military power should not be hampered by international law or the treaty of Versailles.
The problem with Fascism is that it doesn’t exactly attract the best and brightest. You need to be a personal failure to have enough hate to lead a fascist movement, and that doesn’t make for a good business plan. It’s necessary to have an outsiders fund your loser group of fascist rabble-rousers.
Corporatists fit the bill. Their goal: advance the interests of corporations and the rich. That’s why we see Republican implementing regressive taxes while removing irksome American traditions like the Estate Tax. Surely, the idea to tax earned money (Payroll tax) and not unearned money (Capital gains) could only be supported by a rich person, or a person who doesn’t really understand economics.
In places like post WWI Germany and Italy, the rich found a sure fire way to avert socialism: support Fascists! Without German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, Hitler and the Nazis would have been historical also-rans. Republicans, which pre-Nixon looked a lot like a reunion of stunt doubles from the movie Arthur, realized it would take more that alcoholism, money, and cockney charm to get power. The innovation that brought Nixon-Republicans (like Rumsfeld to Cheney) to power was to appeal to racism and anti-communism to gain votes. They learned the lesson of those that went before them, though: let the Fascists talk, but do not let them drive.
Modern Day Australian industrialist Rupert Murdoch might have shown up late in the game, but his work would make Adolf cry with joy. Here’s a corporatist who knows his interests. In China, his network has helps support the world’s last communist power. In America, Fox news empowers failures like Bill O’Riely, allowing him to say whatever he wants as long as he supports media deregulation. It’s a dangerous game Murdoch plays, but if America ever falls to Fascism, you can bet that Murdoch will be some where else, delighting people with his irascible charm and down-under wit.
(0) comments
Friday, November 28, 2003
Sorry for the absence.
I'm keeping too busy to do any substantial posting. But this one won't be without purpose.
It turns out that the cornbread recipe below sorta blows. Here's a better one.
3/4 c. white flour
1/2 c. wheat flour
1 c. cornmeal
1/4 c. white sugar
1/2 c. crown sugar
1 1/2 c. soy milk
1 c. soy margarine
2 tbsp vegetable oil
1 tsp cinnamon
1 tsp cayanne pepper
dash allspice, nutmeg, ginger, and cloves
2 tsp honey (half to drizzle on top)
40-50 minutes at 375-400 degrees. I got several compliments on this recipe yesterday from non-vegans.
(0) comments
Wednesday, November 26, 2003
Rebecca C. Brown's Hearty Cornbread Recipe
Thanksgiving is tomorrow, and probably most of you will be participating in some sort of family meal celebrating such. And chances are that as primarily male college students, you will be helping out with the baking and cooking (just to defy paradigms and all). You may be at a loss as to what to prepare for your loved ones. Here's a recipe for some surprisingly good cornbread:
1 1/2 c. cornmeal
2 c. whole grain unbleached flour (or white flour for a less hearty bread)
1/4 c. brown sugar
1/4 c. white sugar
1 tbsp baking powder
1 tsp egg substitute powder
1 tsp ground cinnamon
1 tsp (plus or minus) ground cayanne pepper (a surprising yet always well-received ingredient)
pinch ground allspice, nutmeg, and ginger
dash salt
1/2 c. vegetable oil (no trans fats, unlike in margarine)
1 3/4 c. soy milk (or cow's milk if you insist)
Preheat your oven to 400 degrees. Mix all your dry ingredients. Then add your milk and oil and mix thoroughly. You can either mix your ingredients in a big bowl and then pour it into a greased glass or metal 8" sqaure pan, or just mix the ingredients right in the baking dish (with the greater likelihood that your bread will stick a little to the pan). Then cook it for 45 minutes to an hour, depending on how broken your oven is. You'll know your bread is done when you can poke a knife in all the way and it comes out clean.
I'm also making pumpkin pie and a yam & carrot dish for the holiday; I'll make sure to tell you how they turn out. Happy Thanksgiving!
(0) comments
Sunday, November 23, 2003
Rebecca C. Brown gives thanks on this the most thanks-inducing of weeks
It's the time of year when the last yellow leaves shiver off the trees (unless you live in Southern California, in which case all your trees have been replaced with convenient Wells Fargo ATMs); when turkeys outsell US Weeklys at the grocery store; when we Jews, Christians, and Christmas-loving atheists alike begin to splurge for our loved ones; when "The Year in Retrospect" specials begin airing a month prematurely; and when we are prompted to list in semi-aescending order the things in our lives that make us feel truly gifted. Here is a incomplete list of the aspects of my recent life for which I give the most thanks.
My family in Long Beach whom I miss so much. Sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night longingly to a harsh Berkeley that simply hasn't given me my daily dose of crazy. Sure, I can find plenty of substance abuse or aimless bickering on the streets, but it just isn't the same when that substance abuse or aimless bickering isn't sharing a 2 litre bottle of Diet Pepsi and a dry bean cassarole with you. In all honesty, I love you. You made me the creative and fearlessly opinionated rascal I am today, and I wish it were less cost prohibitive to visit you more often. Thank you, Lynn-Brown-Goertz-Gibson-Glowacz-Valejo-Meschek brood! (Thanks to the Dumans/Lauries for being my surrogate family for so many occasions.)
California tax-payers. Seriously, guys. Your help means a lot. You pay the taxes that go to the state Department of Education that goes to the Long Beach Unified School District that pays for my mom's health insurance that (until September 11, 2006) pays for nearly all my medical and dental costs. With your kind donations, I have a $0.00 co-pay on all hospital visits, a $2.50 co-pay on all prescriptions (generic or name brand), and I only paid $127.60 for a $1,200 oral surgery procedure. Thanks to you, I don't need to choose between medical care and my expensive food habit. You rock! (P.S. Thanks Karl Marx for the great idea in the first place.)
B. M. Patakas, DDS. My recovery from my wisdom tooth removal has been seamless so far. I'm especially impressed that you yanked out all four of them completely intact. (Now I just need to figure out what to do with that quartet of picture-perfect molars sitting in a little bath of water on my dresser right now.) I'll Rebeccommend you and your extraction team to all my friends.
The soy farmers of this fine nation. I don't know where I'd be without you. You've made the last six years not only tolerable but enjoyable. Now that I'm not allowed to chew for a few days, the milk and powdered protien of your distingushed bean has made a perfect base for my fruit smoothies and pancakes. Cheers to you!
The owners and operators of all my favorite novelty websites. Thanks, men and women of menwholooklikekennyrogers.com, cameltoe.org, homestarrunner.com, explodingdog.com, and foxnews.com! You're always good for a quick pick-me-up.
David Duman. You've proven to be the kindest, most loving person in my life the past few weeks, if not past year. I wish there were a more adequate way (besides stripping you of any anonymity or privacy by thanking you on my blog) to tell you how much your remarkable patience and giving nature have made me happy, especially since they stole the teeth out of my head. Some ladies and gents out there might think their men are top-notch, but they're all big suckers. I'm indisputably the luckiest of them all.
(0) comments
Saturday, November 22, 2003
It would take one pea brain, one unqualified man, one liar slipped into this White House to bring a decade of horror like none we have ever known.
The RNC (not President Bush himself) has decided to start spending millions of dollars in the primaries to get a leg up on making sure Bush gets the nomination. Or maybe they're spending this money to encourage Democrats to stay home during the primaries, which is ineffectual because a Democrat will be nominated even if only eleven Democrats show up to vote. Or maybe they're priming swing voters to jump on the Republican hate wagon before it leaves town. Whatever the motivation, it's a big waste of money.
This ad will start airing in Iowa on Sunday.
I'm on a Kucinich e-mailing list, and I think my good friend Denny had some strong and important words to say about the RNC's depiction of the terrorist threat on America: "The Republican National Committee is using money that derives largely from the wealthiest few in America to pay for advertisements aimed at keeping all Americans scared. We will not be frightened into submission. We will not forget the lies we were told about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We will not forget that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. We will remember that for the hundreds of billions we are spending on an unjust and destabilizing occupation in Iraq, we could have an investment in American education that would include free pre-kindergarten and free college tuition. We need to get our priorities straight and not give in to the fear-mongering. I offer America the hope of a new approach and a clear choice in the next election."
Similar attacks against the RNC's fear machine appear on the other Democrats' homepages. In pouring over websites and watching debates, I am very pleased to see the Democrats unified in their pledge defeat Bush. I'm inspired to see so many of the candidates, both viable and long-shot, resist the temptation to play the middle of the road. (Svae for Lieberman. He's a sellout.) My only fear is that when the primaries are over, the Democratic candidate's current dedication to a rejuvinated left will deteriorate into moderate (read "right of center") pandering.
Oh, and Go Bears. I'm not into rivalry at all, especially not in the athletic realm. The only grudge I hold against Stanford (with an "O" - misspelling has never equated to clever zinging for me) is that their tuition is through the roof and thus only kids with rich parents or exceptional sports abilities can attend. So that "Go Bears" was apathetic and obligatory. In fact, Go Bears, Stay Bears, Sit Bears. I don't care. So long as the Squelch is better than Stanford's "humor" mag the Chapparelle, I'm content.
P.S. My tooth extraction went very well. Only minimal throbbing in my gums and jaw so far. Luckilly, my cute boyfriend got me a Cuisinart food processer for our first anniversary just days before my surgery, so even the most challenging meals can be instantly transformed into soft food that my swollen mouth can handle. Like pasta pate. Actually, I'm sticking to friut and soy protein powder smoothies. Mmmmm.....isoflavones.
(0) comments
Thursday, November 20, 2003
Bad news and more bad news
A self-centered introspection into my personal crises
I thought the deadline to apply to go to dinner with Dennis Kucinich was midnight EST last night. I got my email in well before 9pm, but it seems the deadline was earlier than that. I even submitted a cute picture of myself. Rats. Well, I guess if I want to have dinner with Denny, I'll have to do so on my own dime.
On an unrelated note, I'm broke. Or almost broke, at least. My basic policy since entering college was to keep my checking account over $3000 at all time, just in case an emergency popped up. (Such as needing to pay for my tuition and fees before my loan check got processed, as was the case this past August. I'd never written a check for over $2900 before in my life.) I checked my balance about a month ago, and it might have been just a little over $2000. Today when I checked it it was at under $1200. The moral of the story is that my approximately $580 a month income that I get for working thirteen hours a week is only enough to cover rent and food. And just barely at that. My loan money ($5500 this year) will cover only my Univeristy fees. This doesn't leave much room for books, studio supplies, Summer tuition, minmal health care costs, or travel expenses to go home for the holidays. (I've opted to stay in the Bay Area the past two Thanksgivings and Spring Breaks to save money on air fare.) Admittedly, I like to spend money on gifts for my loved ones, maybe about $300 per year now that I have a boyfriend. Also, since entering college, I've probably spent an average of $30 a month on "frivolous" things like clothing, CDs, bakeware, soap, toothpaste, tampons, and the like. In other words, I'm not living the Jesus-esque life.
But from my observations I'm living much more simply and cost-effectively than many of my immediate friends. It's not that I'm bitter that a good portion of the kids I know at Cal have parents who are paying for their tution and books and rent and food. It's just that I'm...um...I think that...well...dammit I am bitter! I got a triple in Unit 1, not because I got stuck there, but because I couldn't afford any other option. Most of you will be walking out of this university with no job prospects. I'll be walking out of this university with no job prospects and $23,000 in debt.
Unfortunately, I'm not the only one at Cal in this shitty situation. We're probably in the minority, but we're here. I wish I had a solution. But I don't. The only way I can console myself is to think that me paying my way through school is a character-building experience; that my peers who have a job for spending money instead of rent money will have a bigger shock than I will once they enter the "real" world; that struggle makes you a more compassionate person; that the ones whose grandparents can afford to send them to Europe couldn't appreciate that vacation as much as I could as a poor person. But these consolations aren't fair and probably are not even true. I've got a bad case of reverse-elitism. Maybe the middle-class values and lower-middle-class bank account (namely the one with negative numbers) I inherited from my parents are only hurting me.
(0) comments
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Politeness vs. Truth
One of the lesser known fronts of the Cold war was the field of brainwashing. A couple returning POWs had inexplicably turned Marxists and the US military was interested in why. Several branches of the government worked on the project and in the end, the trick turned out to be no trick at all. A straightforward program of incarceration, isolation, and group punishment that would have been familiar to any prosecutor of the Spanish Inquisition was the best any captor could do. The reason the Communists seemed to have the upper hand was that they were willing to do things our American morals would not permit.
I think that the liberal-conservative meme war might be like that. For those of you not familiar, Berkeley’s own George Lakoff is part of the Rockridge Institute, a progressive think tank whose focus is reframing political debate through language. The idea is that Republicans have found political advantage by using a very precise language specially designed to frame things in a conservative light. For a specific example of bad framing see Nixon’s “I am not a crook.”
(As a better example, think of how Republican politicians always seem to keep the topic of discussion on taxes and “tax burdens”. That is a framing trick all by its own. Of course, everyone wants lower taxes. But only by mentally separating them from public services can Republicans hope to bamboozle people into supporting plans to undermine popular institutions like social security.)
It’s a good idea. But while it’s important that liberals have the right language to use, it even more crucial is the willingness to say it unashamed. What conservatives have, and what liberals really need, is the media with the will to deliver our message.
Conservative leader can trust any of a number of journalists to repeat their spin point or even to blow the cover off a deep cover CIA agent for that matter. Liberals have to contend with the regular media who seem to keep one eye on the news and the other on the number of angry letters they get accusing them of liberal bias. Fox doesn’t care about bias. The wall street journal doesn’t care about bias (or even basic economics if it gets in the way of their ideology). They probably don’t even get letters complaining of bias. Bias is a red herring and liberals should take their queue from conservatives and be unashamed of their own politics.
I’m not suggesting that Liberals stoop as low as Fox News (Michael Moore has come close). What I am suggesting is that liberals, and particularly, liberals in the media, stop letting their gentlemanly code of conduct prevent them from saying mean things when mean things need to be said. Otherwise we’ll all end up sounding like NPRs Terry Gross trying to explain how it’s politically balanced to give O’Reilly a hard time during an interview. (Answer: It’s not politically balanced. But it is the best way to treat a guest you believe is dishonest.)
Our country didn’t have to give up our morals or our freedoms to win the Cold war, but we did have to learn to give up our isolationist “everything is fine” attitude and take threats seriously. Aggressive, lopsided, and one-sided reporting from the right threatens to unbalance our informed electorate. Liberals need to stop pining for the polite old days of newspapers, and start getting the truth out there. We don’t have to compromise our morals, just instinct to be polite.
(0) comments
Monday, November 17, 2003
Only 37 hours left! Get on the Kucinich date wagon NOW!
Submissions to enter PoliticsNH.com's Go To Dinner With Presidential Unhopeful Dennis Kucinich are due by midnight on Wednesday, November 19. Here's why I would be the best candidate:
- I'm a damned hippie, but I'm also pragmatic.
- I love single-payer health care, and I can never get enough peace.
- Did I say peace? I meant peach. I love peaches. But I also love peaces. No, peace. I love peach.
- DK and I are both vegans, so eating dinner together would be a breeze. No Sizzler for us.
- I have a hairpiece fetish.
- I agree with him on all political fronts except affirmative action and bilingual education. (And believe me, the dude has a really long list of political beliefs.)
- We've both got cherubic good looks. Our kids would look like elves.
Also, check out this rad audio postcard from Willie Nelson endorsing Denny. Nice tanktop!
(0) comments
Sunday, November 16, 2003
Now that doesn't seem fair, does it?
Some numbers on blacks and marijuana.
Here are some fascinating charts about reported marijuana use among Americans of different age, gender, and ethnic groups. This is a chart of the percentage of black drug offenders in state prison.
For those of you who don't enjoy pouring over charts, here are some highlights:
- (Table 3.2) At the time of the survey, 9.9% of black participants had smoked weed in the last year, while 9.1% of whites had. (Among 18-25 year-olds, namely kids people our age, 24.2% of whites had used marijuana in the last year, while only 20% of blacks had.)
- (Table 3.1) 37.8% of white participants reported using pot during their lifetimes, while 28.5% of blacks had. (Again, look at the higher weed use among white people in our age group - 46.7% v. 31.6%.)
- (Table 3.3) The delineation in which the black pot use is largest compared to white pot use is among those who had used within the last month, and even then the proportion was low - 6.1% of blacks v. 5.2% of whites.
Now comes the crazy part.
- (Second link) 63% of drug admissions to state prisons are black, compared to 12% that are white.
Okay, let's think about this. America is 80% white, but only 12% black. Let's go with the least flattering figure for blacks and assume black marijuana users outnumber white users 6 to 5. Even then, in raw numbers, there are about 5.7 times as many whites using marijuana than blacks, so, by extention, there should be about 5.7 times as many whites in jail for weed as blacks. Instead, blacks outnumber whites over 5 to 1 on marijuana incarcerations.
In short, the criminal justice system is anti-black, for one reason or another. Those of you who doin't think it is can maybe counter my emperical data with a reasonable explanation. Maybe "Blacks love to turn themselves in," or "Blacks like to carry their weed out inthe open when they walk past cops." But no, it couldn't be that police are more likely to pursue marijuana use in black neighborhoods, or more likely to look the other way when a white college kid smells like pot, or that a judge is more likely to sentence a black person than a white person for the same drug charge. Of course not. This is America.
(0) comments
Thursday, November 13, 2003
An update for all my family and close friends
I don't often find the time to personally contact my loved ones and update them with my happenings, but in case said loved ones are reading my blog, here's a summary of the next few weeks' activities:
- Tue., 11/18/03: Paper due in History of Art. Stupid paper.
- Fri., 11/21/03: Wisdom tooth extraction (all four of them) with Dr. Patakas in Alameda. My two bottom molars have soft tissue vertical impaction, meaning my jaw isn't long enough to accommodate these teeth, so the back half of each tooth has grown in under the gum. Here's an informative diagram:
- Sat., 11/22/03: Be in a lot of pain from previous day's procedure.
- Thu., 11/27/03: Thanksgiving with the man-pal's family in Sacramento. As a swollen-mouthed vegan, I have planned to bring my own delectable T-day treats, including vegan cornbread, vegan pumpkin pie, and a healthful yet exciting vegan yam dish. Mmmmm...yam dish.
I hope you all feel as if you were right here with me. I sure do.
(0) comments
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Whither progressive income tax?
On the face of it, it’s pretty difficult to argue against the progressive income tax without seeming like a jaded jerk. The most handy argument for it is that a flat tax would mean way higher taxes for you (millionaires don’t read this blog so it’s safe to say that). Though it is the actual reason we don’t have a flat tax there is something deeply unsatisfying about this argument. Heck! I could just as easily argue that everyone who reads this blog should get free money from the government, but I think it too would assault our basic sense of fairness.
Of course, every single flat tax proposal made by conservative leaders (it comes up in congress almost every year) aren’t really flat at all. They aim to levy a flat tax on earned income (the kind of money you and I make at pizza hut) and lift all taxes on unearned income (the kind of money the rich make off of us when they use out student loan interest to buy homes in the south of France). Furthermore, even Republican leaders aren’t heartless enough to tax the homeless and those not making a living wage. Again, being “two-tiered” their flat tax isn’t really flat at all. Clearly then, you could easily argue against any given “flat tax” plan, but still, the platonic ideal of a flat tax is still there, floating in space: Wrong… But why?
It’s an issue of fairness. Sure, Bill Gates is a better programmer than me. Heck, he’s probably even a better salesman then me. But is he really 43,150,080.03* times better than me at anything? Even at darts, which I am exceedingly bad at? No, although it is plain that Bill Gates should rightly own far more than I do, we can also freely admit that what he does own is due in some part to good fortune. Of course, Bill Gates is a particularly deserving case. What about flat tax proponent Steve Forbes? His main talent is the ability to be born to outstandingly rich parents. Quite a skill. Then again, I’m a really good whistler but our society has decided that this particular talent, though also inheritable, does not merit multimillion dollar rewards.
The flip side is less dramatic but probably more common. While it’s difficult to get rich without deserving it (barring accidents of birth like our sitting president), it is very easy to not get rich even though you totally do deserve it. If you see Philo Taylor Farnsworth in heaven, thank him for inventing television, since no one ever did down here.
Of course, this doesn’t even take into account the people who are rich specifically because they are jerks (see John D. Rockefeller civil-war profiteering) and those who are poor exactly because they were good Samaritans (all the George Baileys of the world).
In the end, a progressive tax is (amongst other things) really just a luck tax. It asks of the most probably lucky ducks sitting on their piles of gold to kick back a little to us unfortunates. Until we invent that magical machine that can tell us how much each person’s soul is worth, we’re just going to have to trust to the law of averages.
* Ratio of my current bank account balance to Bill Gates’ net worth. Including my student loans this number is negative.
(0) comments
Sunday, November 09, 2003
Our personal connection goes deeper than idealistic liberal politics and diminutive stature
I discovered today that Ohio's favorite lawn gnome and Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich, like myself, is a vegan:
"Congressman Kucinich is one of the few vegans in Congress, a dietary decision he credits not only with improving his health, but in deepening his belief in the sacredness of all species."
Awesome! Then again, he's also really good friends with Shirley Maclaine, but nobody's perfect. Denny's biggest downfall is that he's crazy.
Crazy for equality!
I'm not going to stop vouching on K-Dog's side. I don't believe he can win, but I do believe that he can give disheartened Democrats an inspiring alternative in the primaries. I think he's helping many liberals who may have shunned the Dems remember why they or their parents were Democrats. I hope he's illustrating to a few million Americans that the two major parties don't need to be so eerily similar on certain issues.
And I love that big black rug he wears on his little dome. My step-dad Travis said that he looks like "an uncolored coloring book." Touche, Trav. Touche.
(0) comments
Friday, November 07, 2003
Sometimes It's Hard to Be a Woman
Volume Two: Keeping America (and God) out of my uterus.
"Every person has a special dignity. This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government, it comes from the creator of life." Thanks President Bush. Maybe he should have repeated this cute little maxim when he gave the final order to put over 100 people to death during his Texas governorship. I was also under the impression that, even if you believe life is derived from a divine creator, that law comes from the government, not said creator. But this post is about abortion, not about hypocricy or comingling of church and state.
I have no doubt that the United States government's most recent attempt to stifle a form of abortion will die a bloody death in the high courts. I am, however, frightened that this anti-"partial-birth abortion" (no such medical term exists) bill even got past congress. It bothers me that a few hundred men and women (oh, but mostly men) in Washington are attempting to dictate what occurs inside a woman's own body. I'm peeved that a rare procedure that is almost only used to protect the life of a woman or to prevent the birth of a baby who cannot survive outside its mother's womb falls under the jurisdiction of a select few, the vast majority of whom don't have the capacity to get pregnant, and the even more overwhelming majority of whom have no medical experience.
I believe this issue goes beyond the right's attempt to protect the health of fetuses. (Otherwise it would be illegal to smoke in the same room as a pregnant woman.) As I've stated before, I think this blind anti-abortion sentiment is rooted in a disrespect for a woman's self-determination. I believe that, subversive though this mentality may be, there persists an idea that the female body does not bear the capacity to take care of itself. Women menstruate, they have "hormonal" outbursts, they're physically weaker than men, they have bodies which are believed to be tied to nature because of their reproductive functions. The idea is that women have an inability to control their bodies (we can't really opt out of our periods without negative health repurcussions, and our hormones follow suit), and thus that men, and by extension the men in government (and religion), should have jurisdiction over the feminine physical entity.
Many conservative figures in religion and politics are attempting to get "morning after pills" like Previn off the market, claiming that life begins at conception, despite the fact that a 72-hour old embryo is composed of only a few hundred undifferentiated cells. (It's comparable to biting the inside of your cheek and "killing" the skin that comes off.) This opposition to the "abortion pill" (what a charming and inaccurate name) is based not only on a distorted definition of life, but also a resistance to grant women control over their bodies. If abortions are available quickly and (relatively) painlessly, so the argument goes, then women will have sex whenever they want without worrying about the consequences. Drugs that prevent implantation are not going to encourage women to have willy-nilly sex (as much as Pat Robertson would love to picture that); it will give women and men who made a mistake a chance not to give birth to an unwanted, unaffordable child. Also, given that fathers of unwanted pregnancies out of wedlock rarely have to suffer the same consequences as the mothers, it provides women with a limited opportunity to decide for themselves what consequences their bodies will suffer.
On a lighter note, when I gave blood today I got a free 15 minute phone card. Woo hoo!
(0) comments
Sometimes It's Hard to Be a Woman
Volume One Point One: Giving my stupid kids a last stupid name.
In addition to having a husband, part of my life-plan is to have 2-3 children (and a few dogs and cats). And my kids are going to need last names. (Unless, of course, they plan upon becoming wildly successful mono-monikered super models [I'm 5'1" - an unlikely event], soccer players [again, I'm 5'1"], or pop stars.) So whose will it be? Mom's or Dad's?
Ehhhh. Now I'm uncomfortable.
I'm not taking my husband's name. He's not taking mine. (To do otherwise, as I explained, would be dishonest to the pursuit of equality in a relationship.) So there goes that "convenience" (chuckle) of having a happy family with the same surname for all. But what of little Timmy and little Sally and little Habib? If they take "Brown" that would would be denying the other parent's contribution. Likewise if they take "HypotheticalDadName" instead of mine.
The yuppie option "Brown-HypotheticalDadName" might be cumbersome, but is it really that awful an alternative to perpetuating patriarchism? And the name Brown is like a pair of black slacks - it goes with everything.
But what happens when Habib Brown-HypotheticalDadName falls in love with and raises children with Dora McCallister-Rosenberg, and Habib and Dora are also progressive, symbolic equality-seeking Americans? Meet Phineas McCallister-Rosenberg-Brown-HypotheticalDadName. Now, the likelihood of this happening is slim. But that's pretty cumbersome. (Note also that by the time I'm a grandma turn of the century names will again be en vogue. My money's on "Horatio" as the 2050's anser to 2000's "Madison." Mark my words.)
If I give my boy(s) Dad's name and my girl(s) Mom's name, that creates artificial alliances. Same if I did the opposite.
Sigh.
Maybe the dude I marry and I can dole out last names in alphabetical order. If I have babies with Harold Agajanian, the first kid gets his name, the second kid mine, and so on. If I have babies with Grover D. Caterwaul, I'll get first dibbs. Like home-ice advantage in the hockey playoffs.
Oh Jesus. That's a terrible idea.
A good idea, on the other hand, would be for you to donate blood. Do it!
(0) comments
Thursday, November 06, 2003
You gotta fight for your right to get free cookies and orange juice
That's right kids. Blood drive tomorrow in Wozinak (I probably spelled that wrong) Lounge in Soda Hall from the morning to the afternoon. I'll be there at about 10:30, as will Paul. The two of us have a friendship based on the mutual love of Elvis Costello and giving blood.
There will also be "Get the Red Out" Big Game week blood drives from 9-4 in Pauley Pavillion on Monday Nov. 17 and Friday Nov. 21. Even if I were eligable to give on the 21st (you have to wait at least 56 days between donations), I wouldn't. Instead on that day I shall be getting four of my teeth hacked out of my skull. And I'm paying almost $200 for the honor.
GIVE BLOOD!!! First, you save some lives. Second, you usually get a free t-shirt (you can choose among large, X-large, and XX-large). Lastly, needles are way cool. Trust me.
(0) comments
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
Sometimes It’s Hard to Be a Woman
Volume One: The Name Game.
For one reason or another, as I’ve mentioned before, there seems to be a dearth of female participants in the Cal political blogsphere, among both blog authors and commentators. (I cannot prove that women aren’t reading, thanks to the genderl anonymity of IP addresses.) I won’t speculate as to the source of this disproportionality (though I may do so later). But I can say that as a female I might represent, however inaccurately, a woman’s voice to my male blogging peers.
One topic of debate, often though erroneously labeled as a “women’s issue” (as if any issue existed in a sexual vacuum), is that of a woman’s last name when she gets married. As I foresee my life, I will get married, and I will not change my last name. Is this some subvert (or overt?) anti-male behavior? Is it rooted in the hatred of men inherent to my feminism? Am I simply being defiant in an empty, symbolic way for the sake of defiance itself? Am I trying to piss off my husband? Or am I trying to eliminate the possibility of even snagging a future husband?
Well, no. First, I don’t hate men. Neither does my mother. Or my sister. Nor do my aunts. Or almost any other feminist. Here lies a great myth. Feminists don’t hate men. A critically thinking woman (or man) will, however, despise hierarchy in which women are as a group disadvantaged due to the social structure created by men and reproduced by men (and women). Second, the symbolic battles are often the most difficult ones to win. I will gladly combat symbolic repression with full zeal. Further, no symbolic triumph is empty. Lastly, no, I’m rarely defiant for the sake of pissing people off. (Maybe my parents, but never an entire gender.)
My visceral argument against changing my name is that my identity as Rebecca C. Brown, not as Rebecca B. Smith or Rebecca B. Jones or Rebecca C. Brown-Jones, has been in the works for over two decades (longer by the time I will be asked by convention to alter it by adopting another name). Though a name is little more than a word, I will entreaty my readers to think about the power of words and how language infuses social action. In this case, a woman taking her husband’s last name represents very clearly that her individuality and self-ownership (both physically and psychically) belong not to her but instead to her husband. Just as a father gives his offspring his last name (then adopts a role of authority over them), he so gives his wife his name. Quite simply, it’s nominal slavery. To make a less dramatic argument, it is entirely counterintuitive to equality for one person in a relationship to take the name of the other. I challenge you to assert otherwise.
Your mother or aunt or grandmother may have taken her husband’s name, maybe had children, maybe worked, or maybe stayed home. And despite relinquishing her symbolic identity, was perfectly happy and content. I will not disagree with you. I don’t think something as small as a last name can dictate a person’s happiness; however, it can contribute to her perception of self as a female. Further, the collective inability of women to maintain their last names defines in part what a woman’s role is in the family and in society in general. And though there are no laws dictating that we must change our names, if we don’t, we will, well, get a lot of shit for it.
(0) comments
Monday, November 03, 2003
Baby Boomers: Ticking Socialist Time Bombs
Here’s some brain food: I’m confused about “Starve the beast” conservatives’ plans to run government deficits in order to force a government breakdown when Baby Boomers start to draw on Social Security. Completely getting rid of the social safety net is open goal of a lot of righty policy makers. They see it as a way of promoting personal responsibility. But while it’s an interesting if risky way of enacting policies which a majority of the country doesn’t agree with, I wonder if they aren’t biting off more than they can chew? I mean, it’s all nice and good to force a showdown between low taxes and public services, but is it wise to have that showdown at the exact time that a larger percentage of the voting public is depending on social security and other public safety nets?
We’ve all heard about how the Baby Boomers are the “lump in the python” of demographics, slowly working their way to old age. But I wonder if anyone has tried to explain political power shifts in terms of this giant section of the population growing through different phases of life? Couldn’t you just connect the 60’s to the innocent exuberance of youth, the 70s with the disillusionment, the 80’s with the family man who just wants to make a buck and so on? Of course, this kind of touchy-feely analysis usually makes me sick to my stomach, but a good old fashioned statistical analysis could easily reveal if politics were being changed by increased representations of a particular age group.
Anyhow, it’s food for thought.
(0) comments
Sunday, November 02, 2003
What's next? A gay pope?
"The Episcopal Church consecrated V. Gene Robinson as bishop in a heartfelt ceremony Sunday, making him the first openly gay man to rise to that rank in any of the world's major Christian bodies. But while pageantry mixed with exultation in the ritual elevating Robinson to bishop of New Hampshire, it seems unlikely the church will hold together in its aftermath." (Full article here.)
I think my loyal readers shold be able to predict my view on the matter. I completely support the right of the percentage of the Episcolpalians who oppose homosexuality to splinter off from the Anglican Church. But they're being archaic and childish. I'm just glad that this matter does not have to be mediated by law, given that God and state are separate entities (despite frequent evidence to the contrary). That's why I'm confused by the last paragraph from the news story:
"Some predict this will develop into the worst Episcopal split since the denomination was founded in 1789. And depending on the shape things take, a spate of church lawsuits may well result."
Lawsuit? Maybe someone with a more acute understanding of law could explain how the church could file any suits. On what basis? That consecrating a gay bishop defies the rules lain out in the Bible? I very honestly don't see what actual laws have been broken.
On a seasonal note, I hope you all had an enjoyable and, more importantly, safe Halloween. David, Andy, and I went down to Scott and the other Andy's place in Santa Barbara for the weekend. We fastidiously avoided Isla Vista, lest we be arrested en masse, until the day after Halloween, when we drove down the main celebration stretch to laugh at all the hungover kids walk home. Ubiquitous red party cups and half-torn sparkly costume butterfly/fairy/standard-female-quick-costume wings littered the road. It was glorious. On the night of the 31st we played Beirut, a delightful game of agility and coordination. Scott and I are currently World Champions of the World. Last night I further solidified my role as designated driver. My plan is to get my license in December, at which point my DD assignment will from then on be unequivocal.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
(This being my inaugural CalJunket entry, I will stick to the humorous. It is a little known fact that the squelch doesn't publish half the things I write, mostly because they aren't funny. I think most of the creative editors have had a slight bias against political humor, but that’s their prerogative. You make the call.)
Republicans find 300 billion in government waste
Tommaso Sciortino, Affairs Betterer
In a shocking revelation today Republican lawmakers have found a government department that has been wasting upward of 300 billion dollars each and every year that it has been operational.
“When our first tax cuts created a 300 billion deficit we explained that we would pay for it by cutting government waste instead of raising taxes.” Explained House Majority leader Tom DeLay, “Well, that’s exactly what we did.”
The government office responsible for this historically unprecedented level of waste, the Department of Betterin’ Affairs, is thought to have escaped detection for so long because of confusion between it and the much more well-known Department of Veteran’s Affairs. A relic from the New Deal, most of the Department’s 300 billion dollar budget was spent on “Just making things better…” said one newly unemployed staffer, “like sidewalks. Maybe they got gum all over ‘em… or maybe you see some guy and he’s got a bad hair cut… we’d buy that guy a hat.”
Republicans have not rested after their victory but have instead planned to pass more tax cuts. Quoted Grover Norquist, “We hope that at the current rate, no American will ever have to pay taxes after 2008. Also, the government will be so lean that it'll be able to run on the change that government workers find lying in the streets.”
(0) comments
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
NEWSBREAK: Democratic Party Dusts Off Pair of Severely Atrophied Balls
ALSO: Rebecca C. Brown Engages in Extended Third-Person Critique Describing Her Views on this Election's Viable Democratic Candidates
General Wesley Clark said today that the Bush Administration and, more specifically, George W. Bush himself need to take responsibility for their failure to respond to intelligence leading up to the September 11 attacks. (Full article here.) The comments of Clark today represented one of the stronger assaults on Bush's deception and incompetance by a plausable Democratic candidate.
(What amused me most from this article was this paragraph: "The Bush-Cheney campaign declined to respond to Clark's criticism, referring calls to the Republican National Committee. Christine Iverson, spokeswoman for the RNC, said Clark 'sounds exactly like Bob Graham, the failed presidential candidate from Florida who launched similar attacks against the president a few month ago, and was forced to drop out of the race because his message of protest and pessimism failed to resonate with the American people.'" So Iverson isn't saying that Clark is wrong, she's just saying that his views are unpopular. That's cute.)
Surprisingly enough, the cynical feminist Green with a strong disdain for corruption and pandering (namely Rebecca C. Brown) is relatively pleased with the Democratic candidates for the upcoming election. She even thinks that a few of the reasonably electable ones (Clark, Dean, Kerry) might somewhat represent her.
She does, however, feel that Dean and Clark each falter on selected issues. For example, while Howie (as she likes to call him) wants to protect women's reproductive rights, he also feels that the death penalty is an acceptable form of justice. Wes may present an overall liberal point of view (which will especially impress the American public because he is a four-star general and former Republican), he represents too steep of a compromise with the Right, according to Rebecca, on matters such as free trade and gun control.
Miss Brown would like to encourage all of her left-leaning readers to consider Dennis Kucinich, the Little Clevelander Who Could if He Was Only Given a Chance, for their Democratic pic these upcoming primaries. The author entreaties you to check out his fearless views (and facts) on the death penalty, the war on drugs, IRV, gay rights, trade, and many other issues. She feels that Dennis represents the most progressive and exciting option in the Democratic party.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
When they clean the street I'll be the only shit that's left behind
Bush is poised to sign a bill banning partial-birth abortions. I, oddly enough, am not wrangling up my picketing materials. But, though I think partial-birth abortions, which take place in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy, are ugly and should be discouraged, I don't feel that the law has any place in the matter.
By week eight into a pregnancy, the fetus already has a developing nervous system and will, even if the feeling isn't perceived by the fetus' brain, react to a physical stimulus. By the thirteenth week, the second trimester, the fetus has a fairly devolped nervous system and can move on its own volition. Premature fetuses that are born after only five months of gestation can survive, indicating that a "baby" has at that point been developed. I reluctantly say that I cannot support terminating the pregnancy in the second trimester, though nor do I feel particularly strong about this. Abortions in the third trimester, which represent only about 1% of abortions in the US, are fairly gruesome and should be strongly discouraged unless bringing the pregnancy to term would be harmful to the mother (or if it is discovered that the fetus will not survive through childbirth).
One very disturbing aspect of this bill is that it represents a stepping stone to the abolition of all abortion, no matter at what point during the pregnancy or under what circumstances. And by "circumstances" I am alluding to more than rape and incest; I believe that the sincere desire to not have a baby is a circumstance that justifies abortion.
What disturbs me most about the standard Republican stance on abortion is that they claim very ardently that they want to support a "culture of life" and eliminate a "culture of death." Wait, huh?! Is this not the political party whose platform supports the death penalty? The death penalty. Or the party (with congressional help from the pandering Democrats) that is currently waging a war in Iraq where Americans, Iraqis, soldiers, and civilians are being killed? (That's correct. I said currently.) Or the party who is more comfortable letting pollutants (pollutants that deplete the quality of and/or shorten life) into the ecosystem than regulating pollution and potentially stifling the economy on a temporary scale?
I don't belive Republicans are attempting with this bill to encourage a culture of life. At the risk of sounding radical or making a potentially offensive analysis (new territory for me), I believe this party's stance on abortion is rooted in anti-feminism and a distortion of Christian ideals (the latter obviously engendering the former). The word "God" has managed to litter the politics of the right to this day in such an un-Christian way. I have read Biblical texts for myself, and though I do not believe Jesus would support partial-birth abortions (if only we could ask him his stance on this, and stem cell research, and comprehensive admission standards for public universities), I also do not believe he would support putting criminals to death, or for that matter participating in any war.
The only good that will come of the soon-to-be passing of this bill is that the issue of abortion will once again, I predict, be taken to the Supreme Court and once again the Supreme Court will decide in favor of abortion rights. I don't know how many times the precedent will have to be set on this matter.
Dammit, I hate Republicans!
(0) comments
Elliott Smith dies in apparant suicide.
Plus, comedy show tonight at the Bear's Lair at 8pm.
Not that it's easy to get excited about a comedy show when one of the best songwriters of the last decade dies. I'm terribly sad about this. I just happen to have had one of his albums, Roman Candle, in my CD player for the last week. Come to think of it, probably not a week has gone by since I was 17 that I haven't listened to Elliott Smith. His music has had the amazing ability to console me in my down moments, despite his own meloncholia. This is very sad to me. I hope that if you haven't heard his work extinsively that you now give it a try. This is so incredibly disappointing.
(0) comments
Saturday, October 18, 2003
For those about to rock.
Yet another subtle reminder to check out the very good If Six Was Nine blog (ifsix.blogspot.com), wherein six sexy coeds offer their insights into the world of music. Also note that we now have a neat-o masthead at the top of the page with pictures of all six of us in alphabetical order. (That means I'm the one on the far right, kids.) My initial plan when I got into the blogging madness was to never let my readers (besides the ones whom I know in person) know what I look like. Well, now you do. Sexy. That's what I look like.
I'd also like to remind you that the Heuristic Squelch will be hosting a swell comedy show this upcoming Wednesday at the Bear's Lair at 8pm. It's only $5 for a whole night of laffs. Find us on Sproul.
What, by the way, did you all think of the most recent issue of our fine little humor mag?
Make to sure to celebrate the end of midterms responsibly. For example, don't celebrate the end of one midterm by ceasing to study for a week, only to remember that you have another midterm within the next few days.
I drove around the streets of Berkeley and Albany for the first time last night. I don't have my license yet, only my permit, but I am a very fast learner. I didn't drive when I was a teenager because I simply didn't have the money for insurance and gas and a car. (I, like a sucker, was saving my earnings for college. Psshh.) But now I'm an excellent driver. Definitely.
(0) comments
Sunday, October 12, 2003
Everyone's stupid but me
Also, pardon my hiatus.
A dangerous, covert terrorist lurks in our midst. A greasy, scrumptious terrorist. A capitalist terrorist who is poisoning Americans with its life-shortening and money-sucking death substance. That's right, it's the restaurant industry, and it's killing our nation's citizens with fat. Fat! Fattening fat deep-fried in 100% fatty fat. Or not. Who knows. Whatever.
This article is about how the three-fifths of RedWhiteAndBlueicans who are overwieght may have spurred legal action taken against the restaurant industry, who has facilitated rampant fat consumption. One option is to legally mandate that nutrition information be included on restaurant menus.
Every person (over the age of, let's say, thirteen, at which point if you can't cook your own dinner than you're a big loser) has complete control over what he or she eats, and every person has the option of asking for vague-to-specific nutrition information about the food he or she receives from a restaurant, so conceivably every person should know semi-accurately how many calories and fat grams he or she has consumed per meal, thus every person who is overweight has no one to blame but him or herself. Thus I think suing McDonald's or Chili's for America's obesity is frivilous and unfair.
But why not mandate that nutrition information, specific and accurate information, be available for all food no matter where it is being eaten? If people want to eat lard all day, oh for god's sake let them. But if some people ardently do not want to chug lipids for sport (and as a result possibly suffer heart disease, heart attack, diabetes, stroke, snoring, etc.), they should be able to have information assisting them in their pursuit readily available. There's no need to sue the restaurants that have helped this nation devolve into 250,000,000 corpulant turban-fearing cowboys (I guess they're only responsible for the first adjective), but there's also no need to withold information from the consumer.
An argument could be made by those of you who believe in individual self-determination and oppose institutional interferance with consumers' decisions. That argument might go something like this: "If folks are surprised that they're getting a spare tire after years of Big Macs and pepperoni pizzas, then they're big durfs who obviously don't understand how eating and digestion work. Man, are they big durfs." Hey, I agree with you. Especially about the durf thing. If there's one thing I can't stand it's a durf who doesn't understand stuff.
But I also believe that an informed consumer, perhaps even and over-informed consumer, is an ideal in a capitalist economy. Further, a citizen cannot truly be self-determining and free of interferance until he has every fact about what he is consuming at his disposal. Every person has the right to decide what is best for his body, so long as he knows exactly what is going into it.
[This is the part of the post where I reminisce longingly/disgustedly about my years back home in Long Beach.] When I was home for the Summer in the months between my freshman and sophomore years in college, I stayed in my home town of Long Beach for the season and chose to get a job at McDonald's because no one else would hire me for just eight weeks. As you can imagine, the menu at McDonald's hinges upon fat. I would leave that place with beef tallow caked between the treads of my non-scuff shoes. It's all fat. Fat plus more fat. Everyone knows that. Except kids. A five year old should not have to concern himself with calorie-counting when he goes out to eat with his parents. And it would be one thing if his parents took him for fast food once, even twice a month. But when you work full-time at McDonald's in a dense urban area, you come to see that some families eat there twice, thrice, four times a week. The parent are already obease. The children, through no fault of their own, are quickly on their way. They are being introduced very early into our culture of fattening foods. It's a culture where eating animal fats and proteins is encouraged for fear of anemia and/or sissiness, but I'd wager more on the latter. It's a society where convenience takes precedence over health. Most importantly, it's a culture that has developed out of ignorance, and it reproduces itself everyday because consumers aren't demanding to be informed.
If people could see, could read, could process with their own eyes that a medium order of french fries at McDonald's has 22 grams of fat (30% of your RDA of fat), or that a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese has 47 grams of fat (and thus that a #6 on the big picture menu gives them 69 grams total) as they're ordering then they may reconsider their options. Or not. Who cares. Let them eat fat. Just let them know how much.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
IT'S OFFICIAL!!
I now officially have no trust in the ability of the populous to elect the right people. I'm surrounded by 35 million doofers. Down with democracy! Up with highly centralized federal government!
On a lighter note, both propositions failed. Proposition 54 did not pass in any county at all, in fact. Even in Orange County, the coast's beacon of conservativism and illegal immigrant labor force, Prop 54 failed 51% to 49%.
In San Francisco County, Peter Camejo received about 1,300 more votes than McClintock. Yay! Gary Coleman got 21 more votes than drop-out candidate Peter Ueberroth. Yikes.
In Alameda County, write-in candidate Daniel Freedman received one vote. The Squelch Publicity Coordinator voted for himself.
Again on the lighter side, cheers to such high voter turnout. About 2 million more voted yesterday than a year ago.
On a curious note, how many of you were asked to provide photo ID when checking into your polling place? I was not asked, nor were any of the several other people I asked. Isn't such slack behavior conducive to voter fraud?
Here's how I voted:
Triple No plus Camejo.
I encourage you all to go back in time and do the same.
Here are all the exciting election returns from around the state!
New Squelch on Monday.
(0) comments
Sunday, October 05, 2003
Peter Camejo Rocks the Boat, My World
For those of you who didn't see Pete speak in Evans Hall on Firday at 6pm (which would be everyone on the planet save for about 400 of us), he was fantastic as always.
Seemingly the Green following in the Berkeley area is comprised of a bunch of hippies; who knew? Peter's appearance was hosted by the ISO, and apparantly socialists run on "commie time," wherein events start 15 minutes late (so much for the trains running on time), but the introductory speakers were few and brief and Camejo was speaking by 6:35pm.
In good third-party tradition, he came armed with some very indicitive and interesting graphs, including a chart showing that, when income and property and sales and all other state taxes are added together, the bottom 20% pay an 11.3% tax rate while the top 1% pays 7.2%. (Here's a link to that graph and report.) He also had a graph showing that taxes on corporations are as low as they've been since the mid-90s (I don't remember the exact numbers and I can't find Camejo's graph - I'd make a lousy political intern). Further, he outlined how the number of businesses in California is on the increase, as are their revenues; in fact, California's GDP was bigger last year than ever, which makes the current deficit that moch more amazing. In other words, Peter was artfully dispelling the myth so ardently perpetuated by Schwarzenegger and McClintock: that corporate and income taxes are driving the money out of this state. This simply isn't true! The Republicans may offer anecdotes saying otherwise, but emperical data cannot support the theory that California's current fiscal policies are forcing companies to move elsewhere.
But enough about the economy. The economy bores me to tears. (Luckilly, Camejo is a financial advisor and can find money exciting on my behalf.) What really incited enthusiam in me were Pete's invigorating stances on IRV and gay rights.
First, the latter: For him and the rest of the Green party, the issue of "gay rights" is not an issue. Gays are citizens and receive the rights thereof. No concessions, no compromises, no policies treating them as if they were legally different from "regular" people. Somehow, this is a stance that every plausable Democratic candidate (c'mon, no one's voting for Kucinich, and it makes me really sad) refuses to take, perhaps for fear of wierding out a good number of Americans, or perhaps because they genuinely don't believe gays are the same as everybody else.
Second, the former: I strongly believe that instant runoff voting would make government far more representative of the public's wishes. If progressives who like like the Greens or conservatives who like the crazy Libertarians or the nut jobs who like the wacky nut job Reformists got to vote their concience, these underdogs could receive the recognition they deserve and could further play a role in the political process, without their supporters feeling like they're "stealing" votes. I can't see any reason to oppose IRV.
Lastly, the previously unmentioned: Sumbit articles to the Squelch. Especially newsflashes. submit@squelched.com
(0) comments
Friday, October 03, 2003
RCB Guide's Cheers and Jeers
Jeers to Arnold Schwarzenegger for groping unwilling women. Jeers again to him for admiring Hitler in any capacity. Then again, maybe Adolf had a stunning physique that only Arnie knows about.
Jeers to Arianna Huffington for bowing out of the race. She was giving many Californians a good reason to go to the polls, and has subsequently abandoned them, no doubt under pressure from more likely victorious liberal candidates.
Cheers to Peter Camejo and Tom McClintock for not.
Cheers, further, to the people who made it possible for Peter and Tom to be involved in the gubernatorial debates. Cheers to a minor undermining of the strict two-party/two-candidate political system that limits the democratic potential of America.
Jeers to whoever decided to have the Giants' first three playoff games take place while most people are at work or school.
Jeers to midterms.
Cheers to the Heuristic Squelch, which stands as a beacon of entertainment in the face of said midterms.
Jeers to President Bush. For any number of things.
Jeers to "The Simpsons" for not being funny for almost half a decade.
Cheers to having all three seasons of "The Family Guy" on DVD to compensate for the previous Jeer.
Cheers to all the cool kids who run If Six Was Nine.
Jeers to this idiotic TV Guide format.
Update:
Cheers to Luna Bars, Clif Bar's high-density food chunk designed specifically for women. Each bar has 10 grams of protein (22% of its calories); 350mg calcium; 100% RDA of folate, vitamins C, B1, B3, B6, and B12, and some other stuff I've never heard of; and only 180 calories. Furthermore, Luna bars use no animal products, and because B vitamins are normally so difficult to find in large quantities in plants, these mid-meal snacks are ideal for us vegans. Yay!
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Heuristic Squelch sneak peak and entreaty for submissions
I'll let you in on a little secret....don't tell anyone....alright? Shhhh... The cover of the next issue of the Squelch is gonna totally zing Chancellor Berdahl! Zing!!!! Sorta. I guess we're not really zinging him at all. I don't even know any more. I'll be happy as long as the magazine makes reference at some point to the Chancellor's jowels.
We're getting started on our second issue of the year, and my prediction is of pure hilarity. Keep those submissions coming! submit@squelched.com.
(0) comments
Monday, September 29, 2003
Oh, Florida! Will you ever win?
In one of the more flagrant examples of defying a stupid law with an even more stupid (and harmful and disgusting) protest, the Florida band Hell on Earth (whose music I can only assume is sub-par... Can you blame me? They're called Hell on Earth!) plans to include an onstage suicide in one of their performances and broadcast it on their website. The groups is attempting to speak out against a new law in their city of St. Petersburg that prohibits physician-assisted suicide.
Call me old-fashioned, but I take life pretty seriously. So seriously that I won't even eat a crab, who probably has the neurological capacity of my left thumb. Furthermore, I take quality of life pretty seriously. So seriously that I refuse to drink the milk of a cow who was treated like anything less than a valued house pet. Thus, and I do not belive I am contradicting my previous contention that all life is equally valuable, I respect a person's desire to end his life if he is truly in pain and has no desire to continue living. But, in keeping with that whole "life is valuable" argument, I think the option of suicide should be evaluated and ever so carefully scrutinized with a professional physician and the patient's family or friends. I think the state has a right to legally mandate that its doctors discourage suicide and refuse to assist death unless there is no alternative pain remedy. But a terminally ill adult should have the final say on his condition. Therefore, I think it's a dumb law with good intentions.
There are no good intentions, however, behind Hell on Earth's stunt. Death is tragic and, moreover, personal, not commercial or sensational. If the group genuinely saw injustice in their city's law, they could very well work with health care officials and local politicians, armed with research and first-hand testimonial, to revoke the law. Instead they have chosen to make a mockery of the pain of suicide.
In unrelated news, I had a fairly successful trip to the dentist today. (If any of you with Delta PMI need to find a dentist in the area, I'd highly recommend this one. Berkeley Hills Dental Care. On Telegraph and Woosley. Not in the hills.) I had the base filling for a crown put in after a good 30 minutes of drilling. If any inordinate pain or breakage occurs in the next two weeks, a root canal will be my ultimate fate. While in my mouth, Dr. Nikfarjam also noticed that I need to get at least one of my sprouting wisdom teeth removed. I can't wait.
(0) comments
Sunday, September 28, 2003
Another blog for your blog-visiting repotoire
That's right. More words from me and five other students who love music enough to write about it. The title will be changed shortly, but I suggest you start reading now. Click here.
(0) comments
Saturday, September 27, 2003
CAL WINS: 34-31!!!!
(Rebecca Loses: Her Sunglasses; Subsequently Finds Them Between the Cushions)
Excellent game.
I hail originally from Southern California. Long Beach to be precise. A few of my high school aquaintences attended USC. They're now spending five times what I do for a comparable education. Not that it has anything to do with football. Just saying is all.
"Take off that red car!"
I viewed the game from the comfort of a frat house. A dozen or so alumni came over to the house for today's event. It seems the majority of frat boys age to become frat men. The Frat Graduation Package includes a baseball cap, khaki shorts, a blond wife, and a sense of entitlement. Just saying is all.
On an 80's flashback note, the Cal band is currently eating hot dogs at the frat after playing a few spirited songs for the brothers and alum; one alum requested "Lady in Red." Ouch.
(0) comments
Friday, September 26, 2003
NEWSBREAK: Doors of East Elevator in Eschleman Hall Opening Very Slowly
More news as it comes in...
(0) comments
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
ACLU declines to appeal recall election decision, diverts resources to delaying outdated and unreliable Christmas.
San Francisco, CA - The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided today that the unprecedented California recall election will take place on October 7 as originally scheduled, despite the contetnion from the American Civil Liberties Union that outdated punch-card ballots are less accurate than electronic voting systems and thus disefranchise thousands of voters from dense minority populations in six counties throughout the state.
The ACLU took today's ruling in stride, and shortly after the court's decision announced that they have more ambitious plans on the horizon. ACLU presidnet Nadine Strossen told reporters Tuesday that their next project is to delay Christmas, which the organization beleives is inaccurate and unreliable, and which is specifically unfair to minorities.
The case will be heard by the US Supreme Court this coming Friday.
Said Strossen, "Data from all around the nation indicate that poor and minority children are the most likely to receive crappy Christmas gifts, if in fact they receive gifts at all. In nearly every community included in the study, African American and Latino youngsters more than any other ethnic groups were the victims of pre-used gifts, gifts from Walmart, a piece of fruit in lieu of a real gift, or simply no gifts whatsoever. This is unfair. Absolutely unfair."
ACLU spokespeople are citing outdated equipment and profiling as the source of these discrepencies. According to the group, Santa Claus' sleigh, deer, and elves do not have the technology to serve every American child equally, prompting Claus to distribute his limited resources disproportinally to rich white kids whose parents have wider chimneys and superior cookies.
The group is asking for a six month delay of the holiday, which should give Claus and his faculty ample time to update toy production and distribution systems, including speedier, more ergonomically sound toy-building technology and more accurate electronic checking-it-twice devices. They are also requesting that diveristy training be legally mandated for each North Pole staff member.
Claus' spokesmen Jingle and Jangle deny allegations that his distribution techniques are unfair, and are confident that the court will rule in his favor.
(I'm not sure why I wrote this. I'm actually on the ACLU's side. On both issues.)
(0) comments
Poor Ralph Nader, the Linux of politics. I'd be shocked if he came out victorious in a game of checkers. He loses more than just elections. He also gets beat up by 97.3% of this nation's voters and pundits at every opportunity. This week, his publicist announced that the Ralph Man is starting to raise money to start thinking about considering running for the White House next year. (Full article here, via Paul Bruno via Kevin Drumm, but you hafta register and activate your account with your email and give out your address. Way to be a pain in the ass, LA Times. Pfffttt.)
In short, Dems who feel Nader "robbed" the election from Al are yet again devising unflattering terms and vitriol to the Man in Gray. They fear once more that he will prevent a Democratic victory by giving uber-liberals an alternative to Dean/Kerry/Clark/Gephart/InsertInoffensiveDemocraticCandidateHere in November. The phrase "handing Bush a victory" is undoubtedly waiting in the bullpin along with the cute monikers "thief" and "spoiler" and "stupid Green poopy pants."
I'm registered Green, I've voted Green at every opportunity, and I've even given $11 to the party during my lifetime, so my personal insight into the matter may be appreciated here.
First, I don't buy the Green argument that Democrats are just as bad as Republicans. Democrats, or at least certain ones, have proven to be just as nefarious as our friends at the GOP at accepting lobby money, supporting war, destroying Welfare, supporting vouchers, supporting the death penalty, not standing up for gay rights, etc. But the good portion of Democrats only participate in these un-liberal tactics in a watered-down form (accepting less lobby money; supporting war, then changing their minds; supporting "civil unions;" etc.). And some Democrats, like Dennis Kucinich, refuse to water down a thing. I think the current House and Senate Dems have been decidedly aquiescent to Bush's Hate Machine. I can only attribute this trend to the desire for reelection in an increasingly conservative environment.
But back to Nader. No, the average Dem is not just as bad as the average GOPpy. I can respectfully disagree with Ralph on that one, and I'm sure he won't harbor any hard feelings. He's cool like that.
But back to Nader. Nobody can make you vote for Nader. Nobody in Florida was forced to vote for Nader. Those voters could have cast their ballots for Gore or Bush or Buchanan (ha ha) if they had so chosen. So the idea of Nader "stealing" votes is ridiculous. Would those Nader voters have voted for Gore had Nader not run? Probably. Some of them wouldn't have voted at all, but the vast vast vast majority of them would have probably voted Democratic in 2000, and Gore would be in the White House right now. (If Pat Buchanan hadn't run, Bush would have been elected without any controversy at all.) So why not "blame" the voters instead of casting Ralph Nader as a hateful jerkface who hates Democrats and is a big jerk and wants to make life Hell for liberals? If Nader were really that persuasive a public figure, he'd have gotten enough votes to be in the debates.
But back to Nader. (Boy, if I got a nickel for every time I used the word "Nader" in this damn post...) I personally don't think a Nader presidential campaign will accomplish anything this upcoming election, except to engender a little more bitterness all around, and to give disgruntled liberals like myself who live in states that are so far Democratic or so far Republican that the Green vote won't matter thanks to the asonine Electoral College someone for whom to vote in good faith. I also believe that a strongish third party will help keep the two big parties on their toes.
Having Bush around for another four years will be tenfold more destrucive to this nation and this planet than will having a three-quarter-assed liberal like Gephart leading the Free World. The chances of another Bush term are increased if Nader runs. But when it comes down to it, a Democrat victory is in the hands of the Democrats and in the hands of the voters, not in the hands of one skinny unenigmatic man with a lazy eye.
(0) comments
ITEM!!!
ASUC Apple Senator Paul La Fata spotted eating alone at Gypsy's at 5:48pm. La Fata was seen sprinkling parmesean onto his unidentified entree. Several weeks ago, the Senator was also seen in line at CUBS, the University credit union located on Lower Sproul. On both occasions, he was wearing his shirt tucked in.
This can only lead me to several conclusions: First, that Republicans tuck their shirts in. Further, they enjoy Italian food from local eateries. Lastly, they support non-profit banking systems.
These conclusions happen to be uncorraborated by the actions of the other Republican whom I know personally, namely a Mr. Hovannes A. (I've not included his last name for the sake of his anonymity. And I can't spell the dude's last name.) Though I'm uncertain of his eating preferences, previously obtained intelligence would lead me to believe that he uses a commercial bank. Also, I've never seen him with his shirt tucked in.
This can only lead me to one conclusion: You just can't trust a Republican. They always try to keep you guessing.
(0) comments
Saturday, November 29, 2003
Fascists and Femenazis
A post by Ornicus got me hating Rupert Murdoch even more.
Conservatives and Liberals throw word Fascism around a lot. And while it’s easy to point to a swastika and say “Never again”, it’s much more difficult to recognize fascism in general. Its traits are nebulous: a delegitimization of difference and dissent (both in and outside the party); the desire for unfettered leaders without corrupt parliamentary procedure; and exalting power and moral clarity over cooperation and logic.
Rush Limbaugh is a fascist. Just like Bill O’Riely and Ann Coulter. In Rush’s world, anyone who disagrees with him is a Liberal. Liberals never act in good faith. Latte-Liberals (any liberal really) indulge in luxury and are aloof wasting time in ivory towers, theorizing without doing. They are morally base and groups in league with the Liberals (Unions, environmental groups) are corrupt. Republicans on the other hand agree that “Rush is right”. They always act in good faith. Republicans do not indulge in extravagance not do they bother themselves with difficult issues when moral clarity can lead you true. They are morally superior, and understand that America’s military power should not be hampered by international law or the treaty of Versailles.
The problem with Fascism is that it doesn’t exactly attract the best and brightest. You need to be a personal failure to have enough hate to lead a fascist movement, and that doesn’t make for a good business plan. It’s necessary to have an outsiders fund your loser group of fascist rabble-rousers.
Corporatists fit the bill. Their goal: advance the interests of corporations and the rich. That’s why we see Republican implementing regressive taxes while removing irksome American traditions like the Estate Tax. Surely, the idea to tax earned money (Payroll tax) and not unearned money (Capital gains) could only be supported by a rich person, or a person who doesn’t really understand economics.
In places like post WWI Germany and Italy, the rich found a sure fire way to avert socialism: support Fascists! Without German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, Hitler and the Nazis would have been historical also-rans. Republicans, which pre-Nixon looked a lot like a reunion of stunt doubles from the movie Arthur, realized it would take more that alcoholism, money, and cockney charm to get power. The innovation that brought Nixon-Republicans (like Rumsfeld to Cheney) to power was to appeal to racism and anti-communism to gain votes. They learned the lesson of those that went before them, though: let the Fascists talk, but do not let them drive.
Modern Day Australian industrialist Rupert Murdoch might have shown up late in the game, but his work would make Adolf cry with joy. Here’s a corporatist who knows his interests. In China, his network has helps support the world’s last communist power. In America, Fox news empowers failures like Bill O’Riely, allowing him to say whatever he wants as long as he supports media deregulation. It’s a dangerous game Murdoch plays, but if America ever falls to Fascism, you can bet that Murdoch will be some where else, delighting people with his irascible charm and down-under wit.
(0) comments
Friday, November 28, 2003
Sorry for the absence.
I'm keeping too busy to do any substantial posting. But this one won't be without purpose.
It turns out that the cornbread recipe below sorta blows. Here's a better one.
3/4 c. white flour
1/2 c. wheat flour
1 c. cornmeal
1/4 c. white sugar
1/2 c. crown sugar
1 1/2 c. soy milk
1 c. soy margarine
2 tbsp vegetable oil
1 tsp cinnamon
1 tsp cayanne pepper
dash allspice, nutmeg, ginger, and cloves
2 tsp honey (half to drizzle on top)
40-50 minutes at 375-400 degrees. I got several compliments on this recipe yesterday from non-vegans.
(0) comments
Wednesday, November 26, 2003
Rebecca C. Brown's Hearty Cornbread Recipe
Thanksgiving is tomorrow, and probably most of you will be participating in some sort of family meal celebrating such. And chances are that as primarily male college students, you will be helping out with the baking and cooking (just to defy paradigms and all). You may be at a loss as to what to prepare for your loved ones. Here's a recipe for some surprisingly good cornbread:
1 1/2 c. cornmeal
2 c. whole grain unbleached flour (or white flour for a less hearty bread)
1/4 c. brown sugar
1/4 c. white sugar
1 tbsp baking powder
1 tsp egg substitute powder
1 tsp ground cinnamon
1 tsp (plus or minus) ground cayanne pepper (a surprising yet always well-received ingredient)
pinch ground allspice, nutmeg, and ginger
dash salt
1/2 c. vegetable oil (no trans fats, unlike in margarine)
1 3/4 c. soy milk (or cow's milk if you insist)
Preheat your oven to 400 degrees. Mix all your dry ingredients. Then add your milk and oil and mix thoroughly. You can either mix your ingredients in a big bowl and then pour it into a greased glass or metal 8" sqaure pan, or just mix the ingredients right in the baking dish (with the greater likelihood that your bread will stick a little to the pan). Then cook it for 45 minutes to an hour, depending on how broken your oven is. You'll know your bread is done when you can poke a knife in all the way and it comes out clean.
I'm also making pumpkin pie and a yam & carrot dish for the holiday; I'll make sure to tell you how they turn out. Happy Thanksgiving!
(0) comments
Sunday, November 23, 2003
Rebecca C. Brown gives thanks on this the most thanks-inducing of weeks
It's the time of year when the last yellow leaves shiver off the trees (unless you live in Southern California, in which case all your trees have been replaced with convenient Wells Fargo ATMs); when turkeys outsell US Weeklys at the grocery store; when we Jews, Christians, and Christmas-loving atheists alike begin to splurge for our loved ones; when "The Year in Retrospect" specials begin airing a month prematurely; and when we are prompted to list in semi-aescending order the things in our lives that make us feel truly gifted. Here is a incomplete list of the aspects of my recent life for which I give the most thanks.
My family in Long Beach whom I miss so much. Sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night longingly to a harsh Berkeley that simply hasn't given me my daily dose of crazy. Sure, I can find plenty of substance abuse or aimless bickering on the streets, but it just isn't the same when that substance abuse or aimless bickering isn't sharing a 2 litre bottle of Diet Pepsi and a dry bean cassarole with you. In all honesty, I love you. You made me the creative and fearlessly opinionated rascal I am today, and I wish it were less cost prohibitive to visit you more often. Thank you, Lynn-Brown-Goertz-Gibson-Glowacz-Valejo-Meschek brood! (Thanks to the Dumans/Lauries for being my surrogate family for so many occasions.)
California tax-payers. Seriously, guys. Your help means a lot. You pay the taxes that go to the state Department of Education that goes to the Long Beach Unified School District that pays for my mom's health insurance that (until September 11, 2006) pays for nearly all my medical and dental costs. With your kind donations, I have a $0.00 co-pay on all hospital visits, a $2.50 co-pay on all prescriptions (generic or name brand), and I only paid $127.60 for a $1,200 oral surgery procedure. Thanks to you, I don't need to choose between medical care and my expensive food habit. You rock! (P.S. Thanks Karl Marx for the great idea in the first place.)
B. M. Patakas, DDS. My recovery from my wisdom tooth removal has been seamless so far. I'm especially impressed that you yanked out all four of them completely intact. (Now I just need to figure out what to do with that quartet of picture-perfect molars sitting in a little bath of water on my dresser right now.) I'll Rebeccommend you and your extraction team to all my friends.
The soy farmers of this fine nation. I don't know where I'd be without you. You've made the last six years not only tolerable but enjoyable. Now that I'm not allowed to chew for a few days, the milk and powdered protien of your distingushed bean has made a perfect base for my fruit smoothies and pancakes. Cheers to you!
The owners and operators of all my favorite novelty websites. Thanks, men and women of menwholooklikekennyrogers.com, cameltoe.org, homestarrunner.com, explodingdog.com, and foxnews.com! You're always good for a quick pick-me-up.
David Duman. You've proven to be the kindest, most loving person in my life the past few weeks, if not past year. I wish there were a more adequate way (besides stripping you of any anonymity or privacy by thanking you on my blog) to tell you how much your remarkable patience and giving nature have made me happy, especially since they stole the teeth out of my head. Some ladies and gents out there might think their men are top-notch, but they're all big suckers. I'm indisputably the luckiest of them all.
(0) comments
Saturday, November 22, 2003
It would take one pea brain, one unqualified man, one liar slipped into this White House to bring a decade of horror like none we have ever known.
The RNC (not President Bush himself) has decided to start spending millions of dollars in the primaries to get a leg up on making sure Bush gets the nomination. Or maybe they're spending this money to encourage Democrats to stay home during the primaries, which is ineffectual because a Democrat will be nominated even if only eleven Democrats show up to vote. Or maybe they're priming swing voters to jump on the Republican hate wagon before it leaves town. Whatever the motivation, it's a big waste of money.
This ad will start airing in Iowa on Sunday.
I'm on a Kucinich e-mailing list, and I think my good friend Denny had some strong and important words to say about the RNC's depiction of the terrorist threat on America: "The Republican National Committee is using money that derives largely from the wealthiest few in America to pay for advertisements aimed at keeping all Americans scared. We will not be frightened into submission. We will not forget the lies we were told about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We will not forget that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. We will remember that for the hundreds of billions we are spending on an unjust and destabilizing occupation in Iraq, we could have an investment in American education that would include free pre-kindergarten and free college tuition. We need to get our priorities straight and not give in to the fear-mongering. I offer America the hope of a new approach and a clear choice in the next election."
Similar attacks against the RNC's fear machine appear on the other Democrats' homepages. In pouring over websites and watching debates, I am very pleased to see the Democrats unified in their pledge defeat Bush. I'm inspired to see so many of the candidates, both viable and long-shot, resist the temptation to play the middle of the road. (Svae for Lieberman. He's a sellout.) My only fear is that when the primaries are over, the Democratic candidate's current dedication to a rejuvinated left will deteriorate into moderate (read "right of center") pandering.
Oh, and Go Bears. I'm not into rivalry at all, especially not in the athletic realm. The only grudge I hold against Stanford (with an "O" - misspelling has never equated to clever zinging for me) is that their tuition is through the roof and thus only kids with rich parents or exceptional sports abilities can attend. So that "Go Bears" was apathetic and obligatory. In fact, Go Bears, Stay Bears, Sit Bears. I don't care. So long as the Squelch is better than Stanford's "humor" mag the Chapparelle, I'm content.
P.S. My tooth extraction went very well. Only minimal throbbing in my gums and jaw so far. Luckilly, my cute boyfriend got me a Cuisinart food processer for our first anniversary just days before my surgery, so even the most challenging meals can be instantly transformed into soft food that my swollen mouth can handle. Like pasta pate. Actually, I'm sticking to friut and soy protein powder smoothies. Mmmmm.....isoflavones.
(0) comments
Thursday, November 20, 2003
Bad news and more bad news
A self-centered introspection into my personal crises
I thought the deadline to apply to go to dinner with Dennis Kucinich was midnight EST last night. I got my email in well before 9pm, but it seems the deadline was earlier than that. I even submitted a cute picture of myself. Rats. Well, I guess if I want to have dinner with Denny, I'll have to do so on my own dime.
On an unrelated note, I'm broke. Or almost broke, at least. My basic policy since entering college was to keep my checking account over $3000 at all time, just in case an emergency popped up. (Such as needing to pay for my tuition and fees before my loan check got processed, as was the case this past August. I'd never written a check for over $2900 before in my life.) I checked my balance about a month ago, and it might have been just a little over $2000. Today when I checked it it was at under $1200. The moral of the story is that my approximately $580 a month income that I get for working thirteen hours a week is only enough to cover rent and food. And just barely at that. My loan money ($5500 this year) will cover only my Univeristy fees. This doesn't leave much room for books, studio supplies, Summer tuition, minmal health care costs, or travel expenses to go home for the holidays. (I've opted to stay in the Bay Area the past two Thanksgivings and Spring Breaks to save money on air fare.) Admittedly, I like to spend money on gifts for my loved ones, maybe about $300 per year now that I have a boyfriend. Also, since entering college, I've probably spent an average of $30 a month on "frivolous" things like clothing, CDs, bakeware, soap, toothpaste, tampons, and the like. In other words, I'm not living the Jesus-esque life.
But from my observations I'm living much more simply and cost-effectively than many of my immediate friends. It's not that I'm bitter that a good portion of the kids I know at Cal have parents who are paying for their tution and books and rent and food. It's just that I'm...um...I think that...well...dammit I am bitter! I got a triple in Unit 1, not because I got stuck there, but because I couldn't afford any other option. Most of you will be walking out of this university with no job prospects. I'll be walking out of this university with no job prospects and $23,000 in debt.
Unfortunately, I'm not the only one at Cal in this shitty situation. We're probably in the minority, but we're here. I wish I had a solution. But I don't. The only way I can console myself is to think that me paying my way through school is a character-building experience; that my peers who have a job for spending money instead of rent money will have a bigger shock than I will once they enter the "real" world; that struggle makes you a more compassionate person; that the ones whose grandparents can afford to send them to Europe couldn't appreciate that vacation as much as I could as a poor person. But these consolations aren't fair and probably are not even true. I've got a bad case of reverse-elitism. Maybe the middle-class values and lower-middle-class bank account (namely the one with negative numbers) I inherited from my parents are only hurting me.
(0) comments
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Politeness vs. Truth
One of the lesser known fronts of the Cold war was the field of brainwashing. A couple returning POWs had inexplicably turned Marxists and the US military was interested in why. Several branches of the government worked on the project and in the end, the trick turned out to be no trick at all. A straightforward program of incarceration, isolation, and group punishment that would have been familiar to any prosecutor of the Spanish Inquisition was the best any captor could do. The reason the Communists seemed to have the upper hand was that they were willing to do things our American morals would not permit.
I think that the liberal-conservative meme war might be like that. For those of you not familiar, Berkeley’s own George Lakoff is part of the Rockridge Institute, a progressive think tank whose focus is reframing political debate through language. The idea is that Republicans have found political advantage by using a very precise language specially designed to frame things in a conservative light. For a specific example of bad framing see Nixon’s “I am not a crook.”
(As a better example, think of how Republican politicians always seem to keep the topic of discussion on taxes and “tax burdens”. That is a framing trick all by its own. Of course, everyone wants lower taxes. But only by mentally separating them from public services can Republicans hope to bamboozle people into supporting plans to undermine popular institutions like social security.)
It’s a good idea. But while it’s important that liberals have the right language to use, it even more crucial is the willingness to say it unashamed. What conservatives have, and what liberals really need, is the media with the will to deliver our message.
Conservative leader can trust any of a number of journalists to repeat their spin point or even to blow the cover off a deep cover CIA agent for that matter. Liberals have to contend with the regular media who seem to keep one eye on the news and the other on the number of angry letters they get accusing them of liberal bias. Fox doesn’t care about bias. The wall street journal doesn’t care about bias (or even basic economics if it gets in the way of their ideology). They probably don’t even get letters complaining of bias. Bias is a red herring and liberals should take their queue from conservatives and be unashamed of their own politics.
I’m not suggesting that Liberals stoop as low as Fox News (Michael Moore has come close). What I am suggesting is that liberals, and particularly, liberals in the media, stop letting their gentlemanly code of conduct prevent them from saying mean things when mean things need to be said. Otherwise we’ll all end up sounding like NPRs Terry Gross trying to explain how it’s politically balanced to give O’Reilly a hard time during an interview. (Answer: It’s not politically balanced. But it is the best way to treat a guest you believe is dishonest.)
Our country didn’t have to give up our morals or our freedoms to win the Cold war, but we did have to learn to give up our isolationist “everything is fine” attitude and take threats seriously. Aggressive, lopsided, and one-sided reporting from the right threatens to unbalance our informed electorate. Liberals need to stop pining for the polite old days of newspapers, and start getting the truth out there. We don’t have to compromise our morals, just instinct to be polite.
(0) comments
Monday, November 17, 2003
Only 37 hours left! Get on the Kucinich date wagon NOW!
Submissions to enter PoliticsNH.com's Go To Dinner With Presidential Unhopeful Dennis Kucinich are due by midnight on Wednesday, November 19. Here's why I would be the best candidate:
- I'm a damned hippie, but I'm also pragmatic.
- I love single-payer health care, and I can never get enough peace.
- Did I say peace? I meant peach. I love peaches. But I also love peaces. No, peace. I love peach.
- DK and I are both vegans, so eating dinner together would be a breeze. No Sizzler for us.
- I have a hairpiece fetish.
- I agree with him on all political fronts except affirmative action and bilingual education. (And believe me, the dude has a really long list of political beliefs.)
- We've both got cherubic good looks. Our kids would look like elves.
Also, check out this rad audio postcard from Willie Nelson endorsing Denny. Nice tanktop!
(0) comments
Sunday, November 16, 2003
Now that doesn't seem fair, does it?
Some numbers on blacks and marijuana.
Here are some fascinating charts about reported marijuana use among Americans of different age, gender, and ethnic groups. This is a chart of the percentage of black drug offenders in state prison.
For those of you who don't enjoy pouring over charts, here are some highlights:
- (Table 3.2) At the time of the survey, 9.9% of black participants had smoked weed in the last year, while 9.1% of whites had. (Among 18-25 year-olds, namely kids people our age, 24.2% of whites had used marijuana in the last year, while only 20% of blacks had.)
- (Table 3.1) 37.8% of white participants reported using pot during their lifetimes, while 28.5% of blacks had. (Again, look at the higher weed use among white people in our age group - 46.7% v. 31.6%.)
- (Table 3.3) The delineation in which the black pot use is largest compared to white pot use is among those who had used within the last month, and even then the proportion was low - 6.1% of blacks v. 5.2% of whites.
Now comes the crazy part.
- (Second link) 63% of drug admissions to state prisons are black, compared to 12% that are white.
Okay, let's think about this. America is 80% white, but only 12% black. Let's go with the least flattering figure for blacks and assume black marijuana users outnumber white users 6 to 5. Even then, in raw numbers, there are about 5.7 times as many whites using marijuana than blacks, so, by extention, there should be about 5.7 times as many whites in jail for weed as blacks. Instead, blacks outnumber whites over 5 to 1 on marijuana incarcerations.
In short, the criminal justice system is anti-black, for one reason or another. Those of you who doin't think it is can maybe counter my emperical data with a reasonable explanation. Maybe "Blacks love to turn themselves in," or "Blacks like to carry their weed out inthe open when they walk past cops." But no, it couldn't be that police are more likely to pursue marijuana use in black neighborhoods, or more likely to look the other way when a white college kid smells like pot, or that a judge is more likely to sentence a black person than a white person for the same drug charge. Of course not. This is America.
(0) comments
Thursday, November 13, 2003
An update for all my family and close friends
I don't often find the time to personally contact my loved ones and update them with my happenings, but in case said loved ones are reading my blog, here's a summary of the next few weeks' activities:
- Tue., 11/18/03: Paper due in History of Art. Stupid paper.
- Fri., 11/21/03: Wisdom tooth extraction (all four of them) with Dr. Patakas in Alameda. My two bottom molars have soft tissue vertical impaction, meaning my jaw isn't long enough to accommodate these teeth, so the back half of each tooth has grown in under the gum. Here's an informative diagram:
- Sat., 11/22/03: Be in a lot of pain from previous day's procedure.
- Thu., 11/27/03: Thanksgiving with the man-pal's family in Sacramento. As a swollen-mouthed vegan, I have planned to bring my own delectable T-day treats, including vegan cornbread, vegan pumpkin pie, and a healthful yet exciting vegan yam dish. Mmmmm...yam dish.
I hope you all feel as if you were right here with me. I sure do.
(0) comments
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Whither progressive income tax?
On the face of it, it’s pretty difficult to argue against the progressive income tax without seeming like a jaded jerk. The most handy argument for it is that a flat tax would mean way higher taxes for you (millionaires don’t read this blog so it’s safe to say that). Though it is the actual reason we don’t have a flat tax there is something deeply unsatisfying about this argument. Heck! I could just as easily argue that everyone who reads this blog should get free money from the government, but I think it too would assault our basic sense of fairness.
Of course, every single flat tax proposal made by conservative leaders (it comes up in congress almost every year) aren’t really flat at all. They aim to levy a flat tax on earned income (the kind of money you and I make at pizza hut) and lift all taxes on unearned income (the kind of money the rich make off of us when they use out student loan interest to buy homes in the south of France). Furthermore, even Republican leaders aren’t heartless enough to tax the homeless and those not making a living wage. Again, being “two-tiered” their flat tax isn’t really flat at all. Clearly then, you could easily argue against any given “flat tax” plan, but still, the platonic ideal of a flat tax is still there, floating in space: Wrong… But why?
It’s an issue of fairness. Sure, Bill Gates is a better programmer than me. Heck, he’s probably even a better salesman then me. But is he really 43,150,080.03* times better than me at anything? Even at darts, which I am exceedingly bad at? No, although it is plain that Bill Gates should rightly own far more than I do, we can also freely admit that what he does own is due in some part to good fortune. Of course, Bill Gates is a particularly deserving case. What about flat tax proponent Steve Forbes? His main talent is the ability to be born to outstandingly rich parents. Quite a skill. Then again, I’m a really good whistler but our society has decided that this particular talent, though also inheritable, does not merit multimillion dollar rewards.
The flip side is less dramatic but probably more common. While it’s difficult to get rich without deserving it (barring accidents of birth like our sitting president), it is very easy to not get rich even though you totally do deserve it. If you see Philo Taylor Farnsworth in heaven, thank him for inventing television, since no one ever did down here.
Of course, this doesn’t even take into account the people who are rich specifically because they are jerks (see John D. Rockefeller civil-war profiteering) and those who are poor exactly because they were good Samaritans (all the George Baileys of the world).
In the end, a progressive tax is (amongst other things) really just a luck tax. It asks of the most probably lucky ducks sitting on their piles of gold to kick back a little to us unfortunates. Until we invent that magical machine that can tell us how much each person’s soul is worth, we’re just going to have to trust to the law of averages.
* Ratio of my current bank account balance to Bill Gates’ net worth. Including my student loans this number is negative.
(0) comments
Sunday, November 09, 2003
Our personal connection goes deeper than idealistic liberal politics and diminutive stature
I discovered today that Ohio's favorite lawn gnome and Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich, like myself, is a vegan:
"Congressman Kucinich is one of the few vegans in Congress, a dietary decision he credits not only with improving his health, but in deepening his belief in the sacredness of all species."
Awesome! Then again, he's also really good friends with Shirley Maclaine, but nobody's perfect. Denny's biggest downfall is that he's crazy.
Crazy for equality!
I'm not going to stop vouching on K-Dog's side. I don't believe he can win, but I do believe that he can give disheartened Democrats an inspiring alternative in the primaries. I think he's helping many liberals who may have shunned the Dems remember why they or their parents were Democrats. I hope he's illustrating to a few million Americans that the two major parties don't need to be so eerily similar on certain issues.
And I love that big black rug he wears on his little dome. My step-dad Travis said that he looks like "an uncolored coloring book." Touche, Trav. Touche.
(0) comments
Friday, November 07, 2003
Sometimes It's Hard to Be a Woman
Volume Two: Keeping America (and God) out of my uterus.
"Every person has a special dignity. This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government, it comes from the creator of life." Thanks President Bush. Maybe he should have repeated this cute little maxim when he gave the final order to put over 100 people to death during his Texas governorship. I was also under the impression that, even if you believe life is derived from a divine creator, that law comes from the government, not said creator. But this post is about abortion, not about hypocricy or comingling of church and state.
I have no doubt that the United States government's most recent attempt to stifle a form of abortion will die a bloody death in the high courts. I am, however, frightened that this anti-"partial-birth abortion" (no such medical term exists) bill even got past congress. It bothers me that a few hundred men and women (oh, but mostly men) in Washington are attempting to dictate what occurs inside a woman's own body. I'm peeved that a rare procedure that is almost only used to protect the life of a woman or to prevent the birth of a baby who cannot survive outside its mother's womb falls under the jurisdiction of a select few, the vast majority of whom don't have the capacity to get pregnant, and the even more overwhelming majority of whom have no medical experience.
I believe this issue goes beyond the right's attempt to protect the health of fetuses. (Otherwise it would be illegal to smoke in the same room as a pregnant woman.) As I've stated before, I think this blind anti-abortion sentiment is rooted in a disrespect for a woman's self-determination. I believe that, subversive though this mentality may be, there persists an idea that the female body does not bear the capacity to take care of itself. Women menstruate, they have "hormonal" outbursts, they're physically weaker than men, they have bodies which are believed to be tied to nature because of their reproductive functions. The idea is that women have an inability to control their bodies (we can't really opt out of our periods without negative health repurcussions, and our hormones follow suit), and thus that men, and by extension the men in government (and religion), should have jurisdiction over the feminine physical entity.
Many conservative figures in religion and politics are attempting to get "morning after pills" like Previn off the market, claiming that life begins at conception, despite the fact that a 72-hour old embryo is composed of only a few hundred undifferentiated cells. (It's comparable to biting the inside of your cheek and "killing" the skin that comes off.) This opposition to the "abortion pill" (what a charming and inaccurate name) is based not only on a distorted definition of life, but also a resistance to grant women control over their bodies. If abortions are available quickly and (relatively) painlessly, so the argument goes, then women will have sex whenever they want without worrying about the consequences. Drugs that prevent implantation are not going to encourage women to have willy-nilly sex (as much as Pat Robertson would love to picture that); it will give women and men who made a mistake a chance not to give birth to an unwanted, unaffordable child. Also, given that fathers of unwanted pregnancies out of wedlock rarely have to suffer the same consequences as the mothers, it provides women with a limited opportunity to decide for themselves what consequences their bodies will suffer.
On a lighter note, when I gave blood today I got a free 15 minute phone card. Woo hoo!
(0) comments
Sometimes It's Hard to Be a Woman
Volume One Point One: Giving my stupid kids a last stupid name.
In addition to having a husband, part of my life-plan is to have 2-3 children (and a few dogs and cats). And my kids are going to need last names. (Unless, of course, they plan upon becoming wildly successful mono-monikered super models [I'm 5'1" - an unlikely event], soccer players [again, I'm 5'1"], or pop stars.) So whose will it be? Mom's or Dad's?
Ehhhh. Now I'm uncomfortable.
I'm not taking my husband's name. He's not taking mine. (To do otherwise, as I explained, would be dishonest to the pursuit of equality in a relationship.) So there goes that "convenience" (chuckle) of having a happy family with the same surname for all. But what of little Timmy and little Sally and little Habib? If they take "Brown" that would would be denying the other parent's contribution. Likewise if they take "HypotheticalDadName" instead of mine.
The yuppie option "Brown-HypotheticalDadName" might be cumbersome, but is it really that awful an alternative to perpetuating patriarchism? And the name Brown is like a pair of black slacks - it goes with everything.
But what happens when Habib Brown-HypotheticalDadName falls in love with and raises children with Dora McCallister-Rosenberg, and Habib and Dora are also progressive, symbolic equality-seeking Americans? Meet Phineas McCallister-Rosenberg-Brown-HypotheticalDadName. Now, the likelihood of this happening is slim. But that's pretty cumbersome. (Note also that by the time I'm a grandma turn of the century names will again be en vogue. My money's on "Horatio" as the 2050's anser to 2000's "Madison." Mark my words.)
If I give my boy(s) Dad's name and my girl(s) Mom's name, that creates artificial alliances. Same if I did the opposite.
Sigh.
Maybe the dude I marry and I can dole out last names in alphabetical order. If I have babies with Harold Agajanian, the first kid gets his name, the second kid mine, and so on. If I have babies with Grover D. Caterwaul, I'll get first dibbs. Like home-ice advantage in the hockey playoffs.
Oh Jesus. That's a terrible idea.
A good idea, on the other hand, would be for you to donate blood. Do it!
(0) comments
Thursday, November 06, 2003
You gotta fight for your right to get free cookies and orange juice
That's right kids. Blood drive tomorrow in Wozinak (I probably spelled that wrong) Lounge in Soda Hall from the morning to the afternoon. I'll be there at about 10:30, as will Paul. The two of us have a friendship based on the mutual love of Elvis Costello and giving blood.
There will also be "Get the Red Out" Big Game week blood drives from 9-4 in Pauley Pavillion on Monday Nov. 17 and Friday Nov. 21. Even if I were eligable to give on the 21st (you have to wait at least 56 days between donations), I wouldn't. Instead on that day I shall be getting four of my teeth hacked out of my skull. And I'm paying almost $200 for the honor.
GIVE BLOOD!!! First, you save some lives. Second, you usually get a free t-shirt (you can choose among large, X-large, and XX-large). Lastly, needles are way cool. Trust me.
(0) comments
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
Sometimes It’s Hard to Be a Woman
Volume One: The Name Game.
For one reason or another, as I’ve mentioned before, there seems to be a dearth of female participants in the Cal political blogsphere, among both blog authors and commentators. (I cannot prove that women aren’t reading, thanks to the genderl anonymity of IP addresses.) I won’t speculate as to the source of this disproportionality (though I may do so later). But I can say that as a female I might represent, however inaccurately, a woman’s voice to my male blogging peers.
One topic of debate, often though erroneously labeled as a “women’s issue” (as if any issue existed in a sexual vacuum), is that of a woman’s last name when she gets married. As I foresee my life, I will get married, and I will not change my last name. Is this some subvert (or overt?) anti-male behavior? Is it rooted in the hatred of men inherent to my feminism? Am I simply being defiant in an empty, symbolic way for the sake of defiance itself? Am I trying to piss off my husband? Or am I trying to eliminate the possibility of even snagging a future husband?
Well, no. First, I don’t hate men. Neither does my mother. Or my sister. Nor do my aunts. Or almost any other feminist. Here lies a great myth. Feminists don’t hate men. A critically thinking woman (or man) will, however, despise hierarchy in which women are as a group disadvantaged due to the social structure created by men and reproduced by men (and women). Second, the symbolic battles are often the most difficult ones to win. I will gladly combat symbolic repression with full zeal. Further, no symbolic triumph is empty. Lastly, no, I’m rarely defiant for the sake of pissing people off. (Maybe my parents, but never an entire gender.)
My visceral argument against changing my name is that my identity as Rebecca C. Brown, not as Rebecca B. Smith or Rebecca B. Jones or Rebecca C. Brown-Jones, has been in the works for over two decades (longer by the time I will be asked by convention to alter it by adopting another name). Though a name is little more than a word, I will entreaty my readers to think about the power of words and how language infuses social action. In this case, a woman taking her husband’s last name represents very clearly that her individuality and self-ownership (both physically and psychically) belong not to her but instead to her husband. Just as a father gives his offspring his last name (then adopts a role of authority over them), he so gives his wife his name. Quite simply, it’s nominal slavery. To make a less dramatic argument, it is entirely counterintuitive to equality for one person in a relationship to take the name of the other. I challenge you to assert otherwise.
Your mother or aunt or grandmother may have taken her husband’s name, maybe had children, maybe worked, or maybe stayed home. And despite relinquishing her symbolic identity, was perfectly happy and content. I will not disagree with you. I don’t think something as small as a last name can dictate a person’s happiness; however, it can contribute to her perception of self as a female. Further, the collective inability of women to maintain their last names defines in part what a woman’s role is in the family and in society in general. And though there are no laws dictating that we must change our names, if we don’t, we will, well, get a lot of shit for it.
(0) comments
Monday, November 03, 2003
Baby Boomers: Ticking Socialist Time Bombs
Here’s some brain food: I’m confused about “Starve the beast” conservatives’ plans to run government deficits in order to force a government breakdown when Baby Boomers start to draw on Social Security. Completely getting rid of the social safety net is open goal of a lot of righty policy makers. They see it as a way of promoting personal responsibility. But while it’s an interesting if risky way of enacting policies which a majority of the country doesn’t agree with, I wonder if they aren’t biting off more than they can chew? I mean, it’s all nice and good to force a showdown between low taxes and public services, but is it wise to have that showdown at the exact time that a larger percentage of the voting public is depending on social security and other public safety nets?
We’ve all heard about how the Baby Boomers are the “lump in the python” of demographics, slowly working their way to old age. But I wonder if anyone has tried to explain political power shifts in terms of this giant section of the population growing through different phases of life? Couldn’t you just connect the 60’s to the innocent exuberance of youth, the 70s with the disillusionment, the 80’s with the family man who just wants to make a buck and so on? Of course, this kind of touchy-feely analysis usually makes me sick to my stomach, but a good old fashioned statistical analysis could easily reveal if politics were being changed by increased representations of a particular age group.
Anyhow, it’s food for thought.
(0) comments
Sunday, November 02, 2003
What's next? A gay pope?
"The Episcopal Church consecrated V. Gene Robinson as bishop in a heartfelt ceremony Sunday, making him the first openly gay man to rise to that rank in any of the world's major Christian bodies. But while pageantry mixed with exultation in the ritual elevating Robinson to bishop of New Hampshire, it seems unlikely the church will hold together in its aftermath." (Full article here.)
I think my loyal readers shold be able to predict my view on the matter. I completely support the right of the percentage of the Episcolpalians who oppose homosexuality to splinter off from the Anglican Church. But they're being archaic and childish. I'm just glad that this matter does not have to be mediated by law, given that God and state are separate entities (despite frequent evidence to the contrary). That's why I'm confused by the last paragraph from the news story:
"Some predict this will develop into the worst Episcopal split since the denomination was founded in 1789. And depending on the shape things take, a spate of church lawsuits may well result."
Lawsuit? Maybe someone with a more acute understanding of law could explain how the church could file any suits. On what basis? That consecrating a gay bishop defies the rules lain out in the Bible? I very honestly don't see what actual laws have been broken.
On a seasonal note, I hope you all had an enjoyable and, more importantly, safe Halloween. David, Andy, and I went down to Scott and the other Andy's place in Santa Barbara for the weekend. We fastidiously avoided Isla Vista, lest we be arrested en masse, until the day after Halloween, when we drove down the main celebration stretch to laugh at all the hungover kids walk home. Ubiquitous red party cups and half-torn sparkly costume butterfly/fairy/standard-female-quick-costume wings littered the road. It was glorious. On the night of the 31st we played Beirut, a delightful game of agility and coordination. Scott and I are currently World Champions of the World. Last night I further solidified my role as designated driver. My plan is to get my license in December, at which point my DD assignment will from then on be unequivocal.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
(This being my inaugural CalJunket entry, I will stick to the humorous. It is a little known fact that the squelch doesn't publish half the things I write, mostly because they aren't funny. I think most of the creative editors have had a slight bias against political humor, but that’s their prerogative. You make the call.)
Republicans find 300 billion in government waste
Tommaso Sciortino, Affairs Betterer
In a shocking revelation today Republican lawmakers have found a government department that has been wasting upward of 300 billion dollars each and every year that it has been operational.
“When our first tax cuts created a 300 billion deficit we explained that we would pay for it by cutting government waste instead of raising taxes.” Explained House Majority leader Tom DeLay, “Well, that’s exactly what we did.”
The government office responsible for this historically unprecedented level of waste, the Department of Betterin’ Affairs, is thought to have escaped detection for so long because of confusion between it and the much more well-known Department of Veteran’s Affairs. A relic from the New Deal, most of the Department’s 300 billion dollar budget was spent on “Just making things better…” said one newly unemployed staffer, “like sidewalks. Maybe they got gum all over ‘em… or maybe you see some guy and he’s got a bad hair cut… we’d buy that guy a hat.”
Republicans have not rested after their victory but have instead planned to pass more tax cuts. Quoted Grover Norquist, “We hope that at the current rate, no American will ever have to pay taxes after 2008. Also, the government will be so lean that it'll be able to run on the change that government workers find lying in the streets.”
(0) comments
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
NEWSBREAK: Democratic Party Dusts Off Pair of Severely Atrophied Balls
ALSO: Rebecca C. Brown Engages in Extended Third-Person Critique Describing Her Views on this Election's Viable Democratic Candidates
General Wesley Clark said today that the Bush Administration and, more specifically, George W. Bush himself need to take responsibility for their failure to respond to intelligence leading up to the September 11 attacks. (Full article here.) The comments of Clark today represented one of the stronger assaults on Bush's deception and incompetance by a plausable Democratic candidate.
(What amused me most from this article was this paragraph: "The Bush-Cheney campaign declined to respond to Clark's criticism, referring calls to the Republican National Committee. Christine Iverson, spokeswoman for the RNC, said Clark 'sounds exactly like Bob Graham, the failed presidential candidate from Florida who launched similar attacks against the president a few month ago, and was forced to drop out of the race because his message of protest and pessimism failed to resonate with the American people.'" So Iverson isn't saying that Clark is wrong, she's just saying that his views are unpopular. That's cute.)
Surprisingly enough, the cynical feminist Green with a strong disdain for corruption and pandering (namely Rebecca C. Brown) is relatively pleased with the Democratic candidates for the upcoming election. She even thinks that a few of the reasonably electable ones (Clark, Dean, Kerry) might somewhat represent her.
She does, however, feel that Dean and Clark each falter on selected issues. For example, while Howie (as she likes to call him) wants to protect women's reproductive rights, he also feels that the death penalty is an acceptable form of justice. Wes may present an overall liberal point of view (which will especially impress the American public because he is a four-star general and former Republican), he represents too steep of a compromise with the Right, according to Rebecca, on matters such as free trade and gun control.
Miss Brown would like to encourage all of her left-leaning readers to consider Dennis Kucinich, the Little Clevelander Who Could if He Was Only Given a Chance, for their Democratic pic these upcoming primaries. The author entreaties you to check out his fearless views (and facts) on the death penalty, the war on drugs, IRV, gay rights, trade, and many other issues. She feels that Dennis represents the most progressive and exciting option in the Democratic party.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
When they clean the street I'll be the only shit that's left behind
Bush is poised to sign a bill banning partial-birth abortions. I, oddly enough, am not wrangling up my picketing materials. But, though I think partial-birth abortions, which take place in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy, are ugly and should be discouraged, I don't feel that the law has any place in the matter.
By week eight into a pregnancy, the fetus already has a developing nervous system and will, even if the feeling isn't perceived by the fetus' brain, react to a physical stimulus. By the thirteenth week, the second trimester, the fetus has a fairly devolped nervous system and can move on its own volition. Premature fetuses that are born after only five months of gestation can survive, indicating that a "baby" has at that point been developed. I reluctantly say that I cannot support terminating the pregnancy in the second trimester, though nor do I feel particularly strong about this. Abortions in the third trimester, which represent only about 1% of abortions in the US, are fairly gruesome and should be strongly discouraged unless bringing the pregnancy to term would be harmful to the mother (or if it is discovered that the fetus will not survive through childbirth).
One very disturbing aspect of this bill is that it represents a stepping stone to the abolition of all abortion, no matter at what point during the pregnancy or under what circumstances. And by "circumstances" I am alluding to more than rape and incest; I believe that the sincere desire to not have a baby is a circumstance that justifies abortion.
What disturbs me most about the standard Republican stance on abortion is that they claim very ardently that they want to support a "culture of life" and eliminate a "culture of death." Wait, huh?! Is this not the political party whose platform supports the death penalty? The death penalty. Or the party (with congressional help from the pandering Democrats) that is currently waging a war in Iraq where Americans, Iraqis, soldiers, and civilians are being killed? (That's correct. I said currently.) Or the party who is more comfortable letting pollutants (pollutants that deplete the quality of and/or shorten life) into the ecosystem than regulating pollution and potentially stifling the economy on a temporary scale?
I don't belive Republicans are attempting with this bill to encourage a culture of life. At the risk of sounding radical or making a potentially offensive analysis (new territory for me), I believe this party's stance on abortion is rooted in anti-feminism and a distortion of Christian ideals (the latter obviously engendering the former). The word "God" has managed to litter the politics of the right to this day in such an un-Christian way. I have read Biblical texts for myself, and though I do not believe Jesus would support partial-birth abortions (if only we could ask him his stance on this, and stem cell research, and comprehensive admission standards for public universities), I also do not believe he would support putting criminals to death, or for that matter participating in any war.
The only good that will come of the soon-to-be passing of this bill is that the issue of abortion will once again, I predict, be taken to the Supreme Court and once again the Supreme Court will decide in favor of abortion rights. I don't know how many times the precedent will have to be set on this matter.
Dammit, I hate Republicans!
(0) comments
Elliott Smith dies in apparant suicide.
Plus, comedy show tonight at the Bear's Lair at 8pm.
Not that it's easy to get excited about a comedy show when one of the best songwriters of the last decade dies. I'm terribly sad about this. I just happen to have had one of his albums, Roman Candle, in my CD player for the last week. Come to think of it, probably not a week has gone by since I was 17 that I haven't listened to Elliott Smith. His music has had the amazing ability to console me in my down moments, despite his own meloncholia. This is very sad to me. I hope that if you haven't heard his work extinsively that you now give it a try. This is so incredibly disappointing.
(0) comments
Saturday, October 18, 2003
For those about to rock.
Yet another subtle reminder to check out the very good If Six Was Nine blog (ifsix.blogspot.com), wherein six sexy coeds offer their insights into the world of music. Also note that we now have a neat-o masthead at the top of the page with pictures of all six of us in alphabetical order. (That means I'm the one on the far right, kids.) My initial plan when I got into the blogging madness was to never let my readers (besides the ones whom I know in person) know what I look like. Well, now you do. Sexy. That's what I look like.
I'd also like to remind you that the Heuristic Squelch will be hosting a swell comedy show this upcoming Wednesday at the Bear's Lair at 8pm. It's only $5 for a whole night of laffs. Find us on Sproul.
What, by the way, did you all think of the most recent issue of our fine little humor mag?
Make to sure to celebrate the end of midterms responsibly. For example, don't celebrate the end of one midterm by ceasing to study for a week, only to remember that you have another midterm within the next few days.
I drove around the streets of Berkeley and Albany for the first time last night. I don't have my license yet, only my permit, but I am a very fast learner. I didn't drive when I was a teenager because I simply didn't have the money for insurance and gas and a car. (I, like a sucker, was saving my earnings for college. Psshh.) But now I'm an excellent driver. Definitely.
(0) comments
Sunday, October 12, 2003
Everyone's stupid but me
Also, pardon my hiatus.
A dangerous, covert terrorist lurks in our midst. A greasy, scrumptious terrorist. A capitalist terrorist who is poisoning Americans with its life-shortening and money-sucking death substance. That's right, it's the restaurant industry, and it's killing our nation's citizens with fat. Fat! Fattening fat deep-fried in 100% fatty fat. Or not. Who knows. Whatever.
This article is about how the three-fifths of RedWhiteAndBlueicans who are overwieght may have spurred legal action taken against the restaurant industry, who has facilitated rampant fat consumption. One option is to legally mandate that nutrition information be included on restaurant menus.
Every person (over the age of, let's say, thirteen, at which point if you can't cook your own dinner than you're a big loser) has complete control over what he or she eats, and every person has the option of asking for vague-to-specific nutrition information about the food he or she receives from a restaurant, so conceivably every person should know semi-accurately how many calories and fat grams he or she has consumed per meal, thus every person who is overweight has no one to blame but him or herself. Thus I think suing McDonald's or Chili's for America's obesity is frivilous and unfair.
But why not mandate that nutrition information, specific and accurate information, be available for all food no matter where it is being eaten? If people want to eat lard all day, oh for god's sake let them. But if some people ardently do not want to chug lipids for sport (and as a result possibly suffer heart disease, heart attack, diabetes, stroke, snoring, etc.), they should be able to have information assisting them in their pursuit readily available. There's no need to sue the restaurants that have helped this nation devolve into 250,000,000 corpulant turban-fearing cowboys (I guess they're only responsible for the first adjective), but there's also no need to withold information from the consumer.
An argument could be made by those of you who believe in individual self-determination and oppose institutional interferance with consumers' decisions. That argument might go something like this: "If folks are surprised that they're getting a spare tire after years of Big Macs and pepperoni pizzas, then they're big durfs who obviously don't understand how eating and digestion work. Man, are they big durfs." Hey, I agree with you. Especially about the durf thing. If there's one thing I can't stand it's a durf who doesn't understand stuff.
But I also believe that an informed consumer, perhaps even and over-informed consumer, is an ideal in a capitalist economy. Further, a citizen cannot truly be self-determining and free of interferance until he has every fact about what he is consuming at his disposal. Every person has the right to decide what is best for his body, so long as he knows exactly what is going into it.
[This is the part of the post where I reminisce longingly/disgustedly about my years back home in Long Beach.] When I was home for the Summer in the months between my freshman and sophomore years in college, I stayed in my home town of Long Beach for the season and chose to get a job at McDonald's because no one else would hire me for just eight weeks. As you can imagine, the menu at McDonald's hinges upon fat. I would leave that place with beef tallow caked between the treads of my non-scuff shoes. It's all fat. Fat plus more fat. Everyone knows that. Except kids. A five year old should not have to concern himself with calorie-counting when he goes out to eat with his parents. And it would be one thing if his parents took him for fast food once, even twice a month. But when you work full-time at McDonald's in a dense urban area, you come to see that some families eat there twice, thrice, four times a week. The parent are already obease. The children, through no fault of their own, are quickly on their way. They are being introduced very early into our culture of fattening foods. It's a culture where eating animal fats and proteins is encouraged for fear of anemia and/or sissiness, but I'd wager more on the latter. It's a society where convenience takes precedence over health. Most importantly, it's a culture that has developed out of ignorance, and it reproduces itself everyday because consumers aren't demanding to be informed.
If people could see, could read, could process with their own eyes that a medium order of french fries at McDonald's has 22 grams of fat (30% of your RDA of fat), or that a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese has 47 grams of fat (and thus that a #6 on the big picture menu gives them 69 grams total) as they're ordering then they may reconsider their options. Or not. Who cares. Let them eat fat. Just let them know how much.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
IT'S OFFICIAL!!
I now officially have no trust in the ability of the populous to elect the right people. I'm surrounded by 35 million doofers. Down with democracy! Up with highly centralized federal government!
On a lighter note, both propositions failed. Proposition 54 did not pass in any county at all, in fact. Even in Orange County, the coast's beacon of conservativism and illegal immigrant labor force, Prop 54 failed 51% to 49%.
In San Francisco County, Peter Camejo received about 1,300 more votes than McClintock. Yay! Gary Coleman got 21 more votes than drop-out candidate Peter Ueberroth. Yikes.
In Alameda County, write-in candidate Daniel Freedman received one vote. The Squelch Publicity Coordinator voted for himself.
Again on the lighter side, cheers to such high voter turnout. About 2 million more voted yesterday than a year ago.
On a curious note, how many of you were asked to provide photo ID when checking into your polling place? I was not asked, nor were any of the several other people I asked. Isn't such slack behavior conducive to voter fraud?
Here's how I voted:
Triple No plus Camejo.
I encourage you all to go back in time and do the same.
Here are all the exciting election returns from around the state!
New Squelch on Monday.
(0) comments
Sunday, October 05, 2003
Peter Camejo Rocks the Boat, My World
For those of you who didn't see Pete speak in Evans Hall on Firday at 6pm (which would be everyone on the planet save for about 400 of us), he was fantastic as always.
Seemingly the Green following in the Berkeley area is comprised of a bunch of hippies; who knew? Peter's appearance was hosted by the ISO, and apparantly socialists run on "commie time," wherein events start 15 minutes late (so much for the trains running on time), but the introductory speakers were few and brief and Camejo was speaking by 6:35pm.
In good third-party tradition, he came armed with some very indicitive and interesting graphs, including a chart showing that, when income and property and sales and all other state taxes are added together, the bottom 20% pay an 11.3% tax rate while the top 1% pays 7.2%. (Here's a link to that graph and report.) He also had a graph showing that taxes on corporations are as low as they've been since the mid-90s (I don't remember the exact numbers and I can't find Camejo's graph - I'd make a lousy political intern). Further, he outlined how the number of businesses in California is on the increase, as are their revenues; in fact, California's GDP was bigger last year than ever, which makes the current deficit that moch more amazing. In other words, Peter was artfully dispelling the myth so ardently perpetuated by Schwarzenegger and McClintock: that corporate and income taxes are driving the money out of this state. This simply isn't true! The Republicans may offer anecdotes saying otherwise, but emperical data cannot support the theory that California's current fiscal policies are forcing companies to move elsewhere.
But enough about the economy. The economy bores me to tears. (Luckilly, Camejo is a financial advisor and can find money exciting on my behalf.) What really incited enthusiam in me were Pete's invigorating stances on IRV and gay rights.
First, the latter: For him and the rest of the Green party, the issue of "gay rights" is not an issue. Gays are citizens and receive the rights thereof. No concessions, no compromises, no policies treating them as if they were legally different from "regular" people. Somehow, this is a stance that every plausable Democratic candidate (c'mon, no one's voting for Kucinich, and it makes me really sad) refuses to take, perhaps for fear of wierding out a good number of Americans, or perhaps because they genuinely don't believe gays are the same as everybody else.
Second, the former: I strongly believe that instant runoff voting would make government far more representative of the public's wishes. If progressives who like like the Greens or conservatives who like the crazy Libertarians or the nut jobs who like the wacky nut job Reformists got to vote their concience, these underdogs could receive the recognition they deserve and could further play a role in the political process, without their supporters feeling like they're "stealing" votes. I can't see any reason to oppose IRV.
Lastly, the previously unmentioned: Sumbit articles to the Squelch. Especially newsflashes. submit@squelched.com
(0) comments
Friday, October 03, 2003
RCB Guide's Cheers and Jeers
Jeers to Arnold Schwarzenegger for groping unwilling women. Jeers again to him for admiring Hitler in any capacity. Then again, maybe Adolf had a stunning physique that only Arnie knows about.
Jeers to Arianna Huffington for bowing out of the race. She was giving many Californians a good reason to go to the polls, and has subsequently abandoned them, no doubt under pressure from more likely victorious liberal candidates.
Cheers to Peter Camejo and Tom McClintock for not.
Cheers, further, to the people who made it possible for Peter and Tom to be involved in the gubernatorial debates. Cheers to a minor undermining of the strict two-party/two-candidate political system that limits the democratic potential of America.
Jeers to whoever decided to have the Giants' first three playoff games take place while most people are at work or school.
Jeers to midterms.
Cheers to the Heuristic Squelch, which stands as a beacon of entertainment in the face of said midterms.
Jeers to President Bush. For any number of things.
Jeers to "The Simpsons" for not being funny for almost half a decade.
Cheers to having all three seasons of "The Family Guy" on DVD to compensate for the previous Jeer.
Cheers to all the cool kids who run If Six Was Nine.
Jeers to this idiotic TV Guide format.
Update:
Cheers to Luna Bars, Clif Bar's high-density food chunk designed specifically for women. Each bar has 10 grams of protein (22% of its calories); 350mg calcium; 100% RDA of folate, vitamins C, B1, B3, B6, and B12, and some other stuff I've never heard of; and only 180 calories. Furthermore, Luna bars use no animal products, and because B vitamins are normally so difficult to find in large quantities in plants, these mid-meal snacks are ideal for us vegans. Yay!
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Heuristic Squelch sneak peak and entreaty for submissions
I'll let you in on a little secret....don't tell anyone....alright? Shhhh... The cover of the next issue of the Squelch is gonna totally zing Chancellor Berdahl! Zing!!!! Sorta. I guess we're not really zinging him at all. I don't even know any more. I'll be happy as long as the magazine makes reference at some point to the Chancellor's jowels.
We're getting started on our second issue of the year, and my prediction is of pure hilarity. Keep those submissions coming! submit@squelched.com.
(0) comments
Monday, September 29, 2003
Oh, Florida! Will you ever win?
In one of the more flagrant examples of defying a stupid law with an even more stupid (and harmful and disgusting) protest, the Florida band Hell on Earth (whose music I can only assume is sub-par... Can you blame me? They're called Hell on Earth!) plans to include an onstage suicide in one of their performances and broadcast it on their website. The groups is attempting to speak out against a new law in their city of St. Petersburg that prohibits physician-assisted suicide.
Call me old-fashioned, but I take life pretty seriously. So seriously that I won't even eat a crab, who probably has the neurological capacity of my left thumb. Furthermore, I take quality of life pretty seriously. So seriously that I refuse to drink the milk of a cow who was treated like anything less than a valued house pet. Thus, and I do not belive I am contradicting my previous contention that all life is equally valuable, I respect a person's desire to end his life if he is truly in pain and has no desire to continue living. But, in keeping with that whole "life is valuable" argument, I think the option of suicide should be evaluated and ever so carefully scrutinized with a professional physician and the patient's family or friends. I think the state has a right to legally mandate that its doctors discourage suicide and refuse to assist death unless there is no alternative pain remedy. But a terminally ill adult should have the final say on his condition. Therefore, I think it's a dumb law with good intentions.
There are no good intentions, however, behind Hell on Earth's stunt. Death is tragic and, moreover, personal, not commercial or sensational. If the group genuinely saw injustice in their city's law, they could very well work with health care officials and local politicians, armed with research and first-hand testimonial, to revoke the law. Instead they have chosen to make a mockery of the pain of suicide.
In unrelated news, I had a fairly successful trip to the dentist today. (If any of you with Delta PMI need to find a dentist in the area, I'd highly recommend this one. Berkeley Hills Dental Care. On Telegraph and Woosley. Not in the hills.) I had the base filling for a crown put in after a good 30 minutes of drilling. If any inordinate pain or breakage occurs in the next two weeks, a root canal will be my ultimate fate. While in my mouth, Dr. Nikfarjam also noticed that I need to get at least one of my sprouting wisdom teeth removed. I can't wait.
(0) comments
Sunday, September 28, 2003
Another blog for your blog-visiting repotoire
That's right. More words from me and five other students who love music enough to write about it. The title will be changed shortly, but I suggest you start reading now. Click here.
(0) comments
Saturday, September 27, 2003
CAL WINS: 34-31!!!!
(Rebecca Loses: Her Sunglasses; Subsequently Finds Them Between the Cushions)
Excellent game.
I hail originally from Southern California. Long Beach to be precise. A few of my high school aquaintences attended USC. They're now spending five times what I do for a comparable education. Not that it has anything to do with football. Just saying is all.
"Take off that red car!"
I viewed the game from the comfort of a frat house. A dozen or so alumni came over to the house for today's event. It seems the majority of frat boys age to become frat men. The Frat Graduation Package includes a baseball cap, khaki shorts, a blond wife, and a sense of entitlement. Just saying is all.
On an 80's flashback note, the Cal band is currently eating hot dogs at the frat after playing a few spirited songs for the brothers and alum; one alum requested "Lady in Red." Ouch.
(0) comments
Friday, September 26, 2003
NEWSBREAK: Doors of East Elevator in Eschleman Hall Opening Very Slowly
More news as it comes in...
(0) comments
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
ACLU declines to appeal recall election decision, diverts resources to delaying outdated and unreliable Christmas.
San Francisco, CA - The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided today that the unprecedented California recall election will take place on October 7 as originally scheduled, despite the contetnion from the American Civil Liberties Union that outdated punch-card ballots are less accurate than electronic voting systems and thus disefranchise thousands of voters from dense minority populations in six counties throughout the state.
The ACLU took today's ruling in stride, and shortly after the court's decision announced that they have more ambitious plans on the horizon. ACLU presidnet Nadine Strossen told reporters Tuesday that their next project is to delay Christmas, which the organization beleives is inaccurate and unreliable, and which is specifically unfair to minorities.
The case will be heard by the US Supreme Court this coming Friday.
Said Strossen, "Data from all around the nation indicate that poor and minority children are the most likely to receive crappy Christmas gifts, if in fact they receive gifts at all. In nearly every community included in the study, African American and Latino youngsters more than any other ethnic groups were the victims of pre-used gifts, gifts from Walmart, a piece of fruit in lieu of a real gift, or simply no gifts whatsoever. This is unfair. Absolutely unfair."
ACLU spokespeople are citing outdated equipment and profiling as the source of these discrepencies. According to the group, Santa Claus' sleigh, deer, and elves do not have the technology to serve every American child equally, prompting Claus to distribute his limited resources disproportinally to rich white kids whose parents have wider chimneys and superior cookies.
The group is asking for a six month delay of the holiday, which should give Claus and his faculty ample time to update toy production and distribution systems, including speedier, more ergonomically sound toy-building technology and more accurate electronic checking-it-twice devices. They are also requesting that diveristy training be legally mandated for each North Pole staff member.
Claus' spokesmen Jingle and Jangle deny allegations that his distribution techniques are unfair, and are confident that the court will rule in his favor.
(I'm not sure why I wrote this. I'm actually on the ACLU's side. On both issues.)
(0) comments
A post by Ornicus got me hating Rupert Murdoch even more.
Conservatives and Liberals throw word Fascism around a lot. And while it’s easy to point to a swastika and say “Never again”, it’s much more difficult to recognize fascism in general. Its traits are nebulous: a delegitimization of difference and dissent (both in and outside the party); the desire for unfettered leaders without corrupt parliamentary procedure; and exalting power and moral clarity over cooperation and logic.
Rush Limbaugh is a fascist. Just like Bill O’Riely and Ann Coulter. In Rush’s world, anyone who disagrees with him is a Liberal. Liberals never act in good faith. Latte-Liberals (any liberal really) indulge in luxury and are aloof wasting time in ivory towers, theorizing without doing. They are morally base and groups in league with the Liberals (Unions, environmental groups) are corrupt. Republicans on the other hand agree that “Rush is right”. They always act in good faith. Republicans do not indulge in extravagance not do they bother themselves with difficult issues when moral clarity can lead you true. They are morally superior, and understand that America’s military power should not be hampered by international law or the treaty of Versailles.
The problem with Fascism is that it doesn’t exactly attract the best and brightest. You need to be a personal failure to have enough hate to lead a fascist movement, and that doesn’t make for a good business plan. It’s necessary to have an outsiders fund your loser group of fascist rabble-rousers.
Corporatists fit the bill. Their goal: advance the interests of corporations and the rich. That’s why we see Republican implementing regressive taxes while removing irksome American traditions like the Estate Tax. Surely, the idea to tax earned money (Payroll tax) and not unearned money (Capital gains) could only be supported by a rich person, or a person who doesn’t really understand economics.
In places like post WWI Germany and Italy, the rich found a sure fire way to avert socialism: support Fascists! Without German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, Hitler and the Nazis would have been historical also-rans. Republicans, which pre-Nixon looked a lot like a reunion of stunt doubles from the movie Arthur, realized it would take more that alcoholism, money, and cockney charm to get power. The innovation that brought Nixon-Republicans (like Rumsfeld to Cheney) to power was to appeal to racism and anti-communism to gain votes. They learned the lesson of those that went before them, though: let the Fascists talk, but do not let them drive.
Modern Day Australian industrialist Rupert Murdoch might have shown up late in the game, but his work would make Adolf cry with joy. Here’s a corporatist who knows his interests. In China, his network has helps support the world’s last communist power. In America, Fox news empowers failures like Bill O’Riely, allowing him to say whatever he wants as long as he supports media deregulation. It’s a dangerous game Murdoch plays, but if America ever falls to Fascism, you can bet that Murdoch will be some where else, delighting people with his irascible charm and down-under wit.
(0) comments
Sorry for the absence.
I'm keeping too busy to do any substantial posting. But this one won't be without purpose.
It turns out that the cornbread recipe below sorta blows. Here's a better one.
3/4 c. white flour
1/2 c. wheat flour
1 c. cornmeal
1/4 c. white sugar
1/2 c. crown sugar
1 1/2 c. soy milk
1 c. soy margarine
2 tbsp vegetable oil
1 tsp cinnamon
1 tsp cayanne pepper
dash allspice, nutmeg, ginger, and cloves
2 tsp honey (half to drizzle on top)
40-50 minutes at 375-400 degrees. I got several compliments on this recipe yesterday from non-vegans.
(0) comments
Wednesday, November 26, 2003
Rebecca C. Brown's Hearty Cornbread Recipe
Thanksgiving is tomorrow, and probably most of you will be participating in some sort of family meal celebrating such. And chances are that as primarily male college students, you will be helping out with the baking and cooking (just to defy paradigms and all). You may be at a loss as to what to prepare for your loved ones. Here's a recipe for some surprisingly good cornbread:
1 1/2 c. cornmeal
2 c. whole grain unbleached flour (or white flour for a less hearty bread)
1/4 c. brown sugar
1/4 c. white sugar
1 tbsp baking powder
1 tsp egg substitute powder
1 tsp ground cinnamon
1 tsp (plus or minus) ground cayanne pepper (a surprising yet always well-received ingredient)
pinch ground allspice, nutmeg, and ginger
dash salt
1/2 c. vegetable oil (no trans fats, unlike in margarine)
1 3/4 c. soy milk (or cow's milk if you insist)
Preheat your oven to 400 degrees. Mix all your dry ingredients. Then add your milk and oil and mix thoroughly. You can either mix your ingredients in a big bowl and then pour it into a greased glass or metal 8" sqaure pan, or just mix the ingredients right in the baking dish (with the greater likelihood that your bread will stick a little to the pan). Then cook it for 45 minutes to an hour, depending on how broken your oven is. You'll know your bread is done when you can poke a knife in all the way and it comes out clean.
I'm also making pumpkin pie and a yam & carrot dish for the holiday; I'll make sure to tell you how they turn out. Happy Thanksgiving!
(0) comments
Sunday, November 23, 2003
Rebecca C. Brown gives thanks on this the most thanks-inducing of weeks
It's the time of year when the last yellow leaves shiver off the trees (unless you live in Southern California, in which case all your trees have been replaced with convenient Wells Fargo ATMs); when turkeys outsell US Weeklys at the grocery store; when we Jews, Christians, and Christmas-loving atheists alike begin to splurge for our loved ones; when "The Year in Retrospect" specials begin airing a month prematurely; and when we are prompted to list in semi-aescending order the things in our lives that make us feel truly gifted. Here is a incomplete list of the aspects of my recent life for which I give the most thanks.
My family in Long Beach whom I miss so much. Sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night longingly to a harsh Berkeley that simply hasn't given me my daily dose of crazy. Sure, I can find plenty of substance abuse or aimless bickering on the streets, but it just isn't the same when that substance abuse or aimless bickering isn't sharing a 2 litre bottle of Diet Pepsi and a dry bean cassarole with you. In all honesty, I love you. You made me the creative and fearlessly opinionated rascal I am today, and I wish it were less cost prohibitive to visit you more often. Thank you, Lynn-Brown-Goertz-Gibson-Glowacz-Valejo-Meschek brood! (Thanks to the Dumans/Lauries for being my surrogate family for so many occasions.)
California tax-payers. Seriously, guys. Your help means a lot. You pay the taxes that go to the state Department of Education that goes to the Long Beach Unified School District that pays for my mom's health insurance that (until September 11, 2006) pays for nearly all my medical and dental costs. With your kind donations, I have a $0.00 co-pay on all hospital visits, a $2.50 co-pay on all prescriptions (generic or name brand), and I only paid $127.60 for a $1,200 oral surgery procedure. Thanks to you, I don't need to choose between medical care and my expensive food habit. You rock! (P.S. Thanks Karl Marx for the great idea in the first place.)
B. M. Patakas, DDS. My recovery from my wisdom tooth removal has been seamless so far. I'm especially impressed that you yanked out all four of them completely intact. (Now I just need to figure out what to do with that quartet of picture-perfect molars sitting in a little bath of water on my dresser right now.) I'll Rebeccommend you and your extraction team to all my friends.
The soy farmers of this fine nation. I don't know where I'd be without you. You've made the last six years not only tolerable but enjoyable. Now that I'm not allowed to chew for a few days, the milk and powdered protien of your distingushed bean has made a perfect base for my fruit smoothies and pancakes. Cheers to you!
The owners and operators of all my favorite novelty websites. Thanks, men and women of menwholooklikekennyrogers.com, cameltoe.org, homestarrunner.com, explodingdog.com, and foxnews.com! You're always good for a quick pick-me-up.
David Duman. You've proven to be the kindest, most loving person in my life the past few weeks, if not past year. I wish there were a more adequate way (besides stripping you of any anonymity or privacy by thanking you on my blog) to tell you how much your remarkable patience and giving nature have made me happy, especially since they stole the teeth out of my head. Some ladies and gents out there might think their men are top-notch, but they're all big suckers. I'm indisputably the luckiest of them all.
(0) comments
Saturday, November 22, 2003
It would take one pea brain, one unqualified man, one liar slipped into this White House to bring a decade of horror like none we have ever known.
The RNC (not President Bush himself) has decided to start spending millions of dollars in the primaries to get a leg up on making sure Bush gets the nomination. Or maybe they're spending this money to encourage Democrats to stay home during the primaries, which is ineffectual because a Democrat will be nominated even if only eleven Democrats show up to vote. Or maybe they're priming swing voters to jump on the Republican hate wagon before it leaves town. Whatever the motivation, it's a big waste of money.
This ad will start airing in Iowa on Sunday.
I'm on a Kucinich e-mailing list, and I think my good friend Denny had some strong and important words to say about the RNC's depiction of the terrorist threat on America: "The Republican National Committee is using money that derives largely from the wealthiest few in America to pay for advertisements aimed at keeping all Americans scared. We will not be frightened into submission. We will not forget the lies we were told about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We will not forget that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. We will remember that for the hundreds of billions we are spending on an unjust and destabilizing occupation in Iraq, we could have an investment in American education that would include free pre-kindergarten and free college tuition. We need to get our priorities straight and not give in to the fear-mongering. I offer America the hope of a new approach and a clear choice in the next election."
Similar attacks against the RNC's fear machine appear on the other Democrats' homepages. In pouring over websites and watching debates, I am very pleased to see the Democrats unified in their pledge defeat Bush. I'm inspired to see so many of the candidates, both viable and long-shot, resist the temptation to play the middle of the road. (Svae for Lieberman. He's a sellout.) My only fear is that when the primaries are over, the Democratic candidate's current dedication to a rejuvinated left will deteriorate into moderate (read "right of center") pandering.
Oh, and Go Bears. I'm not into rivalry at all, especially not in the athletic realm. The only grudge I hold against Stanford (with an "O" - misspelling has never equated to clever zinging for me) is that their tuition is through the roof and thus only kids with rich parents or exceptional sports abilities can attend. So that "Go Bears" was apathetic and obligatory. In fact, Go Bears, Stay Bears, Sit Bears. I don't care. So long as the Squelch is better than Stanford's "humor" mag the Chapparelle, I'm content.
P.S. My tooth extraction went very well. Only minimal throbbing in my gums and jaw so far. Luckilly, my cute boyfriend got me a Cuisinart food processer for our first anniversary just days before my surgery, so even the most challenging meals can be instantly transformed into soft food that my swollen mouth can handle. Like pasta pate. Actually, I'm sticking to friut and soy protein powder smoothies. Mmmmm.....isoflavones.
(0) comments
Thursday, November 20, 2003
Bad news and more bad news
A self-centered introspection into my personal crises
I thought the deadline to apply to go to dinner with Dennis Kucinich was midnight EST last night. I got my email in well before 9pm, but it seems the deadline was earlier than that. I even submitted a cute picture of myself. Rats. Well, I guess if I want to have dinner with Denny, I'll have to do so on my own dime.
On an unrelated note, I'm broke. Or almost broke, at least. My basic policy since entering college was to keep my checking account over $3000 at all time, just in case an emergency popped up. (Such as needing to pay for my tuition and fees before my loan check got processed, as was the case this past August. I'd never written a check for over $2900 before in my life.) I checked my balance about a month ago, and it might have been just a little over $2000. Today when I checked it it was at under $1200. The moral of the story is that my approximately $580 a month income that I get for working thirteen hours a week is only enough to cover rent and food. And just barely at that. My loan money ($5500 this year) will cover only my Univeristy fees. This doesn't leave much room for books, studio supplies, Summer tuition, minmal health care costs, or travel expenses to go home for the holidays. (I've opted to stay in the Bay Area the past two Thanksgivings and Spring Breaks to save money on air fare.) Admittedly, I like to spend money on gifts for my loved ones, maybe about $300 per year now that I have a boyfriend. Also, since entering college, I've probably spent an average of $30 a month on "frivolous" things like clothing, CDs, bakeware, soap, toothpaste, tampons, and the like. In other words, I'm not living the Jesus-esque life.
But from my observations I'm living much more simply and cost-effectively than many of my immediate friends. It's not that I'm bitter that a good portion of the kids I know at Cal have parents who are paying for their tution and books and rent and food. It's just that I'm...um...I think that...well...dammit I am bitter! I got a triple in Unit 1, not because I got stuck there, but because I couldn't afford any other option. Most of you will be walking out of this university with no job prospects. I'll be walking out of this university with no job prospects and $23,000 in debt.
Unfortunately, I'm not the only one at Cal in this shitty situation. We're probably in the minority, but we're here. I wish I had a solution. But I don't. The only way I can console myself is to think that me paying my way through school is a character-building experience; that my peers who have a job for spending money instead of rent money will have a bigger shock than I will once they enter the "real" world; that struggle makes you a more compassionate person; that the ones whose grandparents can afford to send them to Europe couldn't appreciate that vacation as much as I could as a poor person. But these consolations aren't fair and probably are not even true. I've got a bad case of reverse-elitism. Maybe the middle-class values and lower-middle-class bank account (namely the one with negative numbers) I inherited from my parents are only hurting me.
(0) comments
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Politeness vs. Truth
One of the lesser known fronts of the Cold war was the field of brainwashing. A couple returning POWs had inexplicably turned Marxists and the US military was interested in why. Several branches of the government worked on the project and in the end, the trick turned out to be no trick at all. A straightforward program of incarceration, isolation, and group punishment that would have been familiar to any prosecutor of the Spanish Inquisition was the best any captor could do. The reason the Communists seemed to have the upper hand was that they were willing to do things our American morals would not permit.
I think that the liberal-conservative meme war might be like that. For those of you not familiar, Berkeley’s own George Lakoff is part of the Rockridge Institute, a progressive think tank whose focus is reframing political debate through language. The idea is that Republicans have found political advantage by using a very precise language specially designed to frame things in a conservative light. For a specific example of bad framing see Nixon’s “I am not a crook.”
(As a better example, think of how Republican politicians always seem to keep the topic of discussion on taxes and “tax burdens”. That is a framing trick all by its own. Of course, everyone wants lower taxes. But only by mentally separating them from public services can Republicans hope to bamboozle people into supporting plans to undermine popular institutions like social security.)
It’s a good idea. But while it’s important that liberals have the right language to use, it even more crucial is the willingness to say it unashamed. What conservatives have, and what liberals really need, is the media with the will to deliver our message.
Conservative leader can trust any of a number of journalists to repeat their spin point or even to blow the cover off a deep cover CIA agent for that matter. Liberals have to contend with the regular media who seem to keep one eye on the news and the other on the number of angry letters they get accusing them of liberal bias. Fox doesn’t care about bias. The wall street journal doesn’t care about bias (or even basic economics if it gets in the way of their ideology). They probably don’t even get letters complaining of bias. Bias is a red herring and liberals should take their queue from conservatives and be unashamed of their own politics.
I’m not suggesting that Liberals stoop as low as Fox News (Michael Moore has come close). What I am suggesting is that liberals, and particularly, liberals in the media, stop letting their gentlemanly code of conduct prevent them from saying mean things when mean things need to be said. Otherwise we’ll all end up sounding like NPRs Terry Gross trying to explain how it’s politically balanced to give O’Reilly a hard time during an interview. (Answer: It’s not politically balanced. But it is the best way to treat a guest you believe is dishonest.)
Our country didn’t have to give up our morals or our freedoms to win the Cold war, but we did have to learn to give up our isolationist “everything is fine” attitude and take threats seriously. Aggressive, lopsided, and one-sided reporting from the right threatens to unbalance our informed electorate. Liberals need to stop pining for the polite old days of newspapers, and start getting the truth out there. We don’t have to compromise our morals, just instinct to be polite.
(0) comments
Monday, November 17, 2003
Only 37 hours left! Get on the Kucinich date wagon NOW!
Submissions to enter PoliticsNH.com's Go To Dinner With Presidential Unhopeful Dennis Kucinich are due by midnight on Wednesday, November 19. Here's why I would be the best candidate:
- I'm a damned hippie, but I'm also pragmatic.
- I love single-payer health care, and I can never get enough peace.
- Did I say peace? I meant peach. I love peaches. But I also love peaces. No, peace. I love peach.
- DK and I are both vegans, so eating dinner together would be a breeze. No Sizzler for us.
- I have a hairpiece fetish.
- I agree with him on all political fronts except affirmative action and bilingual education. (And believe me, the dude has a really long list of political beliefs.)
- We've both got cherubic good looks. Our kids would look like elves.
Also, check out this rad audio postcard from Willie Nelson endorsing Denny. Nice tanktop!
(0) comments
Sunday, November 16, 2003
Now that doesn't seem fair, does it?
Some numbers on blacks and marijuana.
Here are some fascinating charts about reported marijuana use among Americans of different age, gender, and ethnic groups. This is a chart of the percentage of black drug offenders in state prison.
For those of you who don't enjoy pouring over charts, here are some highlights:
- (Table 3.2) At the time of the survey, 9.9% of black participants had smoked weed in the last year, while 9.1% of whites had. (Among 18-25 year-olds, namely kids people our age, 24.2% of whites had used marijuana in the last year, while only 20% of blacks had.)
- (Table 3.1) 37.8% of white participants reported using pot during their lifetimes, while 28.5% of blacks had. (Again, look at the higher weed use among white people in our age group - 46.7% v. 31.6%.)
- (Table 3.3) The delineation in which the black pot use is largest compared to white pot use is among those who had used within the last month, and even then the proportion was low - 6.1% of blacks v. 5.2% of whites.
Now comes the crazy part.
- (Second link) 63% of drug admissions to state prisons are black, compared to 12% that are white.
Okay, let's think about this. America is 80% white, but only 12% black. Let's go with the least flattering figure for blacks and assume black marijuana users outnumber white users 6 to 5. Even then, in raw numbers, there are about 5.7 times as many whites using marijuana than blacks, so, by extention, there should be about 5.7 times as many whites in jail for weed as blacks. Instead, blacks outnumber whites over 5 to 1 on marijuana incarcerations.
In short, the criminal justice system is anti-black, for one reason or another. Those of you who doin't think it is can maybe counter my emperical data with a reasonable explanation. Maybe "Blacks love to turn themselves in," or "Blacks like to carry their weed out inthe open when they walk past cops." But no, it couldn't be that police are more likely to pursue marijuana use in black neighborhoods, or more likely to look the other way when a white college kid smells like pot, or that a judge is more likely to sentence a black person than a white person for the same drug charge. Of course not. This is America.
(0) comments
Thursday, November 13, 2003
An update for all my family and close friends
I don't often find the time to personally contact my loved ones and update them with my happenings, but in case said loved ones are reading my blog, here's a summary of the next few weeks' activities:
- Tue., 11/18/03: Paper due in History of Art. Stupid paper.
- Fri., 11/21/03: Wisdom tooth extraction (all four of them) with Dr. Patakas in Alameda. My two bottom molars have soft tissue vertical impaction, meaning my jaw isn't long enough to accommodate these teeth, so the back half of each tooth has grown in under the gum. Here's an informative diagram:
- Sat., 11/22/03: Be in a lot of pain from previous day's procedure.
- Thu., 11/27/03: Thanksgiving with the man-pal's family in Sacramento. As a swollen-mouthed vegan, I have planned to bring my own delectable T-day treats, including vegan cornbread, vegan pumpkin pie, and a healthful yet exciting vegan yam dish. Mmmmm...yam dish.
I hope you all feel as if you were right here with me. I sure do.
(0) comments
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Whither progressive income tax?
On the face of it, it’s pretty difficult to argue against the progressive income tax without seeming like a jaded jerk. The most handy argument for it is that a flat tax would mean way higher taxes for you (millionaires don’t read this blog so it’s safe to say that). Though it is the actual reason we don’t have a flat tax there is something deeply unsatisfying about this argument. Heck! I could just as easily argue that everyone who reads this blog should get free money from the government, but I think it too would assault our basic sense of fairness.
Of course, every single flat tax proposal made by conservative leaders (it comes up in congress almost every year) aren’t really flat at all. They aim to levy a flat tax on earned income (the kind of money you and I make at pizza hut) and lift all taxes on unearned income (the kind of money the rich make off of us when they use out student loan interest to buy homes in the south of France). Furthermore, even Republican leaders aren’t heartless enough to tax the homeless and those not making a living wage. Again, being “two-tiered” their flat tax isn’t really flat at all. Clearly then, you could easily argue against any given “flat tax” plan, but still, the platonic ideal of a flat tax is still there, floating in space: Wrong… But why?
It’s an issue of fairness. Sure, Bill Gates is a better programmer than me. Heck, he’s probably even a better salesman then me. But is he really 43,150,080.03* times better than me at anything? Even at darts, which I am exceedingly bad at? No, although it is plain that Bill Gates should rightly own far more than I do, we can also freely admit that what he does own is due in some part to good fortune. Of course, Bill Gates is a particularly deserving case. What about flat tax proponent Steve Forbes? His main talent is the ability to be born to outstandingly rich parents. Quite a skill. Then again, I’m a really good whistler but our society has decided that this particular talent, though also inheritable, does not merit multimillion dollar rewards.
The flip side is less dramatic but probably more common. While it’s difficult to get rich without deserving it (barring accidents of birth like our sitting president), it is very easy to not get rich even though you totally do deserve it. If you see Philo Taylor Farnsworth in heaven, thank him for inventing television, since no one ever did down here.
Of course, this doesn’t even take into account the people who are rich specifically because they are jerks (see John D. Rockefeller civil-war profiteering) and those who are poor exactly because they were good Samaritans (all the George Baileys of the world).
In the end, a progressive tax is (amongst other things) really just a luck tax. It asks of the most probably lucky ducks sitting on their piles of gold to kick back a little to us unfortunates. Until we invent that magical machine that can tell us how much each person’s soul is worth, we’re just going to have to trust to the law of averages.
* Ratio of my current bank account balance to Bill Gates’ net worth. Including my student loans this number is negative.
(0) comments
Sunday, November 09, 2003
Our personal connection goes deeper than idealistic liberal politics and diminutive stature
I discovered today that Ohio's favorite lawn gnome and Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich, like myself, is a vegan:
"Congressman Kucinich is one of the few vegans in Congress, a dietary decision he credits not only with improving his health, but in deepening his belief in the sacredness of all species."
Awesome! Then again, he's also really good friends with Shirley Maclaine, but nobody's perfect. Denny's biggest downfall is that he's crazy.
Crazy for equality!
I'm not going to stop vouching on K-Dog's side. I don't believe he can win, but I do believe that he can give disheartened Democrats an inspiring alternative in the primaries. I think he's helping many liberals who may have shunned the Dems remember why they or their parents were Democrats. I hope he's illustrating to a few million Americans that the two major parties don't need to be so eerily similar on certain issues.
And I love that big black rug he wears on his little dome. My step-dad Travis said that he looks like "an uncolored coloring book." Touche, Trav. Touche.
(0) comments
Friday, November 07, 2003
Sometimes It's Hard to Be a Woman
Volume Two: Keeping America (and God) out of my uterus.
"Every person has a special dignity. This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government, it comes from the creator of life." Thanks President Bush. Maybe he should have repeated this cute little maxim when he gave the final order to put over 100 people to death during his Texas governorship. I was also under the impression that, even if you believe life is derived from a divine creator, that law comes from the government, not said creator. But this post is about abortion, not about hypocricy or comingling of church and state.
I have no doubt that the United States government's most recent attempt to stifle a form of abortion will die a bloody death in the high courts. I am, however, frightened that this anti-"partial-birth abortion" (no such medical term exists) bill even got past congress. It bothers me that a few hundred men and women (oh, but mostly men) in Washington are attempting to dictate what occurs inside a woman's own body. I'm peeved that a rare procedure that is almost only used to protect the life of a woman or to prevent the birth of a baby who cannot survive outside its mother's womb falls under the jurisdiction of a select few, the vast majority of whom don't have the capacity to get pregnant, and the even more overwhelming majority of whom have no medical experience.
I believe this issue goes beyond the right's attempt to protect the health of fetuses. (Otherwise it would be illegal to smoke in the same room as a pregnant woman.) As I've stated before, I think this blind anti-abortion sentiment is rooted in a disrespect for a woman's self-determination. I believe that, subversive though this mentality may be, there persists an idea that the female body does not bear the capacity to take care of itself. Women menstruate, they have "hormonal" outbursts, they're physically weaker than men, they have bodies which are believed to be tied to nature because of their reproductive functions. The idea is that women have an inability to control their bodies (we can't really opt out of our periods without negative health repurcussions, and our hormones follow suit), and thus that men, and by extension the men in government (and religion), should have jurisdiction over the feminine physical entity.
Many conservative figures in religion and politics are attempting to get "morning after pills" like Previn off the market, claiming that life begins at conception, despite the fact that a 72-hour old embryo is composed of only a few hundred undifferentiated cells. (It's comparable to biting the inside of your cheek and "killing" the skin that comes off.) This opposition to the "abortion pill" (what a charming and inaccurate name) is based not only on a distorted definition of life, but also a resistance to grant women control over their bodies. If abortions are available quickly and (relatively) painlessly, so the argument goes, then women will have sex whenever they want without worrying about the consequences. Drugs that prevent implantation are not going to encourage women to have willy-nilly sex (as much as Pat Robertson would love to picture that); it will give women and men who made a mistake a chance not to give birth to an unwanted, unaffordable child. Also, given that fathers of unwanted pregnancies out of wedlock rarely have to suffer the same consequences as the mothers, it provides women with a limited opportunity to decide for themselves what consequences their bodies will suffer.
On a lighter note, when I gave blood today I got a free 15 minute phone card. Woo hoo!
(0) comments
Sometimes It's Hard to Be a Woman
Volume One Point One: Giving my stupid kids a last stupid name.
In addition to having a husband, part of my life-plan is to have 2-3 children (and a few dogs and cats). And my kids are going to need last names. (Unless, of course, they plan upon becoming wildly successful mono-monikered super models [I'm 5'1" - an unlikely event], soccer players [again, I'm 5'1"], or pop stars.) So whose will it be? Mom's or Dad's?
Ehhhh. Now I'm uncomfortable.
I'm not taking my husband's name. He's not taking mine. (To do otherwise, as I explained, would be dishonest to the pursuit of equality in a relationship.) So there goes that "convenience" (chuckle) of having a happy family with the same surname for all. But what of little Timmy and little Sally and little Habib? If they take "Brown" that would would be denying the other parent's contribution. Likewise if they take "HypotheticalDadName" instead of mine.
The yuppie option "Brown-HypotheticalDadName" might be cumbersome, but is it really that awful an alternative to perpetuating patriarchism? And the name Brown is like a pair of black slacks - it goes with everything.
But what happens when Habib Brown-HypotheticalDadName falls in love with and raises children with Dora McCallister-Rosenberg, and Habib and Dora are also progressive, symbolic equality-seeking Americans? Meet Phineas McCallister-Rosenberg-Brown-HypotheticalDadName. Now, the likelihood of this happening is slim. But that's pretty cumbersome. (Note also that by the time I'm a grandma turn of the century names will again be en vogue. My money's on "Horatio" as the 2050's anser to 2000's "Madison." Mark my words.)
If I give my boy(s) Dad's name and my girl(s) Mom's name, that creates artificial alliances. Same if I did the opposite.
Sigh.
Maybe the dude I marry and I can dole out last names in alphabetical order. If I have babies with Harold Agajanian, the first kid gets his name, the second kid mine, and so on. If I have babies with Grover D. Caterwaul, I'll get first dibbs. Like home-ice advantage in the hockey playoffs.
Oh Jesus. That's a terrible idea.
A good idea, on the other hand, would be for you to donate blood. Do it!
(0) comments
Thursday, November 06, 2003
You gotta fight for your right to get free cookies and orange juice
That's right kids. Blood drive tomorrow in Wozinak (I probably spelled that wrong) Lounge in Soda Hall from the morning to the afternoon. I'll be there at about 10:30, as will Paul. The two of us have a friendship based on the mutual love of Elvis Costello and giving blood.
There will also be "Get the Red Out" Big Game week blood drives from 9-4 in Pauley Pavillion on Monday Nov. 17 and Friday Nov. 21. Even if I were eligable to give on the 21st (you have to wait at least 56 days between donations), I wouldn't. Instead on that day I shall be getting four of my teeth hacked out of my skull. And I'm paying almost $200 for the honor.
GIVE BLOOD!!! First, you save some lives. Second, you usually get a free t-shirt (you can choose among large, X-large, and XX-large). Lastly, needles are way cool. Trust me.
(0) comments
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
Sometimes It’s Hard to Be a Woman
Volume One: The Name Game.
For one reason or another, as I’ve mentioned before, there seems to be a dearth of female participants in the Cal political blogsphere, among both blog authors and commentators. (I cannot prove that women aren’t reading, thanks to the genderl anonymity of IP addresses.) I won’t speculate as to the source of this disproportionality (though I may do so later). But I can say that as a female I might represent, however inaccurately, a woman’s voice to my male blogging peers.
One topic of debate, often though erroneously labeled as a “women’s issue” (as if any issue existed in a sexual vacuum), is that of a woman’s last name when she gets married. As I foresee my life, I will get married, and I will not change my last name. Is this some subvert (or overt?) anti-male behavior? Is it rooted in the hatred of men inherent to my feminism? Am I simply being defiant in an empty, symbolic way for the sake of defiance itself? Am I trying to piss off my husband? Or am I trying to eliminate the possibility of even snagging a future husband?
Well, no. First, I don’t hate men. Neither does my mother. Or my sister. Nor do my aunts. Or almost any other feminist. Here lies a great myth. Feminists don’t hate men. A critically thinking woman (or man) will, however, despise hierarchy in which women are as a group disadvantaged due to the social structure created by men and reproduced by men (and women). Second, the symbolic battles are often the most difficult ones to win. I will gladly combat symbolic repression with full zeal. Further, no symbolic triumph is empty. Lastly, no, I’m rarely defiant for the sake of pissing people off. (Maybe my parents, but never an entire gender.)
My visceral argument against changing my name is that my identity as Rebecca C. Brown, not as Rebecca B. Smith or Rebecca B. Jones or Rebecca C. Brown-Jones, has been in the works for over two decades (longer by the time I will be asked by convention to alter it by adopting another name). Though a name is little more than a word, I will entreaty my readers to think about the power of words and how language infuses social action. In this case, a woman taking her husband’s last name represents very clearly that her individuality and self-ownership (both physically and psychically) belong not to her but instead to her husband. Just as a father gives his offspring his last name (then adopts a role of authority over them), he so gives his wife his name. Quite simply, it’s nominal slavery. To make a less dramatic argument, it is entirely counterintuitive to equality for one person in a relationship to take the name of the other. I challenge you to assert otherwise.
Your mother or aunt or grandmother may have taken her husband’s name, maybe had children, maybe worked, or maybe stayed home. And despite relinquishing her symbolic identity, was perfectly happy and content. I will not disagree with you. I don’t think something as small as a last name can dictate a person’s happiness; however, it can contribute to her perception of self as a female. Further, the collective inability of women to maintain their last names defines in part what a woman’s role is in the family and in society in general. And though there are no laws dictating that we must change our names, if we don’t, we will, well, get a lot of shit for it.
(0) comments
Monday, November 03, 2003
Baby Boomers: Ticking Socialist Time Bombs
Here’s some brain food: I’m confused about “Starve the beast” conservatives’ plans to run government deficits in order to force a government breakdown when Baby Boomers start to draw on Social Security. Completely getting rid of the social safety net is open goal of a lot of righty policy makers. They see it as a way of promoting personal responsibility. But while it’s an interesting if risky way of enacting policies which a majority of the country doesn’t agree with, I wonder if they aren’t biting off more than they can chew? I mean, it’s all nice and good to force a showdown between low taxes and public services, but is it wise to have that showdown at the exact time that a larger percentage of the voting public is depending on social security and other public safety nets?
We’ve all heard about how the Baby Boomers are the “lump in the python” of demographics, slowly working their way to old age. But I wonder if anyone has tried to explain political power shifts in terms of this giant section of the population growing through different phases of life? Couldn’t you just connect the 60’s to the innocent exuberance of youth, the 70s with the disillusionment, the 80’s with the family man who just wants to make a buck and so on? Of course, this kind of touchy-feely analysis usually makes me sick to my stomach, but a good old fashioned statistical analysis could easily reveal if politics were being changed by increased representations of a particular age group.
Anyhow, it’s food for thought.
(0) comments
Sunday, November 02, 2003
What's next? A gay pope?
"The Episcopal Church consecrated V. Gene Robinson as bishop in a heartfelt ceremony Sunday, making him the first openly gay man to rise to that rank in any of the world's major Christian bodies. But while pageantry mixed with exultation in the ritual elevating Robinson to bishop of New Hampshire, it seems unlikely the church will hold together in its aftermath." (Full article here.)
I think my loyal readers shold be able to predict my view on the matter. I completely support the right of the percentage of the Episcolpalians who oppose homosexuality to splinter off from the Anglican Church. But they're being archaic and childish. I'm just glad that this matter does not have to be mediated by law, given that God and state are separate entities (despite frequent evidence to the contrary). That's why I'm confused by the last paragraph from the news story:
"Some predict this will develop into the worst Episcopal split since the denomination was founded in 1789. And depending on the shape things take, a spate of church lawsuits may well result."
Lawsuit? Maybe someone with a more acute understanding of law could explain how the church could file any suits. On what basis? That consecrating a gay bishop defies the rules lain out in the Bible? I very honestly don't see what actual laws have been broken.
On a seasonal note, I hope you all had an enjoyable and, more importantly, safe Halloween. David, Andy, and I went down to Scott and the other Andy's place in Santa Barbara for the weekend. We fastidiously avoided Isla Vista, lest we be arrested en masse, until the day after Halloween, when we drove down the main celebration stretch to laugh at all the hungover kids walk home. Ubiquitous red party cups and half-torn sparkly costume butterfly/fairy/standard-female-quick-costume wings littered the road. It was glorious. On the night of the 31st we played Beirut, a delightful game of agility and coordination. Scott and I are currently World Champions of the World. Last night I further solidified my role as designated driver. My plan is to get my license in December, at which point my DD assignment will from then on be unequivocal.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
(This being my inaugural CalJunket entry, I will stick to the humorous. It is a little known fact that the squelch doesn't publish half the things I write, mostly because they aren't funny. I think most of the creative editors have had a slight bias against political humor, but that’s their prerogative. You make the call.)
Republicans find 300 billion in government waste
Tommaso Sciortino, Affairs Betterer
In a shocking revelation today Republican lawmakers have found a government department that has been wasting upward of 300 billion dollars each and every year that it has been operational.
“When our first tax cuts created a 300 billion deficit we explained that we would pay for it by cutting government waste instead of raising taxes.” Explained House Majority leader Tom DeLay, “Well, that’s exactly what we did.”
The government office responsible for this historically unprecedented level of waste, the Department of Betterin’ Affairs, is thought to have escaped detection for so long because of confusion between it and the much more well-known Department of Veteran’s Affairs. A relic from the New Deal, most of the Department’s 300 billion dollar budget was spent on “Just making things better…” said one newly unemployed staffer, “like sidewalks. Maybe they got gum all over ‘em… or maybe you see some guy and he’s got a bad hair cut… we’d buy that guy a hat.”
Republicans have not rested after their victory but have instead planned to pass more tax cuts. Quoted Grover Norquist, “We hope that at the current rate, no American will ever have to pay taxes after 2008. Also, the government will be so lean that it'll be able to run on the change that government workers find lying in the streets.”
(0) comments
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
NEWSBREAK: Democratic Party Dusts Off Pair of Severely Atrophied Balls
ALSO: Rebecca C. Brown Engages in Extended Third-Person Critique Describing Her Views on this Election's Viable Democratic Candidates
General Wesley Clark said today that the Bush Administration and, more specifically, George W. Bush himself need to take responsibility for their failure to respond to intelligence leading up to the September 11 attacks. (Full article here.) The comments of Clark today represented one of the stronger assaults on Bush's deception and incompetance by a plausable Democratic candidate.
(What amused me most from this article was this paragraph: "The Bush-Cheney campaign declined to respond to Clark's criticism, referring calls to the Republican National Committee. Christine Iverson, spokeswoman for the RNC, said Clark 'sounds exactly like Bob Graham, the failed presidential candidate from Florida who launched similar attacks against the president a few month ago, and was forced to drop out of the race because his message of protest and pessimism failed to resonate with the American people.'" So Iverson isn't saying that Clark is wrong, she's just saying that his views are unpopular. That's cute.)
Surprisingly enough, the cynical feminist Green with a strong disdain for corruption and pandering (namely Rebecca C. Brown) is relatively pleased with the Democratic candidates for the upcoming election. She even thinks that a few of the reasonably electable ones (Clark, Dean, Kerry) might somewhat represent her.
She does, however, feel that Dean and Clark each falter on selected issues. For example, while Howie (as she likes to call him) wants to protect women's reproductive rights, he also feels that the death penalty is an acceptable form of justice. Wes may present an overall liberal point of view (which will especially impress the American public because he is a four-star general and former Republican), he represents too steep of a compromise with the Right, according to Rebecca, on matters such as free trade and gun control.
Miss Brown would like to encourage all of her left-leaning readers to consider Dennis Kucinich, the Little Clevelander Who Could if He Was Only Given a Chance, for their Democratic pic these upcoming primaries. The author entreaties you to check out his fearless views (and facts) on the death penalty, the war on drugs, IRV, gay rights, trade, and many other issues. She feels that Dennis represents the most progressive and exciting option in the Democratic party.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
When they clean the street I'll be the only shit that's left behind
Bush is poised to sign a bill banning partial-birth abortions. I, oddly enough, am not wrangling up my picketing materials. But, though I think partial-birth abortions, which take place in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy, are ugly and should be discouraged, I don't feel that the law has any place in the matter.
By week eight into a pregnancy, the fetus already has a developing nervous system and will, even if the feeling isn't perceived by the fetus' brain, react to a physical stimulus. By the thirteenth week, the second trimester, the fetus has a fairly devolped nervous system and can move on its own volition. Premature fetuses that are born after only five months of gestation can survive, indicating that a "baby" has at that point been developed. I reluctantly say that I cannot support terminating the pregnancy in the second trimester, though nor do I feel particularly strong about this. Abortions in the third trimester, which represent only about 1% of abortions in the US, are fairly gruesome and should be strongly discouraged unless bringing the pregnancy to term would be harmful to the mother (or if it is discovered that the fetus will not survive through childbirth).
One very disturbing aspect of this bill is that it represents a stepping stone to the abolition of all abortion, no matter at what point during the pregnancy or under what circumstances. And by "circumstances" I am alluding to more than rape and incest; I believe that the sincere desire to not have a baby is a circumstance that justifies abortion.
What disturbs me most about the standard Republican stance on abortion is that they claim very ardently that they want to support a "culture of life" and eliminate a "culture of death." Wait, huh?! Is this not the political party whose platform supports the death penalty? The death penalty. Or the party (with congressional help from the pandering Democrats) that is currently waging a war in Iraq where Americans, Iraqis, soldiers, and civilians are being killed? (That's correct. I said currently.) Or the party who is more comfortable letting pollutants (pollutants that deplete the quality of and/or shorten life) into the ecosystem than regulating pollution and potentially stifling the economy on a temporary scale?
I don't belive Republicans are attempting with this bill to encourage a culture of life. At the risk of sounding radical or making a potentially offensive analysis (new territory for me), I believe this party's stance on abortion is rooted in anti-feminism and a distortion of Christian ideals (the latter obviously engendering the former). The word "God" has managed to litter the politics of the right to this day in such an un-Christian way. I have read Biblical texts for myself, and though I do not believe Jesus would support partial-birth abortions (if only we could ask him his stance on this, and stem cell research, and comprehensive admission standards for public universities), I also do not believe he would support putting criminals to death, or for that matter participating in any war.
The only good that will come of the soon-to-be passing of this bill is that the issue of abortion will once again, I predict, be taken to the Supreme Court and once again the Supreme Court will decide in favor of abortion rights. I don't know how many times the precedent will have to be set on this matter.
Dammit, I hate Republicans!
(0) comments
Elliott Smith dies in apparant suicide.
Plus, comedy show tonight at the Bear's Lair at 8pm.
Not that it's easy to get excited about a comedy show when one of the best songwriters of the last decade dies. I'm terribly sad about this. I just happen to have had one of his albums, Roman Candle, in my CD player for the last week. Come to think of it, probably not a week has gone by since I was 17 that I haven't listened to Elliott Smith. His music has had the amazing ability to console me in my down moments, despite his own meloncholia. This is very sad to me. I hope that if you haven't heard his work extinsively that you now give it a try. This is so incredibly disappointing.
(0) comments
Saturday, October 18, 2003
For those about to rock.
Yet another subtle reminder to check out the very good If Six Was Nine blog (ifsix.blogspot.com), wherein six sexy coeds offer their insights into the world of music. Also note that we now have a neat-o masthead at the top of the page with pictures of all six of us in alphabetical order. (That means I'm the one on the far right, kids.) My initial plan when I got into the blogging madness was to never let my readers (besides the ones whom I know in person) know what I look like. Well, now you do. Sexy. That's what I look like.
I'd also like to remind you that the Heuristic Squelch will be hosting a swell comedy show this upcoming Wednesday at the Bear's Lair at 8pm. It's only $5 for a whole night of laffs. Find us on Sproul.
What, by the way, did you all think of the most recent issue of our fine little humor mag?
Make to sure to celebrate the end of midterms responsibly. For example, don't celebrate the end of one midterm by ceasing to study for a week, only to remember that you have another midterm within the next few days.
I drove around the streets of Berkeley and Albany for the first time last night. I don't have my license yet, only my permit, but I am a very fast learner. I didn't drive when I was a teenager because I simply didn't have the money for insurance and gas and a car. (I, like a sucker, was saving my earnings for college. Psshh.) But now I'm an excellent driver. Definitely.
(0) comments
Sunday, October 12, 2003
Everyone's stupid but me
Also, pardon my hiatus.
A dangerous, covert terrorist lurks in our midst. A greasy, scrumptious terrorist. A capitalist terrorist who is poisoning Americans with its life-shortening and money-sucking death substance. That's right, it's the restaurant industry, and it's killing our nation's citizens with fat. Fat! Fattening fat deep-fried in 100% fatty fat. Or not. Who knows. Whatever.
This article is about how the three-fifths of RedWhiteAndBlueicans who are overwieght may have spurred legal action taken against the restaurant industry, who has facilitated rampant fat consumption. One option is to legally mandate that nutrition information be included on restaurant menus.
Every person (over the age of, let's say, thirteen, at which point if you can't cook your own dinner than you're a big loser) has complete control over what he or she eats, and every person has the option of asking for vague-to-specific nutrition information about the food he or she receives from a restaurant, so conceivably every person should know semi-accurately how many calories and fat grams he or she has consumed per meal, thus every person who is overweight has no one to blame but him or herself. Thus I think suing McDonald's or Chili's for America's obesity is frivilous and unfair.
But why not mandate that nutrition information, specific and accurate information, be available for all food no matter where it is being eaten? If people want to eat lard all day, oh for god's sake let them. But if some people ardently do not want to chug lipids for sport (and as a result possibly suffer heart disease, heart attack, diabetes, stroke, snoring, etc.), they should be able to have information assisting them in their pursuit readily available. There's no need to sue the restaurants that have helped this nation devolve into 250,000,000 corpulant turban-fearing cowboys (I guess they're only responsible for the first adjective), but there's also no need to withold information from the consumer.
An argument could be made by those of you who believe in individual self-determination and oppose institutional interferance with consumers' decisions. That argument might go something like this: "If folks are surprised that they're getting a spare tire after years of Big Macs and pepperoni pizzas, then they're big durfs who obviously don't understand how eating and digestion work. Man, are they big durfs." Hey, I agree with you. Especially about the durf thing. If there's one thing I can't stand it's a durf who doesn't understand stuff.
But I also believe that an informed consumer, perhaps even and over-informed consumer, is an ideal in a capitalist economy. Further, a citizen cannot truly be self-determining and free of interferance until he has every fact about what he is consuming at his disposal. Every person has the right to decide what is best for his body, so long as he knows exactly what is going into it.
[This is the part of the post where I reminisce longingly/disgustedly about my years back home in Long Beach.] When I was home for the Summer in the months between my freshman and sophomore years in college, I stayed in my home town of Long Beach for the season and chose to get a job at McDonald's because no one else would hire me for just eight weeks. As you can imagine, the menu at McDonald's hinges upon fat. I would leave that place with beef tallow caked between the treads of my non-scuff shoes. It's all fat. Fat plus more fat. Everyone knows that. Except kids. A five year old should not have to concern himself with calorie-counting when he goes out to eat with his parents. And it would be one thing if his parents took him for fast food once, even twice a month. But when you work full-time at McDonald's in a dense urban area, you come to see that some families eat there twice, thrice, four times a week. The parent are already obease. The children, through no fault of their own, are quickly on their way. They are being introduced very early into our culture of fattening foods. It's a culture where eating animal fats and proteins is encouraged for fear of anemia and/or sissiness, but I'd wager more on the latter. It's a society where convenience takes precedence over health. Most importantly, it's a culture that has developed out of ignorance, and it reproduces itself everyday because consumers aren't demanding to be informed.
If people could see, could read, could process with their own eyes that a medium order of french fries at McDonald's has 22 grams of fat (30% of your RDA of fat), or that a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese has 47 grams of fat (and thus that a #6 on the big picture menu gives them 69 grams total) as they're ordering then they may reconsider their options. Or not. Who cares. Let them eat fat. Just let them know how much.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
IT'S OFFICIAL!!
I now officially have no trust in the ability of the populous to elect the right people. I'm surrounded by 35 million doofers. Down with democracy! Up with highly centralized federal government!
On a lighter note, both propositions failed. Proposition 54 did not pass in any county at all, in fact. Even in Orange County, the coast's beacon of conservativism and illegal immigrant labor force, Prop 54 failed 51% to 49%.
In San Francisco County, Peter Camejo received about 1,300 more votes than McClintock. Yay! Gary Coleman got 21 more votes than drop-out candidate Peter Ueberroth. Yikes.
In Alameda County, write-in candidate Daniel Freedman received one vote. The Squelch Publicity Coordinator voted for himself.
Again on the lighter side, cheers to such high voter turnout. About 2 million more voted yesterday than a year ago.
On a curious note, how many of you were asked to provide photo ID when checking into your polling place? I was not asked, nor were any of the several other people I asked. Isn't such slack behavior conducive to voter fraud?
Here's how I voted:
Triple No plus Camejo.
I encourage you all to go back in time and do the same.
Here are all the exciting election returns from around the state!
New Squelch on Monday.
(0) comments
Sunday, October 05, 2003
Peter Camejo Rocks the Boat, My World
For those of you who didn't see Pete speak in Evans Hall on Firday at 6pm (which would be everyone on the planet save for about 400 of us), he was fantastic as always.
Seemingly the Green following in the Berkeley area is comprised of a bunch of hippies; who knew? Peter's appearance was hosted by the ISO, and apparantly socialists run on "commie time," wherein events start 15 minutes late (so much for the trains running on time), but the introductory speakers were few and brief and Camejo was speaking by 6:35pm.
In good third-party tradition, he came armed with some very indicitive and interesting graphs, including a chart showing that, when income and property and sales and all other state taxes are added together, the bottom 20% pay an 11.3% tax rate while the top 1% pays 7.2%. (Here's a link to that graph and report.) He also had a graph showing that taxes on corporations are as low as they've been since the mid-90s (I don't remember the exact numbers and I can't find Camejo's graph - I'd make a lousy political intern). Further, he outlined how the number of businesses in California is on the increase, as are their revenues; in fact, California's GDP was bigger last year than ever, which makes the current deficit that moch more amazing. In other words, Peter was artfully dispelling the myth so ardently perpetuated by Schwarzenegger and McClintock: that corporate and income taxes are driving the money out of this state. This simply isn't true! The Republicans may offer anecdotes saying otherwise, but emperical data cannot support the theory that California's current fiscal policies are forcing companies to move elsewhere.
But enough about the economy. The economy bores me to tears. (Luckilly, Camejo is a financial advisor and can find money exciting on my behalf.) What really incited enthusiam in me were Pete's invigorating stances on IRV and gay rights.
First, the latter: For him and the rest of the Green party, the issue of "gay rights" is not an issue. Gays are citizens and receive the rights thereof. No concessions, no compromises, no policies treating them as if they were legally different from "regular" people. Somehow, this is a stance that every plausable Democratic candidate (c'mon, no one's voting for Kucinich, and it makes me really sad) refuses to take, perhaps for fear of wierding out a good number of Americans, or perhaps because they genuinely don't believe gays are the same as everybody else.
Second, the former: I strongly believe that instant runoff voting would make government far more representative of the public's wishes. If progressives who like like the Greens or conservatives who like the crazy Libertarians or the nut jobs who like the wacky nut job Reformists got to vote their concience, these underdogs could receive the recognition they deserve and could further play a role in the political process, without their supporters feeling like they're "stealing" votes. I can't see any reason to oppose IRV.
Lastly, the previously unmentioned: Sumbit articles to the Squelch. Especially newsflashes. submit@squelched.com
(0) comments
Friday, October 03, 2003
RCB Guide's Cheers and Jeers
Jeers to Arnold Schwarzenegger for groping unwilling women. Jeers again to him for admiring Hitler in any capacity. Then again, maybe Adolf had a stunning physique that only Arnie knows about.
Jeers to Arianna Huffington for bowing out of the race. She was giving many Californians a good reason to go to the polls, and has subsequently abandoned them, no doubt under pressure from more likely victorious liberal candidates.
Cheers to Peter Camejo and Tom McClintock for not.
Cheers, further, to the people who made it possible for Peter and Tom to be involved in the gubernatorial debates. Cheers to a minor undermining of the strict two-party/two-candidate political system that limits the democratic potential of America.
Jeers to whoever decided to have the Giants' first three playoff games take place while most people are at work or school.
Jeers to midterms.
Cheers to the Heuristic Squelch, which stands as a beacon of entertainment in the face of said midterms.
Jeers to President Bush. For any number of things.
Jeers to "The Simpsons" for not being funny for almost half a decade.
Cheers to having all three seasons of "The Family Guy" on DVD to compensate for the previous Jeer.
Cheers to all the cool kids who run If Six Was Nine.
Jeers to this idiotic TV Guide format.
Update:
Cheers to Luna Bars, Clif Bar's high-density food chunk designed specifically for women. Each bar has 10 grams of protein (22% of its calories); 350mg calcium; 100% RDA of folate, vitamins C, B1, B3, B6, and B12, and some other stuff I've never heard of; and only 180 calories. Furthermore, Luna bars use no animal products, and because B vitamins are normally so difficult to find in large quantities in plants, these mid-meal snacks are ideal for us vegans. Yay!
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Heuristic Squelch sneak peak and entreaty for submissions
I'll let you in on a little secret....don't tell anyone....alright? Shhhh... The cover of the next issue of the Squelch is gonna totally zing Chancellor Berdahl! Zing!!!! Sorta. I guess we're not really zinging him at all. I don't even know any more. I'll be happy as long as the magazine makes reference at some point to the Chancellor's jowels.
We're getting started on our second issue of the year, and my prediction is of pure hilarity. Keep those submissions coming! submit@squelched.com.
(0) comments
Monday, September 29, 2003
Oh, Florida! Will you ever win?
In one of the more flagrant examples of defying a stupid law with an even more stupid (and harmful and disgusting) protest, the Florida band Hell on Earth (whose music I can only assume is sub-par... Can you blame me? They're called Hell on Earth!) plans to include an onstage suicide in one of their performances and broadcast it on their website. The groups is attempting to speak out against a new law in their city of St. Petersburg that prohibits physician-assisted suicide.
Call me old-fashioned, but I take life pretty seriously. So seriously that I won't even eat a crab, who probably has the neurological capacity of my left thumb. Furthermore, I take quality of life pretty seriously. So seriously that I refuse to drink the milk of a cow who was treated like anything less than a valued house pet. Thus, and I do not belive I am contradicting my previous contention that all life is equally valuable, I respect a person's desire to end his life if he is truly in pain and has no desire to continue living. But, in keeping with that whole "life is valuable" argument, I think the option of suicide should be evaluated and ever so carefully scrutinized with a professional physician and the patient's family or friends. I think the state has a right to legally mandate that its doctors discourage suicide and refuse to assist death unless there is no alternative pain remedy. But a terminally ill adult should have the final say on his condition. Therefore, I think it's a dumb law with good intentions.
There are no good intentions, however, behind Hell on Earth's stunt. Death is tragic and, moreover, personal, not commercial or sensational. If the group genuinely saw injustice in their city's law, they could very well work with health care officials and local politicians, armed with research and first-hand testimonial, to revoke the law. Instead they have chosen to make a mockery of the pain of suicide.
In unrelated news, I had a fairly successful trip to the dentist today. (If any of you with Delta PMI need to find a dentist in the area, I'd highly recommend this one. Berkeley Hills Dental Care. On Telegraph and Woosley. Not in the hills.) I had the base filling for a crown put in after a good 30 minutes of drilling. If any inordinate pain or breakage occurs in the next two weeks, a root canal will be my ultimate fate. While in my mouth, Dr. Nikfarjam also noticed that I need to get at least one of my sprouting wisdom teeth removed. I can't wait.
(0) comments
Sunday, September 28, 2003
Another blog for your blog-visiting repotoire
That's right. More words from me and five other students who love music enough to write about it. The title will be changed shortly, but I suggest you start reading now. Click here.
(0) comments
Saturday, September 27, 2003
CAL WINS: 34-31!!!!
(Rebecca Loses: Her Sunglasses; Subsequently Finds Them Between the Cushions)
Excellent game.
I hail originally from Southern California. Long Beach to be precise. A few of my high school aquaintences attended USC. They're now spending five times what I do for a comparable education. Not that it has anything to do with football. Just saying is all.
"Take off that red car!"
I viewed the game from the comfort of a frat house. A dozen or so alumni came over to the house for today's event. It seems the majority of frat boys age to become frat men. The Frat Graduation Package includes a baseball cap, khaki shorts, a blond wife, and a sense of entitlement. Just saying is all.
On an 80's flashback note, the Cal band is currently eating hot dogs at the frat after playing a few spirited songs for the brothers and alum; one alum requested "Lady in Red." Ouch.
(0) comments
Friday, September 26, 2003
NEWSBREAK: Doors of East Elevator in Eschleman Hall Opening Very Slowly
More news as it comes in...
(0) comments
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
ACLU declines to appeal recall election decision, diverts resources to delaying outdated and unreliable Christmas.
San Francisco, CA - The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided today that the unprecedented California recall election will take place on October 7 as originally scheduled, despite the contetnion from the American Civil Liberties Union that outdated punch-card ballots are less accurate than electronic voting systems and thus disefranchise thousands of voters from dense minority populations in six counties throughout the state.
The ACLU took today's ruling in stride, and shortly after the court's decision announced that they have more ambitious plans on the horizon. ACLU presidnet Nadine Strossen told reporters Tuesday that their next project is to delay Christmas, which the organization beleives is inaccurate and unreliable, and which is specifically unfair to minorities.
The case will be heard by the US Supreme Court this coming Friday.
Said Strossen, "Data from all around the nation indicate that poor and minority children are the most likely to receive crappy Christmas gifts, if in fact they receive gifts at all. In nearly every community included in the study, African American and Latino youngsters more than any other ethnic groups were the victims of pre-used gifts, gifts from Walmart, a piece of fruit in lieu of a real gift, or simply no gifts whatsoever. This is unfair. Absolutely unfair."
ACLU spokespeople are citing outdated equipment and profiling as the source of these discrepencies. According to the group, Santa Claus' sleigh, deer, and elves do not have the technology to serve every American child equally, prompting Claus to distribute his limited resources disproportinally to rich white kids whose parents have wider chimneys and superior cookies.
The group is asking for a six month delay of the holiday, which should give Claus and his faculty ample time to update toy production and distribution systems, including speedier, more ergonomically sound toy-building technology and more accurate electronic checking-it-twice devices. They are also requesting that diveristy training be legally mandated for each North Pole staff member.
Claus' spokesmen Jingle and Jangle deny allegations that his distribution techniques are unfair, and are confident that the court will rule in his favor.
(I'm not sure why I wrote this. I'm actually on the ACLU's side. On both issues.)
(0) comments
Thanksgiving is tomorrow, and probably most of you will be participating in some sort of family meal celebrating such. And chances are that as primarily male college students, you will be helping out with the baking and cooking (just to defy paradigms and all). You may be at a loss as to what to prepare for your loved ones. Here's a recipe for some surprisingly good cornbread:
1 1/2 c. cornmeal
2 c. whole grain unbleached flour (or white flour for a less hearty bread)
1/4 c. brown sugar
1/4 c. white sugar
1 tbsp baking powder
1 tsp egg substitute powder
1 tsp ground cinnamon
1 tsp (plus or minus) ground cayanne pepper (a surprising yet always well-received ingredient)
pinch ground allspice, nutmeg, and ginger
dash salt
1/2 c. vegetable oil (no trans fats, unlike in margarine)
1 3/4 c. soy milk (or cow's milk if you insist)
Preheat your oven to 400 degrees. Mix all your dry ingredients. Then add your milk and oil and mix thoroughly. You can either mix your ingredients in a big bowl and then pour it into a greased glass or metal 8" sqaure pan, or just mix the ingredients right in the baking dish (with the greater likelihood that your bread will stick a little to the pan). Then cook it for 45 minutes to an hour, depending on how broken your oven is. You'll know your bread is done when you can poke a knife in all the way and it comes out clean.
I'm also making pumpkin pie and a yam & carrot dish for the holiday; I'll make sure to tell you how they turn out. Happy Thanksgiving!
(0) comments
Rebecca C. Brown gives thanks on this the most thanks-inducing of weeks
It's the time of year when the last yellow leaves shiver off the trees (unless you live in Southern California, in which case all your trees have been replaced with convenient Wells Fargo ATMs); when turkeys outsell US Weeklys at the grocery store; when we Jews, Christians, and Christmas-loving atheists alike begin to splurge for our loved ones; when "The Year in Retrospect" specials begin airing a month prematurely; and when we are prompted to list in semi-aescending order the things in our lives that make us feel truly gifted. Here is a incomplete list of the aspects of my recent life for which I give the most thanks.
My family in Long Beach whom I miss so much. Sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night longingly to a harsh Berkeley that simply hasn't given me my daily dose of crazy. Sure, I can find plenty of substance abuse or aimless bickering on the streets, but it just isn't the same when that substance abuse or aimless bickering isn't sharing a 2 litre bottle of Diet Pepsi and a dry bean cassarole with you. In all honesty, I love you. You made me the creative and fearlessly opinionated rascal I am today, and I wish it were less cost prohibitive to visit you more often. Thank you, Lynn-Brown-Goertz-Gibson-Glowacz-Valejo-Meschek brood! (Thanks to the Dumans/Lauries for being my surrogate family for so many occasions.)
California tax-payers. Seriously, guys. Your help means a lot. You pay the taxes that go to the state Department of Education that goes to the Long Beach Unified School District that pays for my mom's health insurance that (until September 11, 2006) pays for nearly all my medical and dental costs. With your kind donations, I have a $0.00 co-pay on all hospital visits, a $2.50 co-pay on all prescriptions (generic or name brand), and I only paid $127.60 for a $1,200 oral surgery procedure. Thanks to you, I don't need to choose between medical care and my expensive food habit. You rock! (P.S. Thanks Karl Marx for the great idea in the first place.)
B. M. Patakas, DDS. My recovery from my wisdom tooth removal has been seamless so far. I'm especially impressed that you yanked out all four of them completely intact. (Now I just need to figure out what to do with that quartet of picture-perfect molars sitting in a little bath of water on my dresser right now.) I'll Rebeccommend you and your extraction team to all my friends.
The soy farmers of this fine nation. I don't know where I'd be without you. You've made the last six years not only tolerable but enjoyable. Now that I'm not allowed to chew for a few days, the milk and powdered protien of your distingushed bean has made a perfect base for my fruit smoothies and pancakes. Cheers to you!
The owners and operators of all my favorite novelty websites. Thanks, men and women of menwholooklikekennyrogers.com, cameltoe.org, homestarrunner.com, explodingdog.com, and foxnews.com! You're always good for a quick pick-me-up.
David Duman. You've proven to be the kindest, most loving person in my life the past few weeks, if not past year. I wish there were a more adequate way (besides stripping you of any anonymity or privacy by thanking you on my blog) to tell you how much your remarkable patience and giving nature have made me happy, especially since they stole the teeth out of my head. Some ladies and gents out there might think their men are top-notch, but they're all big suckers. I'm indisputably the luckiest of them all.
(0) comments
Saturday, November 22, 2003
It would take one pea brain, one unqualified man, one liar slipped into this White House to bring a decade of horror like none we have ever known.
The RNC (not President Bush himself) has decided to start spending millions of dollars in the primaries to get a leg up on making sure Bush gets the nomination. Or maybe they're spending this money to encourage Democrats to stay home during the primaries, which is ineffectual because a Democrat will be nominated even if only eleven Democrats show up to vote. Or maybe they're priming swing voters to jump on the Republican hate wagon before it leaves town. Whatever the motivation, it's a big waste of money.
This ad will start airing in Iowa on Sunday.
I'm on a Kucinich e-mailing list, and I think my good friend Denny had some strong and important words to say about the RNC's depiction of the terrorist threat on America: "The Republican National Committee is using money that derives largely from the wealthiest few in America to pay for advertisements aimed at keeping all Americans scared. We will not be frightened into submission. We will not forget the lies we were told about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We will not forget that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. We will remember that for the hundreds of billions we are spending on an unjust and destabilizing occupation in Iraq, we could have an investment in American education that would include free pre-kindergarten and free college tuition. We need to get our priorities straight and not give in to the fear-mongering. I offer America the hope of a new approach and a clear choice in the next election."
Similar attacks against the RNC's fear machine appear on the other Democrats' homepages. In pouring over websites and watching debates, I am very pleased to see the Democrats unified in their pledge defeat Bush. I'm inspired to see so many of the candidates, both viable and long-shot, resist the temptation to play the middle of the road. (Svae for Lieberman. He's a sellout.) My only fear is that when the primaries are over, the Democratic candidate's current dedication to a rejuvinated left will deteriorate into moderate (read "right of center") pandering.
Oh, and Go Bears. I'm not into rivalry at all, especially not in the athletic realm. The only grudge I hold against Stanford (with an "O" - misspelling has never equated to clever zinging for me) is that their tuition is through the roof and thus only kids with rich parents or exceptional sports abilities can attend. So that "Go Bears" was apathetic and obligatory. In fact, Go Bears, Stay Bears, Sit Bears. I don't care. So long as the Squelch is better than Stanford's "humor" mag the Chapparelle, I'm content.
P.S. My tooth extraction went very well. Only minimal throbbing in my gums and jaw so far. Luckilly, my cute boyfriend got me a Cuisinart food processer for our first anniversary just days before my surgery, so even the most challenging meals can be instantly transformed into soft food that my swollen mouth can handle. Like pasta pate. Actually, I'm sticking to friut and soy protein powder smoothies. Mmmmm.....isoflavones.
(0) comments
Thursday, November 20, 2003
Bad news and more bad news
A self-centered introspection into my personal crises
I thought the deadline to apply to go to dinner with Dennis Kucinich was midnight EST last night. I got my email in well before 9pm, but it seems the deadline was earlier than that. I even submitted a cute picture of myself. Rats. Well, I guess if I want to have dinner with Denny, I'll have to do so on my own dime.
On an unrelated note, I'm broke. Or almost broke, at least. My basic policy since entering college was to keep my checking account over $3000 at all time, just in case an emergency popped up. (Such as needing to pay for my tuition and fees before my loan check got processed, as was the case this past August. I'd never written a check for over $2900 before in my life.) I checked my balance about a month ago, and it might have been just a little over $2000. Today when I checked it it was at under $1200. The moral of the story is that my approximately $580 a month income that I get for working thirteen hours a week is only enough to cover rent and food. And just barely at that. My loan money ($5500 this year) will cover only my Univeristy fees. This doesn't leave much room for books, studio supplies, Summer tuition, minmal health care costs, or travel expenses to go home for the holidays. (I've opted to stay in the Bay Area the past two Thanksgivings and Spring Breaks to save money on air fare.) Admittedly, I like to spend money on gifts for my loved ones, maybe about $300 per year now that I have a boyfriend. Also, since entering college, I've probably spent an average of $30 a month on "frivolous" things like clothing, CDs, bakeware, soap, toothpaste, tampons, and the like. In other words, I'm not living the Jesus-esque life.
But from my observations I'm living much more simply and cost-effectively than many of my immediate friends. It's not that I'm bitter that a good portion of the kids I know at Cal have parents who are paying for their tution and books and rent and food. It's just that I'm...um...I think that...well...dammit I am bitter! I got a triple in Unit 1, not because I got stuck there, but because I couldn't afford any other option. Most of you will be walking out of this university with no job prospects. I'll be walking out of this university with no job prospects and $23,000 in debt.
Unfortunately, I'm not the only one at Cal in this shitty situation. We're probably in the minority, but we're here. I wish I had a solution. But I don't. The only way I can console myself is to think that me paying my way through school is a character-building experience; that my peers who have a job for spending money instead of rent money will have a bigger shock than I will once they enter the "real" world; that struggle makes you a more compassionate person; that the ones whose grandparents can afford to send them to Europe couldn't appreciate that vacation as much as I could as a poor person. But these consolations aren't fair and probably are not even true. I've got a bad case of reverse-elitism. Maybe the middle-class values and lower-middle-class bank account (namely the one with negative numbers) I inherited from my parents are only hurting me.
(0) comments
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Politeness vs. Truth
One of the lesser known fronts of the Cold war was the field of brainwashing. A couple returning POWs had inexplicably turned Marxists and the US military was interested in why. Several branches of the government worked on the project and in the end, the trick turned out to be no trick at all. A straightforward program of incarceration, isolation, and group punishment that would have been familiar to any prosecutor of the Spanish Inquisition was the best any captor could do. The reason the Communists seemed to have the upper hand was that they were willing to do things our American morals would not permit.
I think that the liberal-conservative meme war might be like that. For those of you not familiar, Berkeley’s own George Lakoff is part of the Rockridge Institute, a progressive think tank whose focus is reframing political debate through language. The idea is that Republicans have found political advantage by using a very precise language specially designed to frame things in a conservative light. For a specific example of bad framing see Nixon’s “I am not a crook.”
(As a better example, think of how Republican politicians always seem to keep the topic of discussion on taxes and “tax burdens”. That is a framing trick all by its own. Of course, everyone wants lower taxes. But only by mentally separating them from public services can Republicans hope to bamboozle people into supporting plans to undermine popular institutions like social security.)
It’s a good idea. But while it’s important that liberals have the right language to use, it even more crucial is the willingness to say it unashamed. What conservatives have, and what liberals really need, is the media with the will to deliver our message.
Conservative leader can trust any of a number of journalists to repeat their spin point or even to blow the cover off a deep cover CIA agent for that matter. Liberals have to contend with the regular media who seem to keep one eye on the news and the other on the number of angry letters they get accusing them of liberal bias. Fox doesn’t care about bias. The wall street journal doesn’t care about bias (or even basic economics if it gets in the way of their ideology). They probably don’t even get letters complaining of bias. Bias is a red herring and liberals should take their queue from conservatives and be unashamed of their own politics.
I’m not suggesting that Liberals stoop as low as Fox News (Michael Moore has come close). What I am suggesting is that liberals, and particularly, liberals in the media, stop letting their gentlemanly code of conduct prevent them from saying mean things when mean things need to be said. Otherwise we’ll all end up sounding like NPRs Terry Gross trying to explain how it’s politically balanced to give O’Reilly a hard time during an interview. (Answer: It’s not politically balanced. But it is the best way to treat a guest you believe is dishonest.)
Our country didn’t have to give up our morals or our freedoms to win the Cold war, but we did have to learn to give up our isolationist “everything is fine” attitude and take threats seriously. Aggressive, lopsided, and one-sided reporting from the right threatens to unbalance our informed electorate. Liberals need to stop pining for the polite old days of newspapers, and start getting the truth out there. We don’t have to compromise our morals, just instinct to be polite.
(0) comments
Monday, November 17, 2003
Only 37 hours left! Get on the Kucinich date wagon NOW!
Submissions to enter PoliticsNH.com's Go To Dinner With Presidential Unhopeful Dennis Kucinich are due by midnight on Wednesday, November 19. Here's why I would be the best candidate:
- I'm a damned hippie, but I'm also pragmatic.
- I love single-payer health care, and I can never get enough peace.
- Did I say peace? I meant peach. I love peaches. But I also love peaces. No, peace. I love peach.
- DK and I are both vegans, so eating dinner together would be a breeze. No Sizzler for us.
- I have a hairpiece fetish.
- I agree with him on all political fronts except affirmative action and bilingual education. (And believe me, the dude has a really long list of political beliefs.)
- We've both got cherubic good looks. Our kids would look like elves.
Also, check out this rad audio postcard from Willie Nelson endorsing Denny. Nice tanktop!
(0) comments
Sunday, November 16, 2003
Now that doesn't seem fair, does it?
Some numbers on blacks and marijuana.
Here are some fascinating charts about reported marijuana use among Americans of different age, gender, and ethnic groups. This is a chart of the percentage of black drug offenders in state prison.
For those of you who don't enjoy pouring over charts, here are some highlights:
- (Table 3.2) At the time of the survey, 9.9% of black participants had smoked weed in the last year, while 9.1% of whites had. (Among 18-25 year-olds, namely kids people our age, 24.2% of whites had used marijuana in the last year, while only 20% of blacks had.)
- (Table 3.1) 37.8% of white participants reported using pot during their lifetimes, while 28.5% of blacks had. (Again, look at the higher weed use among white people in our age group - 46.7% v. 31.6%.)
- (Table 3.3) The delineation in which the black pot use is largest compared to white pot use is among those who had used within the last month, and even then the proportion was low - 6.1% of blacks v. 5.2% of whites.
Now comes the crazy part.
- (Second link) 63% of drug admissions to state prisons are black, compared to 12% that are white.
Okay, let's think about this. America is 80% white, but only 12% black. Let's go with the least flattering figure for blacks and assume black marijuana users outnumber white users 6 to 5. Even then, in raw numbers, there are about 5.7 times as many whites using marijuana than blacks, so, by extention, there should be about 5.7 times as many whites in jail for weed as blacks. Instead, blacks outnumber whites over 5 to 1 on marijuana incarcerations.
In short, the criminal justice system is anti-black, for one reason or another. Those of you who doin't think it is can maybe counter my emperical data with a reasonable explanation. Maybe "Blacks love to turn themselves in," or "Blacks like to carry their weed out inthe open when they walk past cops." But no, it couldn't be that police are more likely to pursue marijuana use in black neighborhoods, or more likely to look the other way when a white college kid smells like pot, or that a judge is more likely to sentence a black person than a white person for the same drug charge. Of course not. This is America.
(0) comments
Thursday, November 13, 2003
An update for all my family and close friends
I don't often find the time to personally contact my loved ones and update them with my happenings, but in case said loved ones are reading my blog, here's a summary of the next few weeks' activities:
- Tue., 11/18/03: Paper due in History of Art. Stupid paper.
- Fri., 11/21/03: Wisdom tooth extraction (all four of them) with Dr. Patakas in Alameda. My two bottom molars have soft tissue vertical impaction, meaning my jaw isn't long enough to accommodate these teeth, so the back half of each tooth has grown in under the gum. Here's an informative diagram:
- Sat., 11/22/03: Be in a lot of pain from previous day's procedure.
- Thu., 11/27/03: Thanksgiving with the man-pal's family in Sacramento. As a swollen-mouthed vegan, I have planned to bring my own delectable T-day treats, including vegan cornbread, vegan pumpkin pie, and a healthful yet exciting vegan yam dish. Mmmmm...yam dish.
I hope you all feel as if you were right here with me. I sure do.
(0) comments
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Whither progressive income tax?
On the face of it, it’s pretty difficult to argue against the progressive income tax without seeming like a jaded jerk. The most handy argument for it is that a flat tax would mean way higher taxes for you (millionaires don’t read this blog so it’s safe to say that). Though it is the actual reason we don’t have a flat tax there is something deeply unsatisfying about this argument. Heck! I could just as easily argue that everyone who reads this blog should get free money from the government, but I think it too would assault our basic sense of fairness.
Of course, every single flat tax proposal made by conservative leaders (it comes up in congress almost every year) aren’t really flat at all. They aim to levy a flat tax on earned income (the kind of money you and I make at pizza hut) and lift all taxes on unearned income (the kind of money the rich make off of us when they use out student loan interest to buy homes in the south of France). Furthermore, even Republican leaders aren’t heartless enough to tax the homeless and those not making a living wage. Again, being “two-tiered” their flat tax isn’t really flat at all. Clearly then, you could easily argue against any given “flat tax” plan, but still, the platonic ideal of a flat tax is still there, floating in space: Wrong… But why?
It’s an issue of fairness. Sure, Bill Gates is a better programmer than me. Heck, he’s probably even a better salesman then me. But is he really 43,150,080.03* times better than me at anything? Even at darts, which I am exceedingly bad at? No, although it is plain that Bill Gates should rightly own far more than I do, we can also freely admit that what he does own is due in some part to good fortune. Of course, Bill Gates is a particularly deserving case. What about flat tax proponent Steve Forbes? His main talent is the ability to be born to outstandingly rich parents. Quite a skill. Then again, I’m a really good whistler but our society has decided that this particular talent, though also inheritable, does not merit multimillion dollar rewards.
The flip side is less dramatic but probably more common. While it’s difficult to get rich without deserving it (barring accidents of birth like our sitting president), it is very easy to not get rich even though you totally do deserve it. If you see Philo Taylor Farnsworth in heaven, thank him for inventing television, since no one ever did down here.
Of course, this doesn’t even take into account the people who are rich specifically because they are jerks (see John D. Rockefeller civil-war profiteering) and those who are poor exactly because they were good Samaritans (all the George Baileys of the world).
In the end, a progressive tax is (amongst other things) really just a luck tax. It asks of the most probably lucky ducks sitting on their piles of gold to kick back a little to us unfortunates. Until we invent that magical machine that can tell us how much each person’s soul is worth, we’re just going to have to trust to the law of averages.
* Ratio of my current bank account balance to Bill Gates’ net worth. Including my student loans this number is negative.
(0) comments
Sunday, November 09, 2003
Our personal connection goes deeper than idealistic liberal politics and diminutive stature
I discovered today that Ohio's favorite lawn gnome and Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich, like myself, is a vegan:
"Congressman Kucinich is one of the few vegans in Congress, a dietary decision he credits not only with improving his health, but in deepening his belief in the sacredness of all species."
Awesome! Then again, he's also really good friends with Shirley Maclaine, but nobody's perfect. Denny's biggest downfall is that he's crazy.
Crazy for equality!
I'm not going to stop vouching on K-Dog's side. I don't believe he can win, but I do believe that he can give disheartened Democrats an inspiring alternative in the primaries. I think he's helping many liberals who may have shunned the Dems remember why they or their parents were Democrats. I hope he's illustrating to a few million Americans that the two major parties don't need to be so eerily similar on certain issues.
And I love that big black rug he wears on his little dome. My step-dad Travis said that he looks like "an uncolored coloring book." Touche, Trav. Touche.
(0) comments
Friday, November 07, 2003
Sometimes It's Hard to Be a Woman
Volume Two: Keeping America (and God) out of my uterus.
"Every person has a special dignity. This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government, it comes from the creator of life." Thanks President Bush. Maybe he should have repeated this cute little maxim when he gave the final order to put over 100 people to death during his Texas governorship. I was also under the impression that, even if you believe life is derived from a divine creator, that law comes from the government, not said creator. But this post is about abortion, not about hypocricy or comingling of church and state.
I have no doubt that the United States government's most recent attempt to stifle a form of abortion will die a bloody death in the high courts. I am, however, frightened that this anti-"partial-birth abortion" (no such medical term exists) bill even got past congress. It bothers me that a few hundred men and women (oh, but mostly men) in Washington are attempting to dictate what occurs inside a woman's own body. I'm peeved that a rare procedure that is almost only used to protect the life of a woman or to prevent the birth of a baby who cannot survive outside its mother's womb falls under the jurisdiction of a select few, the vast majority of whom don't have the capacity to get pregnant, and the even more overwhelming majority of whom have no medical experience.
I believe this issue goes beyond the right's attempt to protect the health of fetuses. (Otherwise it would be illegal to smoke in the same room as a pregnant woman.) As I've stated before, I think this blind anti-abortion sentiment is rooted in a disrespect for a woman's self-determination. I believe that, subversive though this mentality may be, there persists an idea that the female body does not bear the capacity to take care of itself. Women menstruate, they have "hormonal" outbursts, they're physically weaker than men, they have bodies which are believed to be tied to nature because of their reproductive functions. The idea is that women have an inability to control their bodies (we can't really opt out of our periods without negative health repurcussions, and our hormones follow suit), and thus that men, and by extension the men in government (and religion), should have jurisdiction over the feminine physical entity.
Many conservative figures in religion and politics are attempting to get "morning after pills" like Previn off the market, claiming that life begins at conception, despite the fact that a 72-hour old embryo is composed of only a few hundred undifferentiated cells. (It's comparable to biting the inside of your cheek and "killing" the skin that comes off.) This opposition to the "abortion pill" (what a charming and inaccurate name) is based not only on a distorted definition of life, but also a resistance to grant women control over their bodies. If abortions are available quickly and (relatively) painlessly, so the argument goes, then women will have sex whenever they want without worrying about the consequences. Drugs that prevent implantation are not going to encourage women to have willy-nilly sex (as much as Pat Robertson would love to picture that); it will give women and men who made a mistake a chance not to give birth to an unwanted, unaffordable child. Also, given that fathers of unwanted pregnancies out of wedlock rarely have to suffer the same consequences as the mothers, it provides women with a limited opportunity to decide for themselves what consequences their bodies will suffer.
On a lighter note, when I gave blood today I got a free 15 minute phone card. Woo hoo!
(0) comments
Sometimes It's Hard to Be a Woman
Volume One Point One: Giving my stupid kids a last stupid name.
In addition to having a husband, part of my life-plan is to have 2-3 children (and a few dogs and cats). And my kids are going to need last names. (Unless, of course, they plan upon becoming wildly successful mono-monikered super models [I'm 5'1" - an unlikely event], soccer players [again, I'm 5'1"], or pop stars.) So whose will it be? Mom's or Dad's?
Ehhhh. Now I'm uncomfortable.
I'm not taking my husband's name. He's not taking mine. (To do otherwise, as I explained, would be dishonest to the pursuit of equality in a relationship.) So there goes that "convenience" (chuckle) of having a happy family with the same surname for all. But what of little Timmy and little Sally and little Habib? If they take "Brown" that would would be denying the other parent's contribution. Likewise if they take "HypotheticalDadName" instead of mine.
The yuppie option "Brown-HypotheticalDadName" might be cumbersome, but is it really that awful an alternative to perpetuating patriarchism? And the name Brown is like a pair of black slacks - it goes with everything.
But what happens when Habib Brown-HypotheticalDadName falls in love with and raises children with Dora McCallister-Rosenberg, and Habib and Dora are also progressive, symbolic equality-seeking Americans? Meet Phineas McCallister-Rosenberg-Brown-HypotheticalDadName. Now, the likelihood of this happening is slim. But that's pretty cumbersome. (Note also that by the time I'm a grandma turn of the century names will again be en vogue. My money's on "Horatio" as the 2050's anser to 2000's "Madison." Mark my words.)
If I give my boy(s) Dad's name and my girl(s) Mom's name, that creates artificial alliances. Same if I did the opposite.
Sigh.
Maybe the dude I marry and I can dole out last names in alphabetical order. If I have babies with Harold Agajanian, the first kid gets his name, the second kid mine, and so on. If I have babies with Grover D. Caterwaul, I'll get first dibbs. Like home-ice advantage in the hockey playoffs.
Oh Jesus. That's a terrible idea.
A good idea, on the other hand, would be for you to donate blood. Do it!
(0) comments
Thursday, November 06, 2003
You gotta fight for your right to get free cookies and orange juice
That's right kids. Blood drive tomorrow in Wozinak (I probably spelled that wrong) Lounge in Soda Hall from the morning to the afternoon. I'll be there at about 10:30, as will Paul. The two of us have a friendship based on the mutual love of Elvis Costello and giving blood.
There will also be "Get the Red Out" Big Game week blood drives from 9-4 in Pauley Pavillion on Monday Nov. 17 and Friday Nov. 21. Even if I were eligable to give on the 21st (you have to wait at least 56 days between donations), I wouldn't. Instead on that day I shall be getting four of my teeth hacked out of my skull. And I'm paying almost $200 for the honor.
GIVE BLOOD!!! First, you save some lives. Second, you usually get a free t-shirt (you can choose among large, X-large, and XX-large). Lastly, needles are way cool. Trust me.
(0) comments
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
Sometimes It’s Hard to Be a Woman
Volume One: The Name Game.
For one reason or another, as I’ve mentioned before, there seems to be a dearth of female participants in the Cal political blogsphere, among both blog authors and commentators. (I cannot prove that women aren’t reading, thanks to the genderl anonymity of IP addresses.) I won’t speculate as to the source of this disproportionality (though I may do so later). But I can say that as a female I might represent, however inaccurately, a woman’s voice to my male blogging peers.
One topic of debate, often though erroneously labeled as a “women’s issue” (as if any issue existed in a sexual vacuum), is that of a woman’s last name when she gets married. As I foresee my life, I will get married, and I will not change my last name. Is this some subvert (or overt?) anti-male behavior? Is it rooted in the hatred of men inherent to my feminism? Am I simply being defiant in an empty, symbolic way for the sake of defiance itself? Am I trying to piss off my husband? Or am I trying to eliminate the possibility of even snagging a future husband?
Well, no. First, I don’t hate men. Neither does my mother. Or my sister. Nor do my aunts. Or almost any other feminist. Here lies a great myth. Feminists don’t hate men. A critically thinking woman (or man) will, however, despise hierarchy in which women are as a group disadvantaged due to the social structure created by men and reproduced by men (and women). Second, the symbolic battles are often the most difficult ones to win. I will gladly combat symbolic repression with full zeal. Further, no symbolic triumph is empty. Lastly, no, I’m rarely defiant for the sake of pissing people off. (Maybe my parents, but never an entire gender.)
My visceral argument against changing my name is that my identity as Rebecca C. Brown, not as Rebecca B. Smith or Rebecca B. Jones or Rebecca C. Brown-Jones, has been in the works for over two decades (longer by the time I will be asked by convention to alter it by adopting another name). Though a name is little more than a word, I will entreaty my readers to think about the power of words and how language infuses social action. In this case, a woman taking her husband’s last name represents very clearly that her individuality and self-ownership (both physically and psychically) belong not to her but instead to her husband. Just as a father gives his offspring his last name (then adopts a role of authority over them), he so gives his wife his name. Quite simply, it’s nominal slavery. To make a less dramatic argument, it is entirely counterintuitive to equality for one person in a relationship to take the name of the other. I challenge you to assert otherwise.
Your mother or aunt or grandmother may have taken her husband’s name, maybe had children, maybe worked, or maybe stayed home. And despite relinquishing her symbolic identity, was perfectly happy and content. I will not disagree with you. I don’t think something as small as a last name can dictate a person’s happiness; however, it can contribute to her perception of self as a female. Further, the collective inability of women to maintain their last names defines in part what a woman’s role is in the family and in society in general. And though there are no laws dictating that we must change our names, if we don’t, we will, well, get a lot of shit for it.
(0) comments
Monday, November 03, 2003
Baby Boomers: Ticking Socialist Time Bombs
Here’s some brain food: I’m confused about “Starve the beast” conservatives’ plans to run government deficits in order to force a government breakdown when Baby Boomers start to draw on Social Security. Completely getting rid of the social safety net is open goal of a lot of righty policy makers. They see it as a way of promoting personal responsibility. But while it’s an interesting if risky way of enacting policies which a majority of the country doesn’t agree with, I wonder if they aren’t biting off more than they can chew? I mean, it’s all nice and good to force a showdown between low taxes and public services, but is it wise to have that showdown at the exact time that a larger percentage of the voting public is depending on social security and other public safety nets?
We’ve all heard about how the Baby Boomers are the “lump in the python” of demographics, slowly working their way to old age. But I wonder if anyone has tried to explain political power shifts in terms of this giant section of the population growing through different phases of life? Couldn’t you just connect the 60’s to the innocent exuberance of youth, the 70s with the disillusionment, the 80’s with the family man who just wants to make a buck and so on? Of course, this kind of touchy-feely analysis usually makes me sick to my stomach, but a good old fashioned statistical analysis could easily reveal if politics were being changed by increased representations of a particular age group.
Anyhow, it’s food for thought.
(0) comments
Sunday, November 02, 2003
What's next? A gay pope?
"The Episcopal Church consecrated V. Gene Robinson as bishop in a heartfelt ceremony Sunday, making him the first openly gay man to rise to that rank in any of the world's major Christian bodies. But while pageantry mixed with exultation in the ritual elevating Robinson to bishop of New Hampshire, it seems unlikely the church will hold together in its aftermath." (Full article here.)
I think my loyal readers shold be able to predict my view on the matter. I completely support the right of the percentage of the Episcolpalians who oppose homosexuality to splinter off from the Anglican Church. But they're being archaic and childish. I'm just glad that this matter does not have to be mediated by law, given that God and state are separate entities (despite frequent evidence to the contrary). That's why I'm confused by the last paragraph from the news story:
"Some predict this will develop into the worst Episcopal split since the denomination was founded in 1789. And depending on the shape things take, a spate of church lawsuits may well result."
Lawsuit? Maybe someone with a more acute understanding of law could explain how the church could file any suits. On what basis? That consecrating a gay bishop defies the rules lain out in the Bible? I very honestly don't see what actual laws have been broken.
On a seasonal note, I hope you all had an enjoyable and, more importantly, safe Halloween. David, Andy, and I went down to Scott and the other Andy's place in Santa Barbara for the weekend. We fastidiously avoided Isla Vista, lest we be arrested en masse, until the day after Halloween, when we drove down the main celebration stretch to laugh at all the hungover kids walk home. Ubiquitous red party cups and half-torn sparkly costume butterfly/fairy/standard-female-quick-costume wings littered the road. It was glorious. On the night of the 31st we played Beirut, a delightful game of agility and coordination. Scott and I are currently World Champions of the World. Last night I further solidified my role as designated driver. My plan is to get my license in December, at which point my DD assignment will from then on be unequivocal.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
(This being my inaugural CalJunket entry, I will stick to the humorous. It is a little known fact that the squelch doesn't publish half the things I write, mostly because they aren't funny. I think most of the creative editors have had a slight bias against political humor, but that’s their prerogative. You make the call.)
Republicans find 300 billion in government waste
Tommaso Sciortino, Affairs Betterer
In a shocking revelation today Republican lawmakers have found a government department that has been wasting upward of 300 billion dollars each and every year that it has been operational.
“When our first tax cuts created a 300 billion deficit we explained that we would pay for it by cutting government waste instead of raising taxes.” Explained House Majority leader Tom DeLay, “Well, that’s exactly what we did.”
The government office responsible for this historically unprecedented level of waste, the Department of Betterin’ Affairs, is thought to have escaped detection for so long because of confusion between it and the much more well-known Department of Veteran’s Affairs. A relic from the New Deal, most of the Department’s 300 billion dollar budget was spent on “Just making things better…” said one newly unemployed staffer, “like sidewalks. Maybe they got gum all over ‘em… or maybe you see some guy and he’s got a bad hair cut… we’d buy that guy a hat.”
Republicans have not rested after their victory but have instead planned to pass more tax cuts. Quoted Grover Norquist, “We hope that at the current rate, no American will ever have to pay taxes after 2008. Also, the government will be so lean that it'll be able to run on the change that government workers find lying in the streets.”
(0) comments
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
NEWSBREAK: Democratic Party Dusts Off Pair of Severely Atrophied Balls
ALSO: Rebecca C. Brown Engages in Extended Third-Person Critique Describing Her Views on this Election's Viable Democratic Candidates
General Wesley Clark said today that the Bush Administration and, more specifically, George W. Bush himself need to take responsibility for their failure to respond to intelligence leading up to the September 11 attacks. (Full article here.) The comments of Clark today represented one of the stronger assaults on Bush's deception and incompetance by a plausable Democratic candidate.
(What amused me most from this article was this paragraph: "The Bush-Cheney campaign declined to respond to Clark's criticism, referring calls to the Republican National Committee. Christine Iverson, spokeswoman for the RNC, said Clark 'sounds exactly like Bob Graham, the failed presidential candidate from Florida who launched similar attacks against the president a few month ago, and was forced to drop out of the race because his message of protest and pessimism failed to resonate with the American people.'" So Iverson isn't saying that Clark is wrong, she's just saying that his views are unpopular. That's cute.)
Surprisingly enough, the cynical feminist Green with a strong disdain for corruption and pandering (namely Rebecca C. Brown) is relatively pleased with the Democratic candidates for the upcoming election. She even thinks that a few of the reasonably electable ones (Clark, Dean, Kerry) might somewhat represent her.
She does, however, feel that Dean and Clark each falter on selected issues. For example, while Howie (as she likes to call him) wants to protect women's reproductive rights, he also feels that the death penalty is an acceptable form of justice. Wes may present an overall liberal point of view (which will especially impress the American public because he is a four-star general and former Republican), he represents too steep of a compromise with the Right, according to Rebecca, on matters such as free trade and gun control.
Miss Brown would like to encourage all of her left-leaning readers to consider Dennis Kucinich, the Little Clevelander Who Could if He Was Only Given a Chance, for their Democratic pic these upcoming primaries. The author entreaties you to check out his fearless views (and facts) on the death penalty, the war on drugs, IRV, gay rights, trade, and many other issues. She feels that Dennis represents the most progressive and exciting option in the Democratic party.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
When they clean the street I'll be the only shit that's left behind
Bush is poised to sign a bill banning partial-birth abortions. I, oddly enough, am not wrangling up my picketing materials. But, though I think partial-birth abortions, which take place in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy, are ugly and should be discouraged, I don't feel that the law has any place in the matter.
By week eight into a pregnancy, the fetus already has a developing nervous system and will, even if the feeling isn't perceived by the fetus' brain, react to a physical stimulus. By the thirteenth week, the second trimester, the fetus has a fairly devolped nervous system and can move on its own volition. Premature fetuses that are born after only five months of gestation can survive, indicating that a "baby" has at that point been developed. I reluctantly say that I cannot support terminating the pregnancy in the second trimester, though nor do I feel particularly strong about this. Abortions in the third trimester, which represent only about 1% of abortions in the US, are fairly gruesome and should be strongly discouraged unless bringing the pregnancy to term would be harmful to the mother (or if it is discovered that the fetus will not survive through childbirth).
One very disturbing aspect of this bill is that it represents a stepping stone to the abolition of all abortion, no matter at what point during the pregnancy or under what circumstances. And by "circumstances" I am alluding to more than rape and incest; I believe that the sincere desire to not have a baby is a circumstance that justifies abortion.
What disturbs me most about the standard Republican stance on abortion is that they claim very ardently that they want to support a "culture of life" and eliminate a "culture of death." Wait, huh?! Is this not the political party whose platform supports the death penalty? The death penalty. Or the party (with congressional help from the pandering Democrats) that is currently waging a war in Iraq where Americans, Iraqis, soldiers, and civilians are being killed? (That's correct. I said currently.) Or the party who is more comfortable letting pollutants (pollutants that deplete the quality of and/or shorten life) into the ecosystem than regulating pollution and potentially stifling the economy on a temporary scale?
I don't belive Republicans are attempting with this bill to encourage a culture of life. At the risk of sounding radical or making a potentially offensive analysis (new territory for me), I believe this party's stance on abortion is rooted in anti-feminism and a distortion of Christian ideals (the latter obviously engendering the former). The word "God" has managed to litter the politics of the right to this day in such an un-Christian way. I have read Biblical texts for myself, and though I do not believe Jesus would support partial-birth abortions (if only we could ask him his stance on this, and stem cell research, and comprehensive admission standards for public universities), I also do not believe he would support putting criminals to death, or for that matter participating in any war.
The only good that will come of the soon-to-be passing of this bill is that the issue of abortion will once again, I predict, be taken to the Supreme Court and once again the Supreme Court will decide in favor of abortion rights. I don't know how many times the precedent will have to be set on this matter.
Dammit, I hate Republicans!
(0) comments
Elliott Smith dies in apparant suicide.
Plus, comedy show tonight at the Bear's Lair at 8pm.
Not that it's easy to get excited about a comedy show when one of the best songwriters of the last decade dies. I'm terribly sad about this. I just happen to have had one of his albums, Roman Candle, in my CD player for the last week. Come to think of it, probably not a week has gone by since I was 17 that I haven't listened to Elliott Smith. His music has had the amazing ability to console me in my down moments, despite his own meloncholia. This is very sad to me. I hope that if you haven't heard his work extinsively that you now give it a try. This is so incredibly disappointing.
(0) comments
Saturday, October 18, 2003
For those about to rock.
Yet another subtle reminder to check out the very good If Six Was Nine blog (ifsix.blogspot.com), wherein six sexy coeds offer their insights into the world of music. Also note that we now have a neat-o masthead at the top of the page with pictures of all six of us in alphabetical order. (That means I'm the one on the far right, kids.) My initial plan when I got into the blogging madness was to never let my readers (besides the ones whom I know in person) know what I look like. Well, now you do. Sexy. That's what I look like.
I'd also like to remind you that the Heuristic Squelch will be hosting a swell comedy show this upcoming Wednesday at the Bear's Lair at 8pm. It's only $5 for a whole night of laffs. Find us on Sproul.
What, by the way, did you all think of the most recent issue of our fine little humor mag?
Make to sure to celebrate the end of midterms responsibly. For example, don't celebrate the end of one midterm by ceasing to study for a week, only to remember that you have another midterm within the next few days.
I drove around the streets of Berkeley and Albany for the first time last night. I don't have my license yet, only my permit, but I am a very fast learner. I didn't drive when I was a teenager because I simply didn't have the money for insurance and gas and a car. (I, like a sucker, was saving my earnings for college. Psshh.) But now I'm an excellent driver. Definitely.
(0) comments
Sunday, October 12, 2003
Everyone's stupid but me
Also, pardon my hiatus.
A dangerous, covert terrorist lurks in our midst. A greasy, scrumptious terrorist. A capitalist terrorist who is poisoning Americans with its life-shortening and money-sucking death substance. That's right, it's the restaurant industry, and it's killing our nation's citizens with fat. Fat! Fattening fat deep-fried in 100% fatty fat. Or not. Who knows. Whatever.
This article is about how the three-fifths of RedWhiteAndBlueicans who are overwieght may have spurred legal action taken against the restaurant industry, who has facilitated rampant fat consumption. One option is to legally mandate that nutrition information be included on restaurant menus.
Every person (over the age of, let's say, thirteen, at which point if you can't cook your own dinner than you're a big loser) has complete control over what he or she eats, and every person has the option of asking for vague-to-specific nutrition information about the food he or she receives from a restaurant, so conceivably every person should know semi-accurately how many calories and fat grams he or she has consumed per meal, thus every person who is overweight has no one to blame but him or herself. Thus I think suing McDonald's or Chili's for America's obesity is frivilous and unfair.
But why not mandate that nutrition information, specific and accurate information, be available for all food no matter where it is being eaten? If people want to eat lard all day, oh for god's sake let them. But if some people ardently do not want to chug lipids for sport (and as a result possibly suffer heart disease, heart attack, diabetes, stroke, snoring, etc.), they should be able to have information assisting them in their pursuit readily available. There's no need to sue the restaurants that have helped this nation devolve into 250,000,000 corpulant turban-fearing cowboys (I guess they're only responsible for the first adjective), but there's also no need to withold information from the consumer.
An argument could be made by those of you who believe in individual self-determination and oppose institutional interferance with consumers' decisions. That argument might go something like this: "If folks are surprised that they're getting a spare tire after years of Big Macs and pepperoni pizzas, then they're big durfs who obviously don't understand how eating and digestion work. Man, are they big durfs." Hey, I agree with you. Especially about the durf thing. If there's one thing I can't stand it's a durf who doesn't understand stuff.
But I also believe that an informed consumer, perhaps even and over-informed consumer, is an ideal in a capitalist economy. Further, a citizen cannot truly be self-determining and free of interferance until he has every fact about what he is consuming at his disposal. Every person has the right to decide what is best for his body, so long as he knows exactly what is going into it.
[This is the part of the post where I reminisce longingly/disgustedly about my years back home in Long Beach.] When I was home for the Summer in the months between my freshman and sophomore years in college, I stayed in my home town of Long Beach for the season and chose to get a job at McDonald's because no one else would hire me for just eight weeks. As you can imagine, the menu at McDonald's hinges upon fat. I would leave that place with beef tallow caked between the treads of my non-scuff shoes. It's all fat. Fat plus more fat. Everyone knows that. Except kids. A five year old should not have to concern himself with calorie-counting when he goes out to eat with his parents. And it would be one thing if his parents took him for fast food once, even twice a month. But when you work full-time at McDonald's in a dense urban area, you come to see that some families eat there twice, thrice, four times a week. The parent are already obease. The children, through no fault of their own, are quickly on their way. They are being introduced very early into our culture of fattening foods. It's a culture where eating animal fats and proteins is encouraged for fear of anemia and/or sissiness, but I'd wager more on the latter. It's a society where convenience takes precedence over health. Most importantly, it's a culture that has developed out of ignorance, and it reproduces itself everyday because consumers aren't demanding to be informed.
If people could see, could read, could process with their own eyes that a medium order of french fries at McDonald's has 22 grams of fat (30% of your RDA of fat), or that a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese has 47 grams of fat (and thus that a #6 on the big picture menu gives them 69 grams total) as they're ordering then they may reconsider their options. Or not. Who cares. Let them eat fat. Just let them know how much.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
IT'S OFFICIAL!!
I now officially have no trust in the ability of the populous to elect the right people. I'm surrounded by 35 million doofers. Down with democracy! Up with highly centralized federal government!
On a lighter note, both propositions failed. Proposition 54 did not pass in any county at all, in fact. Even in Orange County, the coast's beacon of conservativism and illegal immigrant labor force, Prop 54 failed 51% to 49%.
In San Francisco County, Peter Camejo received about 1,300 more votes than McClintock. Yay! Gary Coleman got 21 more votes than drop-out candidate Peter Ueberroth. Yikes.
In Alameda County, write-in candidate Daniel Freedman received one vote. The Squelch Publicity Coordinator voted for himself.
Again on the lighter side, cheers to such high voter turnout. About 2 million more voted yesterday than a year ago.
On a curious note, how many of you were asked to provide photo ID when checking into your polling place? I was not asked, nor were any of the several other people I asked. Isn't such slack behavior conducive to voter fraud?
Here's how I voted:
Triple No plus Camejo.
I encourage you all to go back in time and do the same.
Here are all the exciting election returns from around the state!
New Squelch on Monday.
(0) comments
Sunday, October 05, 2003
Peter Camejo Rocks the Boat, My World
For those of you who didn't see Pete speak in Evans Hall on Firday at 6pm (which would be everyone on the planet save for about 400 of us), he was fantastic as always.
Seemingly the Green following in the Berkeley area is comprised of a bunch of hippies; who knew? Peter's appearance was hosted by the ISO, and apparantly socialists run on "commie time," wherein events start 15 minutes late (so much for the trains running on time), but the introductory speakers were few and brief and Camejo was speaking by 6:35pm.
In good third-party tradition, he came armed with some very indicitive and interesting graphs, including a chart showing that, when income and property and sales and all other state taxes are added together, the bottom 20% pay an 11.3% tax rate while the top 1% pays 7.2%. (Here's a link to that graph and report.) He also had a graph showing that taxes on corporations are as low as they've been since the mid-90s (I don't remember the exact numbers and I can't find Camejo's graph - I'd make a lousy political intern). Further, he outlined how the number of businesses in California is on the increase, as are their revenues; in fact, California's GDP was bigger last year than ever, which makes the current deficit that moch more amazing. In other words, Peter was artfully dispelling the myth so ardently perpetuated by Schwarzenegger and McClintock: that corporate and income taxes are driving the money out of this state. This simply isn't true! The Republicans may offer anecdotes saying otherwise, but emperical data cannot support the theory that California's current fiscal policies are forcing companies to move elsewhere.
But enough about the economy. The economy bores me to tears. (Luckilly, Camejo is a financial advisor and can find money exciting on my behalf.) What really incited enthusiam in me were Pete's invigorating stances on IRV and gay rights.
First, the latter: For him and the rest of the Green party, the issue of "gay rights" is not an issue. Gays are citizens and receive the rights thereof. No concessions, no compromises, no policies treating them as if they were legally different from "regular" people. Somehow, this is a stance that every plausable Democratic candidate (c'mon, no one's voting for Kucinich, and it makes me really sad) refuses to take, perhaps for fear of wierding out a good number of Americans, or perhaps because they genuinely don't believe gays are the same as everybody else.
Second, the former: I strongly believe that instant runoff voting would make government far more representative of the public's wishes. If progressives who like like the Greens or conservatives who like the crazy Libertarians or the nut jobs who like the wacky nut job Reformists got to vote their concience, these underdogs could receive the recognition they deserve and could further play a role in the political process, without their supporters feeling like they're "stealing" votes. I can't see any reason to oppose IRV.
Lastly, the previously unmentioned: Sumbit articles to the Squelch. Especially newsflashes. submit@squelched.com
(0) comments
Friday, October 03, 2003
RCB Guide's Cheers and Jeers
Jeers to Arnold Schwarzenegger for groping unwilling women. Jeers again to him for admiring Hitler in any capacity. Then again, maybe Adolf had a stunning physique that only Arnie knows about.
Jeers to Arianna Huffington for bowing out of the race. She was giving many Californians a good reason to go to the polls, and has subsequently abandoned them, no doubt under pressure from more likely victorious liberal candidates.
Cheers to Peter Camejo and Tom McClintock for not.
Cheers, further, to the people who made it possible for Peter and Tom to be involved in the gubernatorial debates. Cheers to a minor undermining of the strict two-party/two-candidate political system that limits the democratic potential of America.
Jeers to whoever decided to have the Giants' first three playoff games take place while most people are at work or school.
Jeers to midterms.
Cheers to the Heuristic Squelch, which stands as a beacon of entertainment in the face of said midterms.
Jeers to President Bush. For any number of things.
Jeers to "The Simpsons" for not being funny for almost half a decade.
Cheers to having all three seasons of "The Family Guy" on DVD to compensate for the previous Jeer.
Cheers to all the cool kids who run If Six Was Nine.
Jeers to this idiotic TV Guide format.
Update:
Cheers to Luna Bars, Clif Bar's high-density food chunk designed specifically for women. Each bar has 10 grams of protein (22% of its calories); 350mg calcium; 100% RDA of folate, vitamins C, B1, B3, B6, and B12, and some other stuff I've never heard of; and only 180 calories. Furthermore, Luna bars use no animal products, and because B vitamins are normally so difficult to find in large quantities in plants, these mid-meal snacks are ideal for us vegans. Yay!
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Heuristic Squelch sneak peak and entreaty for submissions
I'll let you in on a little secret....don't tell anyone....alright? Shhhh... The cover of the next issue of the Squelch is gonna totally zing Chancellor Berdahl! Zing!!!! Sorta. I guess we're not really zinging him at all. I don't even know any more. I'll be happy as long as the magazine makes reference at some point to the Chancellor's jowels.
We're getting started on our second issue of the year, and my prediction is of pure hilarity. Keep those submissions coming! submit@squelched.com.
(0) comments
Monday, September 29, 2003
Oh, Florida! Will you ever win?
In one of the more flagrant examples of defying a stupid law with an even more stupid (and harmful and disgusting) protest, the Florida band Hell on Earth (whose music I can only assume is sub-par... Can you blame me? They're called Hell on Earth!) plans to include an onstage suicide in one of their performances and broadcast it on their website. The groups is attempting to speak out against a new law in their city of St. Petersburg that prohibits physician-assisted suicide.
Call me old-fashioned, but I take life pretty seriously. So seriously that I won't even eat a crab, who probably has the neurological capacity of my left thumb. Furthermore, I take quality of life pretty seriously. So seriously that I refuse to drink the milk of a cow who was treated like anything less than a valued house pet. Thus, and I do not belive I am contradicting my previous contention that all life is equally valuable, I respect a person's desire to end his life if he is truly in pain and has no desire to continue living. But, in keeping with that whole "life is valuable" argument, I think the option of suicide should be evaluated and ever so carefully scrutinized with a professional physician and the patient's family or friends. I think the state has a right to legally mandate that its doctors discourage suicide and refuse to assist death unless there is no alternative pain remedy. But a terminally ill adult should have the final say on his condition. Therefore, I think it's a dumb law with good intentions.
There are no good intentions, however, behind Hell on Earth's stunt. Death is tragic and, moreover, personal, not commercial or sensational. If the group genuinely saw injustice in their city's law, they could very well work with health care officials and local politicians, armed with research and first-hand testimonial, to revoke the law. Instead they have chosen to make a mockery of the pain of suicide.
In unrelated news, I had a fairly successful trip to the dentist today. (If any of you with Delta PMI need to find a dentist in the area, I'd highly recommend this one. Berkeley Hills Dental Care. On Telegraph and Woosley. Not in the hills.) I had the base filling for a crown put in after a good 30 minutes of drilling. If any inordinate pain or breakage occurs in the next two weeks, a root canal will be my ultimate fate. While in my mouth, Dr. Nikfarjam also noticed that I need to get at least one of my sprouting wisdom teeth removed. I can't wait.
(0) comments
Sunday, September 28, 2003
Another blog for your blog-visiting repotoire
That's right. More words from me and five other students who love music enough to write about it. The title will be changed shortly, but I suggest you start reading now. Click here.
(0) comments
Saturday, September 27, 2003
CAL WINS: 34-31!!!!
(Rebecca Loses: Her Sunglasses; Subsequently Finds Them Between the Cushions)
Excellent game.
I hail originally from Southern California. Long Beach to be precise. A few of my high school aquaintences attended USC. They're now spending five times what I do for a comparable education. Not that it has anything to do with football. Just saying is all.
"Take off that red car!"
I viewed the game from the comfort of a frat house. A dozen or so alumni came over to the house for today's event. It seems the majority of frat boys age to become frat men. The Frat Graduation Package includes a baseball cap, khaki shorts, a blond wife, and a sense of entitlement. Just saying is all.
On an 80's flashback note, the Cal band is currently eating hot dogs at the frat after playing a few spirited songs for the brothers and alum; one alum requested "Lady in Red." Ouch.
(0) comments
Friday, September 26, 2003
NEWSBREAK: Doors of East Elevator in Eschleman Hall Opening Very Slowly
More news as it comes in...
(0) comments
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
ACLU declines to appeal recall election decision, diverts resources to delaying outdated and unreliable Christmas.
San Francisco, CA - The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided today that the unprecedented California recall election will take place on October 7 as originally scheduled, despite the contetnion from the American Civil Liberties Union that outdated punch-card ballots are less accurate than electronic voting systems and thus disefranchise thousands of voters from dense minority populations in six counties throughout the state.
The ACLU took today's ruling in stride, and shortly after the court's decision announced that they have more ambitious plans on the horizon. ACLU presidnet Nadine Strossen told reporters Tuesday that their next project is to delay Christmas, which the organization beleives is inaccurate and unreliable, and which is specifically unfair to minorities.
The case will be heard by the US Supreme Court this coming Friday.
Said Strossen, "Data from all around the nation indicate that poor and minority children are the most likely to receive crappy Christmas gifts, if in fact they receive gifts at all. In nearly every community included in the study, African American and Latino youngsters more than any other ethnic groups were the victims of pre-used gifts, gifts from Walmart, a piece of fruit in lieu of a real gift, or simply no gifts whatsoever. This is unfair. Absolutely unfair."
ACLU spokespeople are citing outdated equipment and profiling as the source of these discrepencies. According to the group, Santa Claus' sleigh, deer, and elves do not have the technology to serve every American child equally, prompting Claus to distribute his limited resources disproportinally to rich white kids whose parents have wider chimneys and superior cookies.
The group is asking for a six month delay of the holiday, which should give Claus and his faculty ample time to update toy production and distribution systems, including speedier, more ergonomically sound toy-building technology and more accurate electronic checking-it-twice devices. They are also requesting that diveristy training be legally mandated for each North Pole staff member.
Claus' spokesmen Jingle and Jangle deny allegations that his distribution techniques are unfair, and are confident that the court will rule in his favor.
(I'm not sure why I wrote this. I'm actually on the ACLU's side. On both issues.)
(0) comments
The RNC (not President Bush himself) has decided to start spending millions of dollars in the primaries to get a leg up on making sure Bush gets the nomination. Or maybe they're spending this money to encourage Democrats to stay home during the primaries, which is ineffectual because a Democrat will be nominated even if only eleven Democrats show up to vote. Or maybe they're priming swing voters to jump on the Republican hate wagon before it leaves town. Whatever the motivation, it's a big waste of money.
This ad will start airing in Iowa on Sunday.
I'm on a Kucinich e-mailing list, and I think my good friend Denny had some strong and important words to say about the RNC's depiction of the terrorist threat on America: "The Republican National Committee is using money that derives largely from the wealthiest few in America to pay for advertisements aimed at keeping all Americans scared. We will not be frightened into submission. We will not forget the lies we were told about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We will not forget that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. We will remember that for the hundreds of billions we are spending on an unjust and destabilizing occupation in Iraq, we could have an investment in American education that would include free pre-kindergarten and free college tuition. We need to get our priorities straight and not give in to the fear-mongering. I offer America the hope of a new approach and a clear choice in the next election."
Similar attacks against the RNC's fear machine appear on the other Democrats' homepages. In pouring over websites and watching debates, I am very pleased to see the Democrats unified in their pledge defeat Bush. I'm inspired to see so many of the candidates, both viable and long-shot, resist the temptation to play the middle of the road. (Svae for Lieberman. He's a sellout.) My only fear is that when the primaries are over, the Democratic candidate's current dedication to a rejuvinated left will deteriorate into moderate (read "right of center") pandering.
Oh, and Go Bears. I'm not into rivalry at all, especially not in the athletic realm. The only grudge I hold against Stanford (with an "O" - misspelling has never equated to clever zinging for me) is that their tuition is through the roof and thus only kids with rich parents or exceptional sports abilities can attend. So that "Go Bears" was apathetic and obligatory. In fact, Go Bears, Stay Bears, Sit Bears. I don't care. So long as the Squelch is better than Stanford's "humor" mag the Chapparelle, I'm content.
P.S. My tooth extraction went very well. Only minimal throbbing in my gums and jaw so far. Luckilly, my cute boyfriend got me a Cuisinart food processer for our first anniversary just days before my surgery, so even the most challenging meals can be instantly transformed into soft food that my swollen mouth can handle. Like pasta pate. Actually, I'm sticking to friut and soy protein powder smoothies. Mmmmm.....isoflavones.
(0) comments
Bad news and more bad news
A self-centered introspection into my personal crises
I thought the deadline to apply to go to dinner with Dennis Kucinich was midnight EST last night. I got my email in well before 9pm, but it seems the deadline was earlier than that. I even submitted a cute picture of myself. Rats. Well, I guess if I want to have dinner with Denny, I'll have to do so on my own dime.
On an unrelated note, I'm broke. Or almost broke, at least. My basic policy since entering college was to keep my checking account over $3000 at all time, just in case an emergency popped up. (Such as needing to pay for my tuition and fees before my loan check got processed, as was the case this past August. I'd never written a check for over $2900 before in my life.) I checked my balance about a month ago, and it might have been just a little over $2000. Today when I checked it it was at under $1200. The moral of the story is that my approximately $580 a month income that I get for working thirteen hours a week is only enough to cover rent and food. And just barely at that. My loan money ($5500 this year) will cover only my Univeristy fees. This doesn't leave much room for books, studio supplies, Summer tuition, minmal health care costs, or travel expenses to go home for the holidays. (I've opted to stay in the Bay Area the past two Thanksgivings and Spring Breaks to save money on air fare.) Admittedly, I like to spend money on gifts for my loved ones, maybe about $300 per year now that I have a boyfriend. Also, since entering college, I've probably spent an average of $30 a month on "frivolous" things like clothing, CDs, bakeware, soap, toothpaste, tampons, and the like. In other words, I'm not living the Jesus-esque life.
But from my observations I'm living much more simply and cost-effectively than many of my immediate friends. It's not that I'm bitter that a good portion of the kids I know at Cal have parents who are paying for their tution and books and rent and food. It's just that I'm...um...I think that...well...dammit I am bitter! I got a triple in Unit 1, not because I got stuck there, but because I couldn't afford any other option. Most of you will be walking out of this university with no job prospects. I'll be walking out of this university with no job prospects and $23,000 in debt.
Unfortunately, I'm not the only one at Cal in this shitty situation. We're probably in the minority, but we're here. I wish I had a solution. But I don't. The only way I can console myself is to think that me paying my way through school is a character-building experience; that my peers who have a job for spending money instead of rent money will have a bigger shock than I will once they enter the "real" world; that struggle makes you a more compassionate person; that the ones whose grandparents can afford to send them to Europe couldn't appreciate that vacation as much as I could as a poor person. But these consolations aren't fair and probably are not even true. I've got a bad case of reverse-elitism. Maybe the middle-class values and lower-middle-class bank account (namely the one with negative numbers) I inherited from my parents are only hurting me.
(0) comments
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Politeness vs. Truth
One of the lesser known fronts of the Cold war was the field of brainwashing. A couple returning POWs had inexplicably turned Marxists and the US military was interested in why. Several branches of the government worked on the project and in the end, the trick turned out to be no trick at all. A straightforward program of incarceration, isolation, and group punishment that would have been familiar to any prosecutor of the Spanish Inquisition was the best any captor could do. The reason the Communists seemed to have the upper hand was that they were willing to do things our American morals would not permit.
I think that the liberal-conservative meme war might be like that. For those of you not familiar, Berkeley’s own George Lakoff is part of the Rockridge Institute, a progressive think tank whose focus is reframing political debate through language. The idea is that Republicans have found political advantage by using a very precise language specially designed to frame things in a conservative light. For a specific example of bad framing see Nixon’s “I am not a crook.”
(As a better example, think of how Republican politicians always seem to keep the topic of discussion on taxes and “tax burdens”. That is a framing trick all by its own. Of course, everyone wants lower taxes. But only by mentally separating them from public services can Republicans hope to bamboozle people into supporting plans to undermine popular institutions like social security.)
It’s a good idea. But while it’s important that liberals have the right language to use, it even more crucial is the willingness to say it unashamed. What conservatives have, and what liberals really need, is the media with the will to deliver our message.
Conservative leader can trust any of a number of journalists to repeat their spin point or even to blow the cover off a deep cover CIA agent for that matter. Liberals have to contend with the regular media who seem to keep one eye on the news and the other on the number of angry letters they get accusing them of liberal bias. Fox doesn’t care about bias. The wall street journal doesn’t care about bias (or even basic economics if it gets in the way of their ideology). They probably don’t even get letters complaining of bias. Bias is a red herring and liberals should take their queue from conservatives and be unashamed of their own politics.
I’m not suggesting that Liberals stoop as low as Fox News (Michael Moore has come close). What I am suggesting is that liberals, and particularly, liberals in the media, stop letting their gentlemanly code of conduct prevent them from saying mean things when mean things need to be said. Otherwise we’ll all end up sounding like NPRs Terry Gross trying to explain how it’s politically balanced to give O’Reilly a hard time during an interview. (Answer: It’s not politically balanced. But it is the best way to treat a guest you believe is dishonest.)
Our country didn’t have to give up our morals or our freedoms to win the Cold war, but we did have to learn to give up our isolationist “everything is fine” attitude and take threats seriously. Aggressive, lopsided, and one-sided reporting from the right threatens to unbalance our informed electorate. Liberals need to stop pining for the polite old days of newspapers, and start getting the truth out there. We don’t have to compromise our morals, just instinct to be polite.
(0) comments
Monday, November 17, 2003
Only 37 hours left! Get on the Kucinich date wagon NOW!
Submissions to enter PoliticsNH.com's Go To Dinner With Presidential Unhopeful Dennis Kucinich are due by midnight on Wednesday, November 19. Here's why I would be the best candidate:
- I'm a damned hippie, but I'm also pragmatic.
- I love single-payer health care, and I can never get enough peace.
- Did I say peace? I meant peach. I love peaches. But I also love peaces. No, peace. I love peach.
- DK and I are both vegans, so eating dinner together would be a breeze. No Sizzler for us.
- I have a hairpiece fetish.
- I agree with him on all political fronts except affirmative action and bilingual education. (And believe me, the dude has a really long list of political beliefs.)
- We've both got cherubic good looks. Our kids would look like elves.
Also, check out this rad audio postcard from Willie Nelson endorsing Denny. Nice tanktop!
(0) comments
Sunday, November 16, 2003
Now that doesn't seem fair, does it?
Some numbers on blacks and marijuana.
Here are some fascinating charts about reported marijuana use among Americans of different age, gender, and ethnic groups. This is a chart of the percentage of black drug offenders in state prison.
For those of you who don't enjoy pouring over charts, here are some highlights:
- (Table 3.2) At the time of the survey, 9.9% of black participants had smoked weed in the last year, while 9.1% of whites had. (Among 18-25 year-olds, namely kids people our age, 24.2% of whites had used marijuana in the last year, while only 20% of blacks had.)
- (Table 3.1) 37.8% of white participants reported using pot during their lifetimes, while 28.5% of blacks had. (Again, look at the higher weed use among white people in our age group - 46.7% v. 31.6%.)
- (Table 3.3) The delineation in which the black pot use is largest compared to white pot use is among those who had used within the last month, and even then the proportion was low - 6.1% of blacks v. 5.2% of whites.
Now comes the crazy part.
- (Second link) 63% of drug admissions to state prisons are black, compared to 12% that are white.
Okay, let's think about this. America is 80% white, but only 12% black. Let's go with the least flattering figure for blacks and assume black marijuana users outnumber white users 6 to 5. Even then, in raw numbers, there are about 5.7 times as many whites using marijuana than blacks, so, by extention, there should be about 5.7 times as many whites in jail for weed as blacks. Instead, blacks outnumber whites over 5 to 1 on marijuana incarcerations.
In short, the criminal justice system is anti-black, for one reason or another. Those of you who doin't think it is can maybe counter my emperical data with a reasonable explanation. Maybe "Blacks love to turn themselves in," or "Blacks like to carry their weed out inthe open when they walk past cops." But no, it couldn't be that police are more likely to pursue marijuana use in black neighborhoods, or more likely to look the other way when a white college kid smells like pot, or that a judge is more likely to sentence a black person than a white person for the same drug charge. Of course not. This is America.
(0) comments
Thursday, November 13, 2003
An update for all my family and close friends
I don't often find the time to personally contact my loved ones and update them with my happenings, but in case said loved ones are reading my blog, here's a summary of the next few weeks' activities:
- Tue., 11/18/03: Paper due in History of Art. Stupid paper.
- Fri., 11/21/03: Wisdom tooth extraction (all four of them) with Dr. Patakas in Alameda. My two bottom molars have soft tissue vertical impaction, meaning my jaw isn't long enough to accommodate these teeth, so the back half of each tooth has grown in under the gum. Here's an informative diagram:
- Sat., 11/22/03: Be in a lot of pain from previous day's procedure.
- Thu., 11/27/03: Thanksgiving with the man-pal's family in Sacramento. As a swollen-mouthed vegan, I have planned to bring my own delectable T-day treats, including vegan cornbread, vegan pumpkin pie, and a healthful yet exciting vegan yam dish. Mmmmm...yam dish.
I hope you all feel as if you were right here with me. I sure do.
(0) comments
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Whither progressive income tax?
On the face of it, it’s pretty difficult to argue against the progressive income tax without seeming like a jaded jerk. The most handy argument for it is that a flat tax would mean way higher taxes for you (millionaires don’t read this blog so it’s safe to say that). Though it is the actual reason we don’t have a flat tax there is something deeply unsatisfying about this argument. Heck! I could just as easily argue that everyone who reads this blog should get free money from the government, but I think it too would assault our basic sense of fairness.
Of course, every single flat tax proposal made by conservative leaders (it comes up in congress almost every year) aren’t really flat at all. They aim to levy a flat tax on earned income (the kind of money you and I make at pizza hut) and lift all taxes on unearned income (the kind of money the rich make off of us when they use out student loan interest to buy homes in the south of France). Furthermore, even Republican leaders aren’t heartless enough to tax the homeless and those not making a living wage. Again, being “two-tiered” their flat tax isn’t really flat at all. Clearly then, you could easily argue against any given “flat tax” plan, but still, the platonic ideal of a flat tax is still there, floating in space: Wrong… But why?
It’s an issue of fairness. Sure, Bill Gates is a better programmer than me. Heck, he’s probably even a better salesman then me. But is he really 43,150,080.03* times better than me at anything? Even at darts, which I am exceedingly bad at? No, although it is plain that Bill Gates should rightly own far more than I do, we can also freely admit that what he does own is due in some part to good fortune. Of course, Bill Gates is a particularly deserving case. What about flat tax proponent Steve Forbes? His main talent is the ability to be born to outstandingly rich parents. Quite a skill. Then again, I’m a really good whistler but our society has decided that this particular talent, though also inheritable, does not merit multimillion dollar rewards.
The flip side is less dramatic but probably more common. While it’s difficult to get rich without deserving it (barring accidents of birth like our sitting president), it is very easy to not get rich even though you totally do deserve it. If you see Philo Taylor Farnsworth in heaven, thank him for inventing television, since no one ever did down here.
Of course, this doesn’t even take into account the people who are rich specifically because they are jerks (see John D. Rockefeller civil-war profiteering) and those who are poor exactly because they were good Samaritans (all the George Baileys of the world).
In the end, a progressive tax is (amongst other things) really just a luck tax. It asks of the most probably lucky ducks sitting on their piles of gold to kick back a little to us unfortunates. Until we invent that magical machine that can tell us how much each person’s soul is worth, we’re just going to have to trust to the law of averages.
* Ratio of my current bank account balance to Bill Gates’ net worth. Including my student loans this number is negative.
(0) comments
Sunday, November 09, 2003
Our personal connection goes deeper than idealistic liberal politics and diminutive stature
I discovered today that Ohio's favorite lawn gnome and Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich, like myself, is a vegan:
"Congressman Kucinich is one of the few vegans in Congress, a dietary decision he credits not only with improving his health, but in deepening his belief in the sacredness of all species."
Awesome! Then again, he's also really good friends with Shirley Maclaine, but nobody's perfect. Denny's biggest downfall is that he's crazy.
Crazy for equality!
I'm not going to stop vouching on K-Dog's side. I don't believe he can win, but I do believe that he can give disheartened Democrats an inspiring alternative in the primaries. I think he's helping many liberals who may have shunned the Dems remember why they or their parents were Democrats. I hope he's illustrating to a few million Americans that the two major parties don't need to be so eerily similar on certain issues.
And I love that big black rug he wears on his little dome. My step-dad Travis said that he looks like "an uncolored coloring book." Touche, Trav. Touche.
(0) comments
Friday, November 07, 2003
Sometimes It's Hard to Be a Woman
Volume Two: Keeping America (and God) out of my uterus.
"Every person has a special dignity. This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government, it comes from the creator of life." Thanks President Bush. Maybe he should have repeated this cute little maxim when he gave the final order to put over 100 people to death during his Texas governorship. I was also under the impression that, even if you believe life is derived from a divine creator, that law comes from the government, not said creator. But this post is about abortion, not about hypocricy or comingling of church and state.
I have no doubt that the United States government's most recent attempt to stifle a form of abortion will die a bloody death in the high courts. I am, however, frightened that this anti-"partial-birth abortion" (no such medical term exists) bill even got past congress. It bothers me that a few hundred men and women (oh, but mostly men) in Washington are attempting to dictate what occurs inside a woman's own body. I'm peeved that a rare procedure that is almost only used to protect the life of a woman or to prevent the birth of a baby who cannot survive outside its mother's womb falls under the jurisdiction of a select few, the vast majority of whom don't have the capacity to get pregnant, and the even more overwhelming majority of whom have no medical experience.
I believe this issue goes beyond the right's attempt to protect the health of fetuses. (Otherwise it would be illegal to smoke in the same room as a pregnant woman.) As I've stated before, I think this blind anti-abortion sentiment is rooted in a disrespect for a woman's self-determination. I believe that, subversive though this mentality may be, there persists an idea that the female body does not bear the capacity to take care of itself. Women menstruate, they have "hormonal" outbursts, they're physically weaker than men, they have bodies which are believed to be tied to nature because of their reproductive functions. The idea is that women have an inability to control their bodies (we can't really opt out of our periods without negative health repurcussions, and our hormones follow suit), and thus that men, and by extension the men in government (and religion), should have jurisdiction over the feminine physical entity.
Many conservative figures in religion and politics are attempting to get "morning after pills" like Previn off the market, claiming that life begins at conception, despite the fact that a 72-hour old embryo is composed of only a few hundred undifferentiated cells. (It's comparable to biting the inside of your cheek and "killing" the skin that comes off.) This opposition to the "abortion pill" (what a charming and inaccurate name) is based not only on a distorted definition of life, but also a resistance to grant women control over their bodies. If abortions are available quickly and (relatively) painlessly, so the argument goes, then women will have sex whenever they want without worrying about the consequences. Drugs that prevent implantation are not going to encourage women to have willy-nilly sex (as much as Pat Robertson would love to picture that); it will give women and men who made a mistake a chance not to give birth to an unwanted, unaffordable child. Also, given that fathers of unwanted pregnancies out of wedlock rarely have to suffer the same consequences as the mothers, it provides women with a limited opportunity to decide for themselves what consequences their bodies will suffer.
On a lighter note, when I gave blood today I got a free 15 minute phone card. Woo hoo!
(0) comments
Sometimes It's Hard to Be a Woman
Volume One Point One: Giving my stupid kids a last stupid name.
In addition to having a husband, part of my life-plan is to have 2-3 children (and a few dogs and cats). And my kids are going to need last names. (Unless, of course, they plan upon becoming wildly successful mono-monikered super models [I'm 5'1" - an unlikely event], soccer players [again, I'm 5'1"], or pop stars.) So whose will it be? Mom's or Dad's?
Ehhhh. Now I'm uncomfortable.
I'm not taking my husband's name. He's not taking mine. (To do otherwise, as I explained, would be dishonest to the pursuit of equality in a relationship.) So there goes that "convenience" (chuckle) of having a happy family with the same surname for all. But what of little Timmy and little Sally and little Habib? If they take "Brown" that would would be denying the other parent's contribution. Likewise if they take "HypotheticalDadName" instead of mine.
The yuppie option "Brown-HypotheticalDadName" might be cumbersome, but is it really that awful an alternative to perpetuating patriarchism? And the name Brown is like a pair of black slacks - it goes with everything.
But what happens when Habib Brown-HypotheticalDadName falls in love with and raises children with Dora McCallister-Rosenberg, and Habib and Dora are also progressive, symbolic equality-seeking Americans? Meet Phineas McCallister-Rosenberg-Brown-HypotheticalDadName. Now, the likelihood of this happening is slim. But that's pretty cumbersome. (Note also that by the time I'm a grandma turn of the century names will again be en vogue. My money's on "Horatio" as the 2050's anser to 2000's "Madison." Mark my words.)
If I give my boy(s) Dad's name and my girl(s) Mom's name, that creates artificial alliances. Same if I did the opposite.
Sigh.
Maybe the dude I marry and I can dole out last names in alphabetical order. If I have babies with Harold Agajanian, the first kid gets his name, the second kid mine, and so on. If I have babies with Grover D. Caterwaul, I'll get first dibbs. Like home-ice advantage in the hockey playoffs.
Oh Jesus. That's a terrible idea.
A good idea, on the other hand, would be for you to donate blood. Do it!
(0) comments
Thursday, November 06, 2003
You gotta fight for your right to get free cookies and orange juice
That's right kids. Blood drive tomorrow in Wozinak (I probably spelled that wrong) Lounge in Soda Hall from the morning to the afternoon. I'll be there at about 10:30, as will Paul. The two of us have a friendship based on the mutual love of Elvis Costello and giving blood.
There will also be "Get the Red Out" Big Game week blood drives from 9-4 in Pauley Pavillion on Monday Nov. 17 and Friday Nov. 21. Even if I were eligable to give on the 21st (you have to wait at least 56 days between donations), I wouldn't. Instead on that day I shall be getting four of my teeth hacked out of my skull. And I'm paying almost $200 for the honor.
GIVE BLOOD!!! First, you save some lives. Second, you usually get a free t-shirt (you can choose among large, X-large, and XX-large). Lastly, needles are way cool. Trust me.
(0) comments
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
Sometimes It’s Hard to Be a Woman
Volume One: The Name Game.
For one reason or another, as I’ve mentioned before, there seems to be a dearth of female participants in the Cal political blogsphere, among both blog authors and commentators. (I cannot prove that women aren’t reading, thanks to the genderl anonymity of IP addresses.) I won’t speculate as to the source of this disproportionality (though I may do so later). But I can say that as a female I might represent, however inaccurately, a woman’s voice to my male blogging peers.
One topic of debate, often though erroneously labeled as a “women’s issue” (as if any issue existed in a sexual vacuum), is that of a woman’s last name when she gets married. As I foresee my life, I will get married, and I will not change my last name. Is this some subvert (or overt?) anti-male behavior? Is it rooted in the hatred of men inherent to my feminism? Am I simply being defiant in an empty, symbolic way for the sake of defiance itself? Am I trying to piss off my husband? Or am I trying to eliminate the possibility of even snagging a future husband?
Well, no. First, I don’t hate men. Neither does my mother. Or my sister. Nor do my aunts. Or almost any other feminist. Here lies a great myth. Feminists don’t hate men. A critically thinking woman (or man) will, however, despise hierarchy in which women are as a group disadvantaged due to the social structure created by men and reproduced by men (and women). Second, the symbolic battles are often the most difficult ones to win. I will gladly combat symbolic repression with full zeal. Further, no symbolic triumph is empty. Lastly, no, I’m rarely defiant for the sake of pissing people off. (Maybe my parents, but never an entire gender.)
My visceral argument against changing my name is that my identity as Rebecca C. Brown, not as Rebecca B. Smith or Rebecca B. Jones or Rebecca C. Brown-Jones, has been in the works for over two decades (longer by the time I will be asked by convention to alter it by adopting another name). Though a name is little more than a word, I will entreaty my readers to think about the power of words and how language infuses social action. In this case, a woman taking her husband’s last name represents very clearly that her individuality and self-ownership (both physically and psychically) belong not to her but instead to her husband. Just as a father gives his offspring his last name (then adopts a role of authority over them), he so gives his wife his name. Quite simply, it’s nominal slavery. To make a less dramatic argument, it is entirely counterintuitive to equality for one person in a relationship to take the name of the other. I challenge you to assert otherwise.
Your mother or aunt or grandmother may have taken her husband’s name, maybe had children, maybe worked, or maybe stayed home. And despite relinquishing her symbolic identity, was perfectly happy and content. I will not disagree with you. I don’t think something as small as a last name can dictate a person’s happiness; however, it can contribute to her perception of self as a female. Further, the collective inability of women to maintain their last names defines in part what a woman’s role is in the family and in society in general. And though there are no laws dictating that we must change our names, if we don’t, we will, well, get a lot of shit for it.
(0) comments
Monday, November 03, 2003
Baby Boomers: Ticking Socialist Time Bombs
Here’s some brain food: I’m confused about “Starve the beast” conservatives’ plans to run government deficits in order to force a government breakdown when Baby Boomers start to draw on Social Security. Completely getting rid of the social safety net is open goal of a lot of righty policy makers. They see it as a way of promoting personal responsibility. But while it’s an interesting if risky way of enacting policies which a majority of the country doesn’t agree with, I wonder if they aren’t biting off more than they can chew? I mean, it’s all nice and good to force a showdown between low taxes and public services, but is it wise to have that showdown at the exact time that a larger percentage of the voting public is depending on social security and other public safety nets?
We’ve all heard about how the Baby Boomers are the “lump in the python” of demographics, slowly working their way to old age. But I wonder if anyone has tried to explain political power shifts in terms of this giant section of the population growing through different phases of life? Couldn’t you just connect the 60’s to the innocent exuberance of youth, the 70s with the disillusionment, the 80’s with the family man who just wants to make a buck and so on? Of course, this kind of touchy-feely analysis usually makes me sick to my stomach, but a good old fashioned statistical analysis could easily reveal if politics were being changed by increased representations of a particular age group.
Anyhow, it’s food for thought.
(0) comments
Sunday, November 02, 2003
What's next? A gay pope?
"The Episcopal Church consecrated V. Gene Robinson as bishop in a heartfelt ceremony Sunday, making him the first openly gay man to rise to that rank in any of the world's major Christian bodies. But while pageantry mixed with exultation in the ritual elevating Robinson to bishop of New Hampshire, it seems unlikely the church will hold together in its aftermath." (Full article here.)
I think my loyal readers shold be able to predict my view on the matter. I completely support the right of the percentage of the Episcolpalians who oppose homosexuality to splinter off from the Anglican Church. But they're being archaic and childish. I'm just glad that this matter does not have to be mediated by law, given that God and state are separate entities (despite frequent evidence to the contrary). That's why I'm confused by the last paragraph from the news story:
"Some predict this will develop into the worst Episcopal split since the denomination was founded in 1789. And depending on the shape things take, a spate of church lawsuits may well result."
Lawsuit? Maybe someone with a more acute understanding of law could explain how the church could file any suits. On what basis? That consecrating a gay bishop defies the rules lain out in the Bible? I very honestly don't see what actual laws have been broken.
On a seasonal note, I hope you all had an enjoyable and, more importantly, safe Halloween. David, Andy, and I went down to Scott and the other Andy's place in Santa Barbara for the weekend. We fastidiously avoided Isla Vista, lest we be arrested en masse, until the day after Halloween, when we drove down the main celebration stretch to laugh at all the hungover kids walk home. Ubiquitous red party cups and half-torn sparkly costume butterfly/fairy/standard-female-quick-costume wings littered the road. It was glorious. On the night of the 31st we played Beirut, a delightful game of agility and coordination. Scott and I are currently World Champions of the World. Last night I further solidified my role as designated driver. My plan is to get my license in December, at which point my DD assignment will from then on be unequivocal.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
(This being my inaugural CalJunket entry, I will stick to the humorous. It is a little known fact that the squelch doesn't publish half the things I write, mostly because they aren't funny. I think most of the creative editors have had a slight bias against political humor, but that’s their prerogative. You make the call.)
Republicans find 300 billion in government waste
Tommaso Sciortino, Affairs Betterer
In a shocking revelation today Republican lawmakers have found a government department that has been wasting upward of 300 billion dollars each and every year that it has been operational.
“When our first tax cuts created a 300 billion deficit we explained that we would pay for it by cutting government waste instead of raising taxes.” Explained House Majority leader Tom DeLay, “Well, that’s exactly what we did.”
The government office responsible for this historically unprecedented level of waste, the Department of Betterin’ Affairs, is thought to have escaped detection for so long because of confusion between it and the much more well-known Department of Veteran’s Affairs. A relic from the New Deal, most of the Department’s 300 billion dollar budget was spent on “Just making things better…” said one newly unemployed staffer, “like sidewalks. Maybe they got gum all over ‘em… or maybe you see some guy and he’s got a bad hair cut… we’d buy that guy a hat.”
Republicans have not rested after their victory but have instead planned to pass more tax cuts. Quoted Grover Norquist, “We hope that at the current rate, no American will ever have to pay taxes after 2008. Also, the government will be so lean that it'll be able to run on the change that government workers find lying in the streets.”
(0) comments
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
NEWSBREAK: Democratic Party Dusts Off Pair of Severely Atrophied Balls
ALSO: Rebecca C. Brown Engages in Extended Third-Person Critique Describing Her Views on this Election's Viable Democratic Candidates
General Wesley Clark said today that the Bush Administration and, more specifically, George W. Bush himself need to take responsibility for their failure to respond to intelligence leading up to the September 11 attacks. (Full article here.) The comments of Clark today represented one of the stronger assaults on Bush's deception and incompetance by a plausable Democratic candidate.
(What amused me most from this article was this paragraph: "The Bush-Cheney campaign declined to respond to Clark's criticism, referring calls to the Republican National Committee. Christine Iverson, spokeswoman for the RNC, said Clark 'sounds exactly like Bob Graham, the failed presidential candidate from Florida who launched similar attacks against the president a few month ago, and was forced to drop out of the race because his message of protest and pessimism failed to resonate with the American people.'" So Iverson isn't saying that Clark is wrong, she's just saying that his views are unpopular. That's cute.)
Surprisingly enough, the cynical feminist Green with a strong disdain for corruption and pandering (namely Rebecca C. Brown) is relatively pleased with the Democratic candidates for the upcoming election. She even thinks that a few of the reasonably electable ones (Clark, Dean, Kerry) might somewhat represent her.
She does, however, feel that Dean and Clark each falter on selected issues. For example, while Howie (as she likes to call him) wants to protect women's reproductive rights, he also feels that the death penalty is an acceptable form of justice. Wes may present an overall liberal point of view (which will especially impress the American public because he is a four-star general and former Republican), he represents too steep of a compromise with the Right, according to Rebecca, on matters such as free trade and gun control.
Miss Brown would like to encourage all of her left-leaning readers to consider Dennis Kucinich, the Little Clevelander Who Could if He Was Only Given a Chance, for their Democratic pic these upcoming primaries. The author entreaties you to check out his fearless views (and facts) on the death penalty, the war on drugs, IRV, gay rights, trade, and many other issues. She feels that Dennis represents the most progressive and exciting option in the Democratic party.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
When they clean the street I'll be the only shit that's left behind
Bush is poised to sign a bill banning partial-birth abortions. I, oddly enough, am not wrangling up my picketing materials. But, though I think partial-birth abortions, which take place in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy, are ugly and should be discouraged, I don't feel that the law has any place in the matter.
By week eight into a pregnancy, the fetus already has a developing nervous system and will, even if the feeling isn't perceived by the fetus' brain, react to a physical stimulus. By the thirteenth week, the second trimester, the fetus has a fairly devolped nervous system and can move on its own volition. Premature fetuses that are born after only five months of gestation can survive, indicating that a "baby" has at that point been developed. I reluctantly say that I cannot support terminating the pregnancy in the second trimester, though nor do I feel particularly strong about this. Abortions in the third trimester, which represent only about 1% of abortions in the US, are fairly gruesome and should be strongly discouraged unless bringing the pregnancy to term would be harmful to the mother (or if it is discovered that the fetus will not survive through childbirth).
One very disturbing aspect of this bill is that it represents a stepping stone to the abolition of all abortion, no matter at what point during the pregnancy or under what circumstances. And by "circumstances" I am alluding to more than rape and incest; I believe that the sincere desire to not have a baby is a circumstance that justifies abortion.
What disturbs me most about the standard Republican stance on abortion is that they claim very ardently that they want to support a "culture of life" and eliminate a "culture of death." Wait, huh?! Is this not the political party whose platform supports the death penalty? The death penalty. Or the party (with congressional help from the pandering Democrats) that is currently waging a war in Iraq where Americans, Iraqis, soldiers, and civilians are being killed? (That's correct. I said currently.) Or the party who is more comfortable letting pollutants (pollutants that deplete the quality of and/or shorten life) into the ecosystem than regulating pollution and potentially stifling the economy on a temporary scale?
I don't belive Republicans are attempting with this bill to encourage a culture of life. At the risk of sounding radical or making a potentially offensive analysis (new territory for me), I believe this party's stance on abortion is rooted in anti-feminism and a distortion of Christian ideals (the latter obviously engendering the former). The word "God" has managed to litter the politics of the right to this day in such an un-Christian way. I have read Biblical texts for myself, and though I do not believe Jesus would support partial-birth abortions (if only we could ask him his stance on this, and stem cell research, and comprehensive admission standards for public universities), I also do not believe he would support putting criminals to death, or for that matter participating in any war.
The only good that will come of the soon-to-be passing of this bill is that the issue of abortion will once again, I predict, be taken to the Supreme Court and once again the Supreme Court will decide in favor of abortion rights. I don't know how many times the precedent will have to be set on this matter.
Dammit, I hate Republicans!
(0) comments
Elliott Smith dies in apparant suicide.
Plus, comedy show tonight at the Bear's Lair at 8pm.
Not that it's easy to get excited about a comedy show when one of the best songwriters of the last decade dies. I'm terribly sad about this. I just happen to have had one of his albums, Roman Candle, in my CD player for the last week. Come to think of it, probably not a week has gone by since I was 17 that I haven't listened to Elliott Smith. His music has had the amazing ability to console me in my down moments, despite his own meloncholia. This is very sad to me. I hope that if you haven't heard his work extinsively that you now give it a try. This is so incredibly disappointing.
(0) comments
Saturday, October 18, 2003
For those about to rock.
Yet another subtle reminder to check out the very good If Six Was Nine blog (ifsix.blogspot.com), wherein six sexy coeds offer their insights into the world of music. Also note that we now have a neat-o masthead at the top of the page with pictures of all six of us in alphabetical order. (That means I'm the one on the far right, kids.) My initial plan when I got into the blogging madness was to never let my readers (besides the ones whom I know in person) know what I look like. Well, now you do. Sexy. That's what I look like.
I'd also like to remind you that the Heuristic Squelch will be hosting a swell comedy show this upcoming Wednesday at the Bear's Lair at 8pm. It's only $5 for a whole night of laffs. Find us on Sproul.
What, by the way, did you all think of the most recent issue of our fine little humor mag?
Make to sure to celebrate the end of midterms responsibly. For example, don't celebrate the end of one midterm by ceasing to study for a week, only to remember that you have another midterm within the next few days.
I drove around the streets of Berkeley and Albany for the first time last night. I don't have my license yet, only my permit, but I am a very fast learner. I didn't drive when I was a teenager because I simply didn't have the money for insurance and gas and a car. (I, like a sucker, was saving my earnings for college. Psshh.) But now I'm an excellent driver. Definitely.
(0) comments
Sunday, October 12, 2003
Everyone's stupid but me
Also, pardon my hiatus.
A dangerous, covert terrorist lurks in our midst. A greasy, scrumptious terrorist. A capitalist terrorist who is poisoning Americans with its life-shortening and money-sucking death substance. That's right, it's the restaurant industry, and it's killing our nation's citizens with fat. Fat! Fattening fat deep-fried in 100% fatty fat. Or not. Who knows. Whatever.
This article is about how the three-fifths of RedWhiteAndBlueicans who are overwieght may have spurred legal action taken against the restaurant industry, who has facilitated rampant fat consumption. One option is to legally mandate that nutrition information be included on restaurant menus.
Every person (over the age of, let's say, thirteen, at which point if you can't cook your own dinner than you're a big loser) has complete control over what he or she eats, and every person has the option of asking for vague-to-specific nutrition information about the food he or she receives from a restaurant, so conceivably every person should know semi-accurately how many calories and fat grams he or she has consumed per meal, thus every person who is overweight has no one to blame but him or herself. Thus I think suing McDonald's or Chili's for America's obesity is frivilous and unfair.
But why not mandate that nutrition information, specific and accurate information, be available for all food no matter where it is being eaten? If people want to eat lard all day, oh for god's sake let them. But if some people ardently do not want to chug lipids for sport (and as a result possibly suffer heart disease, heart attack, diabetes, stroke, snoring, etc.), they should be able to have information assisting them in their pursuit readily available. There's no need to sue the restaurants that have helped this nation devolve into 250,000,000 corpulant turban-fearing cowboys (I guess they're only responsible for the first adjective), but there's also no need to withold information from the consumer.
An argument could be made by those of you who believe in individual self-determination and oppose institutional interferance with consumers' decisions. That argument might go something like this: "If folks are surprised that they're getting a spare tire after years of Big Macs and pepperoni pizzas, then they're big durfs who obviously don't understand how eating and digestion work. Man, are they big durfs." Hey, I agree with you. Especially about the durf thing. If there's one thing I can't stand it's a durf who doesn't understand stuff.
But I also believe that an informed consumer, perhaps even and over-informed consumer, is an ideal in a capitalist economy. Further, a citizen cannot truly be self-determining and free of interferance until he has every fact about what he is consuming at his disposal. Every person has the right to decide what is best for his body, so long as he knows exactly what is going into it.
[This is the part of the post where I reminisce longingly/disgustedly about my years back home in Long Beach.] When I was home for the Summer in the months between my freshman and sophomore years in college, I stayed in my home town of Long Beach for the season and chose to get a job at McDonald's because no one else would hire me for just eight weeks. As you can imagine, the menu at McDonald's hinges upon fat. I would leave that place with beef tallow caked between the treads of my non-scuff shoes. It's all fat. Fat plus more fat. Everyone knows that. Except kids. A five year old should not have to concern himself with calorie-counting when he goes out to eat with his parents. And it would be one thing if his parents took him for fast food once, even twice a month. But when you work full-time at McDonald's in a dense urban area, you come to see that some families eat there twice, thrice, four times a week. The parent are already obease. The children, through no fault of their own, are quickly on their way. They are being introduced very early into our culture of fattening foods. It's a culture where eating animal fats and proteins is encouraged for fear of anemia and/or sissiness, but I'd wager more on the latter. It's a society where convenience takes precedence over health. Most importantly, it's a culture that has developed out of ignorance, and it reproduces itself everyday because consumers aren't demanding to be informed.
If people could see, could read, could process with their own eyes that a medium order of french fries at McDonald's has 22 grams of fat (30% of your RDA of fat), or that a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese has 47 grams of fat (and thus that a #6 on the big picture menu gives them 69 grams total) as they're ordering then they may reconsider their options. Or not. Who cares. Let them eat fat. Just let them know how much.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
IT'S OFFICIAL!!
I now officially have no trust in the ability of the populous to elect the right people. I'm surrounded by 35 million doofers. Down with democracy! Up with highly centralized federal government!
On a lighter note, both propositions failed. Proposition 54 did not pass in any county at all, in fact. Even in Orange County, the coast's beacon of conservativism and illegal immigrant labor force, Prop 54 failed 51% to 49%.
In San Francisco County, Peter Camejo received about 1,300 more votes than McClintock. Yay! Gary Coleman got 21 more votes than drop-out candidate Peter Ueberroth. Yikes.
In Alameda County, write-in candidate Daniel Freedman received one vote. The Squelch Publicity Coordinator voted for himself.
Again on the lighter side, cheers to such high voter turnout. About 2 million more voted yesterday than a year ago.
On a curious note, how many of you were asked to provide photo ID when checking into your polling place? I was not asked, nor were any of the several other people I asked. Isn't such slack behavior conducive to voter fraud?
Here's how I voted:
Triple No plus Camejo.
I encourage you all to go back in time and do the same.
Here are all the exciting election returns from around the state!
New Squelch on Monday.
(0) comments
Sunday, October 05, 2003
Peter Camejo Rocks the Boat, My World
For those of you who didn't see Pete speak in Evans Hall on Firday at 6pm (which would be everyone on the planet save for about 400 of us), he was fantastic as always.
Seemingly the Green following in the Berkeley area is comprised of a bunch of hippies; who knew? Peter's appearance was hosted by the ISO, and apparantly socialists run on "commie time," wherein events start 15 minutes late (so much for the trains running on time), but the introductory speakers were few and brief and Camejo was speaking by 6:35pm.
In good third-party tradition, he came armed with some very indicitive and interesting graphs, including a chart showing that, when income and property and sales and all other state taxes are added together, the bottom 20% pay an 11.3% tax rate while the top 1% pays 7.2%. (Here's a link to that graph and report.) He also had a graph showing that taxes on corporations are as low as they've been since the mid-90s (I don't remember the exact numbers and I can't find Camejo's graph - I'd make a lousy political intern). Further, he outlined how the number of businesses in California is on the increase, as are their revenues; in fact, California's GDP was bigger last year than ever, which makes the current deficit that moch more amazing. In other words, Peter was artfully dispelling the myth so ardently perpetuated by Schwarzenegger and McClintock: that corporate and income taxes are driving the money out of this state. This simply isn't true! The Republicans may offer anecdotes saying otherwise, but emperical data cannot support the theory that California's current fiscal policies are forcing companies to move elsewhere.
But enough about the economy. The economy bores me to tears. (Luckilly, Camejo is a financial advisor and can find money exciting on my behalf.) What really incited enthusiam in me were Pete's invigorating stances on IRV and gay rights.
First, the latter: For him and the rest of the Green party, the issue of "gay rights" is not an issue. Gays are citizens and receive the rights thereof. No concessions, no compromises, no policies treating them as if they were legally different from "regular" people. Somehow, this is a stance that every plausable Democratic candidate (c'mon, no one's voting for Kucinich, and it makes me really sad) refuses to take, perhaps for fear of wierding out a good number of Americans, or perhaps because they genuinely don't believe gays are the same as everybody else.
Second, the former: I strongly believe that instant runoff voting would make government far more representative of the public's wishes. If progressives who like like the Greens or conservatives who like the crazy Libertarians or the nut jobs who like the wacky nut job Reformists got to vote their concience, these underdogs could receive the recognition they deserve and could further play a role in the political process, without their supporters feeling like they're "stealing" votes. I can't see any reason to oppose IRV.
Lastly, the previously unmentioned: Sumbit articles to the Squelch. Especially newsflashes. submit@squelched.com
(0) comments
Friday, October 03, 2003
RCB Guide's Cheers and Jeers
Jeers to Arnold Schwarzenegger for groping unwilling women. Jeers again to him for admiring Hitler in any capacity. Then again, maybe Adolf had a stunning physique that only Arnie knows about.
Jeers to Arianna Huffington for bowing out of the race. She was giving many Californians a good reason to go to the polls, and has subsequently abandoned them, no doubt under pressure from more likely victorious liberal candidates.
Cheers to Peter Camejo and Tom McClintock for not.
Cheers, further, to the people who made it possible for Peter and Tom to be involved in the gubernatorial debates. Cheers to a minor undermining of the strict two-party/two-candidate political system that limits the democratic potential of America.
Jeers to whoever decided to have the Giants' first three playoff games take place while most people are at work or school.
Jeers to midterms.
Cheers to the Heuristic Squelch, which stands as a beacon of entertainment in the face of said midterms.
Jeers to President Bush. For any number of things.
Jeers to "The Simpsons" for not being funny for almost half a decade.
Cheers to having all three seasons of "The Family Guy" on DVD to compensate for the previous Jeer.
Cheers to all the cool kids who run If Six Was Nine.
Jeers to this idiotic TV Guide format.
Update:
Cheers to Luna Bars, Clif Bar's high-density food chunk designed specifically for women. Each bar has 10 grams of protein (22% of its calories); 350mg calcium; 100% RDA of folate, vitamins C, B1, B3, B6, and B12, and some other stuff I've never heard of; and only 180 calories. Furthermore, Luna bars use no animal products, and because B vitamins are normally so difficult to find in large quantities in plants, these mid-meal snacks are ideal for us vegans. Yay!
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Heuristic Squelch sneak peak and entreaty for submissions
I'll let you in on a little secret....don't tell anyone....alright? Shhhh... The cover of the next issue of the Squelch is gonna totally zing Chancellor Berdahl! Zing!!!! Sorta. I guess we're not really zinging him at all. I don't even know any more. I'll be happy as long as the magazine makes reference at some point to the Chancellor's jowels.
We're getting started on our second issue of the year, and my prediction is of pure hilarity. Keep those submissions coming! submit@squelched.com.
(0) comments
Monday, September 29, 2003
Oh, Florida! Will you ever win?
In one of the more flagrant examples of defying a stupid law with an even more stupid (and harmful and disgusting) protest, the Florida band Hell on Earth (whose music I can only assume is sub-par... Can you blame me? They're called Hell on Earth!) plans to include an onstage suicide in one of their performances and broadcast it on their website. The groups is attempting to speak out against a new law in their city of St. Petersburg that prohibits physician-assisted suicide.
Call me old-fashioned, but I take life pretty seriously. So seriously that I won't even eat a crab, who probably has the neurological capacity of my left thumb. Furthermore, I take quality of life pretty seriously. So seriously that I refuse to drink the milk of a cow who was treated like anything less than a valued house pet. Thus, and I do not belive I am contradicting my previous contention that all life is equally valuable, I respect a person's desire to end his life if he is truly in pain and has no desire to continue living. But, in keeping with that whole "life is valuable" argument, I think the option of suicide should be evaluated and ever so carefully scrutinized with a professional physician and the patient's family or friends. I think the state has a right to legally mandate that its doctors discourage suicide and refuse to assist death unless there is no alternative pain remedy. But a terminally ill adult should have the final say on his condition. Therefore, I think it's a dumb law with good intentions.
There are no good intentions, however, behind Hell on Earth's stunt. Death is tragic and, moreover, personal, not commercial or sensational. If the group genuinely saw injustice in their city's law, they could very well work with health care officials and local politicians, armed with research and first-hand testimonial, to revoke the law. Instead they have chosen to make a mockery of the pain of suicide.
In unrelated news, I had a fairly successful trip to the dentist today. (If any of you with Delta PMI need to find a dentist in the area, I'd highly recommend this one. Berkeley Hills Dental Care. On Telegraph and Woosley. Not in the hills.) I had the base filling for a crown put in after a good 30 minutes of drilling. If any inordinate pain or breakage occurs in the next two weeks, a root canal will be my ultimate fate. While in my mouth, Dr. Nikfarjam also noticed that I need to get at least one of my sprouting wisdom teeth removed. I can't wait.
(0) comments
Sunday, September 28, 2003
Another blog for your blog-visiting repotoire
That's right. More words from me and five other students who love music enough to write about it. The title will be changed shortly, but I suggest you start reading now. Click here.
(0) comments
Saturday, September 27, 2003
CAL WINS: 34-31!!!!
(Rebecca Loses: Her Sunglasses; Subsequently Finds Them Between the Cushions)
Excellent game.
I hail originally from Southern California. Long Beach to be precise. A few of my high school aquaintences attended USC. They're now spending five times what I do for a comparable education. Not that it has anything to do with football. Just saying is all.
"Take off that red car!"
I viewed the game from the comfort of a frat house. A dozen or so alumni came over to the house for today's event. It seems the majority of frat boys age to become frat men. The Frat Graduation Package includes a baseball cap, khaki shorts, a blond wife, and a sense of entitlement. Just saying is all.
On an 80's flashback note, the Cal band is currently eating hot dogs at the frat after playing a few spirited songs for the brothers and alum; one alum requested "Lady in Red." Ouch.
(0) comments
Friday, September 26, 2003
NEWSBREAK: Doors of East Elevator in Eschleman Hall Opening Very Slowly
More news as it comes in...
(0) comments
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
ACLU declines to appeal recall election decision, diverts resources to delaying outdated and unreliable Christmas.
San Francisco, CA - The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided today that the unprecedented California recall election will take place on October 7 as originally scheduled, despite the contetnion from the American Civil Liberties Union that outdated punch-card ballots are less accurate than electronic voting systems and thus disefranchise thousands of voters from dense minority populations in six counties throughout the state.
The ACLU took today's ruling in stride, and shortly after the court's decision announced that they have more ambitious plans on the horizon. ACLU presidnet Nadine Strossen told reporters Tuesday that their next project is to delay Christmas, which the organization beleives is inaccurate and unreliable, and which is specifically unfair to minorities.
The case will be heard by the US Supreme Court this coming Friday.
Said Strossen, "Data from all around the nation indicate that poor and minority children are the most likely to receive crappy Christmas gifts, if in fact they receive gifts at all. In nearly every community included in the study, African American and Latino youngsters more than any other ethnic groups were the victims of pre-used gifts, gifts from Walmart, a piece of fruit in lieu of a real gift, or simply no gifts whatsoever. This is unfair. Absolutely unfair."
ACLU spokespeople are citing outdated equipment and profiling as the source of these discrepencies. According to the group, Santa Claus' sleigh, deer, and elves do not have the technology to serve every American child equally, prompting Claus to distribute his limited resources disproportinally to rich white kids whose parents have wider chimneys and superior cookies.
The group is asking for a six month delay of the holiday, which should give Claus and his faculty ample time to update toy production and distribution systems, including speedier, more ergonomically sound toy-building technology and more accurate electronic checking-it-twice devices. They are also requesting that diveristy training be legally mandated for each North Pole staff member.
Claus' spokesmen Jingle and Jangle deny allegations that his distribution techniques are unfair, and are confident that the court will rule in his favor.
(I'm not sure why I wrote this. I'm actually on the ACLU's side. On both issues.)
(0) comments
One of the lesser known fronts of the Cold war was the field of brainwashing. A couple returning POWs had inexplicably turned Marxists and the US military was interested in why. Several branches of the government worked on the project and in the end, the trick turned out to be no trick at all. A straightforward program of incarceration, isolation, and group punishment that would have been familiar to any prosecutor of the Spanish Inquisition was the best any captor could do. The reason the Communists seemed to have the upper hand was that they were willing to do things our American morals would not permit.
I think that the liberal-conservative meme war might be like that. For those of you not familiar, Berkeley’s own George Lakoff is part of the Rockridge Institute, a progressive think tank whose focus is reframing political debate through language. The idea is that Republicans have found political advantage by using a very precise language specially designed to frame things in a conservative light. For a specific example of bad framing see Nixon’s “I am not a crook.”
(As a better example, think of how Republican politicians always seem to keep the topic of discussion on taxes and “tax burdens”. That is a framing trick all by its own. Of course, everyone wants lower taxes. But only by mentally separating them from public services can Republicans hope to bamboozle people into supporting plans to undermine popular institutions like social security.)
It’s a good idea. But while it’s important that liberals have the right language to use, it even more crucial is the willingness to say it unashamed. What conservatives have, and what liberals really need, is the media with the will to deliver our message.
Conservative leader can trust any of a number of journalists to repeat their spin point or even to blow the cover off a deep cover CIA agent for that matter. Liberals have to contend with the regular media who seem to keep one eye on the news and the other on the number of angry letters they get accusing them of liberal bias. Fox doesn’t care about bias. The wall street journal doesn’t care about bias (or even basic economics if it gets in the way of their ideology). They probably don’t even get letters complaining of bias. Bias is a red herring and liberals should take their queue from conservatives and be unashamed of their own politics.
I’m not suggesting that Liberals stoop as low as Fox News (Michael Moore has come close). What I am suggesting is that liberals, and particularly, liberals in the media, stop letting their gentlemanly code of conduct prevent them from saying mean things when mean things need to be said. Otherwise we’ll all end up sounding like NPRs Terry Gross trying to explain how it’s politically balanced to give O’Reilly a hard time during an interview. (Answer: It’s not politically balanced. But it is the best way to treat a guest you believe is dishonest.)
Our country didn’t have to give up our morals or our freedoms to win the Cold war, but we did have to learn to give up our isolationist “everything is fine” attitude and take threats seriously. Aggressive, lopsided, and one-sided reporting from the right threatens to unbalance our informed electorate. Liberals need to stop pining for the polite old days of newspapers, and start getting the truth out there. We don’t have to compromise our morals, just instinct to be polite.
(0) comments
Only 37 hours left! Get on the Kucinich date wagon NOW!
Submissions to enter PoliticsNH.com's Go To Dinner With Presidential Unhopeful Dennis Kucinich are due by midnight on Wednesday, November 19. Here's why I would be the best candidate:
- I'm a damned hippie, but I'm also pragmatic.
- I love single-payer health care, and I can never get enough peace.
- Did I say peace? I meant peach. I love peaches. But I also love peaces. No, peace. I love peach.
- DK and I are both vegans, so eating dinner together would be a breeze. No Sizzler for us.
- I have a hairpiece fetish.
- I agree with him on all political fronts except affirmative action and bilingual education. (And believe me, the dude has a really long list of political beliefs.)
- We've both got cherubic good looks. Our kids would look like elves.
Also, check out this rad audio postcard from Willie Nelson endorsing Denny. Nice tanktop!
(0) comments
Sunday, November 16, 2003
Now that doesn't seem fair, does it?
Some numbers on blacks and marijuana.
Here are some fascinating charts about reported marijuana use among Americans of different age, gender, and ethnic groups. This is a chart of the percentage of black drug offenders in state prison.
For those of you who don't enjoy pouring over charts, here are some highlights:
- (Table 3.2) At the time of the survey, 9.9% of black participants had smoked weed in the last year, while 9.1% of whites had. (Among 18-25 year-olds, namely kids people our age, 24.2% of whites had used marijuana in the last year, while only 20% of blacks had.)
- (Table 3.1) 37.8% of white participants reported using pot during their lifetimes, while 28.5% of blacks had. (Again, look at the higher weed use among white people in our age group - 46.7% v. 31.6%.)
- (Table 3.3) The delineation in which the black pot use is largest compared to white pot use is among those who had used within the last month, and even then the proportion was low - 6.1% of blacks v. 5.2% of whites.
Now comes the crazy part.
- (Second link) 63% of drug admissions to state prisons are black, compared to 12% that are white.
Okay, let's think about this. America is 80% white, but only 12% black. Let's go with the least flattering figure for blacks and assume black marijuana users outnumber white users 6 to 5. Even then, in raw numbers, there are about 5.7 times as many whites using marijuana than blacks, so, by extention, there should be about 5.7 times as many whites in jail for weed as blacks. Instead, blacks outnumber whites over 5 to 1 on marijuana incarcerations.
In short, the criminal justice system is anti-black, for one reason or another. Those of you who doin't think it is can maybe counter my emperical data with a reasonable explanation. Maybe "Blacks love to turn themselves in," or "Blacks like to carry their weed out inthe open when they walk past cops." But no, it couldn't be that police are more likely to pursue marijuana use in black neighborhoods, or more likely to look the other way when a white college kid smells like pot, or that a judge is more likely to sentence a black person than a white person for the same drug charge. Of course not. This is America.
(0) comments
Thursday, November 13, 2003
An update for all my family and close friends
I don't often find the time to personally contact my loved ones and update them with my happenings, but in case said loved ones are reading my blog, here's a summary of the next few weeks' activities:
- Tue., 11/18/03: Paper due in History of Art. Stupid paper.
- Fri., 11/21/03: Wisdom tooth extraction (all four of them) with Dr. Patakas in Alameda. My two bottom molars have soft tissue vertical impaction, meaning my jaw isn't long enough to accommodate these teeth, so the back half of each tooth has grown in under the gum. Here's an informative diagram:
- Sat., 11/22/03: Be in a lot of pain from previous day's procedure.
- Thu., 11/27/03: Thanksgiving with the man-pal's family in Sacramento. As a swollen-mouthed vegan, I have planned to bring my own delectable T-day treats, including vegan cornbread, vegan pumpkin pie, and a healthful yet exciting vegan yam dish. Mmmmm...yam dish.
I hope you all feel as if you were right here with me. I sure do.
(0) comments
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Whither progressive income tax?
On the face of it, it’s pretty difficult to argue against the progressive income tax without seeming like a jaded jerk. The most handy argument for it is that a flat tax would mean way higher taxes for you (millionaires don’t read this blog so it’s safe to say that). Though it is the actual reason we don’t have a flat tax there is something deeply unsatisfying about this argument. Heck! I could just as easily argue that everyone who reads this blog should get free money from the government, but I think it too would assault our basic sense of fairness.
Of course, every single flat tax proposal made by conservative leaders (it comes up in congress almost every year) aren’t really flat at all. They aim to levy a flat tax on earned income (the kind of money you and I make at pizza hut) and lift all taxes on unearned income (the kind of money the rich make off of us when they use out student loan interest to buy homes in the south of France). Furthermore, even Republican leaders aren’t heartless enough to tax the homeless and those not making a living wage. Again, being “two-tiered” their flat tax isn’t really flat at all. Clearly then, you could easily argue against any given “flat tax” plan, but still, the platonic ideal of a flat tax is still there, floating in space: Wrong… But why?
It’s an issue of fairness. Sure, Bill Gates is a better programmer than me. Heck, he’s probably even a better salesman then me. But is he really 43,150,080.03* times better than me at anything? Even at darts, which I am exceedingly bad at? No, although it is plain that Bill Gates should rightly own far more than I do, we can also freely admit that what he does own is due in some part to good fortune. Of course, Bill Gates is a particularly deserving case. What about flat tax proponent Steve Forbes? His main talent is the ability to be born to outstandingly rich parents. Quite a skill. Then again, I’m a really good whistler but our society has decided that this particular talent, though also inheritable, does not merit multimillion dollar rewards.
The flip side is less dramatic but probably more common. While it’s difficult to get rich without deserving it (barring accidents of birth like our sitting president), it is very easy to not get rich even though you totally do deserve it. If you see Philo Taylor Farnsworth in heaven, thank him for inventing television, since no one ever did down here.
Of course, this doesn’t even take into account the people who are rich specifically because they are jerks (see John D. Rockefeller civil-war profiteering) and those who are poor exactly because they were good Samaritans (all the George Baileys of the world).
In the end, a progressive tax is (amongst other things) really just a luck tax. It asks of the most probably lucky ducks sitting on their piles of gold to kick back a little to us unfortunates. Until we invent that magical machine that can tell us how much each person’s soul is worth, we’re just going to have to trust to the law of averages.
* Ratio of my current bank account balance to Bill Gates’ net worth. Including my student loans this number is negative.
(0) comments
Sunday, November 09, 2003
Our personal connection goes deeper than idealistic liberal politics and diminutive stature
I discovered today that Ohio's favorite lawn gnome and Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich, like myself, is a vegan:
"Congressman Kucinich is one of the few vegans in Congress, a dietary decision he credits not only with improving his health, but in deepening his belief in the sacredness of all species."
Awesome! Then again, he's also really good friends with Shirley Maclaine, but nobody's perfect. Denny's biggest downfall is that he's crazy.
Crazy for equality!
I'm not going to stop vouching on K-Dog's side. I don't believe he can win, but I do believe that he can give disheartened Democrats an inspiring alternative in the primaries. I think he's helping many liberals who may have shunned the Dems remember why they or their parents were Democrats. I hope he's illustrating to a few million Americans that the two major parties don't need to be so eerily similar on certain issues.
And I love that big black rug he wears on his little dome. My step-dad Travis said that he looks like "an uncolored coloring book." Touche, Trav. Touche.
(0) comments
Friday, November 07, 2003
Sometimes It's Hard to Be a Woman
Volume Two: Keeping America (and God) out of my uterus.
"Every person has a special dignity. This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government, it comes from the creator of life." Thanks President Bush. Maybe he should have repeated this cute little maxim when he gave the final order to put over 100 people to death during his Texas governorship. I was also under the impression that, even if you believe life is derived from a divine creator, that law comes from the government, not said creator. But this post is about abortion, not about hypocricy or comingling of church and state.
I have no doubt that the United States government's most recent attempt to stifle a form of abortion will die a bloody death in the high courts. I am, however, frightened that this anti-"partial-birth abortion" (no such medical term exists) bill even got past congress. It bothers me that a few hundred men and women (oh, but mostly men) in Washington are attempting to dictate what occurs inside a woman's own body. I'm peeved that a rare procedure that is almost only used to protect the life of a woman or to prevent the birth of a baby who cannot survive outside its mother's womb falls under the jurisdiction of a select few, the vast majority of whom don't have the capacity to get pregnant, and the even more overwhelming majority of whom have no medical experience.
I believe this issue goes beyond the right's attempt to protect the health of fetuses. (Otherwise it would be illegal to smoke in the same room as a pregnant woman.) As I've stated before, I think this blind anti-abortion sentiment is rooted in a disrespect for a woman's self-determination. I believe that, subversive though this mentality may be, there persists an idea that the female body does not bear the capacity to take care of itself. Women menstruate, they have "hormonal" outbursts, they're physically weaker than men, they have bodies which are believed to be tied to nature because of their reproductive functions. The idea is that women have an inability to control their bodies (we can't really opt out of our periods without negative health repurcussions, and our hormones follow suit), and thus that men, and by extension the men in government (and religion), should have jurisdiction over the feminine physical entity.
Many conservative figures in religion and politics are attempting to get "morning after pills" like Previn off the market, claiming that life begins at conception, despite the fact that a 72-hour old embryo is composed of only a few hundred undifferentiated cells. (It's comparable to biting the inside of your cheek and "killing" the skin that comes off.) This opposition to the "abortion pill" (what a charming and inaccurate name) is based not only on a distorted definition of life, but also a resistance to grant women control over their bodies. If abortions are available quickly and (relatively) painlessly, so the argument goes, then women will have sex whenever they want without worrying about the consequences. Drugs that prevent implantation are not going to encourage women to have willy-nilly sex (as much as Pat Robertson would love to picture that); it will give women and men who made a mistake a chance not to give birth to an unwanted, unaffordable child. Also, given that fathers of unwanted pregnancies out of wedlock rarely have to suffer the same consequences as the mothers, it provides women with a limited opportunity to decide for themselves what consequences their bodies will suffer.
On a lighter note, when I gave blood today I got a free 15 minute phone card. Woo hoo!
(0) comments
Sometimes It's Hard to Be a Woman
Volume One Point One: Giving my stupid kids a last stupid name.
In addition to having a husband, part of my life-plan is to have 2-3 children (and a few dogs and cats). And my kids are going to need last names. (Unless, of course, they plan upon becoming wildly successful mono-monikered super models [I'm 5'1" - an unlikely event], soccer players [again, I'm 5'1"], or pop stars.) So whose will it be? Mom's or Dad's?
Ehhhh. Now I'm uncomfortable.
I'm not taking my husband's name. He's not taking mine. (To do otherwise, as I explained, would be dishonest to the pursuit of equality in a relationship.) So there goes that "convenience" (chuckle) of having a happy family with the same surname for all. But what of little Timmy and little Sally and little Habib? If they take "Brown" that would would be denying the other parent's contribution. Likewise if they take "HypotheticalDadName" instead of mine.
The yuppie option "Brown-HypotheticalDadName" might be cumbersome, but is it really that awful an alternative to perpetuating patriarchism? And the name Brown is like a pair of black slacks - it goes with everything.
But what happens when Habib Brown-HypotheticalDadName falls in love with and raises children with Dora McCallister-Rosenberg, and Habib and Dora are also progressive, symbolic equality-seeking Americans? Meet Phineas McCallister-Rosenberg-Brown-HypotheticalDadName. Now, the likelihood of this happening is slim. But that's pretty cumbersome. (Note also that by the time I'm a grandma turn of the century names will again be en vogue. My money's on "Horatio" as the 2050's anser to 2000's "Madison." Mark my words.)
If I give my boy(s) Dad's name and my girl(s) Mom's name, that creates artificial alliances. Same if I did the opposite.
Sigh.
Maybe the dude I marry and I can dole out last names in alphabetical order. If I have babies with Harold Agajanian, the first kid gets his name, the second kid mine, and so on. If I have babies with Grover D. Caterwaul, I'll get first dibbs. Like home-ice advantage in the hockey playoffs.
Oh Jesus. That's a terrible idea.
A good idea, on the other hand, would be for you to donate blood. Do it!
(0) comments
Thursday, November 06, 2003
You gotta fight for your right to get free cookies and orange juice
That's right kids. Blood drive tomorrow in Wozinak (I probably spelled that wrong) Lounge in Soda Hall from the morning to the afternoon. I'll be there at about 10:30, as will Paul. The two of us have a friendship based on the mutual love of Elvis Costello and giving blood.
There will also be "Get the Red Out" Big Game week blood drives from 9-4 in Pauley Pavillion on Monday Nov. 17 and Friday Nov. 21. Even if I were eligable to give on the 21st (you have to wait at least 56 days between donations), I wouldn't. Instead on that day I shall be getting four of my teeth hacked out of my skull. And I'm paying almost $200 for the honor.
GIVE BLOOD!!! First, you save some lives. Second, you usually get a free t-shirt (you can choose among large, X-large, and XX-large). Lastly, needles are way cool. Trust me.
(0) comments
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
Sometimes It’s Hard to Be a Woman
Volume One: The Name Game.
For one reason or another, as I’ve mentioned before, there seems to be a dearth of female participants in the Cal political blogsphere, among both blog authors and commentators. (I cannot prove that women aren’t reading, thanks to the genderl anonymity of IP addresses.) I won’t speculate as to the source of this disproportionality (though I may do so later). But I can say that as a female I might represent, however inaccurately, a woman’s voice to my male blogging peers.
One topic of debate, often though erroneously labeled as a “women’s issue” (as if any issue existed in a sexual vacuum), is that of a woman’s last name when she gets married. As I foresee my life, I will get married, and I will not change my last name. Is this some subvert (or overt?) anti-male behavior? Is it rooted in the hatred of men inherent to my feminism? Am I simply being defiant in an empty, symbolic way for the sake of defiance itself? Am I trying to piss off my husband? Or am I trying to eliminate the possibility of even snagging a future husband?
Well, no. First, I don’t hate men. Neither does my mother. Or my sister. Nor do my aunts. Or almost any other feminist. Here lies a great myth. Feminists don’t hate men. A critically thinking woman (or man) will, however, despise hierarchy in which women are as a group disadvantaged due to the social structure created by men and reproduced by men (and women). Second, the symbolic battles are often the most difficult ones to win. I will gladly combat symbolic repression with full zeal. Further, no symbolic triumph is empty. Lastly, no, I’m rarely defiant for the sake of pissing people off. (Maybe my parents, but never an entire gender.)
My visceral argument against changing my name is that my identity as Rebecca C. Brown, not as Rebecca B. Smith or Rebecca B. Jones or Rebecca C. Brown-Jones, has been in the works for over two decades (longer by the time I will be asked by convention to alter it by adopting another name). Though a name is little more than a word, I will entreaty my readers to think about the power of words and how language infuses social action. In this case, a woman taking her husband’s last name represents very clearly that her individuality and self-ownership (both physically and psychically) belong not to her but instead to her husband. Just as a father gives his offspring his last name (then adopts a role of authority over them), he so gives his wife his name. Quite simply, it’s nominal slavery. To make a less dramatic argument, it is entirely counterintuitive to equality for one person in a relationship to take the name of the other. I challenge you to assert otherwise.
Your mother or aunt or grandmother may have taken her husband’s name, maybe had children, maybe worked, or maybe stayed home. And despite relinquishing her symbolic identity, was perfectly happy and content. I will not disagree with you. I don’t think something as small as a last name can dictate a person’s happiness; however, it can contribute to her perception of self as a female. Further, the collective inability of women to maintain their last names defines in part what a woman’s role is in the family and in society in general. And though there are no laws dictating that we must change our names, if we don’t, we will, well, get a lot of shit for it.
(0) comments
Monday, November 03, 2003
Baby Boomers: Ticking Socialist Time Bombs
Here’s some brain food: I’m confused about “Starve the beast” conservatives’ plans to run government deficits in order to force a government breakdown when Baby Boomers start to draw on Social Security. Completely getting rid of the social safety net is open goal of a lot of righty policy makers. They see it as a way of promoting personal responsibility. But while it’s an interesting if risky way of enacting policies which a majority of the country doesn’t agree with, I wonder if they aren’t biting off more than they can chew? I mean, it’s all nice and good to force a showdown between low taxes and public services, but is it wise to have that showdown at the exact time that a larger percentage of the voting public is depending on social security and other public safety nets?
We’ve all heard about how the Baby Boomers are the “lump in the python” of demographics, slowly working their way to old age. But I wonder if anyone has tried to explain political power shifts in terms of this giant section of the population growing through different phases of life? Couldn’t you just connect the 60’s to the innocent exuberance of youth, the 70s with the disillusionment, the 80’s with the family man who just wants to make a buck and so on? Of course, this kind of touchy-feely analysis usually makes me sick to my stomach, but a good old fashioned statistical analysis could easily reveal if politics were being changed by increased representations of a particular age group.
Anyhow, it’s food for thought.
(0) comments
Sunday, November 02, 2003
What's next? A gay pope?
"The Episcopal Church consecrated V. Gene Robinson as bishop in a heartfelt ceremony Sunday, making him the first openly gay man to rise to that rank in any of the world's major Christian bodies. But while pageantry mixed with exultation in the ritual elevating Robinson to bishop of New Hampshire, it seems unlikely the church will hold together in its aftermath." (Full article here.)
I think my loyal readers shold be able to predict my view on the matter. I completely support the right of the percentage of the Episcolpalians who oppose homosexuality to splinter off from the Anglican Church. But they're being archaic and childish. I'm just glad that this matter does not have to be mediated by law, given that God and state are separate entities (despite frequent evidence to the contrary). That's why I'm confused by the last paragraph from the news story:
"Some predict this will develop into the worst Episcopal split since the denomination was founded in 1789. And depending on the shape things take, a spate of church lawsuits may well result."
Lawsuit? Maybe someone with a more acute understanding of law could explain how the church could file any suits. On what basis? That consecrating a gay bishop defies the rules lain out in the Bible? I very honestly don't see what actual laws have been broken.
On a seasonal note, I hope you all had an enjoyable and, more importantly, safe Halloween. David, Andy, and I went down to Scott and the other Andy's place in Santa Barbara for the weekend. We fastidiously avoided Isla Vista, lest we be arrested en masse, until the day after Halloween, when we drove down the main celebration stretch to laugh at all the hungover kids walk home. Ubiquitous red party cups and half-torn sparkly costume butterfly/fairy/standard-female-quick-costume wings littered the road. It was glorious. On the night of the 31st we played Beirut, a delightful game of agility and coordination. Scott and I are currently World Champions of the World. Last night I further solidified my role as designated driver. My plan is to get my license in December, at which point my DD assignment will from then on be unequivocal.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
(This being my inaugural CalJunket entry, I will stick to the humorous. It is a little known fact that the squelch doesn't publish half the things I write, mostly because they aren't funny. I think most of the creative editors have had a slight bias against political humor, but that’s their prerogative. You make the call.)
Republicans find 300 billion in government waste
Tommaso Sciortino, Affairs Betterer
In a shocking revelation today Republican lawmakers have found a government department that has been wasting upward of 300 billion dollars each and every year that it has been operational.
“When our first tax cuts created a 300 billion deficit we explained that we would pay for it by cutting government waste instead of raising taxes.” Explained House Majority leader Tom DeLay, “Well, that’s exactly what we did.”
The government office responsible for this historically unprecedented level of waste, the Department of Betterin’ Affairs, is thought to have escaped detection for so long because of confusion between it and the much more well-known Department of Veteran’s Affairs. A relic from the New Deal, most of the Department’s 300 billion dollar budget was spent on “Just making things better…” said one newly unemployed staffer, “like sidewalks. Maybe they got gum all over ‘em… or maybe you see some guy and he’s got a bad hair cut… we’d buy that guy a hat.”
Republicans have not rested after their victory but have instead planned to pass more tax cuts. Quoted Grover Norquist, “We hope that at the current rate, no American will ever have to pay taxes after 2008. Also, the government will be so lean that it'll be able to run on the change that government workers find lying in the streets.”
(0) comments
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
NEWSBREAK: Democratic Party Dusts Off Pair of Severely Atrophied Balls
ALSO: Rebecca C. Brown Engages in Extended Third-Person Critique Describing Her Views on this Election's Viable Democratic Candidates
General Wesley Clark said today that the Bush Administration and, more specifically, George W. Bush himself need to take responsibility for their failure to respond to intelligence leading up to the September 11 attacks. (Full article here.) The comments of Clark today represented one of the stronger assaults on Bush's deception and incompetance by a plausable Democratic candidate.
(What amused me most from this article was this paragraph: "The Bush-Cheney campaign declined to respond to Clark's criticism, referring calls to the Republican National Committee. Christine Iverson, spokeswoman for the RNC, said Clark 'sounds exactly like Bob Graham, the failed presidential candidate from Florida who launched similar attacks against the president a few month ago, and was forced to drop out of the race because his message of protest and pessimism failed to resonate with the American people.'" So Iverson isn't saying that Clark is wrong, she's just saying that his views are unpopular. That's cute.)
Surprisingly enough, the cynical feminist Green with a strong disdain for corruption and pandering (namely Rebecca C. Brown) is relatively pleased with the Democratic candidates for the upcoming election. She even thinks that a few of the reasonably electable ones (Clark, Dean, Kerry) might somewhat represent her.
She does, however, feel that Dean and Clark each falter on selected issues. For example, while Howie (as she likes to call him) wants to protect women's reproductive rights, he also feels that the death penalty is an acceptable form of justice. Wes may present an overall liberal point of view (which will especially impress the American public because he is a four-star general and former Republican), he represents too steep of a compromise with the Right, according to Rebecca, on matters such as free trade and gun control.
Miss Brown would like to encourage all of her left-leaning readers to consider Dennis Kucinich, the Little Clevelander Who Could if He Was Only Given a Chance, for their Democratic pic these upcoming primaries. The author entreaties you to check out his fearless views (and facts) on the death penalty, the war on drugs, IRV, gay rights, trade, and many other issues. She feels that Dennis represents the most progressive and exciting option in the Democratic party.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
When they clean the street I'll be the only shit that's left behind
Bush is poised to sign a bill banning partial-birth abortions. I, oddly enough, am not wrangling up my picketing materials. But, though I think partial-birth abortions, which take place in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy, are ugly and should be discouraged, I don't feel that the law has any place in the matter.
By week eight into a pregnancy, the fetus already has a developing nervous system and will, even if the feeling isn't perceived by the fetus' brain, react to a physical stimulus. By the thirteenth week, the second trimester, the fetus has a fairly devolped nervous system and can move on its own volition. Premature fetuses that are born after only five months of gestation can survive, indicating that a "baby" has at that point been developed. I reluctantly say that I cannot support terminating the pregnancy in the second trimester, though nor do I feel particularly strong about this. Abortions in the third trimester, which represent only about 1% of abortions in the US, are fairly gruesome and should be strongly discouraged unless bringing the pregnancy to term would be harmful to the mother (or if it is discovered that the fetus will not survive through childbirth).
One very disturbing aspect of this bill is that it represents a stepping stone to the abolition of all abortion, no matter at what point during the pregnancy or under what circumstances. And by "circumstances" I am alluding to more than rape and incest; I believe that the sincere desire to not have a baby is a circumstance that justifies abortion.
What disturbs me most about the standard Republican stance on abortion is that they claim very ardently that they want to support a "culture of life" and eliminate a "culture of death." Wait, huh?! Is this not the political party whose platform supports the death penalty? The death penalty. Or the party (with congressional help from the pandering Democrats) that is currently waging a war in Iraq where Americans, Iraqis, soldiers, and civilians are being killed? (That's correct. I said currently.) Or the party who is more comfortable letting pollutants (pollutants that deplete the quality of and/or shorten life) into the ecosystem than regulating pollution and potentially stifling the economy on a temporary scale?
I don't belive Republicans are attempting with this bill to encourage a culture of life. At the risk of sounding radical or making a potentially offensive analysis (new territory for me), I believe this party's stance on abortion is rooted in anti-feminism and a distortion of Christian ideals (the latter obviously engendering the former). The word "God" has managed to litter the politics of the right to this day in such an un-Christian way. I have read Biblical texts for myself, and though I do not believe Jesus would support partial-birth abortions (if only we could ask him his stance on this, and stem cell research, and comprehensive admission standards for public universities), I also do not believe he would support putting criminals to death, or for that matter participating in any war.
The only good that will come of the soon-to-be passing of this bill is that the issue of abortion will once again, I predict, be taken to the Supreme Court and once again the Supreme Court will decide in favor of abortion rights. I don't know how many times the precedent will have to be set on this matter.
Dammit, I hate Republicans!
(0) comments
Elliott Smith dies in apparant suicide.
Plus, comedy show tonight at the Bear's Lair at 8pm.
Not that it's easy to get excited about a comedy show when one of the best songwriters of the last decade dies. I'm terribly sad about this. I just happen to have had one of his albums, Roman Candle, in my CD player for the last week. Come to think of it, probably not a week has gone by since I was 17 that I haven't listened to Elliott Smith. His music has had the amazing ability to console me in my down moments, despite his own meloncholia. This is very sad to me. I hope that if you haven't heard his work extinsively that you now give it a try. This is so incredibly disappointing.
(0) comments
Saturday, October 18, 2003
For those about to rock.
Yet another subtle reminder to check out the very good If Six Was Nine blog (ifsix.blogspot.com), wherein six sexy coeds offer their insights into the world of music. Also note that we now have a neat-o masthead at the top of the page with pictures of all six of us in alphabetical order. (That means I'm the one on the far right, kids.) My initial plan when I got into the blogging madness was to never let my readers (besides the ones whom I know in person) know what I look like. Well, now you do. Sexy. That's what I look like.
I'd also like to remind you that the Heuristic Squelch will be hosting a swell comedy show this upcoming Wednesday at the Bear's Lair at 8pm. It's only $5 for a whole night of laffs. Find us on Sproul.
What, by the way, did you all think of the most recent issue of our fine little humor mag?
Make to sure to celebrate the end of midterms responsibly. For example, don't celebrate the end of one midterm by ceasing to study for a week, only to remember that you have another midterm within the next few days.
I drove around the streets of Berkeley and Albany for the first time last night. I don't have my license yet, only my permit, but I am a very fast learner. I didn't drive when I was a teenager because I simply didn't have the money for insurance and gas and a car. (I, like a sucker, was saving my earnings for college. Psshh.) But now I'm an excellent driver. Definitely.
(0) comments
Sunday, October 12, 2003
Everyone's stupid but me
Also, pardon my hiatus.
A dangerous, covert terrorist lurks in our midst. A greasy, scrumptious terrorist. A capitalist terrorist who is poisoning Americans with its life-shortening and money-sucking death substance. That's right, it's the restaurant industry, and it's killing our nation's citizens with fat. Fat! Fattening fat deep-fried in 100% fatty fat. Or not. Who knows. Whatever.
This article is about how the three-fifths of RedWhiteAndBlueicans who are overwieght may have spurred legal action taken against the restaurant industry, who has facilitated rampant fat consumption. One option is to legally mandate that nutrition information be included on restaurant menus.
Every person (over the age of, let's say, thirteen, at which point if you can't cook your own dinner than you're a big loser) has complete control over what he or she eats, and every person has the option of asking for vague-to-specific nutrition information about the food he or she receives from a restaurant, so conceivably every person should know semi-accurately how many calories and fat grams he or she has consumed per meal, thus every person who is overweight has no one to blame but him or herself. Thus I think suing McDonald's or Chili's for America's obesity is frivilous and unfair.
But why not mandate that nutrition information, specific and accurate information, be available for all food no matter where it is being eaten? If people want to eat lard all day, oh for god's sake let them. But if some people ardently do not want to chug lipids for sport (and as a result possibly suffer heart disease, heart attack, diabetes, stroke, snoring, etc.), they should be able to have information assisting them in their pursuit readily available. There's no need to sue the restaurants that have helped this nation devolve into 250,000,000 corpulant turban-fearing cowboys (I guess they're only responsible for the first adjective), but there's also no need to withold information from the consumer.
An argument could be made by those of you who believe in individual self-determination and oppose institutional interferance with consumers' decisions. That argument might go something like this: "If folks are surprised that they're getting a spare tire after years of Big Macs and pepperoni pizzas, then they're big durfs who obviously don't understand how eating and digestion work. Man, are they big durfs." Hey, I agree with you. Especially about the durf thing. If there's one thing I can't stand it's a durf who doesn't understand stuff.
But I also believe that an informed consumer, perhaps even and over-informed consumer, is an ideal in a capitalist economy. Further, a citizen cannot truly be self-determining and free of interferance until he has every fact about what he is consuming at his disposal. Every person has the right to decide what is best for his body, so long as he knows exactly what is going into it.
[This is the part of the post where I reminisce longingly/disgustedly about my years back home in Long Beach.] When I was home for the Summer in the months between my freshman and sophomore years in college, I stayed in my home town of Long Beach for the season and chose to get a job at McDonald's because no one else would hire me for just eight weeks. As you can imagine, the menu at McDonald's hinges upon fat. I would leave that place with beef tallow caked between the treads of my non-scuff shoes. It's all fat. Fat plus more fat. Everyone knows that. Except kids. A five year old should not have to concern himself with calorie-counting when he goes out to eat with his parents. And it would be one thing if his parents took him for fast food once, even twice a month. But when you work full-time at McDonald's in a dense urban area, you come to see that some families eat there twice, thrice, four times a week. The parent are already obease. The children, through no fault of their own, are quickly on their way. They are being introduced very early into our culture of fattening foods. It's a culture where eating animal fats and proteins is encouraged for fear of anemia and/or sissiness, but I'd wager more on the latter. It's a society where convenience takes precedence over health. Most importantly, it's a culture that has developed out of ignorance, and it reproduces itself everyday because consumers aren't demanding to be informed.
If people could see, could read, could process with their own eyes that a medium order of french fries at McDonald's has 22 grams of fat (30% of your RDA of fat), or that a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese has 47 grams of fat (and thus that a #6 on the big picture menu gives them 69 grams total) as they're ordering then they may reconsider their options. Or not. Who cares. Let them eat fat. Just let them know how much.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
IT'S OFFICIAL!!
I now officially have no trust in the ability of the populous to elect the right people. I'm surrounded by 35 million doofers. Down with democracy! Up with highly centralized federal government!
On a lighter note, both propositions failed. Proposition 54 did not pass in any county at all, in fact. Even in Orange County, the coast's beacon of conservativism and illegal immigrant labor force, Prop 54 failed 51% to 49%.
In San Francisco County, Peter Camejo received about 1,300 more votes than McClintock. Yay! Gary Coleman got 21 more votes than drop-out candidate Peter Ueberroth. Yikes.
In Alameda County, write-in candidate Daniel Freedman received one vote. The Squelch Publicity Coordinator voted for himself.
Again on the lighter side, cheers to such high voter turnout. About 2 million more voted yesterday than a year ago.
On a curious note, how many of you were asked to provide photo ID when checking into your polling place? I was not asked, nor were any of the several other people I asked. Isn't such slack behavior conducive to voter fraud?
Here's how I voted:
Triple No plus Camejo.
I encourage you all to go back in time and do the same.
Here are all the exciting election returns from around the state!
New Squelch on Monday.
(0) comments
Sunday, October 05, 2003
Peter Camejo Rocks the Boat, My World
For those of you who didn't see Pete speak in Evans Hall on Firday at 6pm (which would be everyone on the planet save for about 400 of us), he was fantastic as always.
Seemingly the Green following in the Berkeley area is comprised of a bunch of hippies; who knew? Peter's appearance was hosted by the ISO, and apparantly socialists run on "commie time," wherein events start 15 minutes late (so much for the trains running on time), but the introductory speakers were few and brief and Camejo was speaking by 6:35pm.
In good third-party tradition, he came armed with some very indicitive and interesting graphs, including a chart showing that, when income and property and sales and all other state taxes are added together, the bottom 20% pay an 11.3% tax rate while the top 1% pays 7.2%. (Here's a link to that graph and report.) He also had a graph showing that taxes on corporations are as low as they've been since the mid-90s (I don't remember the exact numbers and I can't find Camejo's graph - I'd make a lousy political intern). Further, he outlined how the number of businesses in California is on the increase, as are their revenues; in fact, California's GDP was bigger last year than ever, which makes the current deficit that moch more amazing. In other words, Peter was artfully dispelling the myth so ardently perpetuated by Schwarzenegger and McClintock: that corporate and income taxes are driving the money out of this state. This simply isn't true! The Republicans may offer anecdotes saying otherwise, but emperical data cannot support the theory that California's current fiscal policies are forcing companies to move elsewhere.
But enough about the economy. The economy bores me to tears. (Luckilly, Camejo is a financial advisor and can find money exciting on my behalf.) What really incited enthusiam in me were Pete's invigorating stances on IRV and gay rights.
First, the latter: For him and the rest of the Green party, the issue of "gay rights" is not an issue. Gays are citizens and receive the rights thereof. No concessions, no compromises, no policies treating them as if they were legally different from "regular" people. Somehow, this is a stance that every plausable Democratic candidate (c'mon, no one's voting for Kucinich, and it makes me really sad) refuses to take, perhaps for fear of wierding out a good number of Americans, or perhaps because they genuinely don't believe gays are the same as everybody else.
Second, the former: I strongly believe that instant runoff voting would make government far more representative of the public's wishes. If progressives who like like the Greens or conservatives who like the crazy Libertarians or the nut jobs who like the wacky nut job Reformists got to vote their concience, these underdogs could receive the recognition they deserve and could further play a role in the political process, without their supporters feeling like they're "stealing" votes. I can't see any reason to oppose IRV.
Lastly, the previously unmentioned: Sumbit articles to the Squelch. Especially newsflashes. submit@squelched.com
(0) comments
Friday, October 03, 2003
RCB Guide's Cheers and Jeers
Jeers to Arnold Schwarzenegger for groping unwilling women. Jeers again to him for admiring Hitler in any capacity. Then again, maybe Adolf had a stunning physique that only Arnie knows about.
Jeers to Arianna Huffington for bowing out of the race. She was giving many Californians a good reason to go to the polls, and has subsequently abandoned them, no doubt under pressure from more likely victorious liberal candidates.
Cheers to Peter Camejo and Tom McClintock for not.
Cheers, further, to the people who made it possible for Peter and Tom to be involved in the gubernatorial debates. Cheers to a minor undermining of the strict two-party/two-candidate political system that limits the democratic potential of America.
Jeers to whoever decided to have the Giants' first three playoff games take place while most people are at work or school.
Jeers to midterms.
Cheers to the Heuristic Squelch, which stands as a beacon of entertainment in the face of said midterms.
Jeers to President Bush. For any number of things.
Jeers to "The Simpsons" for not being funny for almost half a decade.
Cheers to having all three seasons of "The Family Guy" on DVD to compensate for the previous Jeer.
Cheers to all the cool kids who run If Six Was Nine.
Jeers to this idiotic TV Guide format.
Update:
Cheers to Luna Bars, Clif Bar's high-density food chunk designed specifically for women. Each bar has 10 grams of protein (22% of its calories); 350mg calcium; 100% RDA of folate, vitamins C, B1, B3, B6, and B12, and some other stuff I've never heard of; and only 180 calories. Furthermore, Luna bars use no animal products, and because B vitamins are normally so difficult to find in large quantities in plants, these mid-meal snacks are ideal for us vegans. Yay!
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Heuristic Squelch sneak peak and entreaty for submissions
I'll let you in on a little secret....don't tell anyone....alright? Shhhh... The cover of the next issue of the Squelch is gonna totally zing Chancellor Berdahl! Zing!!!! Sorta. I guess we're not really zinging him at all. I don't even know any more. I'll be happy as long as the magazine makes reference at some point to the Chancellor's jowels.
We're getting started on our second issue of the year, and my prediction is of pure hilarity. Keep those submissions coming! submit@squelched.com.
(0) comments
Monday, September 29, 2003
Oh, Florida! Will you ever win?
In one of the more flagrant examples of defying a stupid law with an even more stupid (and harmful and disgusting) protest, the Florida band Hell on Earth (whose music I can only assume is sub-par... Can you blame me? They're called Hell on Earth!) plans to include an onstage suicide in one of their performances and broadcast it on their website. The groups is attempting to speak out against a new law in their city of St. Petersburg that prohibits physician-assisted suicide.
Call me old-fashioned, but I take life pretty seriously. So seriously that I won't even eat a crab, who probably has the neurological capacity of my left thumb. Furthermore, I take quality of life pretty seriously. So seriously that I refuse to drink the milk of a cow who was treated like anything less than a valued house pet. Thus, and I do not belive I am contradicting my previous contention that all life is equally valuable, I respect a person's desire to end his life if he is truly in pain and has no desire to continue living. But, in keeping with that whole "life is valuable" argument, I think the option of suicide should be evaluated and ever so carefully scrutinized with a professional physician and the patient's family or friends. I think the state has a right to legally mandate that its doctors discourage suicide and refuse to assist death unless there is no alternative pain remedy. But a terminally ill adult should have the final say on his condition. Therefore, I think it's a dumb law with good intentions.
There are no good intentions, however, behind Hell on Earth's stunt. Death is tragic and, moreover, personal, not commercial or sensational. If the group genuinely saw injustice in their city's law, they could very well work with health care officials and local politicians, armed with research and first-hand testimonial, to revoke the law. Instead they have chosen to make a mockery of the pain of suicide.
In unrelated news, I had a fairly successful trip to the dentist today. (If any of you with Delta PMI need to find a dentist in the area, I'd highly recommend this one. Berkeley Hills Dental Care. On Telegraph and Woosley. Not in the hills.) I had the base filling for a crown put in after a good 30 minutes of drilling. If any inordinate pain or breakage occurs in the next two weeks, a root canal will be my ultimate fate. While in my mouth, Dr. Nikfarjam also noticed that I need to get at least one of my sprouting wisdom teeth removed. I can't wait.
(0) comments
Sunday, September 28, 2003
Another blog for your blog-visiting repotoire
That's right. More words from me and five other students who love music enough to write about it. The title will be changed shortly, but I suggest you start reading now. Click here.
(0) comments
Saturday, September 27, 2003
CAL WINS: 34-31!!!!
(Rebecca Loses: Her Sunglasses; Subsequently Finds Them Between the Cushions)
Excellent game.
I hail originally from Southern California. Long Beach to be precise. A few of my high school aquaintences attended USC. They're now spending five times what I do for a comparable education. Not that it has anything to do with football. Just saying is all.
"Take off that red car!"
I viewed the game from the comfort of a frat house. A dozen or so alumni came over to the house for today's event. It seems the majority of frat boys age to become frat men. The Frat Graduation Package includes a baseball cap, khaki shorts, a blond wife, and a sense of entitlement. Just saying is all.
On an 80's flashback note, the Cal band is currently eating hot dogs at the frat after playing a few spirited songs for the brothers and alum; one alum requested "Lady in Red." Ouch.
(0) comments
Friday, September 26, 2003
NEWSBREAK: Doors of East Elevator in Eschleman Hall Opening Very Slowly
More news as it comes in...
(0) comments
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
ACLU declines to appeal recall election decision, diverts resources to delaying outdated and unreliable Christmas.
San Francisco, CA - The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided today that the unprecedented California recall election will take place on October 7 as originally scheduled, despite the contetnion from the American Civil Liberties Union that outdated punch-card ballots are less accurate than electronic voting systems and thus disefranchise thousands of voters from dense minority populations in six counties throughout the state.
The ACLU took today's ruling in stride, and shortly after the court's decision announced that they have more ambitious plans on the horizon. ACLU presidnet Nadine Strossen told reporters Tuesday that their next project is to delay Christmas, which the organization beleives is inaccurate and unreliable, and which is specifically unfair to minorities.
The case will be heard by the US Supreme Court this coming Friday.
Said Strossen, "Data from all around the nation indicate that poor and minority children are the most likely to receive crappy Christmas gifts, if in fact they receive gifts at all. In nearly every community included in the study, African American and Latino youngsters more than any other ethnic groups were the victims of pre-used gifts, gifts from Walmart, a piece of fruit in lieu of a real gift, or simply no gifts whatsoever. This is unfair. Absolutely unfair."
ACLU spokespeople are citing outdated equipment and profiling as the source of these discrepencies. According to the group, Santa Claus' sleigh, deer, and elves do not have the technology to serve every American child equally, prompting Claus to distribute his limited resources disproportinally to rich white kids whose parents have wider chimneys and superior cookies.
The group is asking for a six month delay of the holiday, which should give Claus and his faculty ample time to update toy production and distribution systems, including speedier, more ergonomically sound toy-building technology and more accurate electronic checking-it-twice devices. They are also requesting that diveristy training be legally mandated for each North Pole staff member.
Claus' spokesmen Jingle and Jangle deny allegations that his distribution techniques are unfair, and are confident that the court will rule in his favor.
(I'm not sure why I wrote this. I'm actually on the ACLU's side. On both issues.)
(0) comments
Some numbers on blacks and marijuana.
Here are some fascinating charts about reported marijuana use among Americans of different age, gender, and ethnic groups. This is a chart of the percentage of black drug offenders in state prison.
For those of you who don't enjoy pouring over charts, here are some highlights:
- (Table 3.2) At the time of the survey, 9.9% of black participants had smoked weed in the last year, while 9.1% of whites had. (Among 18-25 year-olds, namely kids people our age, 24.2% of whites had used marijuana in the last year, while only 20% of blacks had.)
- (Table 3.1) 37.8% of white participants reported using pot during their lifetimes, while 28.5% of blacks had. (Again, look at the higher weed use among white people in our age group - 46.7% v. 31.6%.)
- (Table 3.3) The delineation in which the black pot use is largest compared to white pot use is among those who had used within the last month, and even then the proportion was low - 6.1% of blacks v. 5.2% of whites.
Now comes the crazy part.
- (Second link) 63% of drug admissions to state prisons are black, compared to 12% that are white.
Okay, let's think about this. America is 80% white, but only 12% black. Let's go with the least flattering figure for blacks and assume black marijuana users outnumber white users 6 to 5. Even then, in raw numbers, there are about 5.7 times as many whites using marijuana than blacks, so, by extention, there should be about 5.7 times as many whites in jail for weed as blacks. Instead, blacks outnumber whites over 5 to 1 on marijuana incarcerations.
In short, the criminal justice system is anti-black, for one reason or another. Those of you who doin't think it is can maybe counter my emperical data with a reasonable explanation. Maybe "Blacks love to turn themselves in," or "Blacks like to carry their weed out inthe open when they walk past cops." But no, it couldn't be that police are more likely to pursue marijuana use in black neighborhoods, or more likely to look the other way when a white college kid smells like pot, or that a judge is more likely to sentence a black person than a white person for the same drug charge. Of course not. This is America.
(0) comments
An update for all my family and close friends
I don't often find the time to personally contact my loved ones and update them with my happenings, but in case said loved ones are reading my blog, here's a summary of the next few weeks' activities:
- Tue., 11/18/03: Paper due in History of Art. Stupid paper.
- Fri., 11/21/03: Wisdom tooth extraction (all four of them) with Dr. Patakas in Alameda. My two bottom molars have soft tissue vertical impaction, meaning my jaw isn't long enough to accommodate these teeth, so the back half of each tooth has grown in under the gum. Here's an informative diagram:
- Sat., 11/22/03: Be in a lot of pain from previous day's procedure.
- Thu., 11/27/03: Thanksgiving with the man-pal's family in Sacramento. As a swollen-mouthed vegan, I have planned to bring my own delectable T-day treats, including vegan cornbread, vegan pumpkin pie, and a healthful yet exciting vegan yam dish. Mmmmm...yam dish.
I hope you all feel as if you were right here with me. I sure do.
(0) comments
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Whither progressive income tax?
On the face of it, it’s pretty difficult to argue against the progressive income tax without seeming like a jaded jerk. The most handy argument for it is that a flat tax would mean way higher taxes for you (millionaires don’t read this blog so it’s safe to say that). Though it is the actual reason we don’t have a flat tax there is something deeply unsatisfying about this argument. Heck! I could just as easily argue that everyone who reads this blog should get free money from the government, but I think it too would assault our basic sense of fairness.
Of course, every single flat tax proposal made by conservative leaders (it comes up in congress almost every year) aren’t really flat at all. They aim to levy a flat tax on earned income (the kind of money you and I make at pizza hut) and lift all taxes on unearned income (the kind of money the rich make off of us when they use out student loan interest to buy homes in the south of France). Furthermore, even Republican leaders aren’t heartless enough to tax the homeless and those not making a living wage. Again, being “two-tiered” their flat tax isn’t really flat at all. Clearly then, you could easily argue against any given “flat tax” plan, but still, the platonic ideal of a flat tax is still there, floating in space: Wrong… But why?
It’s an issue of fairness. Sure, Bill Gates is a better programmer than me. Heck, he’s probably even a better salesman then me. But is he really 43,150,080.03* times better than me at anything? Even at darts, which I am exceedingly bad at? No, although it is plain that Bill Gates should rightly own far more than I do, we can also freely admit that what he does own is due in some part to good fortune. Of course, Bill Gates is a particularly deserving case. What about flat tax proponent Steve Forbes? His main talent is the ability to be born to outstandingly rich parents. Quite a skill. Then again, I’m a really good whistler but our society has decided that this particular talent, though also inheritable, does not merit multimillion dollar rewards.
The flip side is less dramatic but probably more common. While it’s difficult to get rich without deserving it (barring accidents of birth like our sitting president), it is very easy to not get rich even though you totally do deserve it. If you see Philo Taylor Farnsworth in heaven, thank him for inventing television, since no one ever did down here.
Of course, this doesn’t even take into account the people who are rich specifically because they are jerks (see John D. Rockefeller civil-war profiteering) and those who are poor exactly because they were good Samaritans (all the George Baileys of the world).
In the end, a progressive tax is (amongst other things) really just a luck tax. It asks of the most probably lucky ducks sitting on their piles of gold to kick back a little to us unfortunates. Until we invent that magical machine that can tell us how much each person’s soul is worth, we’re just going to have to trust to the law of averages.
* Ratio of my current bank account balance to Bill Gates’ net worth. Including my student loans this number is negative.
(0) comments
Sunday, November 09, 2003
Our personal connection goes deeper than idealistic liberal politics and diminutive stature
I discovered today that Ohio's favorite lawn gnome and Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich, like myself, is a vegan:
"Congressman Kucinich is one of the few vegans in Congress, a dietary decision he credits not only with improving his health, but in deepening his belief in the sacredness of all species."
Awesome! Then again, he's also really good friends with Shirley Maclaine, but nobody's perfect. Denny's biggest downfall is that he's crazy.
Crazy for equality!
I'm not going to stop vouching on K-Dog's side. I don't believe he can win, but I do believe that he can give disheartened Democrats an inspiring alternative in the primaries. I think he's helping many liberals who may have shunned the Dems remember why they or their parents were Democrats. I hope he's illustrating to a few million Americans that the two major parties don't need to be so eerily similar on certain issues.
And I love that big black rug he wears on his little dome. My step-dad Travis said that he looks like "an uncolored coloring book." Touche, Trav. Touche.
(0) comments
Friday, November 07, 2003
Sometimes It's Hard to Be a Woman
Volume Two: Keeping America (and God) out of my uterus.
"Every person has a special dignity. This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government, it comes from the creator of life." Thanks President Bush. Maybe he should have repeated this cute little maxim when he gave the final order to put over 100 people to death during his Texas governorship. I was also under the impression that, even if you believe life is derived from a divine creator, that law comes from the government, not said creator. But this post is about abortion, not about hypocricy or comingling of church and state.
I have no doubt that the United States government's most recent attempt to stifle a form of abortion will die a bloody death in the high courts. I am, however, frightened that this anti-"partial-birth abortion" (no such medical term exists) bill even got past congress. It bothers me that a few hundred men and women (oh, but mostly men) in Washington are attempting to dictate what occurs inside a woman's own body. I'm peeved that a rare procedure that is almost only used to protect the life of a woman or to prevent the birth of a baby who cannot survive outside its mother's womb falls under the jurisdiction of a select few, the vast majority of whom don't have the capacity to get pregnant, and the even more overwhelming majority of whom have no medical experience.
I believe this issue goes beyond the right's attempt to protect the health of fetuses. (Otherwise it would be illegal to smoke in the same room as a pregnant woman.) As I've stated before, I think this blind anti-abortion sentiment is rooted in a disrespect for a woman's self-determination. I believe that, subversive though this mentality may be, there persists an idea that the female body does not bear the capacity to take care of itself. Women menstruate, they have "hormonal" outbursts, they're physically weaker than men, they have bodies which are believed to be tied to nature because of their reproductive functions. The idea is that women have an inability to control their bodies (we can't really opt out of our periods without negative health repurcussions, and our hormones follow suit), and thus that men, and by extension the men in government (and religion), should have jurisdiction over the feminine physical entity.
Many conservative figures in religion and politics are attempting to get "morning after pills" like Previn off the market, claiming that life begins at conception, despite the fact that a 72-hour old embryo is composed of only a few hundred undifferentiated cells. (It's comparable to biting the inside of your cheek and "killing" the skin that comes off.) This opposition to the "abortion pill" (what a charming and inaccurate name) is based not only on a distorted definition of life, but also a resistance to grant women control over their bodies. If abortions are available quickly and (relatively) painlessly, so the argument goes, then women will have sex whenever they want without worrying about the consequences. Drugs that prevent implantation are not going to encourage women to have willy-nilly sex (as much as Pat Robertson would love to picture that); it will give women and men who made a mistake a chance not to give birth to an unwanted, unaffordable child. Also, given that fathers of unwanted pregnancies out of wedlock rarely have to suffer the same consequences as the mothers, it provides women with a limited opportunity to decide for themselves what consequences their bodies will suffer.
On a lighter note, when I gave blood today I got a free 15 minute phone card. Woo hoo!
(0) comments
Sometimes It's Hard to Be a Woman
Volume One Point One: Giving my stupid kids a last stupid name.
In addition to having a husband, part of my life-plan is to have 2-3 children (and a few dogs and cats). And my kids are going to need last names. (Unless, of course, they plan upon becoming wildly successful mono-monikered super models [I'm 5'1" - an unlikely event], soccer players [again, I'm 5'1"], or pop stars.) So whose will it be? Mom's or Dad's?
Ehhhh. Now I'm uncomfortable.
I'm not taking my husband's name. He's not taking mine. (To do otherwise, as I explained, would be dishonest to the pursuit of equality in a relationship.) So there goes that "convenience" (chuckle) of having a happy family with the same surname for all. But what of little Timmy and little Sally and little Habib? If they take "Brown" that would would be denying the other parent's contribution. Likewise if they take "HypotheticalDadName" instead of mine.
The yuppie option "Brown-HypotheticalDadName" might be cumbersome, but is it really that awful an alternative to perpetuating patriarchism? And the name Brown is like a pair of black slacks - it goes with everything.
But what happens when Habib Brown-HypotheticalDadName falls in love with and raises children with Dora McCallister-Rosenberg, and Habib and Dora are also progressive, symbolic equality-seeking Americans? Meet Phineas McCallister-Rosenberg-Brown-HypotheticalDadName. Now, the likelihood of this happening is slim. But that's pretty cumbersome. (Note also that by the time I'm a grandma turn of the century names will again be en vogue. My money's on "Horatio" as the 2050's anser to 2000's "Madison." Mark my words.)
If I give my boy(s) Dad's name and my girl(s) Mom's name, that creates artificial alliances. Same if I did the opposite.
Sigh.
Maybe the dude I marry and I can dole out last names in alphabetical order. If I have babies with Harold Agajanian, the first kid gets his name, the second kid mine, and so on. If I have babies with Grover D. Caterwaul, I'll get first dibbs. Like home-ice advantage in the hockey playoffs.
Oh Jesus. That's a terrible idea.
A good idea, on the other hand, would be for you to donate blood. Do it!
(0) comments
Thursday, November 06, 2003
You gotta fight for your right to get free cookies and orange juice
That's right kids. Blood drive tomorrow in Wozinak (I probably spelled that wrong) Lounge in Soda Hall from the morning to the afternoon. I'll be there at about 10:30, as will Paul. The two of us have a friendship based on the mutual love of Elvis Costello and giving blood.
There will also be "Get the Red Out" Big Game week blood drives from 9-4 in Pauley Pavillion on Monday Nov. 17 and Friday Nov. 21. Even if I were eligable to give on the 21st (you have to wait at least 56 days between donations), I wouldn't. Instead on that day I shall be getting four of my teeth hacked out of my skull. And I'm paying almost $200 for the honor.
GIVE BLOOD!!! First, you save some lives. Second, you usually get a free t-shirt (you can choose among large, X-large, and XX-large). Lastly, needles are way cool. Trust me.
(0) comments
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
Sometimes It’s Hard to Be a Woman
Volume One: The Name Game.
For one reason or another, as I’ve mentioned before, there seems to be a dearth of female participants in the Cal political blogsphere, among both blog authors and commentators. (I cannot prove that women aren’t reading, thanks to the genderl anonymity of IP addresses.) I won’t speculate as to the source of this disproportionality (though I may do so later). But I can say that as a female I might represent, however inaccurately, a woman’s voice to my male blogging peers.
One topic of debate, often though erroneously labeled as a “women’s issue” (as if any issue existed in a sexual vacuum), is that of a woman’s last name when she gets married. As I foresee my life, I will get married, and I will not change my last name. Is this some subvert (or overt?) anti-male behavior? Is it rooted in the hatred of men inherent to my feminism? Am I simply being defiant in an empty, symbolic way for the sake of defiance itself? Am I trying to piss off my husband? Or am I trying to eliminate the possibility of even snagging a future husband?
Well, no. First, I don’t hate men. Neither does my mother. Or my sister. Nor do my aunts. Or almost any other feminist. Here lies a great myth. Feminists don’t hate men. A critically thinking woman (or man) will, however, despise hierarchy in which women are as a group disadvantaged due to the social structure created by men and reproduced by men (and women). Second, the symbolic battles are often the most difficult ones to win. I will gladly combat symbolic repression with full zeal. Further, no symbolic triumph is empty. Lastly, no, I’m rarely defiant for the sake of pissing people off. (Maybe my parents, but never an entire gender.)
My visceral argument against changing my name is that my identity as Rebecca C. Brown, not as Rebecca B. Smith or Rebecca B. Jones or Rebecca C. Brown-Jones, has been in the works for over two decades (longer by the time I will be asked by convention to alter it by adopting another name). Though a name is little more than a word, I will entreaty my readers to think about the power of words and how language infuses social action. In this case, a woman taking her husband’s last name represents very clearly that her individuality and self-ownership (both physically and psychically) belong not to her but instead to her husband. Just as a father gives his offspring his last name (then adopts a role of authority over them), he so gives his wife his name. Quite simply, it’s nominal slavery. To make a less dramatic argument, it is entirely counterintuitive to equality for one person in a relationship to take the name of the other. I challenge you to assert otherwise.
Your mother or aunt or grandmother may have taken her husband’s name, maybe had children, maybe worked, or maybe stayed home. And despite relinquishing her symbolic identity, was perfectly happy and content. I will not disagree with you. I don’t think something as small as a last name can dictate a person’s happiness; however, it can contribute to her perception of self as a female. Further, the collective inability of women to maintain their last names defines in part what a woman’s role is in the family and in society in general. And though there are no laws dictating that we must change our names, if we don’t, we will, well, get a lot of shit for it.
(0) comments
Monday, November 03, 2003
Baby Boomers: Ticking Socialist Time Bombs
Here’s some brain food: I’m confused about “Starve the beast” conservatives’ plans to run government deficits in order to force a government breakdown when Baby Boomers start to draw on Social Security. Completely getting rid of the social safety net is open goal of a lot of righty policy makers. They see it as a way of promoting personal responsibility. But while it’s an interesting if risky way of enacting policies which a majority of the country doesn’t agree with, I wonder if they aren’t biting off more than they can chew? I mean, it’s all nice and good to force a showdown between low taxes and public services, but is it wise to have that showdown at the exact time that a larger percentage of the voting public is depending on social security and other public safety nets?
We’ve all heard about how the Baby Boomers are the “lump in the python” of demographics, slowly working their way to old age. But I wonder if anyone has tried to explain political power shifts in terms of this giant section of the population growing through different phases of life? Couldn’t you just connect the 60’s to the innocent exuberance of youth, the 70s with the disillusionment, the 80’s with the family man who just wants to make a buck and so on? Of course, this kind of touchy-feely analysis usually makes me sick to my stomach, but a good old fashioned statistical analysis could easily reveal if politics were being changed by increased representations of a particular age group.
Anyhow, it’s food for thought.
(0) comments
Sunday, November 02, 2003
What's next? A gay pope?
"The Episcopal Church consecrated V. Gene Robinson as bishop in a heartfelt ceremony Sunday, making him the first openly gay man to rise to that rank in any of the world's major Christian bodies. But while pageantry mixed with exultation in the ritual elevating Robinson to bishop of New Hampshire, it seems unlikely the church will hold together in its aftermath." (Full article here.)
I think my loyal readers shold be able to predict my view on the matter. I completely support the right of the percentage of the Episcolpalians who oppose homosexuality to splinter off from the Anglican Church. But they're being archaic and childish. I'm just glad that this matter does not have to be mediated by law, given that God and state are separate entities (despite frequent evidence to the contrary). That's why I'm confused by the last paragraph from the news story:
"Some predict this will develop into the worst Episcopal split since the denomination was founded in 1789. And depending on the shape things take, a spate of church lawsuits may well result."
Lawsuit? Maybe someone with a more acute understanding of law could explain how the church could file any suits. On what basis? That consecrating a gay bishop defies the rules lain out in the Bible? I very honestly don't see what actual laws have been broken.
On a seasonal note, I hope you all had an enjoyable and, more importantly, safe Halloween. David, Andy, and I went down to Scott and the other Andy's place in Santa Barbara for the weekend. We fastidiously avoided Isla Vista, lest we be arrested en masse, until the day after Halloween, when we drove down the main celebration stretch to laugh at all the hungover kids walk home. Ubiquitous red party cups and half-torn sparkly costume butterfly/fairy/standard-female-quick-costume wings littered the road. It was glorious. On the night of the 31st we played Beirut, a delightful game of agility and coordination. Scott and I are currently World Champions of the World. Last night I further solidified my role as designated driver. My plan is to get my license in December, at which point my DD assignment will from then on be unequivocal.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
(This being my inaugural CalJunket entry, I will stick to the humorous. It is a little known fact that the squelch doesn't publish half the things I write, mostly because they aren't funny. I think most of the creative editors have had a slight bias against political humor, but that’s their prerogative. You make the call.)
Republicans find 300 billion in government waste
Tommaso Sciortino, Affairs Betterer
In a shocking revelation today Republican lawmakers have found a government department that has been wasting upward of 300 billion dollars each and every year that it has been operational.
“When our first tax cuts created a 300 billion deficit we explained that we would pay for it by cutting government waste instead of raising taxes.” Explained House Majority leader Tom DeLay, “Well, that’s exactly what we did.”
The government office responsible for this historically unprecedented level of waste, the Department of Betterin’ Affairs, is thought to have escaped detection for so long because of confusion between it and the much more well-known Department of Veteran’s Affairs. A relic from the New Deal, most of the Department’s 300 billion dollar budget was spent on “Just making things better…” said one newly unemployed staffer, “like sidewalks. Maybe they got gum all over ‘em… or maybe you see some guy and he’s got a bad hair cut… we’d buy that guy a hat.”
Republicans have not rested after their victory but have instead planned to pass more tax cuts. Quoted Grover Norquist, “We hope that at the current rate, no American will ever have to pay taxes after 2008. Also, the government will be so lean that it'll be able to run on the change that government workers find lying in the streets.”
(0) comments
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
NEWSBREAK: Democratic Party Dusts Off Pair of Severely Atrophied Balls
ALSO: Rebecca C. Brown Engages in Extended Third-Person Critique Describing Her Views on this Election's Viable Democratic Candidates
General Wesley Clark said today that the Bush Administration and, more specifically, George W. Bush himself need to take responsibility for their failure to respond to intelligence leading up to the September 11 attacks. (Full article here.) The comments of Clark today represented one of the stronger assaults on Bush's deception and incompetance by a plausable Democratic candidate.
(What amused me most from this article was this paragraph: "The Bush-Cheney campaign declined to respond to Clark's criticism, referring calls to the Republican National Committee. Christine Iverson, spokeswoman for the RNC, said Clark 'sounds exactly like Bob Graham, the failed presidential candidate from Florida who launched similar attacks against the president a few month ago, and was forced to drop out of the race because his message of protest and pessimism failed to resonate with the American people.'" So Iverson isn't saying that Clark is wrong, she's just saying that his views are unpopular. That's cute.)
Surprisingly enough, the cynical feminist Green with a strong disdain for corruption and pandering (namely Rebecca C. Brown) is relatively pleased with the Democratic candidates for the upcoming election. She even thinks that a few of the reasonably electable ones (Clark, Dean, Kerry) might somewhat represent her.
She does, however, feel that Dean and Clark each falter on selected issues. For example, while Howie (as she likes to call him) wants to protect women's reproductive rights, he also feels that the death penalty is an acceptable form of justice. Wes may present an overall liberal point of view (which will especially impress the American public because he is a four-star general and former Republican), he represents too steep of a compromise with the Right, according to Rebecca, on matters such as free trade and gun control.
Miss Brown would like to encourage all of her left-leaning readers to consider Dennis Kucinich, the Little Clevelander Who Could if He Was Only Given a Chance, for their Democratic pic these upcoming primaries. The author entreaties you to check out his fearless views (and facts) on the death penalty, the war on drugs, IRV, gay rights, trade, and many other issues. She feels that Dennis represents the most progressive and exciting option in the Democratic party.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
When they clean the street I'll be the only shit that's left behind
Bush is poised to sign a bill banning partial-birth abortions. I, oddly enough, am not wrangling up my picketing materials. But, though I think partial-birth abortions, which take place in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy, are ugly and should be discouraged, I don't feel that the law has any place in the matter.
By week eight into a pregnancy, the fetus already has a developing nervous system and will, even if the feeling isn't perceived by the fetus' brain, react to a physical stimulus. By the thirteenth week, the second trimester, the fetus has a fairly devolped nervous system and can move on its own volition. Premature fetuses that are born after only five months of gestation can survive, indicating that a "baby" has at that point been developed. I reluctantly say that I cannot support terminating the pregnancy in the second trimester, though nor do I feel particularly strong about this. Abortions in the third trimester, which represent only about 1% of abortions in the US, are fairly gruesome and should be strongly discouraged unless bringing the pregnancy to term would be harmful to the mother (or if it is discovered that the fetus will not survive through childbirth).
One very disturbing aspect of this bill is that it represents a stepping stone to the abolition of all abortion, no matter at what point during the pregnancy or under what circumstances. And by "circumstances" I am alluding to more than rape and incest; I believe that the sincere desire to not have a baby is a circumstance that justifies abortion.
What disturbs me most about the standard Republican stance on abortion is that they claim very ardently that they want to support a "culture of life" and eliminate a "culture of death." Wait, huh?! Is this not the political party whose platform supports the death penalty? The death penalty. Or the party (with congressional help from the pandering Democrats) that is currently waging a war in Iraq where Americans, Iraqis, soldiers, and civilians are being killed? (That's correct. I said currently.) Or the party who is more comfortable letting pollutants (pollutants that deplete the quality of and/or shorten life) into the ecosystem than regulating pollution and potentially stifling the economy on a temporary scale?
I don't belive Republicans are attempting with this bill to encourage a culture of life. At the risk of sounding radical or making a potentially offensive analysis (new territory for me), I believe this party's stance on abortion is rooted in anti-feminism and a distortion of Christian ideals (the latter obviously engendering the former). The word "God" has managed to litter the politics of the right to this day in such an un-Christian way. I have read Biblical texts for myself, and though I do not believe Jesus would support partial-birth abortions (if only we could ask him his stance on this, and stem cell research, and comprehensive admission standards for public universities), I also do not believe he would support putting criminals to death, or for that matter participating in any war.
The only good that will come of the soon-to-be passing of this bill is that the issue of abortion will once again, I predict, be taken to the Supreme Court and once again the Supreme Court will decide in favor of abortion rights. I don't know how many times the precedent will have to be set on this matter.
Dammit, I hate Republicans!
(0) comments
Elliott Smith dies in apparant suicide.
Plus, comedy show tonight at the Bear's Lair at 8pm.
Not that it's easy to get excited about a comedy show when one of the best songwriters of the last decade dies. I'm terribly sad about this. I just happen to have had one of his albums, Roman Candle, in my CD player for the last week. Come to think of it, probably not a week has gone by since I was 17 that I haven't listened to Elliott Smith. His music has had the amazing ability to console me in my down moments, despite his own meloncholia. This is very sad to me. I hope that if you haven't heard his work extinsively that you now give it a try. This is so incredibly disappointing.
(0) comments
Saturday, October 18, 2003
For those about to rock.
Yet another subtle reminder to check out the very good If Six Was Nine blog (ifsix.blogspot.com), wherein six sexy coeds offer their insights into the world of music. Also note that we now have a neat-o masthead at the top of the page with pictures of all six of us in alphabetical order. (That means I'm the one on the far right, kids.) My initial plan when I got into the blogging madness was to never let my readers (besides the ones whom I know in person) know what I look like. Well, now you do. Sexy. That's what I look like.
I'd also like to remind you that the Heuristic Squelch will be hosting a swell comedy show this upcoming Wednesday at the Bear's Lair at 8pm. It's only $5 for a whole night of laffs. Find us on Sproul.
What, by the way, did you all think of the most recent issue of our fine little humor mag?
Make to sure to celebrate the end of midterms responsibly. For example, don't celebrate the end of one midterm by ceasing to study for a week, only to remember that you have another midterm within the next few days.
I drove around the streets of Berkeley and Albany for the first time last night. I don't have my license yet, only my permit, but I am a very fast learner. I didn't drive when I was a teenager because I simply didn't have the money for insurance and gas and a car. (I, like a sucker, was saving my earnings for college. Psshh.) But now I'm an excellent driver. Definitely.
(0) comments
Sunday, October 12, 2003
Everyone's stupid but me
Also, pardon my hiatus.
A dangerous, covert terrorist lurks in our midst. A greasy, scrumptious terrorist. A capitalist terrorist who is poisoning Americans with its life-shortening and money-sucking death substance. That's right, it's the restaurant industry, and it's killing our nation's citizens with fat. Fat! Fattening fat deep-fried in 100% fatty fat. Or not. Who knows. Whatever.
This article is about how the three-fifths of RedWhiteAndBlueicans who are overwieght may have spurred legal action taken against the restaurant industry, who has facilitated rampant fat consumption. One option is to legally mandate that nutrition information be included on restaurant menus.
Every person (over the age of, let's say, thirteen, at which point if you can't cook your own dinner than you're a big loser) has complete control over what he or she eats, and every person has the option of asking for vague-to-specific nutrition information about the food he or she receives from a restaurant, so conceivably every person should know semi-accurately how many calories and fat grams he or she has consumed per meal, thus every person who is overweight has no one to blame but him or herself. Thus I think suing McDonald's or Chili's for America's obesity is frivilous and unfair.
But why not mandate that nutrition information, specific and accurate information, be available for all food no matter where it is being eaten? If people want to eat lard all day, oh for god's sake let them. But if some people ardently do not want to chug lipids for sport (and as a result possibly suffer heart disease, heart attack, diabetes, stroke, snoring, etc.), they should be able to have information assisting them in their pursuit readily available. There's no need to sue the restaurants that have helped this nation devolve into 250,000,000 corpulant turban-fearing cowboys (I guess they're only responsible for the first adjective), but there's also no need to withold information from the consumer.
An argument could be made by those of you who believe in individual self-determination and oppose institutional interferance with consumers' decisions. That argument might go something like this: "If folks are surprised that they're getting a spare tire after years of Big Macs and pepperoni pizzas, then they're big durfs who obviously don't understand how eating and digestion work. Man, are they big durfs." Hey, I agree with you. Especially about the durf thing. If there's one thing I can't stand it's a durf who doesn't understand stuff.
But I also believe that an informed consumer, perhaps even and over-informed consumer, is an ideal in a capitalist economy. Further, a citizen cannot truly be self-determining and free of interferance until he has every fact about what he is consuming at his disposal. Every person has the right to decide what is best for his body, so long as he knows exactly what is going into it.
[This is the part of the post where I reminisce longingly/disgustedly about my years back home in Long Beach.] When I was home for the Summer in the months between my freshman and sophomore years in college, I stayed in my home town of Long Beach for the season and chose to get a job at McDonald's because no one else would hire me for just eight weeks. As you can imagine, the menu at McDonald's hinges upon fat. I would leave that place with beef tallow caked between the treads of my non-scuff shoes. It's all fat. Fat plus more fat. Everyone knows that. Except kids. A five year old should not have to concern himself with calorie-counting when he goes out to eat with his parents. And it would be one thing if his parents took him for fast food once, even twice a month. But when you work full-time at McDonald's in a dense urban area, you come to see that some families eat there twice, thrice, four times a week. The parent are already obease. The children, through no fault of their own, are quickly on their way. They are being introduced very early into our culture of fattening foods. It's a culture where eating animal fats and proteins is encouraged for fear of anemia and/or sissiness, but I'd wager more on the latter. It's a society where convenience takes precedence over health. Most importantly, it's a culture that has developed out of ignorance, and it reproduces itself everyday because consumers aren't demanding to be informed.
If people could see, could read, could process with their own eyes that a medium order of french fries at McDonald's has 22 grams of fat (30% of your RDA of fat), or that a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese has 47 grams of fat (and thus that a #6 on the big picture menu gives them 69 grams total) as they're ordering then they may reconsider their options. Or not. Who cares. Let them eat fat. Just let them know how much.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
IT'S OFFICIAL!!
I now officially have no trust in the ability of the populous to elect the right people. I'm surrounded by 35 million doofers. Down with democracy! Up with highly centralized federal government!
On a lighter note, both propositions failed. Proposition 54 did not pass in any county at all, in fact. Even in Orange County, the coast's beacon of conservativism and illegal immigrant labor force, Prop 54 failed 51% to 49%.
In San Francisco County, Peter Camejo received about 1,300 more votes than McClintock. Yay! Gary Coleman got 21 more votes than drop-out candidate Peter Ueberroth. Yikes.
In Alameda County, write-in candidate Daniel Freedman received one vote. The Squelch Publicity Coordinator voted for himself.
Again on the lighter side, cheers to such high voter turnout. About 2 million more voted yesterday than a year ago.
On a curious note, how many of you were asked to provide photo ID when checking into your polling place? I was not asked, nor were any of the several other people I asked. Isn't such slack behavior conducive to voter fraud?
Here's how I voted:
Triple No plus Camejo.
I encourage you all to go back in time and do the same.
Here are all the exciting election returns from around the state!
New Squelch on Monday.
(0) comments
Sunday, October 05, 2003
Peter Camejo Rocks the Boat, My World
For those of you who didn't see Pete speak in Evans Hall on Firday at 6pm (which would be everyone on the planet save for about 400 of us), he was fantastic as always.
Seemingly the Green following in the Berkeley area is comprised of a bunch of hippies; who knew? Peter's appearance was hosted by the ISO, and apparantly socialists run on "commie time," wherein events start 15 minutes late (so much for the trains running on time), but the introductory speakers were few and brief and Camejo was speaking by 6:35pm.
In good third-party tradition, he came armed with some very indicitive and interesting graphs, including a chart showing that, when income and property and sales and all other state taxes are added together, the bottom 20% pay an 11.3% tax rate while the top 1% pays 7.2%. (Here's a link to that graph and report.) He also had a graph showing that taxes on corporations are as low as they've been since the mid-90s (I don't remember the exact numbers and I can't find Camejo's graph - I'd make a lousy political intern). Further, he outlined how the number of businesses in California is on the increase, as are their revenues; in fact, California's GDP was bigger last year than ever, which makes the current deficit that moch more amazing. In other words, Peter was artfully dispelling the myth so ardently perpetuated by Schwarzenegger and McClintock: that corporate and income taxes are driving the money out of this state. This simply isn't true! The Republicans may offer anecdotes saying otherwise, but emperical data cannot support the theory that California's current fiscal policies are forcing companies to move elsewhere.
But enough about the economy. The economy bores me to tears. (Luckilly, Camejo is a financial advisor and can find money exciting on my behalf.) What really incited enthusiam in me were Pete's invigorating stances on IRV and gay rights.
First, the latter: For him and the rest of the Green party, the issue of "gay rights" is not an issue. Gays are citizens and receive the rights thereof. No concessions, no compromises, no policies treating them as if they were legally different from "regular" people. Somehow, this is a stance that every plausable Democratic candidate (c'mon, no one's voting for Kucinich, and it makes me really sad) refuses to take, perhaps for fear of wierding out a good number of Americans, or perhaps because they genuinely don't believe gays are the same as everybody else.
Second, the former: I strongly believe that instant runoff voting would make government far more representative of the public's wishes. If progressives who like like the Greens or conservatives who like the crazy Libertarians or the nut jobs who like the wacky nut job Reformists got to vote their concience, these underdogs could receive the recognition they deserve and could further play a role in the political process, without their supporters feeling like they're "stealing" votes. I can't see any reason to oppose IRV.
Lastly, the previously unmentioned: Sumbit articles to the Squelch. Especially newsflashes. submit@squelched.com
(0) comments
Friday, October 03, 2003
RCB Guide's Cheers and Jeers
Jeers to Arnold Schwarzenegger for groping unwilling women. Jeers again to him for admiring Hitler in any capacity. Then again, maybe Adolf had a stunning physique that only Arnie knows about.
Jeers to Arianna Huffington for bowing out of the race. She was giving many Californians a good reason to go to the polls, and has subsequently abandoned them, no doubt under pressure from more likely victorious liberal candidates.
Cheers to Peter Camejo and Tom McClintock for not.
Cheers, further, to the people who made it possible for Peter and Tom to be involved in the gubernatorial debates. Cheers to a minor undermining of the strict two-party/two-candidate political system that limits the democratic potential of America.
Jeers to whoever decided to have the Giants' first three playoff games take place while most people are at work or school.
Jeers to midterms.
Cheers to the Heuristic Squelch, which stands as a beacon of entertainment in the face of said midterms.
Jeers to President Bush. For any number of things.
Jeers to "The Simpsons" for not being funny for almost half a decade.
Cheers to having all three seasons of "The Family Guy" on DVD to compensate for the previous Jeer.
Cheers to all the cool kids who run If Six Was Nine.
Jeers to this idiotic TV Guide format.
Update:
Cheers to Luna Bars, Clif Bar's high-density food chunk designed specifically for women. Each bar has 10 grams of protein (22% of its calories); 350mg calcium; 100% RDA of folate, vitamins C, B1, B3, B6, and B12, and some other stuff I've never heard of; and only 180 calories. Furthermore, Luna bars use no animal products, and because B vitamins are normally so difficult to find in large quantities in plants, these mid-meal snacks are ideal for us vegans. Yay!
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Heuristic Squelch sneak peak and entreaty for submissions
I'll let you in on a little secret....don't tell anyone....alright? Shhhh... The cover of the next issue of the Squelch is gonna totally zing Chancellor Berdahl! Zing!!!! Sorta. I guess we're not really zinging him at all. I don't even know any more. I'll be happy as long as the magazine makes reference at some point to the Chancellor's jowels.
We're getting started on our second issue of the year, and my prediction is of pure hilarity. Keep those submissions coming! submit@squelched.com.
(0) comments
Monday, September 29, 2003
Oh, Florida! Will you ever win?
In one of the more flagrant examples of defying a stupid law with an even more stupid (and harmful and disgusting) protest, the Florida band Hell on Earth (whose music I can only assume is sub-par... Can you blame me? They're called Hell on Earth!) plans to include an onstage suicide in one of their performances and broadcast it on their website. The groups is attempting to speak out against a new law in their city of St. Petersburg that prohibits physician-assisted suicide.
Call me old-fashioned, but I take life pretty seriously. So seriously that I won't even eat a crab, who probably has the neurological capacity of my left thumb. Furthermore, I take quality of life pretty seriously. So seriously that I refuse to drink the milk of a cow who was treated like anything less than a valued house pet. Thus, and I do not belive I am contradicting my previous contention that all life is equally valuable, I respect a person's desire to end his life if he is truly in pain and has no desire to continue living. But, in keeping with that whole "life is valuable" argument, I think the option of suicide should be evaluated and ever so carefully scrutinized with a professional physician and the patient's family or friends. I think the state has a right to legally mandate that its doctors discourage suicide and refuse to assist death unless there is no alternative pain remedy. But a terminally ill adult should have the final say on his condition. Therefore, I think it's a dumb law with good intentions.
There are no good intentions, however, behind Hell on Earth's stunt. Death is tragic and, moreover, personal, not commercial or sensational. If the group genuinely saw injustice in their city's law, they could very well work with health care officials and local politicians, armed with research and first-hand testimonial, to revoke the law. Instead they have chosen to make a mockery of the pain of suicide.
In unrelated news, I had a fairly successful trip to the dentist today. (If any of you with Delta PMI need to find a dentist in the area, I'd highly recommend this one. Berkeley Hills Dental Care. On Telegraph and Woosley. Not in the hills.) I had the base filling for a crown put in after a good 30 minutes of drilling. If any inordinate pain or breakage occurs in the next two weeks, a root canal will be my ultimate fate. While in my mouth, Dr. Nikfarjam also noticed that I need to get at least one of my sprouting wisdom teeth removed. I can't wait.
(0) comments
Sunday, September 28, 2003
Another blog for your blog-visiting repotoire
That's right. More words from me and five other students who love music enough to write about it. The title will be changed shortly, but I suggest you start reading now. Click here.
(0) comments
Saturday, September 27, 2003
CAL WINS: 34-31!!!!
(Rebecca Loses: Her Sunglasses; Subsequently Finds Them Between the Cushions)
Excellent game.
I hail originally from Southern California. Long Beach to be precise. A few of my high school aquaintences attended USC. They're now spending five times what I do for a comparable education. Not that it has anything to do with football. Just saying is all.
"Take off that red car!"
I viewed the game from the comfort of a frat house. A dozen or so alumni came over to the house for today's event. It seems the majority of frat boys age to become frat men. The Frat Graduation Package includes a baseball cap, khaki shorts, a blond wife, and a sense of entitlement. Just saying is all.
On an 80's flashback note, the Cal band is currently eating hot dogs at the frat after playing a few spirited songs for the brothers and alum; one alum requested "Lady in Red." Ouch.
(0) comments
Friday, September 26, 2003
NEWSBREAK: Doors of East Elevator in Eschleman Hall Opening Very Slowly
More news as it comes in...
(0) comments
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
ACLU declines to appeal recall election decision, diverts resources to delaying outdated and unreliable Christmas.
San Francisco, CA - The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided today that the unprecedented California recall election will take place on October 7 as originally scheduled, despite the contetnion from the American Civil Liberties Union that outdated punch-card ballots are less accurate than electronic voting systems and thus disefranchise thousands of voters from dense minority populations in six counties throughout the state.
The ACLU took today's ruling in stride, and shortly after the court's decision announced that they have more ambitious plans on the horizon. ACLU presidnet Nadine Strossen told reporters Tuesday that their next project is to delay Christmas, which the organization beleives is inaccurate and unreliable, and which is specifically unfair to minorities.
The case will be heard by the US Supreme Court this coming Friday.
Said Strossen, "Data from all around the nation indicate that poor and minority children are the most likely to receive crappy Christmas gifts, if in fact they receive gifts at all. In nearly every community included in the study, African American and Latino youngsters more than any other ethnic groups were the victims of pre-used gifts, gifts from Walmart, a piece of fruit in lieu of a real gift, or simply no gifts whatsoever. This is unfair. Absolutely unfair."
ACLU spokespeople are citing outdated equipment and profiling as the source of these discrepencies. According to the group, Santa Claus' sleigh, deer, and elves do not have the technology to serve every American child equally, prompting Claus to distribute his limited resources disproportinally to rich white kids whose parents have wider chimneys and superior cookies.
The group is asking for a six month delay of the holiday, which should give Claus and his faculty ample time to update toy production and distribution systems, including speedier, more ergonomically sound toy-building technology and more accurate electronic checking-it-twice devices. They are also requesting that diveristy training be legally mandated for each North Pole staff member.
Claus' spokesmen Jingle and Jangle deny allegations that his distribution techniques are unfair, and are confident that the court will rule in his favor.
(I'm not sure why I wrote this. I'm actually on the ACLU's side. On both issues.)
(0) comments
On the face of it, it’s pretty difficult to argue against the progressive income tax without seeming like a jaded jerk. The most handy argument for it is that a flat tax would mean way higher taxes for you (millionaires don’t read this blog so it’s safe to say that). Though it is the actual reason we don’t have a flat tax there is something deeply unsatisfying about this argument. Heck! I could just as easily argue that everyone who reads this blog should get free money from the government, but I think it too would assault our basic sense of fairness.
Of course, every single flat tax proposal made by conservative leaders (it comes up in congress almost every year) aren’t really flat at all. They aim to levy a flat tax on earned income (the kind of money you and I make at pizza hut) and lift all taxes on unearned income (the kind of money the rich make off of us when they use out student loan interest to buy homes in the south of France). Furthermore, even Republican leaders aren’t heartless enough to tax the homeless and those not making a living wage. Again, being “two-tiered” their flat tax isn’t really flat at all. Clearly then, you could easily argue against any given “flat tax” plan, but still, the platonic ideal of a flat tax is still there, floating in space: Wrong… But why?
It’s an issue of fairness. Sure, Bill Gates is a better programmer than me. Heck, he’s probably even a better salesman then me. But is he really 43,150,080.03* times better than me at anything? Even at darts, which I am exceedingly bad at? No, although it is plain that Bill Gates should rightly own far more than I do, we can also freely admit that what he does own is due in some part to good fortune. Of course, Bill Gates is a particularly deserving case. What about flat tax proponent Steve Forbes? His main talent is the ability to be born to outstandingly rich parents. Quite a skill. Then again, I’m a really good whistler but our society has decided that this particular talent, though also inheritable, does not merit multimillion dollar rewards.
The flip side is less dramatic but probably more common. While it’s difficult to get rich without deserving it (barring accidents of birth like our sitting president), it is very easy to not get rich even though you totally do deserve it. If you see Philo Taylor Farnsworth in heaven, thank him for inventing television, since no one ever did down here.
Of course, this doesn’t even take into account the people who are rich specifically because they are jerks (see John D. Rockefeller civil-war profiteering) and those who are poor exactly because they were good Samaritans (all the George Baileys of the world).
In the end, a progressive tax is (amongst other things) really just a luck tax. It asks of the most probably lucky ducks sitting on their piles of gold to kick back a little to us unfortunates. Until we invent that magical machine that can tell us how much each person’s soul is worth, we’re just going to have to trust to the law of averages.
* Ratio of my current bank account balance to Bill Gates’ net worth. Including my student loans this number is negative.
(0) comments
Our personal connection goes deeper than idealistic liberal politics and diminutive stature
I discovered today that Ohio's favorite lawn gnome and Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich, like myself, is a vegan:
"Congressman Kucinich is one of the few vegans in Congress, a dietary decision he credits not only with improving his health, but in deepening his belief in the sacredness of all species."
Awesome! Then again, he's also really good friends with Shirley Maclaine, but nobody's perfect. Denny's biggest downfall is that he's crazy.
Crazy for equality!
I'm not going to stop vouching on K-Dog's side. I don't believe he can win, but I do believe that he can give disheartened Democrats an inspiring alternative in the primaries. I think he's helping many liberals who may have shunned the Dems remember why they or their parents were Democrats. I hope he's illustrating to a few million Americans that the two major parties don't need to be so eerily similar on certain issues.
And I love that big black rug he wears on his little dome. My step-dad Travis said that he looks like "an uncolored coloring book." Touche, Trav. Touche.
(0) comments
Friday, November 07, 2003
Sometimes It's Hard to Be a Woman
Volume Two: Keeping America (and God) out of my uterus.
"Every person has a special dignity. This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government, it comes from the creator of life." Thanks President Bush. Maybe he should have repeated this cute little maxim when he gave the final order to put over 100 people to death during his Texas governorship. I was also under the impression that, even if you believe life is derived from a divine creator, that law comes from the government, not said creator. But this post is about abortion, not about hypocricy or comingling of church and state.
I have no doubt that the United States government's most recent attempt to stifle a form of abortion will die a bloody death in the high courts. I am, however, frightened that this anti-"partial-birth abortion" (no such medical term exists) bill even got past congress. It bothers me that a few hundred men and women (oh, but mostly men) in Washington are attempting to dictate what occurs inside a woman's own body. I'm peeved that a rare procedure that is almost only used to protect the life of a woman or to prevent the birth of a baby who cannot survive outside its mother's womb falls under the jurisdiction of a select few, the vast majority of whom don't have the capacity to get pregnant, and the even more overwhelming majority of whom have no medical experience.
I believe this issue goes beyond the right's attempt to protect the health of fetuses. (Otherwise it would be illegal to smoke in the same room as a pregnant woman.) As I've stated before, I think this blind anti-abortion sentiment is rooted in a disrespect for a woman's self-determination. I believe that, subversive though this mentality may be, there persists an idea that the female body does not bear the capacity to take care of itself. Women menstruate, they have "hormonal" outbursts, they're physically weaker than men, they have bodies which are believed to be tied to nature because of their reproductive functions. The idea is that women have an inability to control their bodies (we can't really opt out of our periods without negative health repurcussions, and our hormones follow suit), and thus that men, and by extension the men in government (and religion), should have jurisdiction over the feminine physical entity.
Many conservative figures in religion and politics are attempting to get "morning after pills" like Previn off the market, claiming that life begins at conception, despite the fact that a 72-hour old embryo is composed of only a few hundred undifferentiated cells. (It's comparable to biting the inside of your cheek and "killing" the skin that comes off.) This opposition to the "abortion pill" (what a charming and inaccurate name) is based not only on a distorted definition of life, but also a resistance to grant women control over their bodies. If abortions are available quickly and (relatively) painlessly, so the argument goes, then women will have sex whenever they want without worrying about the consequences. Drugs that prevent implantation are not going to encourage women to have willy-nilly sex (as much as Pat Robertson would love to picture that); it will give women and men who made a mistake a chance not to give birth to an unwanted, unaffordable child. Also, given that fathers of unwanted pregnancies out of wedlock rarely have to suffer the same consequences as the mothers, it provides women with a limited opportunity to decide for themselves what consequences their bodies will suffer.
On a lighter note, when I gave blood today I got a free 15 minute phone card. Woo hoo!
(0) comments
Sometimes It's Hard to Be a Woman
Volume One Point One: Giving my stupid kids a last stupid name.
In addition to having a husband, part of my life-plan is to have 2-3 children (and a few dogs and cats). And my kids are going to need last names. (Unless, of course, they plan upon becoming wildly successful mono-monikered super models [I'm 5'1" - an unlikely event], soccer players [again, I'm 5'1"], or pop stars.) So whose will it be? Mom's or Dad's?
Ehhhh. Now I'm uncomfortable.
I'm not taking my husband's name. He's not taking mine. (To do otherwise, as I explained, would be dishonest to the pursuit of equality in a relationship.) So there goes that "convenience" (chuckle) of having a happy family with the same surname for all. But what of little Timmy and little Sally and little Habib? If they take "Brown" that would would be denying the other parent's contribution. Likewise if they take "HypotheticalDadName" instead of mine.
The yuppie option "Brown-HypotheticalDadName" might be cumbersome, but is it really that awful an alternative to perpetuating patriarchism? And the name Brown is like a pair of black slacks - it goes with everything.
But what happens when Habib Brown-HypotheticalDadName falls in love with and raises children with Dora McCallister-Rosenberg, and Habib and Dora are also progressive, symbolic equality-seeking Americans? Meet Phineas McCallister-Rosenberg-Brown-HypotheticalDadName. Now, the likelihood of this happening is slim. But that's pretty cumbersome. (Note also that by the time I'm a grandma turn of the century names will again be en vogue. My money's on "Horatio" as the 2050's anser to 2000's "Madison." Mark my words.)
If I give my boy(s) Dad's name and my girl(s) Mom's name, that creates artificial alliances. Same if I did the opposite.
Sigh.
Maybe the dude I marry and I can dole out last names in alphabetical order. If I have babies with Harold Agajanian, the first kid gets his name, the second kid mine, and so on. If I have babies with Grover D. Caterwaul, I'll get first dibbs. Like home-ice advantage in the hockey playoffs.
Oh Jesus. That's a terrible idea.
A good idea, on the other hand, would be for you to donate blood. Do it!
(0) comments
Thursday, November 06, 2003
You gotta fight for your right to get free cookies and orange juice
That's right kids. Blood drive tomorrow in Wozinak (I probably spelled that wrong) Lounge in Soda Hall from the morning to the afternoon. I'll be there at about 10:30, as will Paul. The two of us have a friendship based on the mutual love of Elvis Costello and giving blood.
There will also be "Get the Red Out" Big Game week blood drives from 9-4 in Pauley Pavillion on Monday Nov. 17 and Friday Nov. 21. Even if I were eligable to give on the 21st (you have to wait at least 56 days between donations), I wouldn't. Instead on that day I shall be getting four of my teeth hacked out of my skull. And I'm paying almost $200 for the honor.
GIVE BLOOD!!! First, you save some lives. Second, you usually get a free t-shirt (you can choose among large, X-large, and XX-large). Lastly, needles are way cool. Trust me.
(0) comments
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
Sometimes It’s Hard to Be a Woman
Volume One: The Name Game.
For one reason or another, as I’ve mentioned before, there seems to be a dearth of female participants in the Cal political blogsphere, among both blog authors and commentators. (I cannot prove that women aren’t reading, thanks to the genderl anonymity of IP addresses.) I won’t speculate as to the source of this disproportionality (though I may do so later). But I can say that as a female I might represent, however inaccurately, a woman’s voice to my male blogging peers.
One topic of debate, often though erroneously labeled as a “women’s issue” (as if any issue existed in a sexual vacuum), is that of a woman’s last name when she gets married. As I foresee my life, I will get married, and I will not change my last name. Is this some subvert (or overt?) anti-male behavior? Is it rooted in the hatred of men inherent to my feminism? Am I simply being defiant in an empty, symbolic way for the sake of defiance itself? Am I trying to piss off my husband? Or am I trying to eliminate the possibility of even snagging a future husband?
Well, no. First, I don’t hate men. Neither does my mother. Or my sister. Nor do my aunts. Or almost any other feminist. Here lies a great myth. Feminists don’t hate men. A critically thinking woman (or man) will, however, despise hierarchy in which women are as a group disadvantaged due to the social structure created by men and reproduced by men (and women). Second, the symbolic battles are often the most difficult ones to win. I will gladly combat symbolic repression with full zeal. Further, no symbolic triumph is empty. Lastly, no, I’m rarely defiant for the sake of pissing people off. (Maybe my parents, but never an entire gender.)
My visceral argument against changing my name is that my identity as Rebecca C. Brown, not as Rebecca B. Smith or Rebecca B. Jones or Rebecca C. Brown-Jones, has been in the works for over two decades (longer by the time I will be asked by convention to alter it by adopting another name). Though a name is little more than a word, I will entreaty my readers to think about the power of words and how language infuses social action. In this case, a woman taking her husband’s last name represents very clearly that her individuality and self-ownership (both physically and psychically) belong not to her but instead to her husband. Just as a father gives his offspring his last name (then adopts a role of authority over them), he so gives his wife his name. Quite simply, it’s nominal slavery. To make a less dramatic argument, it is entirely counterintuitive to equality for one person in a relationship to take the name of the other. I challenge you to assert otherwise.
Your mother or aunt or grandmother may have taken her husband’s name, maybe had children, maybe worked, or maybe stayed home. And despite relinquishing her symbolic identity, was perfectly happy and content. I will not disagree with you. I don’t think something as small as a last name can dictate a person’s happiness; however, it can contribute to her perception of self as a female. Further, the collective inability of women to maintain their last names defines in part what a woman’s role is in the family and in society in general. And though there are no laws dictating that we must change our names, if we don’t, we will, well, get a lot of shit for it.
(0) comments
Monday, November 03, 2003
Baby Boomers: Ticking Socialist Time Bombs
Here’s some brain food: I’m confused about “Starve the beast” conservatives’ plans to run government deficits in order to force a government breakdown when Baby Boomers start to draw on Social Security. Completely getting rid of the social safety net is open goal of a lot of righty policy makers. They see it as a way of promoting personal responsibility. But while it’s an interesting if risky way of enacting policies which a majority of the country doesn’t agree with, I wonder if they aren’t biting off more than they can chew? I mean, it’s all nice and good to force a showdown between low taxes and public services, but is it wise to have that showdown at the exact time that a larger percentage of the voting public is depending on social security and other public safety nets?
We’ve all heard about how the Baby Boomers are the “lump in the python” of demographics, slowly working their way to old age. But I wonder if anyone has tried to explain political power shifts in terms of this giant section of the population growing through different phases of life? Couldn’t you just connect the 60’s to the innocent exuberance of youth, the 70s with the disillusionment, the 80’s with the family man who just wants to make a buck and so on? Of course, this kind of touchy-feely analysis usually makes me sick to my stomach, but a good old fashioned statistical analysis could easily reveal if politics were being changed by increased representations of a particular age group.
Anyhow, it’s food for thought.
(0) comments
Sunday, November 02, 2003
What's next? A gay pope?
"The Episcopal Church consecrated V. Gene Robinson as bishop in a heartfelt ceremony Sunday, making him the first openly gay man to rise to that rank in any of the world's major Christian bodies. But while pageantry mixed with exultation in the ritual elevating Robinson to bishop of New Hampshire, it seems unlikely the church will hold together in its aftermath." (Full article here.)
I think my loyal readers shold be able to predict my view on the matter. I completely support the right of the percentage of the Episcolpalians who oppose homosexuality to splinter off from the Anglican Church. But they're being archaic and childish. I'm just glad that this matter does not have to be mediated by law, given that God and state are separate entities (despite frequent evidence to the contrary). That's why I'm confused by the last paragraph from the news story:
"Some predict this will develop into the worst Episcopal split since the denomination was founded in 1789. And depending on the shape things take, a spate of church lawsuits may well result."
Lawsuit? Maybe someone with a more acute understanding of law could explain how the church could file any suits. On what basis? That consecrating a gay bishop defies the rules lain out in the Bible? I very honestly don't see what actual laws have been broken.
On a seasonal note, I hope you all had an enjoyable and, more importantly, safe Halloween. David, Andy, and I went down to Scott and the other Andy's place in Santa Barbara for the weekend. We fastidiously avoided Isla Vista, lest we be arrested en masse, until the day after Halloween, when we drove down the main celebration stretch to laugh at all the hungover kids walk home. Ubiquitous red party cups and half-torn sparkly costume butterfly/fairy/standard-female-quick-costume wings littered the road. It was glorious. On the night of the 31st we played Beirut, a delightful game of agility and coordination. Scott and I are currently World Champions of the World. Last night I further solidified my role as designated driver. My plan is to get my license in December, at which point my DD assignment will from then on be unequivocal.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
(This being my inaugural CalJunket entry, I will stick to the humorous. It is a little known fact that the squelch doesn't publish half the things I write, mostly because they aren't funny. I think most of the creative editors have had a slight bias against political humor, but that’s their prerogative. You make the call.)
Republicans find 300 billion in government waste
Tommaso Sciortino, Affairs Betterer
In a shocking revelation today Republican lawmakers have found a government department that has been wasting upward of 300 billion dollars each and every year that it has been operational.
“When our first tax cuts created a 300 billion deficit we explained that we would pay for it by cutting government waste instead of raising taxes.” Explained House Majority leader Tom DeLay, “Well, that’s exactly what we did.”
The government office responsible for this historically unprecedented level of waste, the Department of Betterin’ Affairs, is thought to have escaped detection for so long because of confusion between it and the much more well-known Department of Veteran’s Affairs. A relic from the New Deal, most of the Department’s 300 billion dollar budget was spent on “Just making things better…” said one newly unemployed staffer, “like sidewalks. Maybe they got gum all over ‘em… or maybe you see some guy and he’s got a bad hair cut… we’d buy that guy a hat.”
Republicans have not rested after their victory but have instead planned to pass more tax cuts. Quoted Grover Norquist, “We hope that at the current rate, no American will ever have to pay taxes after 2008. Also, the government will be so lean that it'll be able to run on the change that government workers find lying in the streets.”
(0) comments
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
NEWSBREAK: Democratic Party Dusts Off Pair of Severely Atrophied Balls
ALSO: Rebecca C. Brown Engages in Extended Third-Person Critique Describing Her Views on this Election's Viable Democratic Candidates
General Wesley Clark said today that the Bush Administration and, more specifically, George W. Bush himself need to take responsibility for their failure to respond to intelligence leading up to the September 11 attacks. (Full article here.) The comments of Clark today represented one of the stronger assaults on Bush's deception and incompetance by a plausable Democratic candidate.
(What amused me most from this article was this paragraph: "The Bush-Cheney campaign declined to respond to Clark's criticism, referring calls to the Republican National Committee. Christine Iverson, spokeswoman for the RNC, said Clark 'sounds exactly like Bob Graham, the failed presidential candidate from Florida who launched similar attacks against the president a few month ago, and was forced to drop out of the race because his message of protest and pessimism failed to resonate with the American people.'" So Iverson isn't saying that Clark is wrong, she's just saying that his views are unpopular. That's cute.)
Surprisingly enough, the cynical feminist Green with a strong disdain for corruption and pandering (namely Rebecca C. Brown) is relatively pleased with the Democratic candidates for the upcoming election. She even thinks that a few of the reasonably electable ones (Clark, Dean, Kerry) might somewhat represent her.
She does, however, feel that Dean and Clark each falter on selected issues. For example, while Howie (as she likes to call him) wants to protect women's reproductive rights, he also feels that the death penalty is an acceptable form of justice. Wes may present an overall liberal point of view (which will especially impress the American public because he is a four-star general and former Republican), he represents too steep of a compromise with the Right, according to Rebecca, on matters such as free trade and gun control.
Miss Brown would like to encourage all of her left-leaning readers to consider Dennis Kucinich, the Little Clevelander Who Could if He Was Only Given a Chance, for their Democratic pic these upcoming primaries. The author entreaties you to check out his fearless views (and facts) on the death penalty, the war on drugs, IRV, gay rights, trade, and many other issues. She feels that Dennis represents the most progressive and exciting option in the Democratic party.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
When they clean the street I'll be the only shit that's left behind
Bush is poised to sign a bill banning partial-birth abortions. I, oddly enough, am not wrangling up my picketing materials. But, though I think partial-birth abortions, which take place in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy, are ugly and should be discouraged, I don't feel that the law has any place in the matter.
By week eight into a pregnancy, the fetus already has a developing nervous system and will, even if the feeling isn't perceived by the fetus' brain, react to a physical stimulus. By the thirteenth week, the second trimester, the fetus has a fairly devolped nervous system and can move on its own volition. Premature fetuses that are born after only five months of gestation can survive, indicating that a "baby" has at that point been developed. I reluctantly say that I cannot support terminating the pregnancy in the second trimester, though nor do I feel particularly strong about this. Abortions in the third trimester, which represent only about 1% of abortions in the US, are fairly gruesome and should be strongly discouraged unless bringing the pregnancy to term would be harmful to the mother (or if it is discovered that the fetus will not survive through childbirth).
One very disturbing aspect of this bill is that it represents a stepping stone to the abolition of all abortion, no matter at what point during the pregnancy or under what circumstances. And by "circumstances" I am alluding to more than rape and incest; I believe that the sincere desire to not have a baby is a circumstance that justifies abortion.
What disturbs me most about the standard Republican stance on abortion is that they claim very ardently that they want to support a "culture of life" and eliminate a "culture of death." Wait, huh?! Is this not the political party whose platform supports the death penalty? The death penalty. Or the party (with congressional help from the pandering Democrats) that is currently waging a war in Iraq where Americans, Iraqis, soldiers, and civilians are being killed? (That's correct. I said currently.) Or the party who is more comfortable letting pollutants (pollutants that deplete the quality of and/or shorten life) into the ecosystem than regulating pollution and potentially stifling the economy on a temporary scale?
I don't belive Republicans are attempting with this bill to encourage a culture of life. At the risk of sounding radical or making a potentially offensive analysis (new territory for me), I believe this party's stance on abortion is rooted in anti-feminism and a distortion of Christian ideals (the latter obviously engendering the former). The word "God" has managed to litter the politics of the right to this day in such an un-Christian way. I have read Biblical texts for myself, and though I do not believe Jesus would support partial-birth abortions (if only we could ask him his stance on this, and stem cell research, and comprehensive admission standards for public universities), I also do not believe he would support putting criminals to death, or for that matter participating in any war.
The only good that will come of the soon-to-be passing of this bill is that the issue of abortion will once again, I predict, be taken to the Supreme Court and once again the Supreme Court will decide in favor of abortion rights. I don't know how many times the precedent will have to be set on this matter.
Dammit, I hate Republicans!
(0) comments
Elliott Smith dies in apparant suicide.
Plus, comedy show tonight at the Bear's Lair at 8pm.
Not that it's easy to get excited about a comedy show when one of the best songwriters of the last decade dies. I'm terribly sad about this. I just happen to have had one of his albums, Roman Candle, in my CD player for the last week. Come to think of it, probably not a week has gone by since I was 17 that I haven't listened to Elliott Smith. His music has had the amazing ability to console me in my down moments, despite his own meloncholia. This is very sad to me. I hope that if you haven't heard his work extinsively that you now give it a try. This is so incredibly disappointing.
(0) comments
Saturday, October 18, 2003
For those about to rock.
Yet another subtle reminder to check out the very good If Six Was Nine blog (ifsix.blogspot.com), wherein six sexy coeds offer their insights into the world of music. Also note that we now have a neat-o masthead at the top of the page with pictures of all six of us in alphabetical order. (That means I'm the one on the far right, kids.) My initial plan when I got into the blogging madness was to never let my readers (besides the ones whom I know in person) know what I look like. Well, now you do. Sexy. That's what I look like.
I'd also like to remind you that the Heuristic Squelch will be hosting a swell comedy show this upcoming Wednesday at the Bear's Lair at 8pm. It's only $5 for a whole night of laffs. Find us on Sproul.
What, by the way, did you all think of the most recent issue of our fine little humor mag?
Make to sure to celebrate the end of midterms responsibly. For example, don't celebrate the end of one midterm by ceasing to study for a week, only to remember that you have another midterm within the next few days.
I drove around the streets of Berkeley and Albany for the first time last night. I don't have my license yet, only my permit, but I am a very fast learner. I didn't drive when I was a teenager because I simply didn't have the money for insurance and gas and a car. (I, like a sucker, was saving my earnings for college. Psshh.) But now I'm an excellent driver. Definitely.
(0) comments
Sunday, October 12, 2003
Everyone's stupid but me
Also, pardon my hiatus.
A dangerous, covert terrorist lurks in our midst. A greasy, scrumptious terrorist. A capitalist terrorist who is poisoning Americans with its life-shortening and money-sucking death substance. That's right, it's the restaurant industry, and it's killing our nation's citizens with fat. Fat! Fattening fat deep-fried in 100% fatty fat. Or not. Who knows. Whatever.
This article is about how the three-fifths of RedWhiteAndBlueicans who are overwieght may have spurred legal action taken against the restaurant industry, who has facilitated rampant fat consumption. One option is to legally mandate that nutrition information be included on restaurant menus.
Every person (over the age of, let's say, thirteen, at which point if you can't cook your own dinner than you're a big loser) has complete control over what he or she eats, and every person has the option of asking for vague-to-specific nutrition information about the food he or she receives from a restaurant, so conceivably every person should know semi-accurately how many calories and fat grams he or she has consumed per meal, thus every person who is overweight has no one to blame but him or herself. Thus I think suing McDonald's or Chili's for America's obesity is frivilous and unfair.
But why not mandate that nutrition information, specific and accurate information, be available for all food no matter where it is being eaten? If people want to eat lard all day, oh for god's sake let them. But if some people ardently do not want to chug lipids for sport (and as a result possibly suffer heart disease, heart attack, diabetes, stroke, snoring, etc.), they should be able to have information assisting them in their pursuit readily available. There's no need to sue the restaurants that have helped this nation devolve into 250,000,000 corpulant turban-fearing cowboys (I guess they're only responsible for the first adjective), but there's also no need to withold information from the consumer.
An argument could be made by those of you who believe in individual self-determination and oppose institutional interferance with consumers' decisions. That argument might go something like this: "If folks are surprised that they're getting a spare tire after years of Big Macs and pepperoni pizzas, then they're big durfs who obviously don't understand how eating and digestion work. Man, are they big durfs." Hey, I agree with you. Especially about the durf thing. If there's one thing I can't stand it's a durf who doesn't understand stuff.
But I also believe that an informed consumer, perhaps even and over-informed consumer, is an ideal in a capitalist economy. Further, a citizen cannot truly be self-determining and free of interferance until he has every fact about what he is consuming at his disposal. Every person has the right to decide what is best for his body, so long as he knows exactly what is going into it.
[This is the part of the post where I reminisce longingly/disgustedly about my years back home in Long Beach.] When I was home for the Summer in the months between my freshman and sophomore years in college, I stayed in my home town of Long Beach for the season and chose to get a job at McDonald's because no one else would hire me for just eight weeks. As you can imagine, the menu at McDonald's hinges upon fat. I would leave that place with beef tallow caked between the treads of my non-scuff shoes. It's all fat. Fat plus more fat. Everyone knows that. Except kids. A five year old should not have to concern himself with calorie-counting when he goes out to eat with his parents. And it would be one thing if his parents took him for fast food once, even twice a month. But when you work full-time at McDonald's in a dense urban area, you come to see that some families eat there twice, thrice, four times a week. The parent are already obease. The children, through no fault of their own, are quickly on their way. They are being introduced very early into our culture of fattening foods. It's a culture where eating animal fats and proteins is encouraged for fear of anemia and/or sissiness, but I'd wager more on the latter. It's a society where convenience takes precedence over health. Most importantly, it's a culture that has developed out of ignorance, and it reproduces itself everyday because consumers aren't demanding to be informed.
If people could see, could read, could process with their own eyes that a medium order of french fries at McDonald's has 22 grams of fat (30% of your RDA of fat), or that a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese has 47 grams of fat (and thus that a #6 on the big picture menu gives them 69 grams total) as they're ordering then they may reconsider their options. Or not. Who cares. Let them eat fat. Just let them know how much.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
IT'S OFFICIAL!!
I now officially have no trust in the ability of the populous to elect the right people. I'm surrounded by 35 million doofers. Down with democracy! Up with highly centralized federal government!
On a lighter note, both propositions failed. Proposition 54 did not pass in any county at all, in fact. Even in Orange County, the coast's beacon of conservativism and illegal immigrant labor force, Prop 54 failed 51% to 49%.
In San Francisco County, Peter Camejo received about 1,300 more votes than McClintock. Yay! Gary Coleman got 21 more votes than drop-out candidate Peter Ueberroth. Yikes.
In Alameda County, write-in candidate Daniel Freedman received one vote. The Squelch Publicity Coordinator voted for himself.
Again on the lighter side, cheers to such high voter turnout. About 2 million more voted yesterday than a year ago.
On a curious note, how many of you were asked to provide photo ID when checking into your polling place? I was not asked, nor were any of the several other people I asked. Isn't such slack behavior conducive to voter fraud?
Here's how I voted:
Triple No plus Camejo.
I encourage you all to go back in time and do the same.
Here are all the exciting election returns from around the state!
New Squelch on Monday.
(0) comments
Sunday, October 05, 2003
Peter Camejo Rocks the Boat, My World
For those of you who didn't see Pete speak in Evans Hall on Firday at 6pm (which would be everyone on the planet save for about 400 of us), he was fantastic as always.
Seemingly the Green following in the Berkeley area is comprised of a bunch of hippies; who knew? Peter's appearance was hosted by the ISO, and apparantly socialists run on "commie time," wherein events start 15 minutes late (so much for the trains running on time), but the introductory speakers were few and brief and Camejo was speaking by 6:35pm.
In good third-party tradition, he came armed with some very indicitive and interesting graphs, including a chart showing that, when income and property and sales and all other state taxes are added together, the bottom 20% pay an 11.3% tax rate while the top 1% pays 7.2%. (Here's a link to that graph and report.) He also had a graph showing that taxes on corporations are as low as they've been since the mid-90s (I don't remember the exact numbers and I can't find Camejo's graph - I'd make a lousy political intern). Further, he outlined how the number of businesses in California is on the increase, as are their revenues; in fact, California's GDP was bigger last year than ever, which makes the current deficit that moch more amazing. In other words, Peter was artfully dispelling the myth so ardently perpetuated by Schwarzenegger and McClintock: that corporate and income taxes are driving the money out of this state. This simply isn't true! The Republicans may offer anecdotes saying otherwise, but emperical data cannot support the theory that California's current fiscal policies are forcing companies to move elsewhere.
But enough about the economy. The economy bores me to tears. (Luckilly, Camejo is a financial advisor and can find money exciting on my behalf.) What really incited enthusiam in me were Pete's invigorating stances on IRV and gay rights.
First, the latter: For him and the rest of the Green party, the issue of "gay rights" is not an issue. Gays are citizens and receive the rights thereof. No concessions, no compromises, no policies treating them as if they were legally different from "regular" people. Somehow, this is a stance that every plausable Democratic candidate (c'mon, no one's voting for Kucinich, and it makes me really sad) refuses to take, perhaps for fear of wierding out a good number of Americans, or perhaps because they genuinely don't believe gays are the same as everybody else.
Second, the former: I strongly believe that instant runoff voting would make government far more representative of the public's wishes. If progressives who like like the Greens or conservatives who like the crazy Libertarians or the nut jobs who like the wacky nut job Reformists got to vote their concience, these underdogs could receive the recognition they deserve and could further play a role in the political process, without their supporters feeling like they're "stealing" votes. I can't see any reason to oppose IRV.
Lastly, the previously unmentioned: Sumbit articles to the Squelch. Especially newsflashes. submit@squelched.com
(0) comments
Friday, October 03, 2003
RCB Guide's Cheers and Jeers
Jeers to Arnold Schwarzenegger for groping unwilling women. Jeers again to him for admiring Hitler in any capacity. Then again, maybe Adolf had a stunning physique that only Arnie knows about.
Jeers to Arianna Huffington for bowing out of the race. She was giving many Californians a good reason to go to the polls, and has subsequently abandoned them, no doubt under pressure from more likely victorious liberal candidates.
Cheers to Peter Camejo and Tom McClintock for not.
Cheers, further, to the people who made it possible for Peter and Tom to be involved in the gubernatorial debates. Cheers to a minor undermining of the strict two-party/two-candidate political system that limits the democratic potential of America.
Jeers to whoever decided to have the Giants' first three playoff games take place while most people are at work or school.
Jeers to midterms.
Cheers to the Heuristic Squelch, which stands as a beacon of entertainment in the face of said midterms.
Jeers to President Bush. For any number of things.
Jeers to "The Simpsons" for not being funny for almost half a decade.
Cheers to having all three seasons of "The Family Guy" on DVD to compensate for the previous Jeer.
Cheers to all the cool kids who run If Six Was Nine.
Jeers to this idiotic TV Guide format.
Update:
Cheers to Luna Bars, Clif Bar's high-density food chunk designed specifically for women. Each bar has 10 grams of protein (22% of its calories); 350mg calcium; 100% RDA of folate, vitamins C, B1, B3, B6, and B12, and some other stuff I've never heard of; and only 180 calories. Furthermore, Luna bars use no animal products, and because B vitamins are normally so difficult to find in large quantities in plants, these mid-meal snacks are ideal for us vegans. Yay!
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Heuristic Squelch sneak peak and entreaty for submissions
I'll let you in on a little secret....don't tell anyone....alright? Shhhh... The cover of the next issue of the Squelch is gonna totally zing Chancellor Berdahl! Zing!!!! Sorta. I guess we're not really zinging him at all. I don't even know any more. I'll be happy as long as the magazine makes reference at some point to the Chancellor's jowels.
We're getting started on our second issue of the year, and my prediction is of pure hilarity. Keep those submissions coming! submit@squelched.com.
(0) comments
Monday, September 29, 2003
Oh, Florida! Will you ever win?
In one of the more flagrant examples of defying a stupid law with an even more stupid (and harmful and disgusting) protest, the Florida band Hell on Earth (whose music I can only assume is sub-par... Can you blame me? They're called Hell on Earth!) plans to include an onstage suicide in one of their performances and broadcast it on their website. The groups is attempting to speak out against a new law in their city of St. Petersburg that prohibits physician-assisted suicide.
Call me old-fashioned, but I take life pretty seriously. So seriously that I won't even eat a crab, who probably has the neurological capacity of my left thumb. Furthermore, I take quality of life pretty seriously. So seriously that I refuse to drink the milk of a cow who was treated like anything less than a valued house pet. Thus, and I do not belive I am contradicting my previous contention that all life is equally valuable, I respect a person's desire to end his life if he is truly in pain and has no desire to continue living. But, in keeping with that whole "life is valuable" argument, I think the option of suicide should be evaluated and ever so carefully scrutinized with a professional physician and the patient's family or friends. I think the state has a right to legally mandate that its doctors discourage suicide and refuse to assist death unless there is no alternative pain remedy. But a terminally ill adult should have the final say on his condition. Therefore, I think it's a dumb law with good intentions.
There are no good intentions, however, behind Hell on Earth's stunt. Death is tragic and, moreover, personal, not commercial or sensational. If the group genuinely saw injustice in their city's law, they could very well work with health care officials and local politicians, armed with research and first-hand testimonial, to revoke the law. Instead they have chosen to make a mockery of the pain of suicide.
In unrelated news, I had a fairly successful trip to the dentist today. (If any of you with Delta PMI need to find a dentist in the area, I'd highly recommend this one. Berkeley Hills Dental Care. On Telegraph and Woosley. Not in the hills.) I had the base filling for a crown put in after a good 30 minutes of drilling. If any inordinate pain or breakage occurs in the next two weeks, a root canal will be my ultimate fate. While in my mouth, Dr. Nikfarjam also noticed that I need to get at least one of my sprouting wisdom teeth removed. I can't wait.
(0) comments
Sunday, September 28, 2003
Another blog for your blog-visiting repotoire
That's right. More words from me and five other students who love music enough to write about it. The title will be changed shortly, but I suggest you start reading now. Click here.
(0) comments
Saturday, September 27, 2003
CAL WINS: 34-31!!!!
(Rebecca Loses: Her Sunglasses; Subsequently Finds Them Between the Cushions)
Excellent game.
I hail originally from Southern California. Long Beach to be precise. A few of my high school aquaintences attended USC. They're now spending five times what I do for a comparable education. Not that it has anything to do with football. Just saying is all.
"Take off that red car!"
I viewed the game from the comfort of a frat house. A dozen or so alumni came over to the house for today's event. It seems the majority of frat boys age to become frat men. The Frat Graduation Package includes a baseball cap, khaki shorts, a blond wife, and a sense of entitlement. Just saying is all.
On an 80's flashback note, the Cal band is currently eating hot dogs at the frat after playing a few spirited songs for the brothers and alum; one alum requested "Lady in Red." Ouch.
(0) comments
Friday, September 26, 2003
NEWSBREAK: Doors of East Elevator in Eschleman Hall Opening Very Slowly
More news as it comes in...
(0) comments
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
ACLU declines to appeal recall election decision, diverts resources to delaying outdated and unreliable Christmas.
San Francisco, CA - The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided today that the unprecedented California recall election will take place on October 7 as originally scheduled, despite the contetnion from the American Civil Liberties Union that outdated punch-card ballots are less accurate than electronic voting systems and thus disefranchise thousands of voters from dense minority populations in six counties throughout the state.
The ACLU took today's ruling in stride, and shortly after the court's decision announced that they have more ambitious plans on the horizon. ACLU presidnet Nadine Strossen told reporters Tuesday that their next project is to delay Christmas, which the organization beleives is inaccurate and unreliable, and which is specifically unfair to minorities.
The case will be heard by the US Supreme Court this coming Friday.
Said Strossen, "Data from all around the nation indicate that poor and minority children are the most likely to receive crappy Christmas gifts, if in fact they receive gifts at all. In nearly every community included in the study, African American and Latino youngsters more than any other ethnic groups were the victims of pre-used gifts, gifts from Walmart, a piece of fruit in lieu of a real gift, or simply no gifts whatsoever. This is unfair. Absolutely unfair."
ACLU spokespeople are citing outdated equipment and profiling as the source of these discrepencies. According to the group, Santa Claus' sleigh, deer, and elves do not have the technology to serve every American child equally, prompting Claus to distribute his limited resources disproportinally to rich white kids whose parents have wider chimneys and superior cookies.
The group is asking for a six month delay of the holiday, which should give Claus and his faculty ample time to update toy production and distribution systems, including speedier, more ergonomically sound toy-building technology and more accurate electronic checking-it-twice devices. They are also requesting that diveristy training be legally mandated for each North Pole staff member.
Claus' spokesmen Jingle and Jangle deny allegations that his distribution techniques are unfair, and are confident that the court will rule in his favor.
(I'm not sure why I wrote this. I'm actually on the ACLU's side. On both issues.)
(0) comments
Volume Two: Keeping America (and God) out of my uterus.
"Every person has a special dignity. This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government, it comes from the creator of life." Thanks President Bush. Maybe he should have repeated this cute little maxim when he gave the final order to put over 100 people to death during his Texas governorship. I was also under the impression that, even if you believe life is derived from a divine creator, that law comes from the government, not said creator. But this post is about abortion, not about hypocricy or comingling of church and state.
I have no doubt that the United States government's most recent attempt to stifle a form of abortion will die a bloody death in the high courts. I am, however, frightened that this anti-"partial-birth abortion" (no such medical term exists) bill even got past congress. It bothers me that a few hundred men and women (oh, but mostly men) in Washington are attempting to dictate what occurs inside a woman's own body. I'm peeved that a rare procedure that is almost only used to protect the life of a woman or to prevent the birth of a baby who cannot survive outside its mother's womb falls under the jurisdiction of a select few, the vast majority of whom don't have the capacity to get pregnant, and the even more overwhelming majority of whom have no medical experience.
I believe this issue goes beyond the right's attempt to protect the health of fetuses. (Otherwise it would be illegal to smoke in the same room as a pregnant woman.) As I've stated before, I think this blind anti-abortion sentiment is rooted in a disrespect for a woman's self-determination. I believe that, subversive though this mentality may be, there persists an idea that the female body does not bear the capacity to take care of itself. Women menstruate, they have "hormonal" outbursts, they're physically weaker than men, they have bodies which are believed to be tied to nature because of their reproductive functions. The idea is that women have an inability to control their bodies (we can't really opt out of our periods without negative health repurcussions, and our hormones follow suit), and thus that men, and by extension the men in government (and religion), should have jurisdiction over the feminine physical entity.
Many conservative figures in religion and politics are attempting to get "morning after pills" like Previn off the market, claiming that life begins at conception, despite the fact that a 72-hour old embryo is composed of only a few hundred undifferentiated cells. (It's comparable to biting the inside of your cheek and "killing" the skin that comes off.) This opposition to the "abortion pill" (what a charming and inaccurate name) is based not only on a distorted definition of life, but also a resistance to grant women control over their bodies. If abortions are available quickly and (relatively) painlessly, so the argument goes, then women will have sex whenever they want without worrying about the consequences. Drugs that prevent implantation are not going to encourage women to have willy-nilly sex (as much as Pat Robertson would love to picture that); it will give women and men who made a mistake a chance not to give birth to an unwanted, unaffordable child. Also, given that fathers of unwanted pregnancies out of wedlock rarely have to suffer the same consequences as the mothers, it provides women with a limited opportunity to decide for themselves what consequences their bodies will suffer.
On a lighter note, when I gave blood today I got a free 15 minute phone card. Woo hoo!
(0) comments
Sometimes It's Hard to Be a Woman
Volume One Point One: Giving my stupid kids a last stupid name.
In addition to having a husband, part of my life-plan is to have 2-3 children (and a few dogs and cats). And my kids are going to need last names. (Unless, of course, they plan upon becoming wildly successful mono-monikered super models [I'm 5'1" - an unlikely event], soccer players [again, I'm 5'1"], or pop stars.) So whose will it be? Mom's or Dad's?
Ehhhh. Now I'm uncomfortable.
I'm not taking my husband's name. He's not taking mine. (To do otherwise, as I explained, would be dishonest to the pursuit of equality in a relationship.) So there goes that "convenience" (chuckle) of having a happy family with the same surname for all. But what of little Timmy and little Sally and little Habib? If they take "Brown" that would would be denying the other parent's contribution. Likewise if they take "HypotheticalDadName" instead of mine.
The yuppie option "Brown-HypotheticalDadName" might be cumbersome, but is it really that awful an alternative to perpetuating patriarchism? And the name Brown is like a pair of black slacks - it goes with everything.
But what happens when Habib Brown-HypotheticalDadName falls in love with and raises children with Dora McCallister-Rosenberg, and Habib and Dora are also progressive, symbolic equality-seeking Americans? Meet Phineas McCallister-Rosenberg-Brown-HypotheticalDadName. Now, the likelihood of this happening is slim. But that's pretty cumbersome. (Note also that by the time I'm a grandma turn of the century names will again be en vogue. My money's on "Horatio" as the 2050's anser to 2000's "Madison." Mark my words.)
If I give my boy(s) Dad's name and my girl(s) Mom's name, that creates artificial alliances. Same if I did the opposite.
Sigh.
Maybe the dude I marry and I can dole out last names in alphabetical order. If I have babies with Harold Agajanian, the first kid gets his name, the second kid mine, and so on. If I have babies with Grover D. Caterwaul, I'll get first dibbs. Like home-ice advantage in the hockey playoffs.
Oh Jesus. That's a terrible idea.
A good idea, on the other hand, would be for you to donate blood. Do it!
(0) comments
Thursday, November 06, 2003
You gotta fight for your right to get free cookies and orange juice
That's right kids. Blood drive tomorrow in Wozinak (I probably spelled that wrong) Lounge in Soda Hall from the morning to the afternoon. I'll be there at about 10:30, as will Paul. The two of us have a friendship based on the mutual love of Elvis Costello and giving blood.
There will also be "Get the Red Out" Big Game week blood drives from 9-4 in Pauley Pavillion on Monday Nov. 17 and Friday Nov. 21. Even if I were eligable to give on the 21st (you have to wait at least 56 days between donations), I wouldn't. Instead on that day I shall be getting four of my teeth hacked out of my skull. And I'm paying almost $200 for the honor.
GIVE BLOOD!!! First, you save some lives. Second, you usually get a free t-shirt (you can choose among large, X-large, and XX-large). Lastly, needles are way cool. Trust me.
(0) comments
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
Sometimes It’s Hard to Be a Woman
Volume One: The Name Game.
For one reason or another, as I’ve mentioned before, there seems to be a dearth of female participants in the Cal political blogsphere, among both blog authors and commentators. (I cannot prove that women aren’t reading, thanks to the genderl anonymity of IP addresses.) I won’t speculate as to the source of this disproportionality (though I may do so later). But I can say that as a female I might represent, however inaccurately, a woman’s voice to my male blogging peers.
One topic of debate, often though erroneously labeled as a “women’s issue” (as if any issue existed in a sexual vacuum), is that of a woman’s last name when she gets married. As I foresee my life, I will get married, and I will not change my last name. Is this some subvert (or overt?) anti-male behavior? Is it rooted in the hatred of men inherent to my feminism? Am I simply being defiant in an empty, symbolic way for the sake of defiance itself? Am I trying to piss off my husband? Or am I trying to eliminate the possibility of even snagging a future husband?
Well, no. First, I don’t hate men. Neither does my mother. Or my sister. Nor do my aunts. Or almost any other feminist. Here lies a great myth. Feminists don’t hate men. A critically thinking woman (or man) will, however, despise hierarchy in which women are as a group disadvantaged due to the social structure created by men and reproduced by men (and women). Second, the symbolic battles are often the most difficult ones to win. I will gladly combat symbolic repression with full zeal. Further, no symbolic triumph is empty. Lastly, no, I’m rarely defiant for the sake of pissing people off. (Maybe my parents, but never an entire gender.)
My visceral argument against changing my name is that my identity as Rebecca C. Brown, not as Rebecca B. Smith or Rebecca B. Jones or Rebecca C. Brown-Jones, has been in the works for over two decades (longer by the time I will be asked by convention to alter it by adopting another name). Though a name is little more than a word, I will entreaty my readers to think about the power of words and how language infuses social action. In this case, a woman taking her husband’s last name represents very clearly that her individuality and self-ownership (both physically and psychically) belong not to her but instead to her husband. Just as a father gives his offspring his last name (then adopts a role of authority over them), he so gives his wife his name. Quite simply, it’s nominal slavery. To make a less dramatic argument, it is entirely counterintuitive to equality for one person in a relationship to take the name of the other. I challenge you to assert otherwise.
Your mother or aunt or grandmother may have taken her husband’s name, maybe had children, maybe worked, or maybe stayed home. And despite relinquishing her symbolic identity, was perfectly happy and content. I will not disagree with you. I don’t think something as small as a last name can dictate a person’s happiness; however, it can contribute to her perception of self as a female. Further, the collective inability of women to maintain their last names defines in part what a woman’s role is in the family and in society in general. And though there are no laws dictating that we must change our names, if we don’t, we will, well, get a lot of shit for it.
(0) comments
Monday, November 03, 2003
Baby Boomers: Ticking Socialist Time Bombs
Here’s some brain food: I’m confused about “Starve the beast” conservatives’ plans to run government deficits in order to force a government breakdown when Baby Boomers start to draw on Social Security. Completely getting rid of the social safety net is open goal of a lot of righty policy makers. They see it as a way of promoting personal responsibility. But while it’s an interesting if risky way of enacting policies which a majority of the country doesn’t agree with, I wonder if they aren’t biting off more than they can chew? I mean, it’s all nice and good to force a showdown between low taxes and public services, but is it wise to have that showdown at the exact time that a larger percentage of the voting public is depending on social security and other public safety nets?
We’ve all heard about how the Baby Boomers are the “lump in the python” of demographics, slowly working their way to old age. But I wonder if anyone has tried to explain political power shifts in terms of this giant section of the population growing through different phases of life? Couldn’t you just connect the 60’s to the innocent exuberance of youth, the 70s with the disillusionment, the 80’s with the family man who just wants to make a buck and so on? Of course, this kind of touchy-feely analysis usually makes me sick to my stomach, but a good old fashioned statistical analysis could easily reveal if politics were being changed by increased representations of a particular age group.
Anyhow, it’s food for thought.
(0) comments
Sunday, November 02, 2003
What's next? A gay pope?
"The Episcopal Church consecrated V. Gene Robinson as bishop in a heartfelt ceremony Sunday, making him the first openly gay man to rise to that rank in any of the world's major Christian bodies. But while pageantry mixed with exultation in the ritual elevating Robinson to bishop of New Hampshire, it seems unlikely the church will hold together in its aftermath." (Full article here.)
I think my loyal readers shold be able to predict my view on the matter. I completely support the right of the percentage of the Episcolpalians who oppose homosexuality to splinter off from the Anglican Church. But they're being archaic and childish. I'm just glad that this matter does not have to be mediated by law, given that God and state are separate entities (despite frequent evidence to the contrary). That's why I'm confused by the last paragraph from the news story:
"Some predict this will develop into the worst Episcopal split since the denomination was founded in 1789. And depending on the shape things take, a spate of church lawsuits may well result."
Lawsuit? Maybe someone with a more acute understanding of law could explain how the church could file any suits. On what basis? That consecrating a gay bishop defies the rules lain out in the Bible? I very honestly don't see what actual laws have been broken.
On a seasonal note, I hope you all had an enjoyable and, more importantly, safe Halloween. David, Andy, and I went down to Scott and the other Andy's place in Santa Barbara for the weekend. We fastidiously avoided Isla Vista, lest we be arrested en masse, until the day after Halloween, when we drove down the main celebration stretch to laugh at all the hungover kids walk home. Ubiquitous red party cups and half-torn sparkly costume butterfly/fairy/standard-female-quick-costume wings littered the road. It was glorious. On the night of the 31st we played Beirut, a delightful game of agility and coordination. Scott and I are currently World Champions of the World. Last night I further solidified my role as designated driver. My plan is to get my license in December, at which point my DD assignment will from then on be unequivocal.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
(This being my inaugural CalJunket entry, I will stick to the humorous. It is a little known fact that the squelch doesn't publish half the things I write, mostly because they aren't funny. I think most of the creative editors have had a slight bias against political humor, but that’s their prerogative. You make the call.)
Republicans find 300 billion in government waste
Tommaso Sciortino, Affairs Betterer
In a shocking revelation today Republican lawmakers have found a government department that has been wasting upward of 300 billion dollars each and every year that it has been operational.
“When our first tax cuts created a 300 billion deficit we explained that we would pay for it by cutting government waste instead of raising taxes.” Explained House Majority leader Tom DeLay, “Well, that’s exactly what we did.”
The government office responsible for this historically unprecedented level of waste, the Department of Betterin’ Affairs, is thought to have escaped detection for so long because of confusion between it and the much more well-known Department of Veteran’s Affairs. A relic from the New Deal, most of the Department’s 300 billion dollar budget was spent on “Just making things better…” said one newly unemployed staffer, “like sidewalks. Maybe they got gum all over ‘em… or maybe you see some guy and he’s got a bad hair cut… we’d buy that guy a hat.”
Republicans have not rested after their victory but have instead planned to pass more tax cuts. Quoted Grover Norquist, “We hope that at the current rate, no American will ever have to pay taxes after 2008. Also, the government will be so lean that it'll be able to run on the change that government workers find lying in the streets.”
(0) comments
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
NEWSBREAK: Democratic Party Dusts Off Pair of Severely Atrophied Balls
ALSO: Rebecca C. Brown Engages in Extended Third-Person Critique Describing Her Views on this Election's Viable Democratic Candidates
General Wesley Clark said today that the Bush Administration and, more specifically, George W. Bush himself need to take responsibility for their failure to respond to intelligence leading up to the September 11 attacks. (Full article here.) The comments of Clark today represented one of the stronger assaults on Bush's deception and incompetance by a plausable Democratic candidate.
(What amused me most from this article was this paragraph: "The Bush-Cheney campaign declined to respond to Clark's criticism, referring calls to the Republican National Committee. Christine Iverson, spokeswoman for the RNC, said Clark 'sounds exactly like Bob Graham, the failed presidential candidate from Florida who launched similar attacks against the president a few month ago, and was forced to drop out of the race because his message of protest and pessimism failed to resonate with the American people.'" So Iverson isn't saying that Clark is wrong, she's just saying that his views are unpopular. That's cute.)
Surprisingly enough, the cynical feminist Green with a strong disdain for corruption and pandering (namely Rebecca C. Brown) is relatively pleased with the Democratic candidates for the upcoming election. She even thinks that a few of the reasonably electable ones (Clark, Dean, Kerry) might somewhat represent her.
She does, however, feel that Dean and Clark each falter on selected issues. For example, while Howie (as she likes to call him) wants to protect women's reproductive rights, he also feels that the death penalty is an acceptable form of justice. Wes may present an overall liberal point of view (which will especially impress the American public because he is a four-star general and former Republican), he represents too steep of a compromise with the Right, according to Rebecca, on matters such as free trade and gun control.
Miss Brown would like to encourage all of her left-leaning readers to consider Dennis Kucinich, the Little Clevelander Who Could if He Was Only Given a Chance, for their Democratic pic these upcoming primaries. The author entreaties you to check out his fearless views (and facts) on the death penalty, the war on drugs, IRV, gay rights, trade, and many other issues. She feels that Dennis represents the most progressive and exciting option in the Democratic party.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
When they clean the street I'll be the only shit that's left behind
Bush is poised to sign a bill banning partial-birth abortions. I, oddly enough, am not wrangling up my picketing materials. But, though I think partial-birth abortions, which take place in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy, are ugly and should be discouraged, I don't feel that the law has any place in the matter.
By week eight into a pregnancy, the fetus already has a developing nervous system and will, even if the feeling isn't perceived by the fetus' brain, react to a physical stimulus. By the thirteenth week, the second trimester, the fetus has a fairly devolped nervous system and can move on its own volition. Premature fetuses that are born after only five months of gestation can survive, indicating that a "baby" has at that point been developed. I reluctantly say that I cannot support terminating the pregnancy in the second trimester, though nor do I feel particularly strong about this. Abortions in the third trimester, which represent only about 1% of abortions in the US, are fairly gruesome and should be strongly discouraged unless bringing the pregnancy to term would be harmful to the mother (or if it is discovered that the fetus will not survive through childbirth).
One very disturbing aspect of this bill is that it represents a stepping stone to the abolition of all abortion, no matter at what point during the pregnancy or under what circumstances. And by "circumstances" I am alluding to more than rape and incest; I believe that the sincere desire to not have a baby is a circumstance that justifies abortion.
What disturbs me most about the standard Republican stance on abortion is that they claim very ardently that they want to support a "culture of life" and eliminate a "culture of death." Wait, huh?! Is this not the political party whose platform supports the death penalty? The death penalty. Or the party (with congressional help from the pandering Democrats) that is currently waging a war in Iraq where Americans, Iraqis, soldiers, and civilians are being killed? (That's correct. I said currently.) Or the party who is more comfortable letting pollutants (pollutants that deplete the quality of and/or shorten life) into the ecosystem than regulating pollution and potentially stifling the economy on a temporary scale?
I don't belive Republicans are attempting with this bill to encourage a culture of life. At the risk of sounding radical or making a potentially offensive analysis (new territory for me), I believe this party's stance on abortion is rooted in anti-feminism and a distortion of Christian ideals (the latter obviously engendering the former). The word "God" has managed to litter the politics of the right to this day in such an un-Christian way. I have read Biblical texts for myself, and though I do not believe Jesus would support partial-birth abortions (if only we could ask him his stance on this, and stem cell research, and comprehensive admission standards for public universities), I also do not believe he would support putting criminals to death, or for that matter participating in any war.
The only good that will come of the soon-to-be passing of this bill is that the issue of abortion will once again, I predict, be taken to the Supreme Court and once again the Supreme Court will decide in favor of abortion rights. I don't know how many times the precedent will have to be set on this matter.
Dammit, I hate Republicans!
(0) comments
Elliott Smith dies in apparant suicide.
Plus, comedy show tonight at the Bear's Lair at 8pm.
Not that it's easy to get excited about a comedy show when one of the best songwriters of the last decade dies. I'm terribly sad about this. I just happen to have had one of his albums, Roman Candle, in my CD player for the last week. Come to think of it, probably not a week has gone by since I was 17 that I haven't listened to Elliott Smith. His music has had the amazing ability to console me in my down moments, despite his own meloncholia. This is very sad to me. I hope that if you haven't heard his work extinsively that you now give it a try. This is so incredibly disappointing.
(0) comments
Saturday, October 18, 2003
For those about to rock.
Yet another subtle reminder to check out the very good If Six Was Nine blog (ifsix.blogspot.com), wherein six sexy coeds offer their insights into the world of music. Also note that we now have a neat-o masthead at the top of the page with pictures of all six of us in alphabetical order. (That means I'm the one on the far right, kids.) My initial plan when I got into the blogging madness was to never let my readers (besides the ones whom I know in person) know what I look like. Well, now you do. Sexy. That's what I look like.
I'd also like to remind you that the Heuristic Squelch will be hosting a swell comedy show this upcoming Wednesday at the Bear's Lair at 8pm. It's only $5 for a whole night of laffs. Find us on Sproul.
What, by the way, did you all think of the most recent issue of our fine little humor mag?
Make to sure to celebrate the end of midterms responsibly. For example, don't celebrate the end of one midterm by ceasing to study for a week, only to remember that you have another midterm within the next few days.
I drove around the streets of Berkeley and Albany for the first time last night. I don't have my license yet, only my permit, but I am a very fast learner. I didn't drive when I was a teenager because I simply didn't have the money for insurance and gas and a car. (I, like a sucker, was saving my earnings for college. Psshh.) But now I'm an excellent driver. Definitely.
(0) comments
Sunday, October 12, 2003
Everyone's stupid but me
Also, pardon my hiatus.
A dangerous, covert terrorist lurks in our midst. A greasy, scrumptious terrorist. A capitalist terrorist who is poisoning Americans with its life-shortening and money-sucking death substance. That's right, it's the restaurant industry, and it's killing our nation's citizens with fat. Fat! Fattening fat deep-fried in 100% fatty fat. Or not. Who knows. Whatever.
This article is about how the three-fifths of RedWhiteAndBlueicans who are overwieght may have spurred legal action taken against the restaurant industry, who has facilitated rampant fat consumption. One option is to legally mandate that nutrition information be included on restaurant menus.
Every person (over the age of, let's say, thirteen, at which point if you can't cook your own dinner than you're a big loser) has complete control over what he or she eats, and every person has the option of asking for vague-to-specific nutrition information about the food he or she receives from a restaurant, so conceivably every person should know semi-accurately how many calories and fat grams he or she has consumed per meal, thus every person who is overweight has no one to blame but him or herself. Thus I think suing McDonald's or Chili's for America's obesity is frivilous and unfair.
But why not mandate that nutrition information, specific and accurate information, be available for all food no matter where it is being eaten? If people want to eat lard all day, oh for god's sake let them. But if some people ardently do not want to chug lipids for sport (and as a result possibly suffer heart disease, heart attack, diabetes, stroke, snoring, etc.), they should be able to have information assisting them in their pursuit readily available. There's no need to sue the restaurants that have helped this nation devolve into 250,000,000 corpulant turban-fearing cowboys (I guess they're only responsible for the first adjective), but there's also no need to withold information from the consumer.
An argument could be made by those of you who believe in individual self-determination and oppose institutional interferance with consumers' decisions. That argument might go something like this: "If folks are surprised that they're getting a spare tire after years of Big Macs and pepperoni pizzas, then they're big durfs who obviously don't understand how eating and digestion work. Man, are they big durfs." Hey, I agree with you. Especially about the durf thing. If there's one thing I can't stand it's a durf who doesn't understand stuff.
But I also believe that an informed consumer, perhaps even and over-informed consumer, is an ideal in a capitalist economy. Further, a citizen cannot truly be self-determining and free of interferance until he has every fact about what he is consuming at his disposal. Every person has the right to decide what is best for his body, so long as he knows exactly what is going into it.
[This is the part of the post where I reminisce longingly/disgustedly about my years back home in Long Beach.] When I was home for the Summer in the months between my freshman and sophomore years in college, I stayed in my home town of Long Beach for the season and chose to get a job at McDonald's because no one else would hire me for just eight weeks. As you can imagine, the menu at McDonald's hinges upon fat. I would leave that place with beef tallow caked between the treads of my non-scuff shoes. It's all fat. Fat plus more fat. Everyone knows that. Except kids. A five year old should not have to concern himself with calorie-counting when he goes out to eat with his parents. And it would be one thing if his parents took him for fast food once, even twice a month. But when you work full-time at McDonald's in a dense urban area, you come to see that some families eat there twice, thrice, four times a week. The parent are already obease. The children, through no fault of their own, are quickly on their way. They are being introduced very early into our culture of fattening foods. It's a culture where eating animal fats and proteins is encouraged for fear of anemia and/or sissiness, but I'd wager more on the latter. It's a society where convenience takes precedence over health. Most importantly, it's a culture that has developed out of ignorance, and it reproduces itself everyday because consumers aren't demanding to be informed.
If people could see, could read, could process with their own eyes that a medium order of french fries at McDonald's has 22 grams of fat (30% of your RDA of fat), or that a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese has 47 grams of fat (and thus that a #6 on the big picture menu gives them 69 grams total) as they're ordering then they may reconsider their options. Or not. Who cares. Let them eat fat. Just let them know how much.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
IT'S OFFICIAL!!
I now officially have no trust in the ability of the populous to elect the right people. I'm surrounded by 35 million doofers. Down with democracy! Up with highly centralized federal government!
On a lighter note, both propositions failed. Proposition 54 did not pass in any county at all, in fact. Even in Orange County, the coast's beacon of conservativism and illegal immigrant labor force, Prop 54 failed 51% to 49%.
In San Francisco County, Peter Camejo received about 1,300 more votes than McClintock. Yay! Gary Coleman got 21 more votes than drop-out candidate Peter Ueberroth. Yikes.
In Alameda County, write-in candidate Daniel Freedman received one vote. The Squelch Publicity Coordinator voted for himself.
Again on the lighter side, cheers to such high voter turnout. About 2 million more voted yesterday than a year ago.
On a curious note, how many of you were asked to provide photo ID when checking into your polling place? I was not asked, nor were any of the several other people I asked. Isn't such slack behavior conducive to voter fraud?
Here's how I voted:
Triple No plus Camejo.
I encourage you all to go back in time and do the same.
Here are all the exciting election returns from around the state!
New Squelch on Monday.
(0) comments
Sunday, October 05, 2003
Peter Camejo Rocks the Boat, My World
For those of you who didn't see Pete speak in Evans Hall on Firday at 6pm (which would be everyone on the planet save for about 400 of us), he was fantastic as always.
Seemingly the Green following in the Berkeley area is comprised of a bunch of hippies; who knew? Peter's appearance was hosted by the ISO, and apparantly socialists run on "commie time," wherein events start 15 minutes late (so much for the trains running on time), but the introductory speakers were few and brief and Camejo was speaking by 6:35pm.
In good third-party tradition, he came armed with some very indicitive and interesting graphs, including a chart showing that, when income and property and sales and all other state taxes are added together, the bottom 20% pay an 11.3% tax rate while the top 1% pays 7.2%. (Here's a link to that graph and report.) He also had a graph showing that taxes on corporations are as low as they've been since the mid-90s (I don't remember the exact numbers and I can't find Camejo's graph - I'd make a lousy political intern). Further, he outlined how the number of businesses in California is on the increase, as are their revenues; in fact, California's GDP was bigger last year than ever, which makes the current deficit that moch more amazing. In other words, Peter was artfully dispelling the myth so ardently perpetuated by Schwarzenegger and McClintock: that corporate and income taxes are driving the money out of this state. This simply isn't true! The Republicans may offer anecdotes saying otherwise, but emperical data cannot support the theory that California's current fiscal policies are forcing companies to move elsewhere.
But enough about the economy. The economy bores me to tears. (Luckilly, Camejo is a financial advisor and can find money exciting on my behalf.) What really incited enthusiam in me were Pete's invigorating stances on IRV and gay rights.
First, the latter: For him and the rest of the Green party, the issue of "gay rights" is not an issue. Gays are citizens and receive the rights thereof. No concessions, no compromises, no policies treating them as if they were legally different from "regular" people. Somehow, this is a stance that every plausable Democratic candidate (c'mon, no one's voting for Kucinich, and it makes me really sad) refuses to take, perhaps for fear of wierding out a good number of Americans, or perhaps because they genuinely don't believe gays are the same as everybody else.
Second, the former: I strongly believe that instant runoff voting would make government far more representative of the public's wishes. If progressives who like like the Greens or conservatives who like the crazy Libertarians or the nut jobs who like the wacky nut job Reformists got to vote their concience, these underdogs could receive the recognition they deserve and could further play a role in the political process, without their supporters feeling like they're "stealing" votes. I can't see any reason to oppose IRV.
Lastly, the previously unmentioned: Sumbit articles to the Squelch. Especially newsflashes. submit@squelched.com
(0) comments
Friday, October 03, 2003
RCB Guide's Cheers and Jeers
Jeers to Arnold Schwarzenegger for groping unwilling women. Jeers again to him for admiring Hitler in any capacity. Then again, maybe Adolf had a stunning physique that only Arnie knows about.
Jeers to Arianna Huffington for bowing out of the race. She was giving many Californians a good reason to go to the polls, and has subsequently abandoned them, no doubt under pressure from more likely victorious liberal candidates.
Cheers to Peter Camejo and Tom McClintock for not.
Cheers, further, to the people who made it possible for Peter and Tom to be involved in the gubernatorial debates. Cheers to a minor undermining of the strict two-party/two-candidate political system that limits the democratic potential of America.
Jeers to whoever decided to have the Giants' first three playoff games take place while most people are at work or school.
Jeers to midterms.
Cheers to the Heuristic Squelch, which stands as a beacon of entertainment in the face of said midterms.
Jeers to President Bush. For any number of things.
Jeers to "The Simpsons" for not being funny for almost half a decade.
Cheers to having all three seasons of "The Family Guy" on DVD to compensate for the previous Jeer.
Cheers to all the cool kids who run If Six Was Nine.
Jeers to this idiotic TV Guide format.
Update:
Cheers to Luna Bars, Clif Bar's high-density food chunk designed specifically for women. Each bar has 10 grams of protein (22% of its calories); 350mg calcium; 100% RDA of folate, vitamins C, B1, B3, B6, and B12, and some other stuff I've never heard of; and only 180 calories. Furthermore, Luna bars use no animal products, and because B vitamins are normally so difficult to find in large quantities in plants, these mid-meal snacks are ideal for us vegans. Yay!
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Heuristic Squelch sneak peak and entreaty for submissions
I'll let you in on a little secret....don't tell anyone....alright? Shhhh... The cover of the next issue of the Squelch is gonna totally zing Chancellor Berdahl! Zing!!!! Sorta. I guess we're not really zinging him at all. I don't even know any more. I'll be happy as long as the magazine makes reference at some point to the Chancellor's jowels.
We're getting started on our second issue of the year, and my prediction is of pure hilarity. Keep those submissions coming! submit@squelched.com.
(0) comments
Monday, September 29, 2003
Oh, Florida! Will you ever win?
In one of the more flagrant examples of defying a stupid law with an even more stupid (and harmful and disgusting) protest, the Florida band Hell on Earth (whose music I can only assume is sub-par... Can you blame me? They're called Hell on Earth!) plans to include an onstage suicide in one of their performances and broadcast it on their website. The groups is attempting to speak out against a new law in their city of St. Petersburg that prohibits physician-assisted suicide.
Call me old-fashioned, but I take life pretty seriously. So seriously that I won't even eat a crab, who probably has the neurological capacity of my left thumb. Furthermore, I take quality of life pretty seriously. So seriously that I refuse to drink the milk of a cow who was treated like anything less than a valued house pet. Thus, and I do not belive I am contradicting my previous contention that all life is equally valuable, I respect a person's desire to end his life if he is truly in pain and has no desire to continue living. But, in keeping with that whole "life is valuable" argument, I think the option of suicide should be evaluated and ever so carefully scrutinized with a professional physician and the patient's family or friends. I think the state has a right to legally mandate that its doctors discourage suicide and refuse to assist death unless there is no alternative pain remedy. But a terminally ill adult should have the final say on his condition. Therefore, I think it's a dumb law with good intentions.
There are no good intentions, however, behind Hell on Earth's stunt. Death is tragic and, moreover, personal, not commercial or sensational. If the group genuinely saw injustice in their city's law, they could very well work with health care officials and local politicians, armed with research and first-hand testimonial, to revoke the law. Instead they have chosen to make a mockery of the pain of suicide.
In unrelated news, I had a fairly successful trip to the dentist today. (If any of you with Delta PMI need to find a dentist in the area, I'd highly recommend this one. Berkeley Hills Dental Care. On Telegraph and Woosley. Not in the hills.) I had the base filling for a crown put in after a good 30 minutes of drilling. If any inordinate pain or breakage occurs in the next two weeks, a root canal will be my ultimate fate. While in my mouth, Dr. Nikfarjam also noticed that I need to get at least one of my sprouting wisdom teeth removed. I can't wait.
(0) comments
Sunday, September 28, 2003
Another blog for your blog-visiting repotoire
That's right. More words from me and five other students who love music enough to write about it. The title will be changed shortly, but I suggest you start reading now. Click here.
(0) comments
Saturday, September 27, 2003
CAL WINS: 34-31!!!!
(Rebecca Loses: Her Sunglasses; Subsequently Finds Them Between the Cushions)
Excellent game.
I hail originally from Southern California. Long Beach to be precise. A few of my high school aquaintences attended USC. They're now spending five times what I do for a comparable education. Not that it has anything to do with football. Just saying is all.
"Take off that red car!"
I viewed the game from the comfort of a frat house. A dozen or so alumni came over to the house for today's event. It seems the majority of frat boys age to become frat men. The Frat Graduation Package includes a baseball cap, khaki shorts, a blond wife, and a sense of entitlement. Just saying is all.
On an 80's flashback note, the Cal band is currently eating hot dogs at the frat after playing a few spirited songs for the brothers and alum; one alum requested "Lady in Red." Ouch.
(0) comments
Friday, September 26, 2003
NEWSBREAK: Doors of East Elevator in Eschleman Hall Opening Very Slowly
More news as it comes in...
(0) comments
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
ACLU declines to appeal recall election decision, diverts resources to delaying outdated and unreliable Christmas.
San Francisco, CA - The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided today that the unprecedented California recall election will take place on October 7 as originally scheduled, despite the contetnion from the American Civil Liberties Union that outdated punch-card ballots are less accurate than electronic voting systems and thus disefranchise thousands of voters from dense minority populations in six counties throughout the state.
The ACLU took today's ruling in stride, and shortly after the court's decision announced that they have more ambitious plans on the horizon. ACLU presidnet Nadine Strossen told reporters Tuesday that their next project is to delay Christmas, which the organization beleives is inaccurate and unreliable, and which is specifically unfair to minorities.
The case will be heard by the US Supreme Court this coming Friday.
Said Strossen, "Data from all around the nation indicate that poor and minority children are the most likely to receive crappy Christmas gifts, if in fact they receive gifts at all. In nearly every community included in the study, African American and Latino youngsters more than any other ethnic groups were the victims of pre-used gifts, gifts from Walmart, a piece of fruit in lieu of a real gift, or simply no gifts whatsoever. This is unfair. Absolutely unfair."
ACLU spokespeople are citing outdated equipment and profiling as the source of these discrepencies. According to the group, Santa Claus' sleigh, deer, and elves do not have the technology to serve every American child equally, prompting Claus to distribute his limited resources disproportinally to rich white kids whose parents have wider chimneys and superior cookies.
The group is asking for a six month delay of the holiday, which should give Claus and his faculty ample time to update toy production and distribution systems, including speedier, more ergonomically sound toy-building technology and more accurate electronic checking-it-twice devices. They are also requesting that diveristy training be legally mandated for each North Pole staff member.
Claus' spokesmen Jingle and Jangle deny allegations that his distribution techniques are unfair, and are confident that the court will rule in his favor.
(I'm not sure why I wrote this. I'm actually on the ACLU's side. On both issues.)
(0) comments
That's right kids. Blood drive tomorrow in Wozinak (I probably spelled that wrong) Lounge in Soda Hall from the morning to the afternoon. I'll be there at about 10:30, as will Paul. The two of us have a friendship based on the mutual love of Elvis Costello and giving blood.
There will also be "Get the Red Out" Big Game week blood drives from 9-4 in Pauley Pavillion on Monday Nov. 17 and Friday Nov. 21. Even if I were eligable to give on the 21st (you have to wait at least 56 days between donations), I wouldn't. Instead on that day I shall be getting four of my teeth hacked out of my skull. And I'm paying almost $200 for the honor.
GIVE BLOOD!!! First, you save some lives. Second, you usually get a free t-shirt (you can choose among large, X-large, and XX-large). Lastly, needles are way cool. Trust me.
(0) comments
Sometimes It’s Hard to Be a Woman
Volume One: The Name Game.
For one reason or another, as I’ve mentioned before, there seems to be a dearth of female participants in the Cal political blogsphere, among both blog authors and commentators. (I cannot prove that women aren’t reading, thanks to the genderl anonymity of IP addresses.) I won’t speculate as to the source of this disproportionality (though I may do so later). But I can say that as a female I might represent, however inaccurately, a woman’s voice to my male blogging peers.
One topic of debate, often though erroneously labeled as a “women’s issue” (as if any issue existed in a sexual vacuum), is that of a woman’s last name when she gets married. As I foresee my life, I will get married, and I will not change my last name. Is this some subvert (or overt?) anti-male behavior? Is it rooted in the hatred of men inherent to my feminism? Am I simply being defiant in an empty, symbolic way for the sake of defiance itself? Am I trying to piss off my husband? Or am I trying to eliminate the possibility of even snagging a future husband?
Well, no. First, I don’t hate men. Neither does my mother. Or my sister. Nor do my aunts. Or almost any other feminist. Here lies a great myth. Feminists don’t hate men. A critically thinking woman (or man) will, however, despise hierarchy in which women are as a group disadvantaged due to the social structure created by men and reproduced by men (and women). Second, the symbolic battles are often the most difficult ones to win. I will gladly combat symbolic repression with full zeal. Further, no symbolic triumph is empty. Lastly, no, I’m rarely defiant for the sake of pissing people off. (Maybe my parents, but never an entire gender.)
My visceral argument against changing my name is that my identity as Rebecca C. Brown, not as Rebecca B. Smith or Rebecca B. Jones or Rebecca C. Brown-Jones, has been in the works for over two decades (longer by the time I will be asked by convention to alter it by adopting another name). Though a name is little more than a word, I will entreaty my readers to think about the power of words and how language infuses social action. In this case, a woman taking her husband’s last name represents very clearly that her individuality and self-ownership (both physically and psychically) belong not to her but instead to her husband. Just as a father gives his offspring his last name (then adopts a role of authority over them), he so gives his wife his name. Quite simply, it’s nominal slavery. To make a less dramatic argument, it is entirely counterintuitive to equality for one person in a relationship to take the name of the other. I challenge you to assert otherwise.
Your mother or aunt or grandmother may have taken her husband’s name, maybe had children, maybe worked, or maybe stayed home. And despite relinquishing her symbolic identity, was perfectly happy and content. I will not disagree with you. I don’t think something as small as a last name can dictate a person’s happiness; however, it can contribute to her perception of self as a female. Further, the collective inability of women to maintain their last names defines in part what a woman’s role is in the family and in society in general. And though there are no laws dictating that we must change our names, if we don’t, we will, well, get a lot of shit for it.
(0) comments
Monday, November 03, 2003
Baby Boomers: Ticking Socialist Time Bombs
Here’s some brain food: I’m confused about “Starve the beast” conservatives’ plans to run government deficits in order to force a government breakdown when Baby Boomers start to draw on Social Security. Completely getting rid of the social safety net is open goal of a lot of righty policy makers. They see it as a way of promoting personal responsibility. But while it’s an interesting if risky way of enacting policies which a majority of the country doesn’t agree with, I wonder if they aren’t biting off more than they can chew? I mean, it’s all nice and good to force a showdown between low taxes and public services, but is it wise to have that showdown at the exact time that a larger percentage of the voting public is depending on social security and other public safety nets?
We’ve all heard about how the Baby Boomers are the “lump in the python” of demographics, slowly working their way to old age. But I wonder if anyone has tried to explain political power shifts in terms of this giant section of the population growing through different phases of life? Couldn’t you just connect the 60’s to the innocent exuberance of youth, the 70s with the disillusionment, the 80’s with the family man who just wants to make a buck and so on? Of course, this kind of touchy-feely analysis usually makes me sick to my stomach, but a good old fashioned statistical analysis could easily reveal if politics were being changed by increased representations of a particular age group.
Anyhow, it’s food for thought.
(0) comments
Sunday, November 02, 2003
What's next? A gay pope?
"The Episcopal Church consecrated V. Gene Robinson as bishop in a heartfelt ceremony Sunday, making him the first openly gay man to rise to that rank in any of the world's major Christian bodies. But while pageantry mixed with exultation in the ritual elevating Robinson to bishop of New Hampshire, it seems unlikely the church will hold together in its aftermath." (Full article here.)
I think my loyal readers shold be able to predict my view on the matter. I completely support the right of the percentage of the Episcolpalians who oppose homosexuality to splinter off from the Anglican Church. But they're being archaic and childish. I'm just glad that this matter does not have to be mediated by law, given that God and state are separate entities (despite frequent evidence to the contrary). That's why I'm confused by the last paragraph from the news story:
"Some predict this will develop into the worst Episcopal split since the denomination was founded in 1789. And depending on the shape things take, a spate of church lawsuits may well result."
Lawsuit? Maybe someone with a more acute understanding of law could explain how the church could file any suits. On what basis? That consecrating a gay bishop defies the rules lain out in the Bible? I very honestly don't see what actual laws have been broken.
On a seasonal note, I hope you all had an enjoyable and, more importantly, safe Halloween. David, Andy, and I went down to Scott and the other Andy's place in Santa Barbara for the weekend. We fastidiously avoided Isla Vista, lest we be arrested en masse, until the day after Halloween, when we drove down the main celebration stretch to laugh at all the hungover kids walk home. Ubiquitous red party cups and half-torn sparkly costume butterfly/fairy/standard-female-quick-costume wings littered the road. It was glorious. On the night of the 31st we played Beirut, a delightful game of agility and coordination. Scott and I are currently World Champions of the World. Last night I further solidified my role as designated driver. My plan is to get my license in December, at which point my DD assignment will from then on be unequivocal.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
(This being my inaugural CalJunket entry, I will stick to the humorous. It is a little known fact that the squelch doesn't publish half the things I write, mostly because they aren't funny. I think most of the creative editors have had a slight bias against political humor, but that’s their prerogative. You make the call.)
Republicans find 300 billion in government waste
Tommaso Sciortino, Affairs Betterer
In a shocking revelation today Republican lawmakers have found a government department that has been wasting upward of 300 billion dollars each and every year that it has been operational.
“When our first tax cuts created a 300 billion deficit we explained that we would pay for it by cutting government waste instead of raising taxes.” Explained House Majority leader Tom DeLay, “Well, that’s exactly what we did.”
The government office responsible for this historically unprecedented level of waste, the Department of Betterin’ Affairs, is thought to have escaped detection for so long because of confusion between it and the much more well-known Department of Veteran’s Affairs. A relic from the New Deal, most of the Department’s 300 billion dollar budget was spent on “Just making things better…” said one newly unemployed staffer, “like sidewalks. Maybe they got gum all over ‘em… or maybe you see some guy and he’s got a bad hair cut… we’d buy that guy a hat.”
Republicans have not rested after their victory but have instead planned to pass more tax cuts. Quoted Grover Norquist, “We hope that at the current rate, no American will ever have to pay taxes after 2008. Also, the government will be so lean that it'll be able to run on the change that government workers find lying in the streets.”
(0) comments
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
NEWSBREAK: Democratic Party Dusts Off Pair of Severely Atrophied Balls
ALSO: Rebecca C. Brown Engages in Extended Third-Person Critique Describing Her Views on this Election's Viable Democratic Candidates
General Wesley Clark said today that the Bush Administration and, more specifically, George W. Bush himself need to take responsibility for their failure to respond to intelligence leading up to the September 11 attacks. (Full article here.) The comments of Clark today represented one of the stronger assaults on Bush's deception and incompetance by a plausable Democratic candidate.
(What amused me most from this article was this paragraph: "The Bush-Cheney campaign declined to respond to Clark's criticism, referring calls to the Republican National Committee. Christine Iverson, spokeswoman for the RNC, said Clark 'sounds exactly like Bob Graham, the failed presidential candidate from Florida who launched similar attacks against the president a few month ago, and was forced to drop out of the race because his message of protest and pessimism failed to resonate with the American people.'" So Iverson isn't saying that Clark is wrong, she's just saying that his views are unpopular. That's cute.)
Surprisingly enough, the cynical feminist Green with a strong disdain for corruption and pandering (namely Rebecca C. Brown) is relatively pleased with the Democratic candidates for the upcoming election. She even thinks that a few of the reasonably electable ones (Clark, Dean, Kerry) might somewhat represent her.
She does, however, feel that Dean and Clark each falter on selected issues. For example, while Howie (as she likes to call him) wants to protect women's reproductive rights, he also feels that the death penalty is an acceptable form of justice. Wes may present an overall liberal point of view (which will especially impress the American public because he is a four-star general and former Republican), he represents too steep of a compromise with the Right, according to Rebecca, on matters such as free trade and gun control.
Miss Brown would like to encourage all of her left-leaning readers to consider Dennis Kucinich, the Little Clevelander Who Could if He Was Only Given a Chance, for their Democratic pic these upcoming primaries. The author entreaties you to check out his fearless views (and facts) on the death penalty, the war on drugs, IRV, gay rights, trade, and many other issues. She feels that Dennis represents the most progressive and exciting option in the Democratic party.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
When they clean the street I'll be the only shit that's left behind
Bush is poised to sign a bill banning partial-birth abortions. I, oddly enough, am not wrangling up my picketing materials. But, though I think partial-birth abortions, which take place in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy, are ugly and should be discouraged, I don't feel that the law has any place in the matter.
By week eight into a pregnancy, the fetus already has a developing nervous system and will, even if the feeling isn't perceived by the fetus' brain, react to a physical stimulus. By the thirteenth week, the second trimester, the fetus has a fairly devolped nervous system and can move on its own volition. Premature fetuses that are born after only five months of gestation can survive, indicating that a "baby" has at that point been developed. I reluctantly say that I cannot support terminating the pregnancy in the second trimester, though nor do I feel particularly strong about this. Abortions in the third trimester, which represent only about 1% of abortions in the US, are fairly gruesome and should be strongly discouraged unless bringing the pregnancy to term would be harmful to the mother (or if it is discovered that the fetus will not survive through childbirth).
One very disturbing aspect of this bill is that it represents a stepping stone to the abolition of all abortion, no matter at what point during the pregnancy or under what circumstances. And by "circumstances" I am alluding to more than rape and incest; I believe that the sincere desire to not have a baby is a circumstance that justifies abortion.
What disturbs me most about the standard Republican stance on abortion is that they claim very ardently that they want to support a "culture of life" and eliminate a "culture of death." Wait, huh?! Is this not the political party whose platform supports the death penalty? The death penalty. Or the party (with congressional help from the pandering Democrats) that is currently waging a war in Iraq where Americans, Iraqis, soldiers, and civilians are being killed? (That's correct. I said currently.) Or the party who is more comfortable letting pollutants (pollutants that deplete the quality of and/or shorten life) into the ecosystem than regulating pollution and potentially stifling the economy on a temporary scale?
I don't belive Republicans are attempting with this bill to encourage a culture of life. At the risk of sounding radical or making a potentially offensive analysis (new territory for me), I believe this party's stance on abortion is rooted in anti-feminism and a distortion of Christian ideals (the latter obviously engendering the former). The word "God" has managed to litter the politics of the right to this day in such an un-Christian way. I have read Biblical texts for myself, and though I do not believe Jesus would support partial-birth abortions (if only we could ask him his stance on this, and stem cell research, and comprehensive admission standards for public universities), I also do not believe he would support putting criminals to death, or for that matter participating in any war.
The only good that will come of the soon-to-be passing of this bill is that the issue of abortion will once again, I predict, be taken to the Supreme Court and once again the Supreme Court will decide in favor of abortion rights. I don't know how many times the precedent will have to be set on this matter.
Dammit, I hate Republicans!
(0) comments
Elliott Smith dies in apparant suicide.
Plus, comedy show tonight at the Bear's Lair at 8pm.
Not that it's easy to get excited about a comedy show when one of the best songwriters of the last decade dies. I'm terribly sad about this. I just happen to have had one of his albums, Roman Candle, in my CD player for the last week. Come to think of it, probably not a week has gone by since I was 17 that I haven't listened to Elliott Smith. His music has had the amazing ability to console me in my down moments, despite his own meloncholia. This is very sad to me. I hope that if you haven't heard his work extinsively that you now give it a try. This is so incredibly disappointing.
(0) comments
Saturday, October 18, 2003
For those about to rock.
Yet another subtle reminder to check out the very good If Six Was Nine blog (ifsix.blogspot.com), wherein six sexy coeds offer their insights into the world of music. Also note that we now have a neat-o masthead at the top of the page with pictures of all six of us in alphabetical order. (That means I'm the one on the far right, kids.) My initial plan when I got into the blogging madness was to never let my readers (besides the ones whom I know in person) know what I look like. Well, now you do. Sexy. That's what I look like.
I'd also like to remind you that the Heuristic Squelch will be hosting a swell comedy show this upcoming Wednesday at the Bear's Lair at 8pm. It's only $5 for a whole night of laffs. Find us on Sproul.
What, by the way, did you all think of the most recent issue of our fine little humor mag?
Make to sure to celebrate the end of midterms responsibly. For example, don't celebrate the end of one midterm by ceasing to study for a week, only to remember that you have another midterm within the next few days.
I drove around the streets of Berkeley and Albany for the first time last night. I don't have my license yet, only my permit, but I am a very fast learner. I didn't drive when I was a teenager because I simply didn't have the money for insurance and gas and a car. (I, like a sucker, was saving my earnings for college. Psshh.) But now I'm an excellent driver. Definitely.
(0) comments
Sunday, October 12, 2003
Everyone's stupid but me
Also, pardon my hiatus.
A dangerous, covert terrorist lurks in our midst. A greasy, scrumptious terrorist. A capitalist terrorist who is poisoning Americans with its life-shortening and money-sucking death substance. That's right, it's the restaurant industry, and it's killing our nation's citizens with fat. Fat! Fattening fat deep-fried in 100% fatty fat. Or not. Who knows. Whatever.
This article is about how the three-fifths of RedWhiteAndBlueicans who are overwieght may have spurred legal action taken against the restaurant industry, who has facilitated rampant fat consumption. One option is to legally mandate that nutrition information be included on restaurant menus.
Every person (over the age of, let's say, thirteen, at which point if you can't cook your own dinner than you're a big loser) has complete control over what he or she eats, and every person has the option of asking for vague-to-specific nutrition information about the food he or she receives from a restaurant, so conceivably every person should know semi-accurately how many calories and fat grams he or she has consumed per meal, thus every person who is overweight has no one to blame but him or herself. Thus I think suing McDonald's or Chili's for America's obesity is frivilous and unfair.
But why not mandate that nutrition information, specific and accurate information, be available for all food no matter where it is being eaten? If people want to eat lard all day, oh for god's sake let them. But if some people ardently do not want to chug lipids for sport (and as a result possibly suffer heart disease, heart attack, diabetes, stroke, snoring, etc.), they should be able to have information assisting them in their pursuit readily available. There's no need to sue the restaurants that have helped this nation devolve into 250,000,000 corpulant turban-fearing cowboys (I guess they're only responsible for the first adjective), but there's also no need to withold information from the consumer.
An argument could be made by those of you who believe in individual self-determination and oppose institutional interferance with consumers' decisions. That argument might go something like this: "If folks are surprised that they're getting a spare tire after years of Big Macs and pepperoni pizzas, then they're big durfs who obviously don't understand how eating and digestion work. Man, are they big durfs." Hey, I agree with you. Especially about the durf thing. If there's one thing I can't stand it's a durf who doesn't understand stuff.
But I also believe that an informed consumer, perhaps even and over-informed consumer, is an ideal in a capitalist economy. Further, a citizen cannot truly be self-determining and free of interferance until he has every fact about what he is consuming at his disposal. Every person has the right to decide what is best for his body, so long as he knows exactly what is going into it.
[This is the part of the post where I reminisce longingly/disgustedly about my years back home in Long Beach.] When I was home for the Summer in the months between my freshman and sophomore years in college, I stayed in my home town of Long Beach for the season and chose to get a job at McDonald's because no one else would hire me for just eight weeks. As you can imagine, the menu at McDonald's hinges upon fat. I would leave that place with beef tallow caked between the treads of my non-scuff shoes. It's all fat. Fat plus more fat. Everyone knows that. Except kids. A five year old should not have to concern himself with calorie-counting when he goes out to eat with his parents. And it would be one thing if his parents took him for fast food once, even twice a month. But when you work full-time at McDonald's in a dense urban area, you come to see that some families eat there twice, thrice, four times a week. The parent are already obease. The children, through no fault of their own, are quickly on their way. They are being introduced very early into our culture of fattening foods. It's a culture where eating animal fats and proteins is encouraged for fear of anemia and/or sissiness, but I'd wager more on the latter. It's a society where convenience takes precedence over health. Most importantly, it's a culture that has developed out of ignorance, and it reproduces itself everyday because consumers aren't demanding to be informed.
If people could see, could read, could process with their own eyes that a medium order of french fries at McDonald's has 22 grams of fat (30% of your RDA of fat), or that a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese has 47 grams of fat (and thus that a #6 on the big picture menu gives them 69 grams total) as they're ordering then they may reconsider their options. Or not. Who cares. Let them eat fat. Just let them know how much.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
IT'S OFFICIAL!!
I now officially have no trust in the ability of the populous to elect the right people. I'm surrounded by 35 million doofers. Down with democracy! Up with highly centralized federal government!
On a lighter note, both propositions failed. Proposition 54 did not pass in any county at all, in fact. Even in Orange County, the coast's beacon of conservativism and illegal immigrant labor force, Prop 54 failed 51% to 49%.
In San Francisco County, Peter Camejo received about 1,300 more votes than McClintock. Yay! Gary Coleman got 21 more votes than drop-out candidate Peter Ueberroth. Yikes.
In Alameda County, write-in candidate Daniel Freedman received one vote. The Squelch Publicity Coordinator voted for himself.
Again on the lighter side, cheers to such high voter turnout. About 2 million more voted yesterday than a year ago.
On a curious note, how many of you were asked to provide photo ID when checking into your polling place? I was not asked, nor were any of the several other people I asked. Isn't such slack behavior conducive to voter fraud?
Here's how I voted:
Triple No plus Camejo.
I encourage you all to go back in time and do the same.
Here are all the exciting election returns from around the state!
New Squelch on Monday.
(0) comments
Sunday, October 05, 2003
Peter Camejo Rocks the Boat, My World
For those of you who didn't see Pete speak in Evans Hall on Firday at 6pm (which would be everyone on the planet save for about 400 of us), he was fantastic as always.
Seemingly the Green following in the Berkeley area is comprised of a bunch of hippies; who knew? Peter's appearance was hosted by the ISO, and apparantly socialists run on "commie time," wherein events start 15 minutes late (so much for the trains running on time), but the introductory speakers were few and brief and Camejo was speaking by 6:35pm.
In good third-party tradition, he came armed with some very indicitive and interesting graphs, including a chart showing that, when income and property and sales and all other state taxes are added together, the bottom 20% pay an 11.3% tax rate while the top 1% pays 7.2%. (Here's a link to that graph and report.) He also had a graph showing that taxes on corporations are as low as they've been since the mid-90s (I don't remember the exact numbers and I can't find Camejo's graph - I'd make a lousy political intern). Further, he outlined how the number of businesses in California is on the increase, as are their revenues; in fact, California's GDP was bigger last year than ever, which makes the current deficit that moch more amazing. In other words, Peter was artfully dispelling the myth so ardently perpetuated by Schwarzenegger and McClintock: that corporate and income taxes are driving the money out of this state. This simply isn't true! The Republicans may offer anecdotes saying otherwise, but emperical data cannot support the theory that California's current fiscal policies are forcing companies to move elsewhere.
But enough about the economy. The economy bores me to tears. (Luckilly, Camejo is a financial advisor and can find money exciting on my behalf.) What really incited enthusiam in me were Pete's invigorating stances on IRV and gay rights.
First, the latter: For him and the rest of the Green party, the issue of "gay rights" is not an issue. Gays are citizens and receive the rights thereof. No concessions, no compromises, no policies treating them as if they were legally different from "regular" people. Somehow, this is a stance that every plausable Democratic candidate (c'mon, no one's voting for Kucinich, and it makes me really sad) refuses to take, perhaps for fear of wierding out a good number of Americans, or perhaps because they genuinely don't believe gays are the same as everybody else.
Second, the former: I strongly believe that instant runoff voting would make government far more representative of the public's wishes. If progressives who like like the Greens or conservatives who like the crazy Libertarians or the nut jobs who like the wacky nut job Reformists got to vote their concience, these underdogs could receive the recognition they deserve and could further play a role in the political process, without their supporters feeling like they're "stealing" votes. I can't see any reason to oppose IRV.
Lastly, the previously unmentioned: Sumbit articles to the Squelch. Especially newsflashes. submit@squelched.com
(0) comments
Friday, October 03, 2003
RCB Guide's Cheers and Jeers
Jeers to Arnold Schwarzenegger for groping unwilling women. Jeers again to him for admiring Hitler in any capacity. Then again, maybe Adolf had a stunning physique that only Arnie knows about.
Jeers to Arianna Huffington for bowing out of the race. She was giving many Californians a good reason to go to the polls, and has subsequently abandoned them, no doubt under pressure from more likely victorious liberal candidates.
Cheers to Peter Camejo and Tom McClintock for not.
Cheers, further, to the people who made it possible for Peter and Tom to be involved in the gubernatorial debates. Cheers to a minor undermining of the strict two-party/two-candidate political system that limits the democratic potential of America.
Jeers to whoever decided to have the Giants' first three playoff games take place while most people are at work or school.
Jeers to midterms.
Cheers to the Heuristic Squelch, which stands as a beacon of entertainment in the face of said midterms.
Jeers to President Bush. For any number of things.
Jeers to "The Simpsons" for not being funny for almost half a decade.
Cheers to having all three seasons of "The Family Guy" on DVD to compensate for the previous Jeer.
Cheers to all the cool kids who run If Six Was Nine.
Jeers to this idiotic TV Guide format.
Update:
Cheers to Luna Bars, Clif Bar's high-density food chunk designed specifically for women. Each bar has 10 grams of protein (22% of its calories); 350mg calcium; 100% RDA of folate, vitamins C, B1, B3, B6, and B12, and some other stuff I've never heard of; and only 180 calories. Furthermore, Luna bars use no animal products, and because B vitamins are normally so difficult to find in large quantities in plants, these mid-meal snacks are ideal for us vegans. Yay!
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Heuristic Squelch sneak peak and entreaty for submissions
I'll let you in on a little secret....don't tell anyone....alright? Shhhh... The cover of the next issue of the Squelch is gonna totally zing Chancellor Berdahl! Zing!!!! Sorta. I guess we're not really zinging him at all. I don't even know any more. I'll be happy as long as the magazine makes reference at some point to the Chancellor's jowels.
We're getting started on our second issue of the year, and my prediction is of pure hilarity. Keep those submissions coming! submit@squelched.com.
(0) comments
Monday, September 29, 2003
Oh, Florida! Will you ever win?
In one of the more flagrant examples of defying a stupid law with an even more stupid (and harmful and disgusting) protest, the Florida band Hell on Earth (whose music I can only assume is sub-par... Can you blame me? They're called Hell on Earth!) plans to include an onstage suicide in one of their performances and broadcast it on their website. The groups is attempting to speak out against a new law in their city of St. Petersburg that prohibits physician-assisted suicide.
Call me old-fashioned, but I take life pretty seriously. So seriously that I won't even eat a crab, who probably has the neurological capacity of my left thumb. Furthermore, I take quality of life pretty seriously. So seriously that I refuse to drink the milk of a cow who was treated like anything less than a valued house pet. Thus, and I do not belive I am contradicting my previous contention that all life is equally valuable, I respect a person's desire to end his life if he is truly in pain and has no desire to continue living. But, in keeping with that whole "life is valuable" argument, I think the option of suicide should be evaluated and ever so carefully scrutinized with a professional physician and the patient's family or friends. I think the state has a right to legally mandate that its doctors discourage suicide and refuse to assist death unless there is no alternative pain remedy. But a terminally ill adult should have the final say on his condition. Therefore, I think it's a dumb law with good intentions.
There are no good intentions, however, behind Hell on Earth's stunt. Death is tragic and, moreover, personal, not commercial or sensational. If the group genuinely saw injustice in their city's law, they could very well work with health care officials and local politicians, armed with research and first-hand testimonial, to revoke the law. Instead they have chosen to make a mockery of the pain of suicide.
In unrelated news, I had a fairly successful trip to the dentist today. (If any of you with Delta PMI need to find a dentist in the area, I'd highly recommend this one. Berkeley Hills Dental Care. On Telegraph and Woosley. Not in the hills.) I had the base filling for a crown put in after a good 30 minutes of drilling. If any inordinate pain or breakage occurs in the next two weeks, a root canal will be my ultimate fate. While in my mouth, Dr. Nikfarjam also noticed that I need to get at least one of my sprouting wisdom teeth removed. I can't wait.
(0) comments
Sunday, September 28, 2003
Another blog for your blog-visiting repotoire
That's right. More words from me and five other students who love music enough to write about it. The title will be changed shortly, but I suggest you start reading now. Click here.
(0) comments
Saturday, September 27, 2003
CAL WINS: 34-31!!!!
(Rebecca Loses: Her Sunglasses; Subsequently Finds Them Between the Cushions)
Excellent game.
I hail originally from Southern California. Long Beach to be precise. A few of my high school aquaintences attended USC. They're now spending five times what I do for a comparable education. Not that it has anything to do with football. Just saying is all.
"Take off that red car!"
I viewed the game from the comfort of a frat house. A dozen or so alumni came over to the house for today's event. It seems the majority of frat boys age to become frat men. The Frat Graduation Package includes a baseball cap, khaki shorts, a blond wife, and a sense of entitlement. Just saying is all.
On an 80's flashback note, the Cal band is currently eating hot dogs at the frat after playing a few spirited songs for the brothers and alum; one alum requested "Lady in Red." Ouch.
(0) comments
Friday, September 26, 2003
NEWSBREAK: Doors of East Elevator in Eschleman Hall Opening Very Slowly
More news as it comes in...
(0) comments
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
ACLU declines to appeal recall election decision, diverts resources to delaying outdated and unreliable Christmas.
San Francisco, CA - The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided today that the unprecedented California recall election will take place on October 7 as originally scheduled, despite the contetnion from the American Civil Liberties Union that outdated punch-card ballots are less accurate than electronic voting systems and thus disefranchise thousands of voters from dense minority populations in six counties throughout the state.
The ACLU took today's ruling in stride, and shortly after the court's decision announced that they have more ambitious plans on the horizon. ACLU presidnet Nadine Strossen told reporters Tuesday that their next project is to delay Christmas, which the organization beleives is inaccurate and unreliable, and which is specifically unfair to minorities.
The case will be heard by the US Supreme Court this coming Friday.
Said Strossen, "Data from all around the nation indicate that poor and minority children are the most likely to receive crappy Christmas gifts, if in fact they receive gifts at all. In nearly every community included in the study, African American and Latino youngsters more than any other ethnic groups were the victims of pre-used gifts, gifts from Walmart, a piece of fruit in lieu of a real gift, or simply no gifts whatsoever. This is unfair. Absolutely unfair."
ACLU spokespeople are citing outdated equipment and profiling as the source of these discrepencies. According to the group, Santa Claus' sleigh, deer, and elves do not have the technology to serve every American child equally, prompting Claus to distribute his limited resources disproportinally to rich white kids whose parents have wider chimneys and superior cookies.
The group is asking for a six month delay of the holiday, which should give Claus and his faculty ample time to update toy production and distribution systems, including speedier, more ergonomically sound toy-building technology and more accurate electronic checking-it-twice devices. They are also requesting that diveristy training be legally mandated for each North Pole staff member.
Claus' spokesmen Jingle and Jangle deny allegations that his distribution techniques are unfair, and are confident that the court will rule in his favor.
(I'm not sure why I wrote this. I'm actually on the ACLU's side. On both issues.)
(0) comments
Here’s some brain food: I’m confused about “Starve the beast” conservatives’ plans to run government deficits in order to force a government breakdown when Baby Boomers start to draw on Social Security. Completely getting rid of the social safety net is open goal of a lot of righty policy makers. They see it as a way of promoting personal responsibility. But while it’s an interesting if risky way of enacting policies which a majority of the country doesn’t agree with, I wonder if they aren’t biting off more than they can chew? I mean, it’s all nice and good to force a showdown between low taxes and public services, but is it wise to have that showdown at the exact time that a larger percentage of the voting public is depending on social security and other public safety nets?
We’ve all heard about how the Baby Boomers are the “lump in the python” of demographics, slowly working their way to old age. But I wonder if anyone has tried to explain political power shifts in terms of this giant section of the population growing through different phases of life? Couldn’t you just connect the 60’s to the innocent exuberance of youth, the 70s with the disillusionment, the 80’s with the family man who just wants to make a buck and so on? Of course, this kind of touchy-feely analysis usually makes me sick to my stomach, but a good old fashioned statistical analysis could easily reveal if politics were being changed by increased representations of a particular age group.
Anyhow, it’s food for thought.
(0) comments
What's next? A gay pope?
"The Episcopal Church consecrated V. Gene Robinson as bishop in a heartfelt ceremony Sunday, making him the first openly gay man to rise to that rank in any of the world's major Christian bodies. But while pageantry mixed with exultation in the ritual elevating Robinson to bishop of New Hampshire, it seems unlikely the church will hold together in its aftermath." (Full article here.)
I think my loyal readers shold be able to predict my view on the matter. I completely support the right of the percentage of the Episcolpalians who oppose homosexuality to splinter off from the Anglican Church. But they're being archaic and childish. I'm just glad that this matter does not have to be mediated by law, given that God and state are separate entities (despite frequent evidence to the contrary). That's why I'm confused by the last paragraph from the news story:
"Some predict this will develop into the worst Episcopal split since the denomination was founded in 1789. And depending on the shape things take, a spate of church lawsuits may well result."
Lawsuit? Maybe someone with a more acute understanding of law could explain how the church could file any suits. On what basis? That consecrating a gay bishop defies the rules lain out in the Bible? I very honestly don't see what actual laws have been broken.
On a seasonal note, I hope you all had an enjoyable and, more importantly, safe Halloween. David, Andy, and I went down to Scott and the other Andy's place in Santa Barbara for the weekend. We fastidiously avoided Isla Vista, lest we be arrested en masse, until the day after Halloween, when we drove down the main celebration stretch to laugh at all the hungover kids walk home. Ubiquitous red party cups and half-torn sparkly costume butterfly/fairy/standard-female-quick-costume wings littered the road. It was glorious. On the night of the 31st we played Beirut, a delightful game of agility and coordination. Scott and I are currently World Champions of the World. Last night I further solidified my role as designated driver. My plan is to get my license in December, at which point my DD assignment will from then on be unequivocal.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
(This being my inaugural CalJunket entry, I will stick to the humorous. It is a little known fact that the squelch doesn't publish half the things I write, mostly because they aren't funny. I think most of the creative editors have had a slight bias against political humor, but that’s their prerogative. You make the call.)
Republicans find 300 billion in government waste
Tommaso Sciortino, Affairs Betterer
In a shocking revelation today Republican lawmakers have found a government department that has been wasting upward of 300 billion dollars each and every year that it has been operational.
“When our first tax cuts created a 300 billion deficit we explained that we would pay for it by cutting government waste instead of raising taxes.” Explained House Majority leader Tom DeLay, “Well, that’s exactly what we did.”
The government office responsible for this historically unprecedented level of waste, the Department of Betterin’ Affairs, is thought to have escaped detection for so long because of confusion between it and the much more well-known Department of Veteran’s Affairs. A relic from the New Deal, most of the Department’s 300 billion dollar budget was spent on “Just making things better…” said one newly unemployed staffer, “like sidewalks. Maybe they got gum all over ‘em… or maybe you see some guy and he’s got a bad hair cut… we’d buy that guy a hat.”
Republicans have not rested after their victory but have instead planned to pass more tax cuts. Quoted Grover Norquist, “We hope that at the current rate, no American will ever have to pay taxes after 2008. Also, the government will be so lean that it'll be able to run on the change that government workers find lying in the streets.”
(0) comments
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
NEWSBREAK: Democratic Party Dusts Off Pair of Severely Atrophied Balls
ALSO: Rebecca C. Brown Engages in Extended Third-Person Critique Describing Her Views on this Election's Viable Democratic Candidates
General Wesley Clark said today that the Bush Administration and, more specifically, George W. Bush himself need to take responsibility for their failure to respond to intelligence leading up to the September 11 attacks. (Full article here.) The comments of Clark today represented one of the stronger assaults on Bush's deception and incompetance by a plausable Democratic candidate.
(What amused me most from this article was this paragraph: "The Bush-Cheney campaign declined to respond to Clark's criticism, referring calls to the Republican National Committee. Christine Iverson, spokeswoman for the RNC, said Clark 'sounds exactly like Bob Graham, the failed presidential candidate from Florida who launched similar attacks against the president a few month ago, and was forced to drop out of the race because his message of protest and pessimism failed to resonate with the American people.'" So Iverson isn't saying that Clark is wrong, she's just saying that his views are unpopular. That's cute.)
Surprisingly enough, the cynical feminist Green with a strong disdain for corruption and pandering (namely Rebecca C. Brown) is relatively pleased with the Democratic candidates for the upcoming election. She even thinks that a few of the reasonably electable ones (Clark, Dean, Kerry) might somewhat represent her.
She does, however, feel that Dean and Clark each falter on selected issues. For example, while Howie (as she likes to call him) wants to protect women's reproductive rights, he also feels that the death penalty is an acceptable form of justice. Wes may present an overall liberal point of view (which will especially impress the American public because he is a four-star general and former Republican), he represents too steep of a compromise with the Right, according to Rebecca, on matters such as free trade and gun control.
Miss Brown would like to encourage all of her left-leaning readers to consider Dennis Kucinich, the Little Clevelander Who Could if He Was Only Given a Chance, for their Democratic pic these upcoming primaries. The author entreaties you to check out his fearless views (and facts) on the death penalty, the war on drugs, IRV, gay rights, trade, and many other issues. She feels that Dennis represents the most progressive and exciting option in the Democratic party.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
When they clean the street I'll be the only shit that's left behind
Bush is poised to sign a bill banning partial-birth abortions. I, oddly enough, am not wrangling up my picketing materials. But, though I think partial-birth abortions, which take place in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy, are ugly and should be discouraged, I don't feel that the law has any place in the matter.
By week eight into a pregnancy, the fetus already has a developing nervous system and will, even if the feeling isn't perceived by the fetus' brain, react to a physical stimulus. By the thirteenth week, the second trimester, the fetus has a fairly devolped nervous system and can move on its own volition. Premature fetuses that are born after only five months of gestation can survive, indicating that a "baby" has at that point been developed. I reluctantly say that I cannot support terminating the pregnancy in the second trimester, though nor do I feel particularly strong about this. Abortions in the third trimester, which represent only about 1% of abortions in the US, are fairly gruesome and should be strongly discouraged unless bringing the pregnancy to term would be harmful to the mother (or if it is discovered that the fetus will not survive through childbirth).
One very disturbing aspect of this bill is that it represents a stepping stone to the abolition of all abortion, no matter at what point during the pregnancy or under what circumstances. And by "circumstances" I am alluding to more than rape and incest; I believe that the sincere desire to not have a baby is a circumstance that justifies abortion.
What disturbs me most about the standard Republican stance on abortion is that they claim very ardently that they want to support a "culture of life" and eliminate a "culture of death." Wait, huh?! Is this not the political party whose platform supports the death penalty? The death penalty. Or the party (with congressional help from the pandering Democrats) that is currently waging a war in Iraq where Americans, Iraqis, soldiers, and civilians are being killed? (That's correct. I said currently.) Or the party who is more comfortable letting pollutants (pollutants that deplete the quality of and/or shorten life) into the ecosystem than regulating pollution and potentially stifling the economy on a temporary scale?
I don't belive Republicans are attempting with this bill to encourage a culture of life. At the risk of sounding radical or making a potentially offensive analysis (new territory for me), I believe this party's stance on abortion is rooted in anti-feminism and a distortion of Christian ideals (the latter obviously engendering the former). The word "God" has managed to litter the politics of the right to this day in such an un-Christian way. I have read Biblical texts for myself, and though I do not believe Jesus would support partial-birth abortions (if only we could ask him his stance on this, and stem cell research, and comprehensive admission standards for public universities), I also do not believe he would support putting criminals to death, or for that matter participating in any war.
The only good that will come of the soon-to-be passing of this bill is that the issue of abortion will once again, I predict, be taken to the Supreme Court and once again the Supreme Court will decide in favor of abortion rights. I don't know how many times the precedent will have to be set on this matter.
Dammit, I hate Republicans!
(0) comments
Elliott Smith dies in apparant suicide.
Plus, comedy show tonight at the Bear's Lair at 8pm.
Not that it's easy to get excited about a comedy show when one of the best songwriters of the last decade dies. I'm terribly sad about this. I just happen to have had one of his albums, Roman Candle, in my CD player for the last week. Come to think of it, probably not a week has gone by since I was 17 that I haven't listened to Elliott Smith. His music has had the amazing ability to console me in my down moments, despite his own meloncholia. This is very sad to me. I hope that if you haven't heard his work extinsively that you now give it a try. This is so incredibly disappointing.
(0) comments
Saturday, October 18, 2003
For those about to rock.
Yet another subtle reminder to check out the very good If Six Was Nine blog (ifsix.blogspot.com), wherein six sexy coeds offer their insights into the world of music. Also note that we now have a neat-o masthead at the top of the page with pictures of all six of us in alphabetical order. (That means I'm the one on the far right, kids.) My initial plan when I got into the blogging madness was to never let my readers (besides the ones whom I know in person) know what I look like. Well, now you do. Sexy. That's what I look like.
I'd also like to remind you that the Heuristic Squelch will be hosting a swell comedy show this upcoming Wednesday at the Bear's Lair at 8pm. It's only $5 for a whole night of laffs. Find us on Sproul.
What, by the way, did you all think of the most recent issue of our fine little humor mag?
Make to sure to celebrate the end of midterms responsibly. For example, don't celebrate the end of one midterm by ceasing to study for a week, only to remember that you have another midterm within the next few days.
I drove around the streets of Berkeley and Albany for the first time last night. I don't have my license yet, only my permit, but I am a very fast learner. I didn't drive when I was a teenager because I simply didn't have the money for insurance and gas and a car. (I, like a sucker, was saving my earnings for college. Psshh.) But now I'm an excellent driver. Definitely.
(0) comments
Sunday, October 12, 2003
Everyone's stupid but me
Also, pardon my hiatus.
A dangerous, covert terrorist lurks in our midst. A greasy, scrumptious terrorist. A capitalist terrorist who is poisoning Americans with its life-shortening and money-sucking death substance. That's right, it's the restaurant industry, and it's killing our nation's citizens with fat. Fat! Fattening fat deep-fried in 100% fatty fat. Or not. Who knows. Whatever.
This article is about how the three-fifths of RedWhiteAndBlueicans who are overwieght may have spurred legal action taken against the restaurant industry, who has facilitated rampant fat consumption. One option is to legally mandate that nutrition information be included on restaurant menus.
Every person (over the age of, let's say, thirteen, at which point if you can't cook your own dinner than you're a big loser) has complete control over what he or she eats, and every person has the option of asking for vague-to-specific nutrition information about the food he or she receives from a restaurant, so conceivably every person should know semi-accurately how many calories and fat grams he or she has consumed per meal, thus every person who is overweight has no one to blame but him or herself. Thus I think suing McDonald's or Chili's for America's obesity is frivilous and unfair.
But why not mandate that nutrition information, specific and accurate information, be available for all food no matter where it is being eaten? If people want to eat lard all day, oh for god's sake let them. But if some people ardently do not want to chug lipids for sport (and as a result possibly suffer heart disease, heart attack, diabetes, stroke, snoring, etc.), they should be able to have information assisting them in their pursuit readily available. There's no need to sue the restaurants that have helped this nation devolve into 250,000,000 corpulant turban-fearing cowboys (I guess they're only responsible for the first adjective), but there's also no need to withold information from the consumer.
An argument could be made by those of you who believe in individual self-determination and oppose institutional interferance with consumers' decisions. That argument might go something like this: "If folks are surprised that they're getting a spare tire after years of Big Macs and pepperoni pizzas, then they're big durfs who obviously don't understand how eating and digestion work. Man, are they big durfs." Hey, I agree with you. Especially about the durf thing. If there's one thing I can't stand it's a durf who doesn't understand stuff.
But I also believe that an informed consumer, perhaps even and over-informed consumer, is an ideal in a capitalist economy. Further, a citizen cannot truly be self-determining and free of interferance until he has every fact about what he is consuming at his disposal. Every person has the right to decide what is best for his body, so long as he knows exactly what is going into it.
[This is the part of the post where I reminisce longingly/disgustedly about my years back home in Long Beach.] When I was home for the Summer in the months between my freshman and sophomore years in college, I stayed in my home town of Long Beach for the season and chose to get a job at McDonald's because no one else would hire me for just eight weeks. As you can imagine, the menu at McDonald's hinges upon fat. I would leave that place with beef tallow caked between the treads of my non-scuff shoes. It's all fat. Fat plus more fat. Everyone knows that. Except kids. A five year old should not have to concern himself with calorie-counting when he goes out to eat with his parents. And it would be one thing if his parents took him for fast food once, even twice a month. But when you work full-time at McDonald's in a dense urban area, you come to see that some families eat there twice, thrice, four times a week. The parent are already obease. The children, through no fault of their own, are quickly on their way. They are being introduced very early into our culture of fattening foods. It's a culture where eating animal fats and proteins is encouraged for fear of anemia and/or sissiness, but I'd wager more on the latter. It's a society where convenience takes precedence over health. Most importantly, it's a culture that has developed out of ignorance, and it reproduces itself everyday because consumers aren't demanding to be informed.
If people could see, could read, could process with their own eyes that a medium order of french fries at McDonald's has 22 grams of fat (30% of your RDA of fat), or that a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese has 47 grams of fat (and thus that a #6 on the big picture menu gives them 69 grams total) as they're ordering then they may reconsider their options. Or not. Who cares. Let them eat fat. Just let them know how much.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
IT'S OFFICIAL!!
I now officially have no trust in the ability of the populous to elect the right people. I'm surrounded by 35 million doofers. Down with democracy! Up with highly centralized federal government!
On a lighter note, both propositions failed. Proposition 54 did not pass in any county at all, in fact. Even in Orange County, the coast's beacon of conservativism and illegal immigrant labor force, Prop 54 failed 51% to 49%.
In San Francisco County, Peter Camejo received about 1,300 more votes than McClintock. Yay! Gary Coleman got 21 more votes than drop-out candidate Peter Ueberroth. Yikes.
In Alameda County, write-in candidate Daniel Freedman received one vote. The Squelch Publicity Coordinator voted for himself.
Again on the lighter side, cheers to such high voter turnout. About 2 million more voted yesterday than a year ago.
On a curious note, how many of you were asked to provide photo ID when checking into your polling place? I was not asked, nor were any of the several other people I asked. Isn't such slack behavior conducive to voter fraud?
Here's how I voted:
Triple No plus Camejo.
I encourage you all to go back in time and do the same.
Here are all the exciting election returns from around the state!
New Squelch on Monday.
(0) comments
Sunday, October 05, 2003
Peter Camejo Rocks the Boat, My World
For those of you who didn't see Pete speak in Evans Hall on Firday at 6pm (which would be everyone on the planet save for about 400 of us), he was fantastic as always.
Seemingly the Green following in the Berkeley area is comprised of a bunch of hippies; who knew? Peter's appearance was hosted by the ISO, and apparantly socialists run on "commie time," wherein events start 15 minutes late (so much for the trains running on time), but the introductory speakers were few and brief and Camejo was speaking by 6:35pm.
In good third-party tradition, he came armed with some very indicitive and interesting graphs, including a chart showing that, when income and property and sales and all other state taxes are added together, the bottom 20% pay an 11.3% tax rate while the top 1% pays 7.2%. (Here's a link to that graph and report.) He also had a graph showing that taxes on corporations are as low as they've been since the mid-90s (I don't remember the exact numbers and I can't find Camejo's graph - I'd make a lousy political intern). Further, he outlined how the number of businesses in California is on the increase, as are their revenues; in fact, California's GDP was bigger last year than ever, which makes the current deficit that moch more amazing. In other words, Peter was artfully dispelling the myth so ardently perpetuated by Schwarzenegger and McClintock: that corporate and income taxes are driving the money out of this state. This simply isn't true! The Republicans may offer anecdotes saying otherwise, but emperical data cannot support the theory that California's current fiscal policies are forcing companies to move elsewhere.
But enough about the economy. The economy bores me to tears. (Luckilly, Camejo is a financial advisor and can find money exciting on my behalf.) What really incited enthusiam in me were Pete's invigorating stances on IRV and gay rights.
First, the latter: For him and the rest of the Green party, the issue of "gay rights" is not an issue. Gays are citizens and receive the rights thereof. No concessions, no compromises, no policies treating them as if they were legally different from "regular" people. Somehow, this is a stance that every plausable Democratic candidate (c'mon, no one's voting for Kucinich, and it makes me really sad) refuses to take, perhaps for fear of wierding out a good number of Americans, or perhaps because they genuinely don't believe gays are the same as everybody else.
Second, the former: I strongly believe that instant runoff voting would make government far more representative of the public's wishes. If progressives who like like the Greens or conservatives who like the crazy Libertarians or the nut jobs who like the wacky nut job Reformists got to vote their concience, these underdogs could receive the recognition they deserve and could further play a role in the political process, without their supporters feeling like they're "stealing" votes. I can't see any reason to oppose IRV.
Lastly, the previously unmentioned: Sumbit articles to the Squelch. Especially newsflashes. submit@squelched.com
(0) comments
Friday, October 03, 2003
RCB Guide's Cheers and Jeers
Jeers to Arnold Schwarzenegger for groping unwilling women. Jeers again to him for admiring Hitler in any capacity. Then again, maybe Adolf had a stunning physique that only Arnie knows about.
Jeers to Arianna Huffington for bowing out of the race. She was giving many Californians a good reason to go to the polls, and has subsequently abandoned them, no doubt under pressure from more likely victorious liberal candidates.
Cheers to Peter Camejo and Tom McClintock for not.
Cheers, further, to the people who made it possible for Peter and Tom to be involved in the gubernatorial debates. Cheers to a minor undermining of the strict two-party/two-candidate political system that limits the democratic potential of America.
Jeers to whoever decided to have the Giants' first three playoff games take place while most people are at work or school.
Jeers to midterms.
Cheers to the Heuristic Squelch, which stands as a beacon of entertainment in the face of said midterms.
Jeers to President Bush. For any number of things.
Jeers to "The Simpsons" for not being funny for almost half a decade.
Cheers to having all three seasons of "The Family Guy" on DVD to compensate for the previous Jeer.
Cheers to all the cool kids who run If Six Was Nine.
Jeers to this idiotic TV Guide format.
Update:
Cheers to Luna Bars, Clif Bar's high-density food chunk designed specifically for women. Each bar has 10 grams of protein (22% of its calories); 350mg calcium; 100% RDA of folate, vitamins C, B1, B3, B6, and B12, and some other stuff I've never heard of; and only 180 calories. Furthermore, Luna bars use no animal products, and because B vitamins are normally so difficult to find in large quantities in plants, these mid-meal snacks are ideal for us vegans. Yay!
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Heuristic Squelch sneak peak and entreaty for submissions
I'll let you in on a little secret....don't tell anyone....alright? Shhhh... The cover of the next issue of the Squelch is gonna totally zing Chancellor Berdahl! Zing!!!! Sorta. I guess we're not really zinging him at all. I don't even know any more. I'll be happy as long as the magazine makes reference at some point to the Chancellor's jowels.
We're getting started on our second issue of the year, and my prediction is of pure hilarity. Keep those submissions coming! submit@squelched.com.
(0) comments
Monday, September 29, 2003
Oh, Florida! Will you ever win?
In one of the more flagrant examples of defying a stupid law with an even more stupid (and harmful and disgusting) protest, the Florida band Hell on Earth (whose music I can only assume is sub-par... Can you blame me? They're called Hell on Earth!) plans to include an onstage suicide in one of their performances and broadcast it on their website. The groups is attempting to speak out against a new law in their city of St. Petersburg that prohibits physician-assisted suicide.
Call me old-fashioned, but I take life pretty seriously. So seriously that I won't even eat a crab, who probably has the neurological capacity of my left thumb. Furthermore, I take quality of life pretty seriously. So seriously that I refuse to drink the milk of a cow who was treated like anything less than a valued house pet. Thus, and I do not belive I am contradicting my previous contention that all life is equally valuable, I respect a person's desire to end his life if he is truly in pain and has no desire to continue living. But, in keeping with that whole "life is valuable" argument, I think the option of suicide should be evaluated and ever so carefully scrutinized with a professional physician and the patient's family or friends. I think the state has a right to legally mandate that its doctors discourage suicide and refuse to assist death unless there is no alternative pain remedy. But a terminally ill adult should have the final say on his condition. Therefore, I think it's a dumb law with good intentions.
There are no good intentions, however, behind Hell on Earth's stunt. Death is tragic and, moreover, personal, not commercial or sensational. If the group genuinely saw injustice in their city's law, they could very well work with health care officials and local politicians, armed with research and first-hand testimonial, to revoke the law. Instead they have chosen to make a mockery of the pain of suicide.
In unrelated news, I had a fairly successful trip to the dentist today. (If any of you with Delta PMI need to find a dentist in the area, I'd highly recommend this one. Berkeley Hills Dental Care. On Telegraph and Woosley. Not in the hills.) I had the base filling for a crown put in after a good 30 minutes of drilling. If any inordinate pain or breakage occurs in the next two weeks, a root canal will be my ultimate fate. While in my mouth, Dr. Nikfarjam also noticed that I need to get at least one of my sprouting wisdom teeth removed. I can't wait.
(0) comments
Sunday, September 28, 2003
Another blog for your blog-visiting repotoire
That's right. More words from me and five other students who love music enough to write about it. The title will be changed shortly, but I suggest you start reading now. Click here.
(0) comments
Saturday, September 27, 2003
CAL WINS: 34-31!!!!
(Rebecca Loses: Her Sunglasses; Subsequently Finds Them Between the Cushions)
Excellent game.
I hail originally from Southern California. Long Beach to be precise. A few of my high school aquaintences attended USC. They're now spending five times what I do for a comparable education. Not that it has anything to do with football. Just saying is all.
"Take off that red car!"
I viewed the game from the comfort of a frat house. A dozen or so alumni came over to the house for today's event. It seems the majority of frat boys age to become frat men. The Frat Graduation Package includes a baseball cap, khaki shorts, a blond wife, and a sense of entitlement. Just saying is all.
On an 80's flashback note, the Cal band is currently eating hot dogs at the frat after playing a few spirited songs for the brothers and alum; one alum requested "Lady in Red." Ouch.
(0) comments
Friday, September 26, 2003
NEWSBREAK: Doors of East Elevator in Eschleman Hall Opening Very Slowly
More news as it comes in...
(0) comments
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
ACLU declines to appeal recall election decision, diverts resources to delaying outdated and unreliable Christmas.
San Francisco, CA - The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided today that the unprecedented California recall election will take place on October 7 as originally scheduled, despite the contetnion from the American Civil Liberties Union that outdated punch-card ballots are less accurate than electronic voting systems and thus disefranchise thousands of voters from dense minority populations in six counties throughout the state.
The ACLU took today's ruling in stride, and shortly after the court's decision announced that they have more ambitious plans on the horizon. ACLU presidnet Nadine Strossen told reporters Tuesday that their next project is to delay Christmas, which the organization beleives is inaccurate and unreliable, and which is specifically unfair to minorities.
The case will be heard by the US Supreme Court this coming Friday.
Said Strossen, "Data from all around the nation indicate that poor and minority children are the most likely to receive crappy Christmas gifts, if in fact they receive gifts at all. In nearly every community included in the study, African American and Latino youngsters more than any other ethnic groups were the victims of pre-used gifts, gifts from Walmart, a piece of fruit in lieu of a real gift, or simply no gifts whatsoever. This is unfair. Absolutely unfair."
ACLU spokespeople are citing outdated equipment and profiling as the source of these discrepencies. According to the group, Santa Claus' sleigh, deer, and elves do not have the technology to serve every American child equally, prompting Claus to distribute his limited resources disproportinally to rich white kids whose parents have wider chimneys and superior cookies.
The group is asking for a six month delay of the holiday, which should give Claus and his faculty ample time to update toy production and distribution systems, including speedier, more ergonomically sound toy-building technology and more accurate electronic checking-it-twice devices. They are also requesting that diveristy training be legally mandated for each North Pole staff member.
Claus' spokesmen Jingle and Jangle deny allegations that his distribution techniques are unfair, and are confident that the court will rule in his favor.
(I'm not sure why I wrote this. I'm actually on the ACLU's side. On both issues.)
(0) comments
Republicans find 300 billion in government waste
Tommaso Sciortino, Affairs Betterer
In a shocking revelation today Republican lawmakers have found a government department that has been wasting upward of 300 billion dollars each and every year that it has been operational.
“When our first tax cuts created a 300 billion deficit we explained that we would pay for it by cutting government waste instead of raising taxes.” Explained House Majority leader Tom DeLay, “Well, that’s exactly what we did.”
The government office responsible for this historically unprecedented level of waste, the Department of Betterin’ Affairs, is thought to have escaped detection for so long because of confusion between it and the much more well-known Department of Veteran’s Affairs. A relic from the New Deal, most of the Department’s 300 billion dollar budget was spent on “Just making things better…” said one newly unemployed staffer, “like sidewalks. Maybe they got gum all over ‘em… or maybe you see some guy and he’s got a bad hair cut… we’d buy that guy a hat.”
Republicans have not rested after their victory but have instead planned to pass more tax cuts. Quoted Grover Norquist, “We hope that at the current rate, no American will ever have to pay taxes after 2008. Also, the government will be so lean that it'll be able to run on the change that government workers find lying in the streets.”
(0) comments
NEWSBREAK: Democratic Party Dusts Off Pair of Severely Atrophied Balls
ALSO: Rebecca C. Brown Engages in Extended Third-Person Critique Describing Her Views on this Election's Viable Democratic Candidates
General Wesley Clark said today that the Bush Administration and, more specifically, George W. Bush himself need to take responsibility for their failure to respond to intelligence leading up to the September 11 attacks. (Full article here.) The comments of Clark today represented one of the stronger assaults on Bush's deception and incompetance by a plausable Democratic candidate.
(What amused me most from this article was this paragraph: "The Bush-Cheney campaign declined to respond to Clark's criticism, referring calls to the Republican National Committee. Christine Iverson, spokeswoman for the RNC, said Clark 'sounds exactly like Bob Graham, the failed presidential candidate from Florida who launched similar attacks against the president a few month ago, and was forced to drop out of the race because his message of protest and pessimism failed to resonate with the American people.'" So Iverson isn't saying that Clark is wrong, she's just saying that his views are unpopular. That's cute.)
Surprisingly enough, the cynical feminist Green with a strong disdain for corruption and pandering (namely Rebecca C. Brown) is relatively pleased with the Democratic candidates for the upcoming election. She even thinks that a few of the reasonably electable ones (Clark, Dean, Kerry) might somewhat represent her.
She does, however, feel that Dean and Clark each falter on selected issues. For example, while Howie (as she likes to call him) wants to protect women's reproductive rights, he also feels that the death penalty is an acceptable form of justice. Wes may present an overall liberal point of view (which will especially impress the American public because he is a four-star general and former Republican), he represents too steep of a compromise with the Right, according to Rebecca, on matters such as free trade and gun control.
Miss Brown would like to encourage all of her left-leaning readers to consider Dennis Kucinich, the Little Clevelander Who Could if He Was Only Given a Chance, for their Democratic pic these upcoming primaries. The author entreaties you to check out his fearless views (and facts) on the death penalty, the war on drugs, IRV, gay rights, trade, and many other issues. She feels that Dennis represents the most progressive and exciting option in the Democratic party.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
When they clean the street I'll be the only shit that's left behind
Bush is poised to sign a bill banning partial-birth abortions. I, oddly enough, am not wrangling up my picketing materials. But, though I think partial-birth abortions, which take place in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy, are ugly and should be discouraged, I don't feel that the law has any place in the matter.
By week eight into a pregnancy, the fetus already has a developing nervous system and will, even if the feeling isn't perceived by the fetus' brain, react to a physical stimulus. By the thirteenth week, the second trimester, the fetus has a fairly devolped nervous system and can move on its own volition. Premature fetuses that are born after only five months of gestation can survive, indicating that a "baby" has at that point been developed. I reluctantly say that I cannot support terminating the pregnancy in the second trimester, though nor do I feel particularly strong about this. Abortions in the third trimester, which represent only about 1% of abortions in the US, are fairly gruesome and should be strongly discouraged unless bringing the pregnancy to term would be harmful to the mother (or if it is discovered that the fetus will not survive through childbirth).
One very disturbing aspect of this bill is that it represents a stepping stone to the abolition of all abortion, no matter at what point during the pregnancy or under what circumstances. And by "circumstances" I am alluding to more than rape and incest; I believe that the sincere desire to not have a baby is a circumstance that justifies abortion.
What disturbs me most about the standard Republican stance on abortion is that they claim very ardently that they want to support a "culture of life" and eliminate a "culture of death." Wait, huh?! Is this not the political party whose platform supports the death penalty? The death penalty. Or the party (with congressional help from the pandering Democrats) that is currently waging a war in Iraq where Americans, Iraqis, soldiers, and civilians are being killed? (That's correct. I said currently.) Or the party who is more comfortable letting pollutants (pollutants that deplete the quality of and/or shorten life) into the ecosystem than regulating pollution and potentially stifling the economy on a temporary scale?
I don't belive Republicans are attempting with this bill to encourage a culture of life. At the risk of sounding radical or making a potentially offensive analysis (new territory for me), I believe this party's stance on abortion is rooted in anti-feminism and a distortion of Christian ideals (the latter obviously engendering the former). The word "God" has managed to litter the politics of the right to this day in such an un-Christian way. I have read Biblical texts for myself, and though I do not believe Jesus would support partial-birth abortions (if only we could ask him his stance on this, and stem cell research, and comprehensive admission standards for public universities), I also do not believe he would support putting criminals to death, or for that matter participating in any war.
The only good that will come of the soon-to-be passing of this bill is that the issue of abortion will once again, I predict, be taken to the Supreme Court and once again the Supreme Court will decide in favor of abortion rights. I don't know how many times the precedent will have to be set on this matter.
Dammit, I hate Republicans!
(0) comments
Elliott Smith dies in apparant suicide.
Plus, comedy show tonight at the Bear's Lair at 8pm.
Not that it's easy to get excited about a comedy show when one of the best songwriters of the last decade dies. I'm terribly sad about this. I just happen to have had one of his albums, Roman Candle, in my CD player for the last week. Come to think of it, probably not a week has gone by since I was 17 that I haven't listened to Elliott Smith. His music has had the amazing ability to console me in my down moments, despite his own meloncholia. This is very sad to me. I hope that if you haven't heard his work extinsively that you now give it a try. This is so incredibly disappointing.
(0) comments
Saturday, October 18, 2003
For those about to rock.
Yet another subtle reminder to check out the very good If Six Was Nine blog (ifsix.blogspot.com), wherein six sexy coeds offer their insights into the world of music. Also note that we now have a neat-o masthead at the top of the page with pictures of all six of us in alphabetical order. (That means I'm the one on the far right, kids.) My initial plan when I got into the blogging madness was to never let my readers (besides the ones whom I know in person) know what I look like. Well, now you do. Sexy. That's what I look like.
I'd also like to remind you that the Heuristic Squelch will be hosting a swell comedy show this upcoming Wednesday at the Bear's Lair at 8pm. It's only $5 for a whole night of laffs. Find us on Sproul.
What, by the way, did you all think of the most recent issue of our fine little humor mag?
Make to sure to celebrate the end of midterms responsibly. For example, don't celebrate the end of one midterm by ceasing to study for a week, only to remember that you have another midterm within the next few days.
I drove around the streets of Berkeley and Albany for the first time last night. I don't have my license yet, only my permit, but I am a very fast learner. I didn't drive when I was a teenager because I simply didn't have the money for insurance and gas and a car. (I, like a sucker, was saving my earnings for college. Psshh.) But now I'm an excellent driver. Definitely.
(0) comments
Sunday, October 12, 2003
Everyone's stupid but me
Also, pardon my hiatus.
A dangerous, covert terrorist lurks in our midst. A greasy, scrumptious terrorist. A capitalist terrorist who is poisoning Americans with its life-shortening and money-sucking death substance. That's right, it's the restaurant industry, and it's killing our nation's citizens with fat. Fat! Fattening fat deep-fried in 100% fatty fat. Or not. Who knows. Whatever.
This article is about how the three-fifths of RedWhiteAndBlueicans who are overwieght may have spurred legal action taken against the restaurant industry, who has facilitated rampant fat consumption. One option is to legally mandate that nutrition information be included on restaurant menus.
Every person (over the age of, let's say, thirteen, at which point if you can't cook your own dinner than you're a big loser) has complete control over what he or she eats, and every person has the option of asking for vague-to-specific nutrition information about the food he or she receives from a restaurant, so conceivably every person should know semi-accurately how many calories and fat grams he or she has consumed per meal, thus every person who is overweight has no one to blame but him or herself. Thus I think suing McDonald's or Chili's for America's obesity is frivilous and unfair.
But why not mandate that nutrition information, specific and accurate information, be available for all food no matter where it is being eaten? If people want to eat lard all day, oh for god's sake let them. But if some people ardently do not want to chug lipids for sport (and as a result possibly suffer heart disease, heart attack, diabetes, stroke, snoring, etc.), they should be able to have information assisting them in their pursuit readily available. There's no need to sue the restaurants that have helped this nation devolve into 250,000,000 corpulant turban-fearing cowboys (I guess they're only responsible for the first adjective), but there's also no need to withold information from the consumer.
An argument could be made by those of you who believe in individual self-determination and oppose institutional interferance with consumers' decisions. That argument might go something like this: "If folks are surprised that they're getting a spare tire after years of Big Macs and pepperoni pizzas, then they're big durfs who obviously don't understand how eating and digestion work. Man, are they big durfs." Hey, I agree with you. Especially about the durf thing. If there's one thing I can't stand it's a durf who doesn't understand stuff.
But I also believe that an informed consumer, perhaps even and over-informed consumer, is an ideal in a capitalist economy. Further, a citizen cannot truly be self-determining and free of interferance until he has every fact about what he is consuming at his disposal. Every person has the right to decide what is best for his body, so long as he knows exactly what is going into it.
[This is the part of the post where I reminisce longingly/disgustedly about my years back home in Long Beach.] When I was home for the Summer in the months between my freshman and sophomore years in college, I stayed in my home town of Long Beach for the season and chose to get a job at McDonald's because no one else would hire me for just eight weeks. As you can imagine, the menu at McDonald's hinges upon fat. I would leave that place with beef tallow caked between the treads of my non-scuff shoes. It's all fat. Fat plus more fat. Everyone knows that. Except kids. A five year old should not have to concern himself with calorie-counting when he goes out to eat with his parents. And it would be one thing if his parents took him for fast food once, even twice a month. But when you work full-time at McDonald's in a dense urban area, you come to see that some families eat there twice, thrice, four times a week. The parent are already obease. The children, through no fault of their own, are quickly on their way. They are being introduced very early into our culture of fattening foods. It's a culture where eating animal fats and proteins is encouraged for fear of anemia and/or sissiness, but I'd wager more on the latter. It's a society where convenience takes precedence over health. Most importantly, it's a culture that has developed out of ignorance, and it reproduces itself everyday because consumers aren't demanding to be informed.
If people could see, could read, could process with their own eyes that a medium order of french fries at McDonald's has 22 grams of fat (30% of your RDA of fat), or that a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese has 47 grams of fat (and thus that a #6 on the big picture menu gives them 69 grams total) as they're ordering then they may reconsider their options. Or not. Who cares. Let them eat fat. Just let them know how much.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
IT'S OFFICIAL!!
I now officially have no trust in the ability of the populous to elect the right people. I'm surrounded by 35 million doofers. Down with democracy! Up with highly centralized federal government!
On a lighter note, both propositions failed. Proposition 54 did not pass in any county at all, in fact. Even in Orange County, the coast's beacon of conservativism and illegal immigrant labor force, Prop 54 failed 51% to 49%.
In San Francisco County, Peter Camejo received about 1,300 more votes than McClintock. Yay! Gary Coleman got 21 more votes than drop-out candidate Peter Ueberroth. Yikes.
In Alameda County, write-in candidate Daniel Freedman received one vote. The Squelch Publicity Coordinator voted for himself.
Again on the lighter side, cheers to such high voter turnout. About 2 million more voted yesterday than a year ago.
On a curious note, how many of you were asked to provide photo ID when checking into your polling place? I was not asked, nor were any of the several other people I asked. Isn't such slack behavior conducive to voter fraud?
Here's how I voted:
Triple No plus Camejo.
I encourage you all to go back in time and do the same.
Here are all the exciting election returns from around the state!
New Squelch on Monday.
(0) comments
Sunday, October 05, 2003
Peter Camejo Rocks the Boat, My World
For those of you who didn't see Pete speak in Evans Hall on Firday at 6pm (which would be everyone on the planet save for about 400 of us), he was fantastic as always.
Seemingly the Green following in the Berkeley area is comprised of a bunch of hippies; who knew? Peter's appearance was hosted by the ISO, and apparantly socialists run on "commie time," wherein events start 15 minutes late (so much for the trains running on time), but the introductory speakers were few and brief and Camejo was speaking by 6:35pm.
In good third-party tradition, he came armed with some very indicitive and interesting graphs, including a chart showing that, when income and property and sales and all other state taxes are added together, the bottom 20% pay an 11.3% tax rate while the top 1% pays 7.2%. (Here's a link to that graph and report.) He also had a graph showing that taxes on corporations are as low as they've been since the mid-90s (I don't remember the exact numbers and I can't find Camejo's graph - I'd make a lousy political intern). Further, he outlined how the number of businesses in California is on the increase, as are their revenues; in fact, California's GDP was bigger last year than ever, which makes the current deficit that moch more amazing. In other words, Peter was artfully dispelling the myth so ardently perpetuated by Schwarzenegger and McClintock: that corporate and income taxes are driving the money out of this state. This simply isn't true! The Republicans may offer anecdotes saying otherwise, but emperical data cannot support the theory that California's current fiscal policies are forcing companies to move elsewhere.
But enough about the economy. The economy bores me to tears. (Luckilly, Camejo is a financial advisor and can find money exciting on my behalf.) What really incited enthusiam in me were Pete's invigorating stances on IRV and gay rights.
First, the latter: For him and the rest of the Green party, the issue of "gay rights" is not an issue. Gays are citizens and receive the rights thereof. No concessions, no compromises, no policies treating them as if they were legally different from "regular" people. Somehow, this is a stance that every plausable Democratic candidate (c'mon, no one's voting for Kucinich, and it makes me really sad) refuses to take, perhaps for fear of wierding out a good number of Americans, or perhaps because they genuinely don't believe gays are the same as everybody else.
Second, the former: I strongly believe that instant runoff voting would make government far more representative of the public's wishes. If progressives who like like the Greens or conservatives who like the crazy Libertarians or the nut jobs who like the wacky nut job Reformists got to vote their concience, these underdogs could receive the recognition they deserve and could further play a role in the political process, without their supporters feeling like they're "stealing" votes. I can't see any reason to oppose IRV.
Lastly, the previously unmentioned: Sumbit articles to the Squelch. Especially newsflashes. submit@squelched.com
(0) comments
Friday, October 03, 2003
RCB Guide's Cheers and Jeers
Jeers to Arnold Schwarzenegger for groping unwilling women. Jeers again to him for admiring Hitler in any capacity. Then again, maybe Adolf had a stunning physique that only Arnie knows about.
Jeers to Arianna Huffington for bowing out of the race. She was giving many Californians a good reason to go to the polls, and has subsequently abandoned them, no doubt under pressure from more likely victorious liberal candidates.
Cheers to Peter Camejo and Tom McClintock for not.
Cheers, further, to the people who made it possible for Peter and Tom to be involved in the gubernatorial debates. Cheers to a minor undermining of the strict two-party/two-candidate political system that limits the democratic potential of America.
Jeers to whoever decided to have the Giants' first three playoff games take place while most people are at work or school.
Jeers to midterms.
Cheers to the Heuristic Squelch, which stands as a beacon of entertainment in the face of said midterms.
Jeers to President Bush. For any number of things.
Jeers to "The Simpsons" for not being funny for almost half a decade.
Cheers to having all three seasons of "The Family Guy" on DVD to compensate for the previous Jeer.
Cheers to all the cool kids who run If Six Was Nine.
Jeers to this idiotic TV Guide format.
Update:
Cheers to Luna Bars, Clif Bar's high-density food chunk designed specifically for women. Each bar has 10 grams of protein (22% of its calories); 350mg calcium; 100% RDA of folate, vitamins C, B1, B3, B6, and B12, and some other stuff I've never heard of; and only 180 calories. Furthermore, Luna bars use no animal products, and because B vitamins are normally so difficult to find in large quantities in plants, these mid-meal snacks are ideal for us vegans. Yay!
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Heuristic Squelch sneak peak and entreaty for submissions
I'll let you in on a little secret....don't tell anyone....alright? Shhhh... The cover of the next issue of the Squelch is gonna totally zing Chancellor Berdahl! Zing!!!! Sorta. I guess we're not really zinging him at all. I don't even know any more. I'll be happy as long as the magazine makes reference at some point to the Chancellor's jowels.
We're getting started on our second issue of the year, and my prediction is of pure hilarity. Keep those submissions coming! submit@squelched.com.
(0) comments
Monday, September 29, 2003
Oh, Florida! Will you ever win?
In one of the more flagrant examples of defying a stupid law with an even more stupid (and harmful and disgusting) protest, the Florida band Hell on Earth (whose music I can only assume is sub-par... Can you blame me? They're called Hell on Earth!) plans to include an onstage suicide in one of their performances and broadcast it on their website. The groups is attempting to speak out against a new law in their city of St. Petersburg that prohibits physician-assisted suicide.
Call me old-fashioned, but I take life pretty seriously. So seriously that I won't even eat a crab, who probably has the neurological capacity of my left thumb. Furthermore, I take quality of life pretty seriously. So seriously that I refuse to drink the milk of a cow who was treated like anything less than a valued house pet. Thus, and I do not belive I am contradicting my previous contention that all life is equally valuable, I respect a person's desire to end his life if he is truly in pain and has no desire to continue living. But, in keeping with that whole "life is valuable" argument, I think the option of suicide should be evaluated and ever so carefully scrutinized with a professional physician and the patient's family or friends. I think the state has a right to legally mandate that its doctors discourage suicide and refuse to assist death unless there is no alternative pain remedy. But a terminally ill adult should have the final say on his condition. Therefore, I think it's a dumb law with good intentions.
There are no good intentions, however, behind Hell on Earth's stunt. Death is tragic and, moreover, personal, not commercial or sensational. If the group genuinely saw injustice in their city's law, they could very well work with health care officials and local politicians, armed with research and first-hand testimonial, to revoke the law. Instead they have chosen to make a mockery of the pain of suicide.
In unrelated news, I had a fairly successful trip to the dentist today. (If any of you with Delta PMI need to find a dentist in the area, I'd highly recommend this one. Berkeley Hills Dental Care. On Telegraph and Woosley. Not in the hills.) I had the base filling for a crown put in after a good 30 minutes of drilling. If any inordinate pain or breakage occurs in the next two weeks, a root canal will be my ultimate fate. While in my mouth, Dr. Nikfarjam also noticed that I need to get at least one of my sprouting wisdom teeth removed. I can't wait.
(0) comments
Sunday, September 28, 2003
Another blog for your blog-visiting repotoire
That's right. More words from me and five other students who love music enough to write about it. The title will be changed shortly, but I suggest you start reading now. Click here.
(0) comments
Saturday, September 27, 2003
CAL WINS: 34-31!!!!
(Rebecca Loses: Her Sunglasses; Subsequently Finds Them Between the Cushions)
Excellent game.
I hail originally from Southern California. Long Beach to be precise. A few of my high school aquaintences attended USC. They're now spending five times what I do for a comparable education. Not that it has anything to do with football. Just saying is all.
"Take off that red car!"
I viewed the game from the comfort of a frat house. A dozen or so alumni came over to the house for today's event. It seems the majority of frat boys age to become frat men. The Frat Graduation Package includes a baseball cap, khaki shorts, a blond wife, and a sense of entitlement. Just saying is all.
On an 80's flashback note, the Cal band is currently eating hot dogs at the frat after playing a few spirited songs for the brothers and alum; one alum requested "Lady in Red." Ouch.
(0) comments
Friday, September 26, 2003
NEWSBREAK: Doors of East Elevator in Eschleman Hall Opening Very Slowly
More news as it comes in...
(0) comments
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
ACLU declines to appeal recall election decision, diverts resources to delaying outdated and unreliable Christmas.
San Francisco, CA - The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided today that the unprecedented California recall election will take place on October 7 as originally scheduled, despite the contetnion from the American Civil Liberties Union that outdated punch-card ballots are less accurate than electronic voting systems and thus disefranchise thousands of voters from dense minority populations in six counties throughout the state.
The ACLU took today's ruling in stride, and shortly after the court's decision announced that they have more ambitious plans on the horizon. ACLU presidnet Nadine Strossen told reporters Tuesday that their next project is to delay Christmas, which the organization beleives is inaccurate and unreliable, and which is specifically unfair to minorities.
The case will be heard by the US Supreme Court this coming Friday.
Said Strossen, "Data from all around the nation indicate that poor and minority children are the most likely to receive crappy Christmas gifts, if in fact they receive gifts at all. In nearly every community included in the study, African American and Latino youngsters more than any other ethnic groups were the victims of pre-used gifts, gifts from Walmart, a piece of fruit in lieu of a real gift, or simply no gifts whatsoever. This is unfair. Absolutely unfair."
ACLU spokespeople are citing outdated equipment and profiling as the source of these discrepencies. According to the group, Santa Claus' sleigh, deer, and elves do not have the technology to serve every American child equally, prompting Claus to distribute his limited resources disproportinally to rich white kids whose parents have wider chimneys and superior cookies.
The group is asking for a six month delay of the holiday, which should give Claus and his faculty ample time to update toy production and distribution systems, including speedier, more ergonomically sound toy-building technology and more accurate electronic checking-it-twice devices. They are also requesting that diveristy training be legally mandated for each North Pole staff member.
Claus' spokesmen Jingle and Jangle deny allegations that his distribution techniques are unfair, and are confident that the court will rule in his favor.
(I'm not sure why I wrote this. I'm actually on the ACLU's side. On both issues.)
(0) comments
Bush is poised to sign a bill banning partial-birth abortions. I, oddly enough, am not wrangling up my picketing materials. But, though I think partial-birth abortions, which take place in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy, are ugly and should be discouraged, I don't feel that the law has any place in the matter.
By week eight into a pregnancy, the fetus already has a developing nervous system and will, even if the feeling isn't perceived by the fetus' brain, react to a physical stimulus. By the thirteenth week, the second trimester, the fetus has a fairly devolped nervous system and can move on its own volition. Premature fetuses that are born after only five months of gestation can survive, indicating that a "baby" has at that point been developed. I reluctantly say that I cannot support terminating the pregnancy in the second trimester, though nor do I feel particularly strong about this. Abortions in the third trimester, which represent only about 1% of abortions in the US, are fairly gruesome and should be strongly discouraged unless bringing the pregnancy to term would be harmful to the mother (or if it is discovered that the fetus will not survive through childbirth).
One very disturbing aspect of this bill is that it represents a stepping stone to the abolition of all abortion, no matter at what point during the pregnancy or under what circumstances. And by "circumstances" I am alluding to more than rape and incest; I believe that the sincere desire to not have a baby is a circumstance that justifies abortion.
What disturbs me most about the standard Republican stance on abortion is that they claim very ardently that they want to support a "culture of life" and eliminate a "culture of death." Wait, huh?! Is this not the political party whose platform supports the death penalty? The death penalty. Or the party (with congressional help from the pandering Democrats) that is currently waging a war in Iraq where Americans, Iraqis, soldiers, and civilians are being killed? (That's correct. I said currently.) Or the party who is more comfortable letting pollutants (pollutants that deplete the quality of and/or shorten life) into the ecosystem than regulating pollution and potentially stifling the economy on a temporary scale?
I don't belive Republicans are attempting with this bill to encourage a culture of life. At the risk of sounding radical or making a potentially offensive analysis (new territory for me), I believe this party's stance on abortion is rooted in anti-feminism and a distortion of Christian ideals (the latter obviously engendering the former). The word "God" has managed to litter the politics of the right to this day in such an un-Christian way. I have read Biblical texts for myself, and though I do not believe Jesus would support partial-birth abortions (if only we could ask him his stance on this, and stem cell research, and comprehensive admission standards for public universities), I also do not believe he would support putting criminals to death, or for that matter participating in any war.
The only good that will come of the soon-to-be passing of this bill is that the issue of abortion will once again, I predict, be taken to the Supreme Court and once again the Supreme Court will decide in favor of abortion rights. I don't know how many times the precedent will have to be set on this matter.
Dammit, I hate Republicans!
(0) comments
Elliott Smith dies in apparant suicide.
Plus, comedy show tonight at the Bear's Lair at 8pm.
Not that it's easy to get excited about a comedy show when one of the best songwriters of the last decade dies. I'm terribly sad about this. I just happen to have had one of his albums, Roman Candle, in my CD player for the last week. Come to think of it, probably not a week has gone by since I was 17 that I haven't listened to Elliott Smith. His music has had the amazing ability to console me in my down moments, despite his own meloncholia. This is very sad to me. I hope that if you haven't heard his work extinsively that you now give it a try. This is so incredibly disappointing.
(0) comments
Saturday, October 18, 2003
For those about to rock.
Yet another subtle reminder to check out the very good If Six Was Nine blog (ifsix.blogspot.com), wherein six sexy coeds offer their insights into the world of music. Also note that we now have a neat-o masthead at the top of the page with pictures of all six of us in alphabetical order. (That means I'm the one on the far right, kids.) My initial plan when I got into the blogging madness was to never let my readers (besides the ones whom I know in person) know what I look like. Well, now you do. Sexy. That's what I look like.
I'd also like to remind you that the Heuristic Squelch will be hosting a swell comedy show this upcoming Wednesday at the Bear's Lair at 8pm. It's only $5 for a whole night of laffs. Find us on Sproul.
What, by the way, did you all think of the most recent issue of our fine little humor mag?
Make to sure to celebrate the end of midterms responsibly. For example, don't celebrate the end of one midterm by ceasing to study for a week, only to remember that you have another midterm within the next few days.
I drove around the streets of Berkeley and Albany for the first time last night. I don't have my license yet, only my permit, but I am a very fast learner. I didn't drive when I was a teenager because I simply didn't have the money for insurance and gas and a car. (I, like a sucker, was saving my earnings for college. Psshh.) But now I'm an excellent driver. Definitely.
(0) comments
Sunday, October 12, 2003
Everyone's stupid but me
Also, pardon my hiatus.
A dangerous, covert terrorist lurks in our midst. A greasy, scrumptious terrorist. A capitalist terrorist who is poisoning Americans with its life-shortening and money-sucking death substance. That's right, it's the restaurant industry, and it's killing our nation's citizens with fat. Fat! Fattening fat deep-fried in 100% fatty fat. Or not. Who knows. Whatever.
This article is about how the three-fifths of RedWhiteAndBlueicans who are overwieght may have spurred legal action taken against the restaurant industry, who has facilitated rampant fat consumption. One option is to legally mandate that nutrition information be included on restaurant menus.
Every person (over the age of, let's say, thirteen, at which point if you can't cook your own dinner than you're a big loser) has complete control over what he or she eats, and every person has the option of asking for vague-to-specific nutrition information about the food he or she receives from a restaurant, so conceivably every person should know semi-accurately how many calories and fat grams he or she has consumed per meal, thus every person who is overweight has no one to blame but him or herself. Thus I think suing McDonald's or Chili's for America's obesity is frivilous and unfair.
But why not mandate that nutrition information, specific and accurate information, be available for all food no matter where it is being eaten? If people want to eat lard all day, oh for god's sake let them. But if some people ardently do not want to chug lipids for sport (and as a result possibly suffer heart disease, heart attack, diabetes, stroke, snoring, etc.), they should be able to have information assisting them in their pursuit readily available. There's no need to sue the restaurants that have helped this nation devolve into 250,000,000 corpulant turban-fearing cowboys (I guess they're only responsible for the first adjective), but there's also no need to withold information from the consumer.
An argument could be made by those of you who believe in individual self-determination and oppose institutional interferance with consumers' decisions. That argument might go something like this: "If folks are surprised that they're getting a spare tire after years of Big Macs and pepperoni pizzas, then they're big durfs who obviously don't understand how eating and digestion work. Man, are they big durfs." Hey, I agree with you. Especially about the durf thing. If there's one thing I can't stand it's a durf who doesn't understand stuff.
But I also believe that an informed consumer, perhaps even and over-informed consumer, is an ideal in a capitalist economy. Further, a citizen cannot truly be self-determining and free of interferance until he has every fact about what he is consuming at his disposal. Every person has the right to decide what is best for his body, so long as he knows exactly what is going into it.
[This is the part of the post where I reminisce longingly/disgustedly about my years back home in Long Beach.] When I was home for the Summer in the months between my freshman and sophomore years in college, I stayed in my home town of Long Beach for the season and chose to get a job at McDonald's because no one else would hire me for just eight weeks. As you can imagine, the menu at McDonald's hinges upon fat. I would leave that place with beef tallow caked between the treads of my non-scuff shoes. It's all fat. Fat plus more fat. Everyone knows that. Except kids. A five year old should not have to concern himself with calorie-counting when he goes out to eat with his parents. And it would be one thing if his parents took him for fast food once, even twice a month. But when you work full-time at McDonald's in a dense urban area, you come to see that some families eat there twice, thrice, four times a week. The parent are already obease. The children, through no fault of their own, are quickly on their way. They are being introduced very early into our culture of fattening foods. It's a culture where eating animal fats and proteins is encouraged for fear of anemia and/or sissiness, but I'd wager more on the latter. It's a society where convenience takes precedence over health. Most importantly, it's a culture that has developed out of ignorance, and it reproduces itself everyday because consumers aren't demanding to be informed.
If people could see, could read, could process with their own eyes that a medium order of french fries at McDonald's has 22 grams of fat (30% of your RDA of fat), or that a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese has 47 grams of fat (and thus that a #6 on the big picture menu gives them 69 grams total) as they're ordering then they may reconsider their options. Or not. Who cares. Let them eat fat. Just let them know how much.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
IT'S OFFICIAL!!
I now officially have no trust in the ability of the populous to elect the right people. I'm surrounded by 35 million doofers. Down with democracy! Up with highly centralized federal government!
On a lighter note, both propositions failed. Proposition 54 did not pass in any county at all, in fact. Even in Orange County, the coast's beacon of conservativism and illegal immigrant labor force, Prop 54 failed 51% to 49%.
In San Francisco County, Peter Camejo received about 1,300 more votes than McClintock. Yay! Gary Coleman got 21 more votes than drop-out candidate Peter Ueberroth. Yikes.
In Alameda County, write-in candidate Daniel Freedman received one vote. The Squelch Publicity Coordinator voted for himself.
Again on the lighter side, cheers to such high voter turnout. About 2 million more voted yesterday than a year ago.
On a curious note, how many of you were asked to provide photo ID when checking into your polling place? I was not asked, nor were any of the several other people I asked. Isn't such slack behavior conducive to voter fraud?
Here's how I voted:
Triple No plus Camejo.
I encourage you all to go back in time and do the same.
Here are all the exciting election returns from around the state!
New Squelch on Monday.
(0) comments
Sunday, October 05, 2003
Peter Camejo Rocks the Boat, My World
For those of you who didn't see Pete speak in Evans Hall on Firday at 6pm (which would be everyone on the planet save for about 400 of us), he was fantastic as always.
Seemingly the Green following in the Berkeley area is comprised of a bunch of hippies; who knew? Peter's appearance was hosted by the ISO, and apparantly socialists run on "commie time," wherein events start 15 minutes late (so much for the trains running on time), but the introductory speakers were few and brief and Camejo was speaking by 6:35pm.
In good third-party tradition, he came armed with some very indicitive and interesting graphs, including a chart showing that, when income and property and sales and all other state taxes are added together, the bottom 20% pay an 11.3% tax rate while the top 1% pays 7.2%. (Here's a link to that graph and report.) He also had a graph showing that taxes on corporations are as low as they've been since the mid-90s (I don't remember the exact numbers and I can't find Camejo's graph - I'd make a lousy political intern). Further, he outlined how the number of businesses in California is on the increase, as are their revenues; in fact, California's GDP was bigger last year than ever, which makes the current deficit that moch more amazing. In other words, Peter was artfully dispelling the myth so ardently perpetuated by Schwarzenegger and McClintock: that corporate and income taxes are driving the money out of this state. This simply isn't true! The Republicans may offer anecdotes saying otherwise, but emperical data cannot support the theory that California's current fiscal policies are forcing companies to move elsewhere.
But enough about the economy. The economy bores me to tears. (Luckilly, Camejo is a financial advisor and can find money exciting on my behalf.) What really incited enthusiam in me were Pete's invigorating stances on IRV and gay rights.
First, the latter: For him and the rest of the Green party, the issue of "gay rights" is not an issue. Gays are citizens and receive the rights thereof. No concessions, no compromises, no policies treating them as if they were legally different from "regular" people. Somehow, this is a stance that every plausable Democratic candidate (c'mon, no one's voting for Kucinich, and it makes me really sad) refuses to take, perhaps for fear of wierding out a good number of Americans, or perhaps because they genuinely don't believe gays are the same as everybody else.
Second, the former: I strongly believe that instant runoff voting would make government far more representative of the public's wishes. If progressives who like like the Greens or conservatives who like the crazy Libertarians or the nut jobs who like the wacky nut job Reformists got to vote their concience, these underdogs could receive the recognition they deserve and could further play a role in the political process, without their supporters feeling like they're "stealing" votes. I can't see any reason to oppose IRV.
Lastly, the previously unmentioned: Sumbit articles to the Squelch. Especially newsflashes. submit@squelched.com
(0) comments
Friday, October 03, 2003
RCB Guide's Cheers and Jeers
Jeers to Arnold Schwarzenegger for groping unwilling women. Jeers again to him for admiring Hitler in any capacity. Then again, maybe Adolf had a stunning physique that only Arnie knows about.
Jeers to Arianna Huffington for bowing out of the race. She was giving many Californians a good reason to go to the polls, and has subsequently abandoned them, no doubt under pressure from more likely victorious liberal candidates.
Cheers to Peter Camejo and Tom McClintock for not.
Cheers, further, to the people who made it possible for Peter and Tom to be involved in the gubernatorial debates. Cheers to a minor undermining of the strict two-party/two-candidate political system that limits the democratic potential of America.
Jeers to whoever decided to have the Giants' first three playoff games take place while most people are at work or school.
Jeers to midterms.
Cheers to the Heuristic Squelch, which stands as a beacon of entertainment in the face of said midterms.
Jeers to President Bush. For any number of things.
Jeers to "The Simpsons" for not being funny for almost half a decade.
Cheers to having all three seasons of "The Family Guy" on DVD to compensate for the previous Jeer.
Cheers to all the cool kids who run If Six Was Nine.
Jeers to this idiotic TV Guide format.
Update:
Cheers to Luna Bars, Clif Bar's high-density food chunk designed specifically for women. Each bar has 10 grams of protein (22% of its calories); 350mg calcium; 100% RDA of folate, vitamins C, B1, B3, B6, and B12, and some other stuff I've never heard of; and only 180 calories. Furthermore, Luna bars use no animal products, and because B vitamins are normally so difficult to find in large quantities in plants, these mid-meal snacks are ideal for us vegans. Yay!
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Heuristic Squelch sneak peak and entreaty for submissions
I'll let you in on a little secret....don't tell anyone....alright? Shhhh... The cover of the next issue of the Squelch is gonna totally zing Chancellor Berdahl! Zing!!!! Sorta. I guess we're not really zinging him at all. I don't even know any more. I'll be happy as long as the magazine makes reference at some point to the Chancellor's jowels.
We're getting started on our second issue of the year, and my prediction is of pure hilarity. Keep those submissions coming! submit@squelched.com.
(0) comments
Monday, September 29, 2003
Oh, Florida! Will you ever win?
In one of the more flagrant examples of defying a stupid law with an even more stupid (and harmful and disgusting) protest, the Florida band Hell on Earth (whose music I can only assume is sub-par... Can you blame me? They're called Hell on Earth!) plans to include an onstage suicide in one of their performances and broadcast it on their website. The groups is attempting to speak out against a new law in their city of St. Petersburg that prohibits physician-assisted suicide.
Call me old-fashioned, but I take life pretty seriously. So seriously that I won't even eat a crab, who probably has the neurological capacity of my left thumb. Furthermore, I take quality of life pretty seriously. So seriously that I refuse to drink the milk of a cow who was treated like anything less than a valued house pet. Thus, and I do not belive I am contradicting my previous contention that all life is equally valuable, I respect a person's desire to end his life if he is truly in pain and has no desire to continue living. But, in keeping with that whole "life is valuable" argument, I think the option of suicide should be evaluated and ever so carefully scrutinized with a professional physician and the patient's family or friends. I think the state has a right to legally mandate that its doctors discourage suicide and refuse to assist death unless there is no alternative pain remedy. But a terminally ill adult should have the final say on his condition. Therefore, I think it's a dumb law with good intentions.
There are no good intentions, however, behind Hell on Earth's stunt. Death is tragic and, moreover, personal, not commercial or sensational. If the group genuinely saw injustice in their city's law, they could very well work with health care officials and local politicians, armed with research and first-hand testimonial, to revoke the law. Instead they have chosen to make a mockery of the pain of suicide.
In unrelated news, I had a fairly successful trip to the dentist today. (If any of you with Delta PMI need to find a dentist in the area, I'd highly recommend this one. Berkeley Hills Dental Care. On Telegraph and Woosley. Not in the hills.) I had the base filling for a crown put in after a good 30 minutes of drilling. If any inordinate pain or breakage occurs in the next two weeks, a root canal will be my ultimate fate. While in my mouth, Dr. Nikfarjam also noticed that I need to get at least one of my sprouting wisdom teeth removed. I can't wait.
(0) comments
Sunday, September 28, 2003
Another blog for your blog-visiting repotoire
That's right. More words from me and five other students who love music enough to write about it. The title will be changed shortly, but I suggest you start reading now. Click here.
(0) comments
Saturday, September 27, 2003
CAL WINS: 34-31!!!!
(Rebecca Loses: Her Sunglasses; Subsequently Finds Them Between the Cushions)
Excellent game.
I hail originally from Southern California. Long Beach to be precise. A few of my high school aquaintences attended USC. They're now spending five times what I do for a comparable education. Not that it has anything to do with football. Just saying is all.
"Take off that red car!"
I viewed the game from the comfort of a frat house. A dozen or so alumni came over to the house for today's event. It seems the majority of frat boys age to become frat men. The Frat Graduation Package includes a baseball cap, khaki shorts, a blond wife, and a sense of entitlement. Just saying is all.
On an 80's flashback note, the Cal band is currently eating hot dogs at the frat after playing a few spirited songs for the brothers and alum; one alum requested "Lady in Red." Ouch.
(0) comments
Friday, September 26, 2003
NEWSBREAK: Doors of East Elevator in Eschleman Hall Opening Very Slowly
More news as it comes in...
(0) comments
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
ACLU declines to appeal recall election decision, diverts resources to delaying outdated and unreliable Christmas.
San Francisco, CA - The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided today that the unprecedented California recall election will take place on October 7 as originally scheduled, despite the contetnion from the American Civil Liberties Union that outdated punch-card ballots are less accurate than electronic voting systems and thus disefranchise thousands of voters from dense minority populations in six counties throughout the state.
The ACLU took today's ruling in stride, and shortly after the court's decision announced that they have more ambitious plans on the horizon. ACLU presidnet Nadine Strossen told reporters Tuesday that their next project is to delay Christmas, which the organization beleives is inaccurate and unreliable, and which is specifically unfair to minorities.
The case will be heard by the US Supreme Court this coming Friday.
Said Strossen, "Data from all around the nation indicate that poor and minority children are the most likely to receive crappy Christmas gifts, if in fact they receive gifts at all. In nearly every community included in the study, African American and Latino youngsters more than any other ethnic groups were the victims of pre-used gifts, gifts from Walmart, a piece of fruit in lieu of a real gift, or simply no gifts whatsoever. This is unfair. Absolutely unfair."
ACLU spokespeople are citing outdated equipment and profiling as the source of these discrepencies. According to the group, Santa Claus' sleigh, deer, and elves do not have the technology to serve every American child equally, prompting Claus to distribute his limited resources disproportinally to rich white kids whose parents have wider chimneys and superior cookies.
The group is asking for a six month delay of the holiday, which should give Claus and his faculty ample time to update toy production and distribution systems, including speedier, more ergonomically sound toy-building technology and more accurate electronic checking-it-twice devices. They are also requesting that diveristy training be legally mandated for each North Pole staff member.
Claus' spokesmen Jingle and Jangle deny allegations that his distribution techniques are unfair, and are confident that the court will rule in his favor.
(I'm not sure why I wrote this. I'm actually on the ACLU's side. On both issues.)
(0) comments
Yet another subtle reminder to check out the very good If Six Was Nine blog (ifsix.blogspot.com), wherein six sexy coeds offer their insights into the world of music. Also note that we now have a neat-o masthead at the top of the page with pictures of all six of us in alphabetical order. (That means I'm the one on the far right, kids.) My initial plan when I got into the blogging madness was to never let my readers (besides the ones whom I know in person) know what I look like. Well, now you do. Sexy. That's what I look like.
I'd also like to remind you that the Heuristic Squelch will be hosting a swell comedy show this upcoming Wednesday at the Bear's Lair at 8pm. It's only $5 for a whole night of laffs. Find us on Sproul.
What, by the way, did you all think of the most recent issue of our fine little humor mag?
Make to sure to celebrate the end of midterms responsibly. For example, don't celebrate the end of one midterm by ceasing to study for a week, only to remember that you have another midterm within the next few days.
I drove around the streets of Berkeley and Albany for the first time last night. I don't have my license yet, only my permit, but I am a very fast learner. I didn't drive when I was a teenager because I simply didn't have the money for insurance and gas and a car. (I, like a sucker, was saving my earnings for college. Psshh.) But now I'm an excellent driver. Definitely.
(0) comments
Everyone's stupid but me
Also, pardon my hiatus.
A dangerous, covert terrorist lurks in our midst. A greasy, scrumptious terrorist. A capitalist terrorist who is poisoning Americans with its life-shortening and money-sucking death substance. That's right, it's the restaurant industry, and it's killing our nation's citizens with fat. Fat! Fattening fat deep-fried in 100% fatty fat. Or not. Who knows. Whatever.
This article is about how the three-fifths of RedWhiteAndBlueicans who are overwieght may have spurred legal action taken against the restaurant industry, who has facilitated rampant fat consumption. One option is to legally mandate that nutrition information be included on restaurant menus.
Every person (over the age of, let's say, thirteen, at which point if you can't cook your own dinner than you're a big loser) has complete control over what he or she eats, and every person has the option of asking for vague-to-specific nutrition information about the food he or she receives from a restaurant, so conceivably every person should know semi-accurately how many calories and fat grams he or she has consumed per meal, thus every person who is overweight has no one to blame but him or herself. Thus I think suing McDonald's or Chili's for America's obesity is frivilous and unfair.
But why not mandate that nutrition information, specific and accurate information, be available for all food no matter where it is being eaten? If people want to eat lard all day, oh for god's sake let them. But if some people ardently do not want to chug lipids for sport (and as a result possibly suffer heart disease, heart attack, diabetes, stroke, snoring, etc.), they should be able to have information assisting them in their pursuit readily available. There's no need to sue the restaurants that have helped this nation devolve into 250,000,000 corpulant turban-fearing cowboys (I guess they're only responsible for the first adjective), but there's also no need to withold information from the consumer.
An argument could be made by those of you who believe in individual self-determination and oppose institutional interferance with consumers' decisions. That argument might go something like this: "If folks are surprised that they're getting a spare tire after years of Big Macs and pepperoni pizzas, then they're big durfs who obviously don't understand how eating and digestion work. Man, are they big durfs." Hey, I agree with you. Especially about the durf thing. If there's one thing I can't stand it's a durf who doesn't understand stuff.
But I also believe that an informed consumer, perhaps even and over-informed consumer, is an ideal in a capitalist economy. Further, a citizen cannot truly be self-determining and free of interferance until he has every fact about what he is consuming at his disposal. Every person has the right to decide what is best for his body, so long as he knows exactly what is going into it.
[This is the part of the post where I reminisce longingly/disgustedly about my years back home in Long Beach.] When I was home for the Summer in the months between my freshman and sophomore years in college, I stayed in my home town of Long Beach for the season and chose to get a job at McDonald's because no one else would hire me for just eight weeks. As you can imagine, the menu at McDonald's hinges upon fat. I would leave that place with beef tallow caked between the treads of my non-scuff shoes. It's all fat. Fat plus more fat. Everyone knows that. Except kids. A five year old should not have to concern himself with calorie-counting when he goes out to eat with his parents. And it would be one thing if his parents took him for fast food once, even twice a month. But when you work full-time at McDonald's in a dense urban area, you come to see that some families eat there twice, thrice, four times a week. The parent are already obease. The children, through no fault of their own, are quickly on their way. They are being introduced very early into our culture of fattening foods. It's a culture where eating animal fats and proteins is encouraged for fear of anemia and/or sissiness, but I'd wager more on the latter. It's a society where convenience takes precedence over health. Most importantly, it's a culture that has developed out of ignorance, and it reproduces itself everyday because consumers aren't demanding to be informed.
If people could see, could read, could process with their own eyes that a medium order of french fries at McDonald's has 22 grams of fat (30% of your RDA of fat), or that a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese has 47 grams of fat (and thus that a #6 on the big picture menu gives them 69 grams total) as they're ordering then they may reconsider their options. Or not. Who cares. Let them eat fat. Just let them know how much.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
IT'S OFFICIAL!!
I now officially have no trust in the ability of the populous to elect the right people. I'm surrounded by 35 million doofers. Down with democracy! Up with highly centralized federal government!
On a lighter note, both propositions failed. Proposition 54 did not pass in any county at all, in fact. Even in Orange County, the coast's beacon of conservativism and illegal immigrant labor force, Prop 54 failed 51% to 49%.
In San Francisco County, Peter Camejo received about 1,300 more votes than McClintock. Yay! Gary Coleman got 21 more votes than drop-out candidate Peter Ueberroth. Yikes.
In Alameda County, write-in candidate Daniel Freedman received one vote. The Squelch Publicity Coordinator voted for himself.
Again on the lighter side, cheers to such high voter turnout. About 2 million more voted yesterday than a year ago.
On a curious note, how many of you were asked to provide photo ID when checking into your polling place? I was not asked, nor were any of the several other people I asked. Isn't such slack behavior conducive to voter fraud?
Here's how I voted:
Triple No plus Camejo.
I encourage you all to go back in time and do the same.
Here are all the exciting election returns from around the state!
New Squelch on Monday.
(0) comments
Sunday, October 05, 2003
Peter Camejo Rocks the Boat, My World
For those of you who didn't see Pete speak in Evans Hall on Firday at 6pm (which would be everyone on the planet save for about 400 of us), he was fantastic as always.
Seemingly the Green following in the Berkeley area is comprised of a bunch of hippies; who knew? Peter's appearance was hosted by the ISO, and apparantly socialists run on "commie time," wherein events start 15 minutes late (so much for the trains running on time), but the introductory speakers were few and brief and Camejo was speaking by 6:35pm.
In good third-party tradition, he came armed with some very indicitive and interesting graphs, including a chart showing that, when income and property and sales and all other state taxes are added together, the bottom 20% pay an 11.3% tax rate while the top 1% pays 7.2%. (Here's a link to that graph and report.) He also had a graph showing that taxes on corporations are as low as they've been since the mid-90s (I don't remember the exact numbers and I can't find Camejo's graph - I'd make a lousy political intern). Further, he outlined how the number of businesses in California is on the increase, as are their revenues; in fact, California's GDP was bigger last year than ever, which makes the current deficit that moch more amazing. In other words, Peter was artfully dispelling the myth so ardently perpetuated by Schwarzenegger and McClintock: that corporate and income taxes are driving the money out of this state. This simply isn't true! The Republicans may offer anecdotes saying otherwise, but emperical data cannot support the theory that California's current fiscal policies are forcing companies to move elsewhere.
But enough about the economy. The economy bores me to tears. (Luckilly, Camejo is a financial advisor and can find money exciting on my behalf.) What really incited enthusiam in me were Pete's invigorating stances on IRV and gay rights.
First, the latter: For him and the rest of the Green party, the issue of "gay rights" is not an issue. Gays are citizens and receive the rights thereof. No concessions, no compromises, no policies treating them as if they were legally different from "regular" people. Somehow, this is a stance that every plausable Democratic candidate (c'mon, no one's voting for Kucinich, and it makes me really sad) refuses to take, perhaps for fear of wierding out a good number of Americans, or perhaps because they genuinely don't believe gays are the same as everybody else.
Second, the former: I strongly believe that instant runoff voting would make government far more representative of the public's wishes. If progressives who like like the Greens or conservatives who like the crazy Libertarians or the nut jobs who like the wacky nut job Reformists got to vote their concience, these underdogs could receive the recognition they deserve and could further play a role in the political process, without their supporters feeling like they're "stealing" votes. I can't see any reason to oppose IRV.
Lastly, the previously unmentioned: Sumbit articles to the Squelch. Especially newsflashes. submit@squelched.com
(0) comments
Friday, October 03, 2003
RCB Guide's Cheers and Jeers
Jeers to Arnold Schwarzenegger for groping unwilling women. Jeers again to him for admiring Hitler in any capacity. Then again, maybe Adolf had a stunning physique that only Arnie knows about.
Jeers to Arianna Huffington for bowing out of the race. She was giving many Californians a good reason to go to the polls, and has subsequently abandoned them, no doubt under pressure from more likely victorious liberal candidates.
Cheers to Peter Camejo and Tom McClintock for not.
Cheers, further, to the people who made it possible for Peter and Tom to be involved in the gubernatorial debates. Cheers to a minor undermining of the strict two-party/two-candidate political system that limits the democratic potential of America.
Jeers to whoever decided to have the Giants' first three playoff games take place while most people are at work or school.
Jeers to midterms.
Cheers to the Heuristic Squelch, which stands as a beacon of entertainment in the face of said midterms.
Jeers to President Bush. For any number of things.
Jeers to "The Simpsons" for not being funny for almost half a decade.
Cheers to having all three seasons of "The Family Guy" on DVD to compensate for the previous Jeer.
Cheers to all the cool kids who run If Six Was Nine.
Jeers to this idiotic TV Guide format.
Update:
Cheers to Luna Bars, Clif Bar's high-density food chunk designed specifically for women. Each bar has 10 grams of protein (22% of its calories); 350mg calcium; 100% RDA of folate, vitamins C, B1, B3, B6, and B12, and some other stuff I've never heard of; and only 180 calories. Furthermore, Luna bars use no animal products, and because B vitamins are normally so difficult to find in large quantities in plants, these mid-meal snacks are ideal for us vegans. Yay!
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Heuristic Squelch sneak peak and entreaty for submissions
I'll let you in on a little secret....don't tell anyone....alright? Shhhh... The cover of the next issue of the Squelch is gonna totally zing Chancellor Berdahl! Zing!!!! Sorta. I guess we're not really zinging him at all. I don't even know any more. I'll be happy as long as the magazine makes reference at some point to the Chancellor's jowels.
We're getting started on our second issue of the year, and my prediction is of pure hilarity. Keep those submissions coming! submit@squelched.com.
(0) comments
Monday, September 29, 2003
Oh, Florida! Will you ever win?
In one of the more flagrant examples of defying a stupid law with an even more stupid (and harmful and disgusting) protest, the Florida band Hell on Earth (whose music I can only assume is sub-par... Can you blame me? They're called Hell on Earth!) plans to include an onstage suicide in one of their performances and broadcast it on their website. The groups is attempting to speak out against a new law in their city of St. Petersburg that prohibits physician-assisted suicide.
Call me old-fashioned, but I take life pretty seriously. So seriously that I won't even eat a crab, who probably has the neurological capacity of my left thumb. Furthermore, I take quality of life pretty seriously. So seriously that I refuse to drink the milk of a cow who was treated like anything less than a valued house pet. Thus, and I do not belive I am contradicting my previous contention that all life is equally valuable, I respect a person's desire to end his life if he is truly in pain and has no desire to continue living. But, in keeping with that whole "life is valuable" argument, I think the option of suicide should be evaluated and ever so carefully scrutinized with a professional physician and the patient's family or friends. I think the state has a right to legally mandate that its doctors discourage suicide and refuse to assist death unless there is no alternative pain remedy. But a terminally ill adult should have the final say on his condition. Therefore, I think it's a dumb law with good intentions.
There are no good intentions, however, behind Hell on Earth's stunt. Death is tragic and, moreover, personal, not commercial or sensational. If the group genuinely saw injustice in their city's law, they could very well work with health care officials and local politicians, armed with research and first-hand testimonial, to revoke the law. Instead they have chosen to make a mockery of the pain of suicide.
In unrelated news, I had a fairly successful trip to the dentist today. (If any of you with Delta PMI need to find a dentist in the area, I'd highly recommend this one. Berkeley Hills Dental Care. On Telegraph and Woosley. Not in the hills.) I had the base filling for a crown put in after a good 30 minutes of drilling. If any inordinate pain or breakage occurs in the next two weeks, a root canal will be my ultimate fate. While in my mouth, Dr. Nikfarjam also noticed that I need to get at least one of my sprouting wisdom teeth removed. I can't wait.
(0) comments
Sunday, September 28, 2003
Another blog for your blog-visiting repotoire
That's right. More words from me and five other students who love music enough to write about it. The title will be changed shortly, but I suggest you start reading now. Click here.
(0) comments
Saturday, September 27, 2003
CAL WINS: 34-31!!!!
(Rebecca Loses: Her Sunglasses; Subsequently Finds Them Between the Cushions)
Excellent game.
I hail originally from Southern California. Long Beach to be precise. A few of my high school aquaintences attended USC. They're now spending five times what I do for a comparable education. Not that it has anything to do with football. Just saying is all.
"Take off that red car!"
I viewed the game from the comfort of a frat house. A dozen or so alumni came over to the house for today's event. It seems the majority of frat boys age to become frat men. The Frat Graduation Package includes a baseball cap, khaki shorts, a blond wife, and a sense of entitlement. Just saying is all.
On an 80's flashback note, the Cal band is currently eating hot dogs at the frat after playing a few spirited songs for the brothers and alum; one alum requested "Lady in Red." Ouch.
(0) comments
Friday, September 26, 2003
NEWSBREAK: Doors of East Elevator in Eschleman Hall Opening Very Slowly
More news as it comes in...
(0) comments
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
ACLU declines to appeal recall election decision, diverts resources to delaying outdated and unreliable Christmas.
San Francisco, CA - The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided today that the unprecedented California recall election will take place on October 7 as originally scheduled, despite the contetnion from the American Civil Liberties Union that outdated punch-card ballots are less accurate than electronic voting systems and thus disefranchise thousands of voters from dense minority populations in six counties throughout the state.
The ACLU took today's ruling in stride, and shortly after the court's decision announced that they have more ambitious plans on the horizon. ACLU presidnet Nadine Strossen told reporters Tuesday that their next project is to delay Christmas, which the organization beleives is inaccurate and unreliable, and which is specifically unfair to minorities.
The case will be heard by the US Supreme Court this coming Friday.
Said Strossen, "Data from all around the nation indicate that poor and minority children are the most likely to receive crappy Christmas gifts, if in fact they receive gifts at all. In nearly every community included in the study, African American and Latino youngsters more than any other ethnic groups were the victims of pre-used gifts, gifts from Walmart, a piece of fruit in lieu of a real gift, or simply no gifts whatsoever. This is unfair. Absolutely unfair."
ACLU spokespeople are citing outdated equipment and profiling as the source of these discrepencies. According to the group, Santa Claus' sleigh, deer, and elves do not have the technology to serve every American child equally, prompting Claus to distribute his limited resources disproportinally to rich white kids whose parents have wider chimneys and superior cookies.
The group is asking for a six month delay of the holiday, which should give Claus and his faculty ample time to update toy production and distribution systems, including speedier, more ergonomically sound toy-building technology and more accurate electronic checking-it-twice devices. They are also requesting that diveristy training be legally mandated for each North Pole staff member.
Claus' spokesmen Jingle and Jangle deny allegations that his distribution techniques are unfair, and are confident that the court will rule in his favor.
(I'm not sure why I wrote this. I'm actually on the ACLU's side. On both issues.)
(0) comments
I now officially have no trust in the ability of the populous to elect the right people. I'm surrounded by 35 million doofers. Down with democracy! Up with highly centralized federal government!
On a lighter note, both propositions failed. Proposition 54 did not pass in any county at all, in fact. Even in Orange County, the coast's beacon of conservativism and illegal immigrant labor force, Prop 54 failed 51% to 49%.
In San Francisco County, Peter Camejo received about 1,300 more votes than McClintock. Yay! Gary Coleman got 21 more votes than drop-out candidate Peter Ueberroth. Yikes.
In Alameda County, write-in candidate Daniel Freedman received one vote. The Squelch Publicity Coordinator voted for himself.
Again on the lighter side, cheers to such high voter turnout. About 2 million more voted yesterday than a year ago.
On a curious note, how many of you were asked to provide photo ID when checking into your polling place? I was not asked, nor were any of the several other people I asked. Isn't such slack behavior conducive to voter fraud?
Here's how I voted:
Triple No plus Camejo.
I encourage you all to go back in time and do the same.
Here are all the exciting election returns from around the state!
New Squelch on Monday.
(0) comments
Peter Camejo Rocks the Boat, My World
For those of you who didn't see Pete speak in Evans Hall on Firday at 6pm (which would be everyone on the planet save for about 400 of us), he was fantastic as always.
Seemingly the Green following in the Berkeley area is comprised of a bunch of hippies; who knew? Peter's appearance was hosted by the ISO, and apparantly socialists run on "commie time," wherein events start 15 minutes late (so much for the trains running on time), but the introductory speakers were few and brief and Camejo was speaking by 6:35pm.
In good third-party tradition, he came armed with some very indicitive and interesting graphs, including a chart showing that, when income and property and sales and all other state taxes are added together, the bottom 20% pay an 11.3% tax rate while the top 1% pays 7.2%. (Here's a link to that graph and report.) He also had a graph showing that taxes on corporations are as low as they've been since the mid-90s (I don't remember the exact numbers and I can't find Camejo's graph - I'd make a lousy political intern). Further, he outlined how the number of businesses in California is on the increase, as are their revenues; in fact, California's GDP was bigger last year than ever, which makes the current deficit that moch more amazing. In other words, Peter was artfully dispelling the myth so ardently perpetuated by Schwarzenegger and McClintock: that corporate and income taxes are driving the money out of this state. This simply isn't true! The Republicans may offer anecdotes saying otherwise, but emperical data cannot support the theory that California's current fiscal policies are forcing companies to move elsewhere.
But enough about the economy. The economy bores me to tears. (Luckilly, Camejo is a financial advisor and can find money exciting on my behalf.) What really incited enthusiam in me were Pete's invigorating stances on IRV and gay rights.
First, the latter: For him and the rest of the Green party, the issue of "gay rights" is not an issue. Gays are citizens and receive the rights thereof. No concessions, no compromises, no policies treating them as if they were legally different from "regular" people. Somehow, this is a stance that every plausable Democratic candidate (c'mon, no one's voting for Kucinich, and it makes me really sad) refuses to take, perhaps for fear of wierding out a good number of Americans, or perhaps because they genuinely don't believe gays are the same as everybody else.
Second, the former: I strongly believe that instant runoff voting would make government far more representative of the public's wishes. If progressives who like like the Greens or conservatives who like the crazy Libertarians or the nut jobs who like the wacky nut job Reformists got to vote their concience, these underdogs could receive the recognition they deserve and could further play a role in the political process, without their supporters feeling like they're "stealing" votes. I can't see any reason to oppose IRV.
Lastly, the previously unmentioned: Sumbit articles to the Squelch. Especially newsflashes. submit@squelched.com
(0) comments
Friday, October 03, 2003
RCB Guide's Cheers and Jeers
Jeers to Arnold Schwarzenegger for groping unwilling women. Jeers again to him for admiring Hitler in any capacity. Then again, maybe Adolf had a stunning physique that only Arnie knows about.
Jeers to Arianna Huffington for bowing out of the race. She was giving many Californians a good reason to go to the polls, and has subsequently abandoned them, no doubt under pressure from more likely victorious liberal candidates.
Cheers to Peter Camejo and Tom McClintock for not.
Cheers, further, to the people who made it possible for Peter and Tom to be involved in the gubernatorial debates. Cheers to a minor undermining of the strict two-party/two-candidate political system that limits the democratic potential of America.
Jeers to whoever decided to have the Giants' first three playoff games take place while most people are at work or school.
Jeers to midterms.
Cheers to the Heuristic Squelch, which stands as a beacon of entertainment in the face of said midterms.
Jeers to President Bush. For any number of things.
Jeers to "The Simpsons" for not being funny for almost half a decade.
Cheers to having all three seasons of "The Family Guy" on DVD to compensate for the previous Jeer.
Cheers to all the cool kids who run If Six Was Nine.
Jeers to this idiotic TV Guide format.
Update:
Cheers to Luna Bars, Clif Bar's high-density food chunk designed specifically for women. Each bar has 10 grams of protein (22% of its calories); 350mg calcium; 100% RDA of folate, vitamins C, B1, B3, B6, and B12, and some other stuff I've never heard of; and only 180 calories. Furthermore, Luna bars use no animal products, and because B vitamins are normally so difficult to find in large quantities in plants, these mid-meal snacks are ideal for us vegans. Yay!
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Heuristic Squelch sneak peak and entreaty for submissions
I'll let you in on a little secret....don't tell anyone....alright? Shhhh... The cover of the next issue of the Squelch is gonna totally zing Chancellor Berdahl! Zing!!!! Sorta. I guess we're not really zinging him at all. I don't even know any more. I'll be happy as long as the magazine makes reference at some point to the Chancellor's jowels.
We're getting started on our second issue of the year, and my prediction is of pure hilarity. Keep those submissions coming! submit@squelched.com.
(0) comments
Monday, September 29, 2003
Oh, Florida! Will you ever win?
In one of the more flagrant examples of defying a stupid law with an even more stupid (and harmful and disgusting) protest, the Florida band Hell on Earth (whose music I can only assume is sub-par... Can you blame me? They're called Hell on Earth!) plans to include an onstage suicide in one of their performances and broadcast it on their website. The groups is attempting to speak out against a new law in their city of St. Petersburg that prohibits physician-assisted suicide.
Call me old-fashioned, but I take life pretty seriously. So seriously that I won't even eat a crab, who probably has the neurological capacity of my left thumb. Furthermore, I take quality of life pretty seriously. So seriously that I refuse to drink the milk of a cow who was treated like anything less than a valued house pet. Thus, and I do not belive I am contradicting my previous contention that all life is equally valuable, I respect a person's desire to end his life if he is truly in pain and has no desire to continue living. But, in keeping with that whole "life is valuable" argument, I think the option of suicide should be evaluated and ever so carefully scrutinized with a professional physician and the patient's family or friends. I think the state has a right to legally mandate that its doctors discourage suicide and refuse to assist death unless there is no alternative pain remedy. But a terminally ill adult should have the final say on his condition. Therefore, I think it's a dumb law with good intentions.
There are no good intentions, however, behind Hell on Earth's stunt. Death is tragic and, moreover, personal, not commercial or sensational. If the group genuinely saw injustice in their city's law, they could very well work with health care officials and local politicians, armed with research and first-hand testimonial, to revoke the law. Instead they have chosen to make a mockery of the pain of suicide.
In unrelated news, I had a fairly successful trip to the dentist today. (If any of you with Delta PMI need to find a dentist in the area, I'd highly recommend this one. Berkeley Hills Dental Care. On Telegraph and Woosley. Not in the hills.) I had the base filling for a crown put in after a good 30 minutes of drilling. If any inordinate pain or breakage occurs in the next two weeks, a root canal will be my ultimate fate. While in my mouth, Dr. Nikfarjam also noticed that I need to get at least one of my sprouting wisdom teeth removed. I can't wait.
(0) comments
Sunday, September 28, 2003
Another blog for your blog-visiting repotoire
That's right. More words from me and five other students who love music enough to write about it. The title will be changed shortly, but I suggest you start reading now. Click here.
(0) comments
Saturday, September 27, 2003
CAL WINS: 34-31!!!!
(Rebecca Loses: Her Sunglasses; Subsequently Finds Them Between the Cushions)
Excellent game.
I hail originally from Southern California. Long Beach to be precise. A few of my high school aquaintences attended USC. They're now spending five times what I do for a comparable education. Not that it has anything to do with football. Just saying is all.
"Take off that red car!"
I viewed the game from the comfort of a frat house. A dozen or so alumni came over to the house for today's event. It seems the majority of frat boys age to become frat men. The Frat Graduation Package includes a baseball cap, khaki shorts, a blond wife, and a sense of entitlement. Just saying is all.
On an 80's flashback note, the Cal band is currently eating hot dogs at the frat after playing a few spirited songs for the brothers and alum; one alum requested "Lady in Red." Ouch.
(0) comments
Friday, September 26, 2003
NEWSBREAK: Doors of East Elevator in Eschleman Hall Opening Very Slowly
More news as it comes in...
(0) comments
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
ACLU declines to appeal recall election decision, diverts resources to delaying outdated and unreliable Christmas.
San Francisco, CA - The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided today that the unprecedented California recall election will take place on October 7 as originally scheduled, despite the contetnion from the American Civil Liberties Union that outdated punch-card ballots are less accurate than electronic voting systems and thus disefranchise thousands of voters from dense minority populations in six counties throughout the state.
The ACLU took today's ruling in stride, and shortly after the court's decision announced that they have more ambitious plans on the horizon. ACLU presidnet Nadine Strossen told reporters Tuesday that their next project is to delay Christmas, which the organization beleives is inaccurate and unreliable, and which is specifically unfair to minorities.
The case will be heard by the US Supreme Court this coming Friday.
Said Strossen, "Data from all around the nation indicate that poor and minority children are the most likely to receive crappy Christmas gifts, if in fact they receive gifts at all. In nearly every community included in the study, African American and Latino youngsters more than any other ethnic groups were the victims of pre-used gifts, gifts from Walmart, a piece of fruit in lieu of a real gift, or simply no gifts whatsoever. This is unfair. Absolutely unfair."
ACLU spokespeople are citing outdated equipment and profiling as the source of these discrepencies. According to the group, Santa Claus' sleigh, deer, and elves do not have the technology to serve every American child equally, prompting Claus to distribute his limited resources disproportinally to rich white kids whose parents have wider chimneys and superior cookies.
The group is asking for a six month delay of the holiday, which should give Claus and his faculty ample time to update toy production and distribution systems, including speedier, more ergonomically sound toy-building technology and more accurate electronic checking-it-twice devices. They are also requesting that diveristy training be legally mandated for each North Pole staff member.
Claus' spokesmen Jingle and Jangle deny allegations that his distribution techniques are unfair, and are confident that the court will rule in his favor.
(I'm not sure why I wrote this. I'm actually on the ACLU's side. On both issues.)
(0) comments
Jeers to Arnold Schwarzenegger for groping unwilling women. Jeers again to him for admiring Hitler in any capacity. Then again, maybe Adolf had a stunning physique that only Arnie knows about.
Jeers to Arianna Huffington for bowing out of the race. She was giving many Californians a good reason to go to the polls, and has subsequently abandoned them, no doubt under pressure from more likely victorious liberal candidates.
Cheers to Peter Camejo and Tom McClintock for not.
Cheers, further, to the people who made it possible for Peter and Tom to be involved in the gubernatorial debates. Cheers to a minor undermining of the strict two-party/two-candidate political system that limits the democratic potential of America.
Jeers to whoever decided to have the Giants' first three playoff games take place while most people are at work or school.
Jeers to midterms.
Cheers to the Heuristic Squelch, which stands as a beacon of entertainment in the face of said midterms.
Jeers to President Bush. For any number of things.
Jeers to "The Simpsons" for not being funny for almost half a decade.
Cheers to having all three seasons of "The Family Guy" on DVD to compensate for the previous Jeer.
Cheers to all the cool kids who run If Six Was Nine.
Jeers to this idiotic TV Guide format.
Update:
Cheers to Luna Bars, Clif Bar's high-density food chunk designed specifically for women. Each bar has 10 grams of protein (22% of its calories); 350mg calcium; 100% RDA of folate, vitamins C, B1, B3, B6, and B12, and some other stuff I've never heard of; and only 180 calories. Furthermore, Luna bars use no animal products, and because B vitamins are normally so difficult to find in large quantities in plants, these mid-meal snacks are ideal for us vegans. Yay!
(0) comments
Heuristic Squelch sneak peak and entreaty for submissions
I'll let you in on a little secret....don't tell anyone....alright? Shhhh... The cover of the next issue of the Squelch is gonna totally zing Chancellor Berdahl! Zing!!!! Sorta. I guess we're not really zinging him at all. I don't even know any more. I'll be happy as long as the magazine makes reference at some point to the Chancellor's jowels.
We're getting started on our second issue of the year, and my prediction is of pure hilarity. Keep those submissions coming! submit@squelched.com.
(0) comments
Monday, September 29, 2003
Oh, Florida! Will you ever win?
In one of the more flagrant examples of defying a stupid law with an even more stupid (and harmful and disgusting) protest, the Florida band Hell on Earth (whose music I can only assume is sub-par... Can you blame me? They're called Hell on Earth!) plans to include an onstage suicide in one of their performances and broadcast it on their website. The groups is attempting to speak out against a new law in their city of St. Petersburg that prohibits physician-assisted suicide.
Call me old-fashioned, but I take life pretty seriously. So seriously that I won't even eat a crab, who probably has the neurological capacity of my left thumb. Furthermore, I take quality of life pretty seriously. So seriously that I refuse to drink the milk of a cow who was treated like anything less than a valued house pet. Thus, and I do not belive I am contradicting my previous contention that all life is equally valuable, I respect a person's desire to end his life if he is truly in pain and has no desire to continue living. But, in keeping with that whole "life is valuable" argument, I think the option of suicide should be evaluated and ever so carefully scrutinized with a professional physician and the patient's family or friends. I think the state has a right to legally mandate that its doctors discourage suicide and refuse to assist death unless there is no alternative pain remedy. But a terminally ill adult should have the final say on his condition. Therefore, I think it's a dumb law with good intentions.
There are no good intentions, however, behind Hell on Earth's stunt. Death is tragic and, moreover, personal, not commercial or sensational. If the group genuinely saw injustice in their city's law, they could very well work with health care officials and local politicians, armed with research and first-hand testimonial, to revoke the law. Instead they have chosen to make a mockery of the pain of suicide.
In unrelated news, I had a fairly successful trip to the dentist today. (If any of you with Delta PMI need to find a dentist in the area, I'd highly recommend this one. Berkeley Hills Dental Care. On Telegraph and Woosley. Not in the hills.) I had the base filling for a crown put in after a good 30 minutes of drilling. If any inordinate pain or breakage occurs in the next two weeks, a root canal will be my ultimate fate. While in my mouth, Dr. Nikfarjam also noticed that I need to get at least one of my sprouting wisdom teeth removed. I can't wait.
(0) comments
Sunday, September 28, 2003
Another blog for your blog-visiting repotoire
That's right. More words from me and five other students who love music enough to write about it. The title will be changed shortly, but I suggest you start reading now. Click here.
(0) comments
Saturday, September 27, 2003
CAL WINS: 34-31!!!!
(Rebecca Loses: Her Sunglasses; Subsequently Finds Them Between the Cushions)
Excellent game.
I hail originally from Southern California. Long Beach to be precise. A few of my high school aquaintences attended USC. They're now spending five times what I do for a comparable education. Not that it has anything to do with football. Just saying is all.
"Take off that red car!"
I viewed the game from the comfort of a frat house. A dozen or so alumni came over to the house for today's event. It seems the majority of frat boys age to become frat men. The Frat Graduation Package includes a baseball cap, khaki shorts, a blond wife, and a sense of entitlement. Just saying is all.
On an 80's flashback note, the Cal band is currently eating hot dogs at the frat after playing a few spirited songs for the brothers and alum; one alum requested "Lady in Red." Ouch.
(0) comments
Friday, September 26, 2003
NEWSBREAK: Doors of East Elevator in Eschleman Hall Opening Very Slowly
More news as it comes in...
(0) comments
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
ACLU declines to appeal recall election decision, diverts resources to delaying outdated and unreliable Christmas.
San Francisco, CA - The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided today that the unprecedented California recall election will take place on October 7 as originally scheduled, despite the contetnion from the American Civil Liberties Union that outdated punch-card ballots are less accurate than electronic voting systems and thus disefranchise thousands of voters from dense minority populations in six counties throughout the state.
The ACLU took today's ruling in stride, and shortly after the court's decision announced that they have more ambitious plans on the horizon. ACLU presidnet Nadine Strossen told reporters Tuesday that their next project is to delay Christmas, which the organization beleives is inaccurate and unreliable, and which is specifically unfair to minorities.
The case will be heard by the US Supreme Court this coming Friday.
Said Strossen, "Data from all around the nation indicate that poor and minority children are the most likely to receive crappy Christmas gifts, if in fact they receive gifts at all. In nearly every community included in the study, African American and Latino youngsters more than any other ethnic groups were the victims of pre-used gifts, gifts from Walmart, a piece of fruit in lieu of a real gift, or simply no gifts whatsoever. This is unfair. Absolutely unfair."
ACLU spokespeople are citing outdated equipment and profiling as the source of these discrepencies. According to the group, Santa Claus' sleigh, deer, and elves do not have the technology to serve every American child equally, prompting Claus to distribute his limited resources disproportinally to rich white kids whose parents have wider chimneys and superior cookies.
The group is asking for a six month delay of the holiday, which should give Claus and his faculty ample time to update toy production and distribution systems, including speedier, more ergonomically sound toy-building technology and more accurate electronic checking-it-twice devices. They are also requesting that diveristy training be legally mandated for each North Pole staff member.
Claus' spokesmen Jingle and Jangle deny allegations that his distribution techniques are unfair, and are confident that the court will rule in his favor.
(I'm not sure why I wrote this. I'm actually on the ACLU's side. On both issues.)
(0) comments
In one of the more flagrant examples of defying a stupid law with an even more stupid (and harmful and disgusting) protest, the Florida band Hell on Earth (whose music I can only assume is sub-par... Can you blame me? They're called Hell on Earth!) plans to include an onstage suicide in one of their performances and broadcast it on their website. The groups is attempting to speak out against a new law in their city of St. Petersburg that prohibits physician-assisted suicide.
Call me old-fashioned, but I take life pretty seriously. So seriously that I won't even eat a crab, who probably has the neurological capacity of my left thumb. Furthermore, I take quality of life pretty seriously. So seriously that I refuse to drink the milk of a cow who was treated like anything less than a valued house pet. Thus, and I do not belive I am contradicting my previous contention that all life is equally valuable, I respect a person's desire to end his life if he is truly in pain and has no desire to continue living. But, in keeping with that whole "life is valuable" argument, I think the option of suicide should be evaluated and ever so carefully scrutinized with a professional physician and the patient's family or friends. I think the state has a right to legally mandate that its doctors discourage suicide and refuse to assist death unless there is no alternative pain remedy. But a terminally ill adult should have the final say on his condition. Therefore, I think it's a dumb law with good intentions.
There are no good intentions, however, behind Hell on Earth's stunt. Death is tragic and, moreover, personal, not commercial or sensational. If the group genuinely saw injustice in their city's law, they could very well work with health care officials and local politicians, armed with research and first-hand testimonial, to revoke the law. Instead they have chosen to make a mockery of the pain of suicide.
In unrelated news, I had a fairly successful trip to the dentist today. (If any of you with Delta PMI need to find a dentist in the area, I'd highly recommend this one. Berkeley Hills Dental Care. On Telegraph and Woosley. Not in the hills.) I had the base filling for a crown put in after a good 30 minutes of drilling. If any inordinate pain or breakage occurs in the next two weeks, a root canal will be my ultimate fate. While in my mouth, Dr. Nikfarjam also noticed that I need to get at least one of my sprouting wisdom teeth removed. I can't wait.
(0) comments
Another blog for your blog-visiting repotoire
That's right. More words from me and five other students who love music enough to write about it. The title will be changed shortly, but I suggest you start reading now. Click here.
(0) comments
Saturday, September 27, 2003
CAL WINS: 34-31!!!!
(Rebecca Loses: Her Sunglasses; Subsequently Finds Them Between the Cushions)
Excellent game.
I hail originally from Southern California. Long Beach to be precise. A few of my high school aquaintences attended USC. They're now spending five times what I do for a comparable education. Not that it has anything to do with football. Just saying is all.
"Take off that red car!"
I viewed the game from the comfort of a frat house. A dozen or so alumni came over to the house for today's event. It seems the majority of frat boys age to become frat men. The Frat Graduation Package includes a baseball cap, khaki shorts, a blond wife, and a sense of entitlement. Just saying is all.
On an 80's flashback note, the Cal band is currently eating hot dogs at the frat after playing a few spirited songs for the brothers and alum; one alum requested "Lady in Red." Ouch.
(0) comments
Friday, September 26, 2003
NEWSBREAK: Doors of East Elevator in Eschleman Hall Opening Very Slowly
More news as it comes in...
(0) comments
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
ACLU declines to appeal recall election decision, diverts resources to delaying outdated and unreliable Christmas.
San Francisco, CA - The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided today that the unprecedented California recall election will take place on October 7 as originally scheduled, despite the contetnion from the American Civil Liberties Union that outdated punch-card ballots are less accurate than electronic voting systems and thus disefranchise thousands of voters from dense minority populations in six counties throughout the state.
The ACLU took today's ruling in stride, and shortly after the court's decision announced that they have more ambitious plans on the horizon. ACLU presidnet Nadine Strossen told reporters Tuesday that their next project is to delay Christmas, which the organization beleives is inaccurate and unreliable, and which is specifically unfair to minorities.
The case will be heard by the US Supreme Court this coming Friday.
Said Strossen, "Data from all around the nation indicate that poor and minority children are the most likely to receive crappy Christmas gifts, if in fact they receive gifts at all. In nearly every community included in the study, African American and Latino youngsters more than any other ethnic groups were the victims of pre-used gifts, gifts from Walmart, a piece of fruit in lieu of a real gift, or simply no gifts whatsoever. This is unfair. Absolutely unfair."
ACLU spokespeople are citing outdated equipment and profiling as the source of these discrepencies. According to the group, Santa Claus' sleigh, deer, and elves do not have the technology to serve every American child equally, prompting Claus to distribute his limited resources disproportinally to rich white kids whose parents have wider chimneys and superior cookies.
The group is asking for a six month delay of the holiday, which should give Claus and his faculty ample time to update toy production and distribution systems, including speedier, more ergonomically sound toy-building technology and more accurate electronic checking-it-twice devices. They are also requesting that diveristy training be legally mandated for each North Pole staff member.
Claus' spokesmen Jingle and Jangle deny allegations that his distribution techniques are unfair, and are confident that the court will rule in his favor.
(I'm not sure why I wrote this. I'm actually on the ACLU's side. On both issues.)
(0) comments
(Rebecca Loses: Her Sunglasses; Subsequently Finds Them Between the Cushions)
Excellent game.
I hail originally from Southern California. Long Beach to be precise. A few of my high school aquaintences attended USC. They're now spending five times what I do for a comparable education. Not that it has anything to do with football. Just saying is all.
"Take off that red car!"
I viewed the game from the comfort of a frat house. A dozen or so alumni came over to the house for today's event. It seems the majority of frat boys age to become frat men. The Frat Graduation Package includes a baseball cap, khaki shorts, a blond wife, and a sense of entitlement. Just saying is all.
On an 80's flashback note, the Cal band is currently eating hot dogs at the frat after playing a few spirited songs for the brothers and alum; one alum requested "Lady in Red." Ouch.
(0) comments
NEWSBREAK: Doors of East Elevator in Eschleman Hall Opening Very Slowly
More news as it comes in...
(0) comments
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
ACLU declines to appeal recall election decision, diverts resources to delaying outdated and unreliable Christmas.
San Francisco, CA - The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided today that the unprecedented California recall election will take place on October 7 as originally scheduled, despite the contetnion from the American Civil Liberties Union that outdated punch-card ballots are less accurate than electronic voting systems and thus disefranchise thousands of voters from dense minority populations in six counties throughout the state.
The ACLU took today's ruling in stride, and shortly after the court's decision announced that they have more ambitious plans on the horizon. ACLU presidnet Nadine Strossen told reporters Tuesday that their next project is to delay Christmas, which the organization beleives is inaccurate and unreliable, and which is specifically unfair to minorities.
The case will be heard by the US Supreme Court this coming Friday.
Said Strossen, "Data from all around the nation indicate that poor and minority children are the most likely to receive crappy Christmas gifts, if in fact they receive gifts at all. In nearly every community included in the study, African American and Latino youngsters more than any other ethnic groups were the victims of pre-used gifts, gifts from Walmart, a piece of fruit in lieu of a real gift, or simply no gifts whatsoever. This is unfair. Absolutely unfair."
ACLU spokespeople are citing outdated equipment and profiling as the source of these discrepencies. According to the group, Santa Claus' sleigh, deer, and elves do not have the technology to serve every American child equally, prompting Claus to distribute his limited resources disproportinally to rich white kids whose parents have wider chimneys and superior cookies.
The group is asking for a six month delay of the holiday, which should give Claus and his faculty ample time to update toy production and distribution systems, including speedier, more ergonomically sound toy-building technology and more accurate electronic checking-it-twice devices. They are also requesting that diveristy training be legally mandated for each North Pole staff member.
Claus' spokesmen Jingle and Jangle deny allegations that his distribution techniques are unfair, and are confident that the court will rule in his favor.
(I'm not sure why I wrote this. I'm actually on the ACLU's side. On both issues.)
(0) comments
San Francisco, CA - The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided today that the unprecedented California recall election will take place on October 7 as originally scheduled, despite the contetnion from the American Civil Liberties Union that outdated punch-card ballots are less accurate than electronic voting systems and thus disefranchise thousands of voters from dense minority populations in six counties throughout the state.
The ACLU took today's ruling in stride, and shortly after the court's decision announced that they have more ambitious plans on the horizon. ACLU presidnet Nadine Strossen told reporters Tuesday that their next project is to delay Christmas, which the organization beleives is inaccurate and unreliable, and which is specifically unfair to minorities.
The case will be heard by the US Supreme Court this coming Friday.
Said Strossen, "Data from all around the nation indicate that poor and minority children are the most likely to receive crappy Christmas gifts, if in fact they receive gifts at all. In nearly every community included in the study, African American and Latino youngsters more than any other ethnic groups were the victims of pre-used gifts, gifts from Walmart, a piece of fruit in lieu of a real gift, or simply no gifts whatsoever. This is unfair. Absolutely unfair."
ACLU spokespeople are citing outdated equipment and profiling as the source of these discrepencies. According to the group, Santa Claus' sleigh, deer, and elves do not have the technology to serve every American child equally, prompting Claus to distribute his limited resources disproportinally to rich white kids whose parents have wider chimneys and superior cookies.
The group is asking for a six month delay of the holiday, which should give Claus and his faculty ample time to update toy production and distribution systems, including speedier, more ergonomically sound toy-building technology and more accurate electronic checking-it-twice devices. They are also requesting that diveristy training be legally mandated for each North Pole staff member.
Claus' spokesmen Jingle and Jangle deny allegations that his distribution techniques are unfair, and are confident that the court will rule in his favor.
(I'm not sure why I wrote this. I'm actually on the ACLU's side. On both issues.)
(0) comments