Friday, December 31, 2004

Happy New Year!

This year I resolve to be more civil in my blog discussions and treat people with contrary views with more respect. I resolve to work on my comic more with an eye toward finishing it time for Alternate Press Expo (APE). I resolve to finish paying of my student loans. Lastly, I resolve to actually learn some new songs on piano and practice expanding my singing range. D above middle C is just not good enough.

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 8:56 PM
(0) comments

Sunday, December 26, 2004

A ship without a navigator

Even Bush's economic advisors can't pretend that the Bonds/Stocks market inefficiency that privitization rests on will persist. They know it contradicts basic economics. Why are they continuing to push this plan? And why Republicans who act in good-faith going along with it? Do they really expect there to be no political fallout?

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 9:20 PM
(0) comments

Friday, December 24, 2004

Happy Holidays!

I would like to wish all my Christian readers (who celebrate it) a merry Christmas and all the rest a happy December 25th. Hell, I hope all your days are happy. Yes, even the right-wingers; May you all be visited by three ghosts and learn the true meaning of Christmas. I’ll be gone visiting the grand canyon with my girlfriend but I’m sure patriotic spirit of political discussion will be just fine without my hot-head musings.

Goodwill to all people… except for maybe Osama Bin Laden and all those insurgents shooting at our guys. Actually, I wish them goodwill too: the type of goodwill that asks them to put down their weapons and surrender. That probably won’t happen but hey, if Bush can make a war plan that depends on it, I can wish for it too.

This season, let’s remember those who are less fortunate then ourselves: because really, everything we have is a gift from God and it’s vanity to think that we deserve any of it. Let’s remember all those fighting for us overseas and at home; those who live under the yoke of oppression, be it from the negligence of their fellow citizens or tyranny; those who are sick and dying; and those who are alone. May we open our hearts and recognize the common humanity that we all share.

Happy Holidays and a good New Year!

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 1:05 PM
(0) comments

Sunday, December 19, 2004

Why do Republicans want to destroy social security, a healthy successful system?

(a rant by a man driven crazy by republican idiocy)

I mean, if you take the “lock-box” seriously (it would be political suicide not to) then SS is good till 2055 and depending on the projections might not ever have a problem. If on the other hand you disregard the lock-box idea, than SS isn’t the problem, the general fund is. What’s the deal?

Why are the Republicans so fixed on making sure politicians in 2055 won’t have to possibly put more money into social security or increase taxes? The federal government has that problem right now! Hell, compared to the general fund, or medicare, or anything else you can name, Social Security won’t need much maintenance at all. So why do they want to focus on social security?

And how can we even take seriously a prediction about 2055? By that time, won’t we be able to just have our robot workers pay extra for social security? Won’t we be able to genetically de-age the elderly and have them continue to lead productive lives? Heck, couldn’t we pay for social security with the proceeds of the Martian real estate boom alone?

Why did I grow up hearing horror stories about social security? Who stood to gain from dire predictions? Why is it that if we assume the republican stock market projections (the one’s they use to support their Social Security abolition plan) Social Security will be solvent FOREVER? And why is it that pretty much every other country that privatized their pension system found it to be a horrible failure? Why don’t the big news organizations cover it?

Answer me this!

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 9:46 AM
(0) comments

Friday, December 17, 2004

And to think that it only started sucking about eight years ago.

Today marks the 15th anniversary of the premiere of the Fox Television smash "The Simpsons."

Celebrate accordingly: By watching your DVDs/illegal downloads of seasons one through six, and maybe seven if you have time.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 3:17 PM
(0) comments

The liberals and their communication problem

So I’m going to try writing for the Smart-Ass (Berkeley Dem paper) and I decided to submit an article about Liberals being bad at communicating. Help me out. To me, nothing is more emblematic of this problem than the protest. But does it serve some kind of non-communicating goal? Does it help recruitment? I suspect that it doesn’t do anything that a bake sale or hosting a speaker wouldn’t do but maybe I’m wrong. I also want to mention how there seems to be an instinctual fear of liberal media. As if had Al Gore actually purchased a news channel he would have turned it into the Socialist weekly. Anyhow, any thoughts on the subject would be appreciated. Either post a comment or send me an e-mail at {my last name} @ gmail.com.

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 7:39 AM
(0) comments

Wednesday, December 15, 2004

As if the movie weren't mind-blowingly awesome enough...

Now you can also buy the soundtrack for Wes Anderson's "The Life Aquatic." Along with the usual Mark Mothersbaugh genius, and some tracks from David Bowie and Devo and the Zombies and Joan Baez, the real cake-taker is Sau Jorge's renditions of David Bowie classics in Portuguese. When I saw the film and heard the acousitc-only Jorge version of "Life on Mars," I nearly shed a tear.

This one is on the top of my Christmas list, as should it be on yours.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 1:34 PM
(0) comments

Monday, December 13, 2004

No more homework, no more books, no more teachers' exhilarating lectures

Rebecca C. Brown as of 2:13 this morning, Pacific Standard Time, was finished with all academic obligations of the Fall semester for 2004.

I had two final assignments this semester; both were 5-7 page take home essays; one actually had an impact on my grade.

To all my engineering/physics/mathematics/CS major friends, I can only concede that humanities students really are pieces of shit.

Good luck on your (*snicker*) finals!

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 10:14 AM
(0) comments

Saturday, December 11, 2004

Mike Davis has some good points. That, and a free money machine

Wouldn’t it be awesome if my great-great-grandfather (Giocchino Tomasello) had invested some money away for my retirement? I’d be like a millionaire! With that much money I could squirrel away a bunch of money for my great-great-grandson. Obviously, this speculation isn’t really that useful because, without money, there’s no obvious way I can go about becoming a millionaire. Certainly borrowing is out of the question!

It would be better if instead of paying for the current retirees, each generation invested their money for their own. That way the money would sit around for 40 years and gain interest. But then, I suppose it would be even better for the money to sit around two generations and gain even more interest! In this much I can agree with Mike when he suggests that we try to move to a system where people’s money sit around gaining interest instead of the one we have now. The problem is getting there while in debt. Republicans suggest we borrow money.

Mike Davis says “in any 30 span of history you care to look at, a total stock market fund significantly out performs the government mandated interest payments on a person’s contribution to SS”. Mike, along with Republican law-makers, leads us to draw the conclusion that investing the money in stocks would be better than the system we have now. This seems obvious! Why is it that this obvious conclusion indicates that the Republicans have a magical enchanted system for producing absolutely 100% free money? It takes a little bit of economics to explain:

How do government bond interest rates get set? The answer is those infamous “invisible hands”. The government wants you to buy its bonds so it can make money. It goes out and offers the lowest interest rates investors will put up with. Bamn! Capitalism is awesome.

Now, the Republican federal deficit is growing every year. So, if you wanted to take money out of SS to put into stocks while maintaining benefits, you’d have to raise the money through selling bonds (mostly to China). So really, it’s only going to save us money if stocks do better than bonds.

Until recently investors seemed to habitually undervalue stocks in favor of bonds. This looks like a good old-fashioned market inefficiency. We could take advantage of that. The problem is that market inefficiencies tend not to last too long after they’ve been caught. As soon as people realize that stocks are better than bonds, the government finds it has to offer higher interest bonds to entice people to buy. Meanwhile, stocks get more expensive as stock buyers have to compete with all those guys who used to foolishly stuff their money into bonds. There are a lot of indications that this switch has already happed: stocks price to earning’s ratios have gotten a lot higher in recent years.

To believe that we can make money by switching to stocks you’ve got to believe that the market inefficiency is going to persist. That no one who buys bonds is going to decide to go into stocks instead. If you believe that then you can create 100% free money as follows:

1. Have the government raise one trillion dollars through the sale of bonds
   
2. Invest the one trillion dollars in the stock market
   
3. Wait
   
4. Sell all the stocks
   
5. Buy back the bonds.
   
6. Count your free money. On average it should be equal to $1,000,000,000,000 * (stock rate of return – bond rate of return) * time you waited
   

Indeed, the whole plan is to assume that the debt government takes on, trillions and trillions of Republican debt, will made up for by the extra money people get from stocks. But here’s the kicker: if you assume the projection used to forecast social security troubles, stocks will end up doing too poorly to break even. Not to mention the fact that plan involves additional risk for each individual senior. (Sorry you invested in Enron! They looked solid!)

In normal times I would expect Republicans would show some balls like the Democrats did in 1982 and actually start raising Social Security investment or reduce benefits. I’d expect them to try to pay back the deficit like Clinton did so we could have some real option in making social security stronger. If they really believed their plan will work I would have expected Republicans (like Greenspan) to support Clinton’s proposal to move 15% of SS’s surplus into stocks. But we do not live in normal times. Sadly, we live in interesting ones.

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 9:05 AM
(0) comments

Thursday, December 09, 2004

Don't they care that I'm trying to write a paper?

I'm in the Wheeler MCF right now, attempting to complete in 30 minutes what I've had four weeks to do (namely, my American Studies final paper), and from here I can hear that some people with megaphones are protesting outside Califronia Hall, demanding the Chancellor. I can only assume that this has to do with the Multicultural Center, but our protesters need to work on their diction. The script goes like this:

"What do we want?"
"Figly rephun botter nougret!"
"When do we want it?"
"Now!!!"

Since I had to leave the Senate meeting last night at a very early 10pm (to, you know, work on my paper), I never found out what conclusion my elected representatives came to about the MCC. I do know that Karen Kenny, Dean of Students, mentioned that if the Senate could not come to an agreement and vote in favor of the MCC last night, the Chancellor would choose to seize Heller Lounge (which is in MLK, and ASUC building) and force us to put the MCC there.

Exciting stuff. Hopefully some of my readers in the know can keep us all informed and updated about this MCC madness.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 10:32 AM
(0) comments

Wednesday, December 08, 2004

It's not like you were putting it to good use anyway.

Wanna share a pint of your blood for a worthy cause (namely, saving people's lives)? I thought so. There's a Red Cross blood drive in Pauley Ballroom (fourth floor of MLK Student Union) tomorrow from 10am to 4pm. I'll be there at about 12:30 to do my part.

Afraid of having a needle poked into your arm and having and eighth of your most important body fluid extracted from your pale, quivering body? Get over it. I promise that it's painless, and not just compared to getting your tragus pierced. It very honestly does not hurt one bit, and not once have I experienced bruising, dizziness, or nausea afterward.

Plus, if you plan on drinking Thursday night, think how much easier it will be to get sloshed when you're only running on 87.5% of your tank....Just kidding. Don't do that.

Who's gonna give me a nickel every time a nurse compliments me on my enormous arm veins? Anyone? Paul?

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 1:54 PM
(0) comments

Tuesday, December 07, 2004

Lured into the Dark Side

Mark this day in human events as nothing short of revolutionary. Rebecca C. Brown has joined facebook. Note, though, that I have joined strictly for work-related purposes. My ASUC Street Team is going to have a facebook group by next semester, and it would be downright hyprocritical of me if I weren't "in." If I haven't invited you to do so yet, and if you're semi-cool, I encourage you to be my friend.

Jesus, this is sad.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 5:33 PM
(0) comments

Monday, December 06, 2004

Does anyone know of a good FDR biography?

A co-worker at my new job and I got into a political conversation the other day. He said that I seemed to be unusually optimistic considering the Republicans controlled the government. I responded that it’s not enough to win elections; you have to be right, too. The New Deal radically changed America and created a lasting political majority for a generation, but not because FDR was a good politician. It persisted because FDR was right. Though it isn’t universally the case, as long as democracy isn’t undermined too much, the party whose backward policies weaken their country will soon be tossed out on their asses no matter how good their PR is.

Oh, we tried to stop the fundamentalists from having their turn at bat and in that, we failed. I’d almost be glad to stop hearing their incessant whining from the bench, if it wasn’t for the fact that our team really needs a homer. But anyhow, it’s time for them to face the pitcher, and I wouldn’t be a liberal if I didn’t expect them to strike out.

In conclusion, FDR was handicapped and thus could not play baseball.

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 6:03 PM
(0) comments

Saturday, December 04, 2004

Turns out that "Shabbat" loosely translates as "sabbath."

Who knew? Further, who knew that people tend to hold religious ceremonies on said sabbath? Life is full of wonderous mystery.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 2:41 PM
(0) comments

Thursday, December 02, 2004

C'mon, Senator Narodick. You have a good point and all, but...

**Update** Ben didn't write a bill...he filed an injunction. Big difference. My mistake. Reading is hard for my brain.

Ben Narodick, my good friend from the Heuristic Squelch and all-around fun guy, has written a bill that freezes Commercial Revenue Funds for the President and EVP until some "issues" are "resolved" by "people." In short, Misha Leybovich and Christine Lee have wisely decided to use some money from the Student Store to invest in computer equipment for the ASUC offices. It's not much money, and the computers are I think about twenty yeard old. (The moniters are five inches across and we do data input with punchcards. No kidding.) Ben wants that money to go through the Senate rather than directly to the executive officers' offices.

I like it that Ben wants a tidy system of checks and balances. I like it (in theory) that Ben wants to perhaps prioritize giving money to student groups over putting money into functional computers for ASUC staff. The SQUELCH! party, indeed, does stand for giving money to publications and activity groups and whatnot rather than indulging the whims of elected officials.

The problem is that, well, the current computer situation in the office just plain sucks. Sucks goat balls. Twice. It very literally inhibits productivity. Second, if the money doesn't go to capital improvement, it'll probably end up going to some lame campus special interest whom I don't really care to support, rather than, say, a particular humor magazine. Third, I'm not quite comfortable yet with the idea that Ben takes his job this seriously. It's like finding out that your daughter has decided to marry a circus clown...you'll ultimately grow to love him, but for now you're just a little confused.

Lastly, I need 120 smackaroos to get a new web host for the year, and I was hoping to get that money directly from the aforementioned commercial fund. Will I have to get the money from the Senate now? Do I have to write a bill? Do I have to get it sponsored? I'm confused. I need that money by the first week of January. On the bright side, if I do indeed need to go through the Senate, maybe I'll throw in a rider on the bill demanding that Wednesdays be officially declared "Pantsless Wednesdays" by the ASUC.

More as it comes in.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 9:58 PM
(0) comments

Tuesday, November 30, 2004

The End of an Era

Watch Jeopardy! tonight to see Ken Jennigs suffer defeat after 74 victories and $2,520,700 of winnings.

I will be crying silent, invisible tears for many moments to come.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 5:58 PM
(0) comments

Oh, I forgot to mention....

For the fourth year in a row, the Long Beach Wilson boys water polo team captured the CIF Division I title, and in doing so surprised exactly zero people. Many congratulations to Tony Martinho (my water polo coach for two years) for yet another awesome season, and the city of Long Beach in general for being cool in at least one way.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 10:36 AM
(0) comments

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

'Tis the season for self-mutilation!

For those of you debating whether or not the wonderful world of piercing is right for you, now is the time to quit the equivocation and send yourself down an irreversable path of intentional pain. For starters, Thanksgiving is in two days, and it's always a good time to surprise the loved ones whom you haven't seen in four months with a new piece of metal. Second, my favorite piercing and tattoo vendor (Industrial Strength - on Dwight at Telegraph, next to 510 Skateboards) just got a new piercer and he rocks my socks off. His name is Todd. He's friendlier than Mr. Rogers, but with the occasional curse word. On Sunday he pierced my tragus, which is less exotic than it sounds. Normally getting one's cartilige pierced hurts like the dickens, but my new pal Todd managed to permanently scar my ear without the least bit of pain.

So go out, give into peer pressure, do the cool Berkeley thing, and get a hole poked into you.

As for the holiday, I'll be in Long Beach thanks to the generosity and vehicle of a certain Mr. Jessop. No one in my family knows that I'm coming, save for my older sister, so I hope they weren't planning to hold their Annual Rebecca Hatefest over Thanksgiving this year. For the record, this will be my sixth Thanksgiving as a vegan.

Have a great weekend, be it with family, friends, a freind's family, by yourself, or with complete strangers. See you on Monday.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 10:08 AM
(0) comments

Friday, November 19, 2004

Articulating why moral relativism is wrong.

With the help of my brilliant Women's Studies professor Ayse Agis, I'm now able to put into words what I find so obnoxious about moral relativism and cultural relativism: in short, it's smug and patronizing.

The premise of moral relativism, as I understand it, states that each culture's values are legitimate because moral standards are not absolute or universal. Thus it is not one culture's place to unfavorably judge the values of another culture.

A lovely example to use when critiquing this position is the infamous burka Muslim women are instructed to wear based on some interpretations of the hijab (Islamic dress code) in the Qur'an. (A lot of anti-female guidlines in Islam are rhetorically protected by American moral relativists, but let's keep it simple.) According to the doctine outlined above, we bra-burning American women should not look down on the hijab because, well, that's just the way Islam works.

This attitude de-historicizes and exoticizes Islam, and absolves Muslims of blame for violence against women because they simply don't have the ability to think beyond their mysogenistic culture. (It's like when a little kid says a bad word; it's okay because he just doesn't know any better.) Distant and strange cultures are not held accountable to our rules. Forcing a woman to hide her hair or face as a clear symbol of her inferiority is acceptable because, even though I would never allow myself to be subjugated in that way, her culture is incapable of thinking differently.

No moral relativist would articulate their argument this way, obviously. The claim would go that there simply aren't universal morals. I agree to an extent. Things like legal drinking age, tax rates, agricultural policy...yeah, not gonna claim that there's one right way. But why is it so terrible to say that not letting women vote in wrong? How difficult is it to admit that cutting up a girl's genitals to prevent her from ever enjoying sex is just bad? I'm even going so far as to say that state-sanctioned executions are flatout-wrong, too (hey, I don't like certain parts of American culture, either). Though no one particular value seems to be universally applicable, the concept of empathy must at some point be recognized as present in each of us. No empathetic person should accept violence as a prominant feature in daily life.

Like I said, there are innumerable ways in which American culture sucks balls, as well. Aging hippie douchebag leftist moral relativists (or AHDLMRs, as I like to call them) don't seem to have a problem judging their own stupid country. Death penalty, economic imperialism, environmental destruction, nutritional irresponsibility; it's all bad. I like to think that I'm an equal opportunity judger. And I've got a lot of judgement in my heart.

I think we can all agree on one thing, though: GO BEARS!

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 2:31 PM
(0) comments

Why is it that conservatives in the Berkeley blogsphere seem to be bigger cowards?

I was wondering this after having an imminently stupid argument over on another blog, but doesn’t it seem like the conservative bloggers use pseudonyms more? Rebecca and I and Brendan and Kevin and even Jon P all feel safe using our regular names, but very petty B and BAD and ddffssd all feel afraid. I guess it makes sense on the liberal Berkeley campus, but you’d think that people would fear the federal government’s CIA and “patriot act” more than being called on your political beliefs by your acquaintances. Anyhow, I guess the RIL boys don’t count since they’re probably afraid after reading the Protocols of the elders of Azlatan.

I thought of using a pseudonym before. I even picked one out: doubting tommaso. I know, it has my real name in it, but the idea is there.

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 9:05 AM
(0) comments

Thursday, November 18, 2004

The answer is blowing in the wind.

The times they are a-changing, too. Let's face it: Tom and I aren't going to be around forever (he's got the HIV and I've got testicular cancer and the doc has given us only a few months each), and in today's fast-paced techno-global-meta economy, and blog can't afford to have just two half-assed contributers. That's where you come in. That's it, yeah, right this way.

Come write for us! Talk about national, state, local, campus politics; culture; food; family relations, human relations, intimate relations; anything that tickles your fancy but that isn't merely a rehashing of the Daily Cal. Please, dirty hippie-dippie leftist pinkos only.

Contact CalJunket at rcbrown@berkeley.edu for more info.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 9:32 AM
(0) comments

Monday, November 15, 2004

Exactly what Democrats need to do

I don't usually link to other blogs but I’ve been thinking about this since the long car ride on Nov 3^rd and this post at Orcinus just beat me to it. We need to pay attention to rural concerns, and this describes exactly why we need to do it. Not just because we want to win, but because it’s the right thing to do.

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 5:59 PM
(0) comments

A response to Hov.

(This is in response to Hov's comment to my previous post below Rebecca's )

Well, you do bring up a good point and it’s something I should be clearer on. It’s subtle but my word choice is dictated by what I think will get my point across best. In keeping with that, I sometimes have to use a word out of its historical context because most people I’m writing to have a different meaning in mind. Here, “conservative” means whatever most people think it means. Namely, it indicates the ideology of the Republicans, whatever that may be. When 35% or so of the US considers themselves “conservative” and when those people vote overwhelmingly for the Republican, and make up the bulk of their votes, you’ve got to take note.

Now, I’m not saying that we can never break free of these popular definitions. They can be pretty crappy and downright misleading. When the public definition in misleading or unclear, a writer can and should redefine it. Then of course, you run the risk of your reader not accepting your definition. In keeping with that, let me take issue with the definition of conservative you gave.

Defining liberal/conservative as “big government/small government” is silly. I don’t know where you get your “general analytic consensus” from, but in all my history classes, liberalism and conservatism were distinguished by the first wanting to experiment and change, the other wanting to stay with the old ways. “Big government/small government” doesn’t even make sense since “big government” has only been around since the 30s. Surely, the terms were in use before that.

It was the liberals who pushed for enlightenment, democracy, and capitalism while the conservatives tried to keep religion, the king, and the aristocracy in charge. It was liberals who pushed for ending first slavery and then racism and female disenfranchisement while the conservatives defended “tradition”. Yes, there were some bad experiments: Prohibition, price controls, key parties, Affirmative Action quotas, and Wilsonian foreign policy were all failures. (I’m sure your ears are pricking up at prohibition: Didn’t FDR, a liberal, put an end to that? Yes! FDR was great because he knew when an experiment was over.)

That’s why we keep conservatives around. At best they are the realist string which keeps the liberal kite flying. But 9 times out of ten, the conservatives simply represent the current power of the age. It makes sense, if you are doing good right now, why would you want anything to change? In modern times there is another faction which joins the conservatives besides the monetarily powerful, the culturally powerful who are threatened. 50 years ago it was the racists. They were fine liberals until the racist injustice of their way of life started becoming untenable. Then they promptly switched parties and started fighting all progress. That’s quite an about face! But the rich have no use for the RIL kind anymore, Hov. You guys can complain about Republican “Hispandering” all you want. The rich Conservative elite have found a new bunch of boobs.

In our age, it’s the intolerant Christians elite who provide the Republicans with their 50% +1. Seeing their sway over public discourse fray over the years (see Will & Grace), and knowing that letting people to choose for themselves would weaken their power, they are reduced to trying to push intolerance through big government programs and laws. Of course, like the racists they won’t get much out of it. But I’m sure Bush’s Supreme Court justices will be busy whacking away at business regulation and efficient markets for years and years. Certainly, it would be a crime against conservatism if today's corporations had to... gasp!, compete to stay on top. Yay conservatism!

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 9:23 AM
(0) comments

Sunday, November 14, 2004

Who knew that the ASUC was actually so productive?

Sorry for the lack of posting as of late. Believe it or not, I've been spending my time doing work for your student government, and toiling away at my personal academic obligations, and playing Spider Solitaire.

Anyhow, le Big Game is this Saturday, and all campus is abuzz about how soundly we will spank our local rivals at the ol' pigskin. I say 13 points. My psychic dog told me. The ASUC is having a Big Game block party (repleat with alcohol) on Friday. We're also selling shirts that commererate Aaron Rodgers' general radness. ("Mr. Rodgers Neighborhood"...."Won't you be our Heisman?") Find us selling them on Sproul for $10. Even I bought one, and I hate t-shirts.

What we won't be selling are "Fuck Stanfurd" t-shirts. This was not based on the prudishness of any ASUC leadership so much as our reluctance to spend good will with the Chancellor on a stupid gimmick. We (the royal "we") were a phone call away from printing a few hundred of said shirts, but our buddy Chancey B got a significant number of letters from angry parents complaining that this kind of language was poisoning their children. (As if your lame SUV, polo shirt, and trophy wife weren't poison enough. Snuh.) The Chancellor didn't ask us explicitly not to participate in the "Fuck Stanfurd" hoopla, but better safe than sorry.

For my money, misspelling a university's name isn't a very good zinger anyway. In general, misspelling just makes you look stupid and petty. (Or should I say "stoopid"? See what I mean?) Maybe we should make shirts that say "Fuck Stanford for costing $30k a year and for being academically and athletically inferior to Cal and for making all their buildings look the same and for having a really terrible humor magazine." Now that would hit them where it hurts.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 1:43 PM
(0) comments

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

On the recent Election, being an American Liberal

(Reprinted from a message to my friends)

I do not usually write e-mails to everyone on my list, but I wanted to let everyone know about my experience working for the John Kerry campaign in Nevada. Also, I wanted to get a few words in about politics in general.

Getting involved wasn’t nearly as hard as I thought it was. I expected to be put in a phone bank somewhere getting cursed out by interrupted people at dinner. Instead, it turns out most of the work needed in a campaign is going door to door talking to supporters, making sure people know where their poll place is, and finding out which people need rides to get there. It was fun.

The first two days we spent in Reno and I was working “rural” duty. I got to know the town of Fernley NV pretty well. They have good hamburgers and blueberry milkshakes with actual blueberries in it! At first we thought it was weird to have so many people working Reno’s county (since it hadn’t gone Dem in a while) but it turned out it was a ruse. We made a go at Reno to draw off Republican efforts. They actually sent Cheney down there to do some last minute campaigning. If the only thing I accomplished during those four days was waste four or five hours of Dick Cheney’s time, it would have still been worth it. As it was, we ended up driving to Las Vegas.

The Dems put us up in a nice hotel and each car took responsibility for one prescient. Ours had a black neighborhood, a retirement community, and a rich neighborhood that had too many Bush/Cheney signs for my liking. (I’m told that people earning over $100,000 helped provide Bush with his margin of victory). Half way through voting, there was a hubbub at our voting place when a Republican poll-watcher illegally demanded that the people from the non-partisan “Protect the Vote” removed their identifying shirts. The public interest lawyers volunteering for the Dems pointed out that the Republicans were wrong and by the end of the day the whole thing was on the local news, with the sassy “Protect the Vote” lady giving the Republicans a piece of her mind.

We lost. I’m sure you all know that. And while it broke my heart to know that America would be gripped by corruption, secrecy and intolerance for four more years we shouldn’t lose sight of the good things that happened. For the first time ever the Liberals had as much money in an elections as the Republicans. We got 49% of the vote without the power of incumbency (like Gore or Clinton) or a third party nominee (like Perot). We had more people volunteer than ever before. We’ve started taking the media seriously with media watch dogs and talk radio stations (something which I was always for). Basically, people are starting to take politics seriously.

This is why I’m writing this letter. Most of you are (or recently were) students so like me, you can’t give money. But next time there is an election, think about volunteering. Read a book. I suggest “Lies, and the Lying Liars who tell them”, or if you’re into cog-sci “Don’t think of an Elephant”. Get a subscription to a liberal magazine. It’s pretty damn easy and it probably doesn’t cost more than $10 a year. Try Mother Jones for the emotional, Harpers for the literary, The American Prospect for the wonky, or whatever else you’d like. Mostly though, do something. It’s our country too, darn it, and in four years, when the conservatives (and anarchist libertarians, and intolerant theocrats) are through wrecking our country, dividing us through lies, and wasting our children’s future on their corporate cronies, we can say we did something.

We may not all agree on every point of policy, and we don’t have to. If you believe in getting serious about remedying terrorism, fighting its causes and its symptoms, you’re a liberal. If you think it’s wrong to log our countries forests for pennies or poison our air without punishment, you’re liberal. If you think it’s unjust for the wealthy conservative elite to raid their workers trust funds for spending money, you’re liberal. If you think it’s wrong to run up an unsustainable deficit because we’re afraid to ask corporations to pay their dues to society, you’re a liberal. If you believe that religion should inspire politicians, not policy, you’re a liberal. If you believe the government should be smarter, not bigger, you’re a liberal. In short, if you’re an American (in the true revolutionary minuteman sense of the word) you are a liberal. So don’t let people tell you otherwise. And be proud.

I would like to thank the two people who have read this far.

Update: A couple friends have written back with questions and comments. One constructive criticism was a friend who thought it was not quite right to sully Libertarians with an Anarchist reference. Another was from a friend who was upset that I would associate Libertarianism with the egalitarian Anarchists. The moral of the story: I know some pretty smart people.

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 9:24 PM
(0) comments

Sunday, November 07, 2004

Hanging with Mr. Birgeneau

With the aid of modern science and a little insider friendship (i.e., ASUC president), I got to watch yesterday's football game in the press box (first half) and in the student section with Chancellor Birgeneau and his wife (second half). The football game was pretty entertaining, but what was more entertaining was trying to maintain the schmooze level for seven straight hours. I don't know how people like Misha do it. Smiling and shaking hands and trying to say something witty every few minutes really takes the juice right out of me. On the bright side, the Birgeneaus are very cool and nice and always down for a good time.

Nothing terribly insightful to offer here. Just wanted to name drop.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 1:26 PM
(0) comments

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

Ahhhh, fuck it.

I give up. Four more years. Shit poop. Vagina.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 1:41 AM
(0) comments

Monday, November 01, 2004

Stick a thermometer in me…I've got election fever!
The 2004 CalJunket Voter's Guide

The day is already upon us! That's right, Around the World in 80 Days is coming out on DVD tomorrow. Also, people are gonna vote for a bunch of stuff. Here I offer my endorsements for a few offices and propositions that will appear on your California ballot.

But don't take my word for it; if there's one thing Ted Nugent and I can't stand, it's people who vote for stuff because other people tell them to. (If I had my way, political advertising would be illegal.) Not sure how to feel on a proposition? Read a comprehensive summary of the prop in your voter's guide. Still not sure? Read the primary source text of the prop (also in your voter's guide starting on page 83). If that doesn't inform you, at will at least bore you into making a decision.

It also doesn't hurt to talk about the issues with a significant other or good friend, preferably one whom you (a) disagree with on many political issues, (b) sleep with on a semi-regular basis, or (c) both. The best friendships, romantic or otherwise, are augmented by intelligent debate and subsequent romping.

Any offices, measures, or propositions that I do not include here have been omitted because either I'm not informed enough to make an endorsement or I do not have an opinion on the item.

Offices
President: John Kerry (C'mon.)
Senate: Barbara Boxer (She's a bit of a douche, but that doesn't preclude her from being a decent senator.)
Representative, Ninth Congressional District: Barbara Lee

Propositions
1A: Yes
59: Yes
60: Yes
61: No
62: No
63: Yes
64: No
66: Yes
67: No
68: YES
69: NO
70: No
71: Yes-ish
72: No

Berkeley Measures
I: Yes
Q: No
R: No
S: No (Trees? Honestly.)

I'll provide solid explanations for the more contested props after the election and when I don't have a paper due the next day.

Happy voting!

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 10:51 PM
(0) comments

Friday, October 29, 2004

Off to Reno!

Well, I'm actually going to do it. After years of sitting on my butt complaining, I'm actually volunteering for the Democrats. The Cal Dems are going to Reno to drum up swing voters and I will be going with straight through till Wednesday. I will try to update this blog with photos and interesting accounts if I can.

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 1:11 PM
(0) comments

Thursday, October 28, 2004

Game, set, match

Yahoo reports that satellite footage shows the weapons went missing after the start of the war. Well, that’s the smoking gun, folks. Even I don’t know what the crazies are going to do about this.

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 5:11 PM
(0) comments

Syrian Border as Deus Ex Machina

Have run through all their other excuses for the Al QaQaa scandal in about three days the Republicans have been reduced to saying the Russians took it using the Syrian border. You see, the Syrian border is a magical place where anything you can’t find has probably disappeared to and things you didn’t expect magically show up. The current list of missing items rumored to have gone over the Syrian border thus far includes:

• WMDs
  
• Al QaQaa munitions (380 tons)
  
• Foreign fighters (since it can’t possibly be the Iraqis fighting us)
  
• The remaining Bathists that are behind the insurgency
  
• George Bush’s 90% approval rating
  
• International support
  
• Flu vaccine
  
• Post war plan for Iraq
  
• Osama Bin Laden (that’s how he got into Iraq, don’t you know)
  

If science could somehow find a way to harness the power of this enchanted border perhaps we can cause anything to appear or disappear there. We could get rid of pollution and create fighting dinosaurs to battle terrorists. We could even create a plausible explination for Al QaQaa that absolves Bush. That would be a head trip. We can only hope that Republican talking heads put their minds together and focus on this task before they become too busy trying to figure out why John Kerry won the election.

Update: The Russians are calling the story poppycock and the Pentagon says they have absolutley zero reasons to believe it's true. I wonder what lame reason they're going to pull out of their asses next.

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 9:49 AM
(0) comments

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

More incompetence and the efficacy of the right wing misinformation machine

I want to hand it to the right half of the blogsphere for sticking to the adage of “When life gives you lemons, tell everyone that NBC is working on a report that each lemon in fact contain a golden wish coin.”

So recently, it was revealed that there were not enough troops in Iraq to guard all the explosives in Iraq, specifically the approximately 400 tons now missing from Al QaaQa. Now, a normal person would look at this and say, “There is no way to spin this.” You would be wrong. Let’s take a look at the different “explanations” rightists have been asked to believe in the past two or three days:

The Liberal media will back us up Defense:
Have the Drudge Report throw up a news item that NBC will be reporting that the administration was not at fault. Although NBC is part of the liberal media, they report things helpful from to us from time to time. We can’t exactly explain why. Later, when the NBC article fails to absolve the administration or even reflect anything of what drudge said, we will continue to talk about Drudge as one of the few “legitimate” bloggers.

The shoot the Moon defense:
“Well, if these weapons were so dangerous, don’t they count as WMDs?” Actually, no. They’re only dangerous because we’re in Iraq. Also, you are an idiot.

The chicken hawk defense:
“Typical liberal: blaming the military! You should have more respect for our men and women in uniform.” Well, I guess if we respected them as much as you did, we wouldn’t care to make sure that they had enough of them in Iraq to do the job right. Perhaps if we loved the military so much we’d want to kill 1000 of them off because we couldn’t wait a year or two till Afghanistan was settled.

The Fascist defense:
“This is just another in the complaint of the blame America first crowd. Perhaps if they, like us, understood that Republican presidents embody America they would understand that trying to find out who made a mistake that hurt America is wrong if the person who made that mistake is Bush. Clinton on the other hand is totally to blame for continuing the successful policy of containment. Blaming Clinton is different from blaming America because we say so and we are jerks.”

It was like that when I got here defense.
“Let’s go back to our old logs and see if we can pretend that we had someone look into this right away. Oh! Here’s something. Some American troops rolled through town at the beginning of the war. Let’s just assume they did a thorough search and found everything missing already. What? The commander of that unit gave and interview and explained that he didn’t have a quarter of the troops that he would have needed to check the weapons? He also says that he was too involved in actually fighting to spare men for that task? Hmmmm….”

Blame the UN defense:
“The IAEA was supposed to guard them. They did a bad job.” Well, they were supposed to guard them until Bush told them all to leave. You remember, right? Right before the invasion Bush had all the inspectors leave and Hans Blix was left on the floor of the UN kneeling on his scattered briefcase and papers with that weird look on his face like, “Why? What was… Why?” and he his hands were just opening and closing like he had the weapons in his grasp? Do you remember that? He cried.

The Unknowable unknowns defense:
“Well, I guess it’s just a mystery. Where did the weapons go? Could we have protected them better? Well… we shouldn’t talk about this until after the election… err, I mean after we’ve had a thorough investigation by the Republican congress. Certainly, they’ll get to the bottom of this. What with all those young republican ‘Federalists’ running around we’ll surely take our responsibility to police the presidency seriously. We mean it this time.”

Update: Talking Points Memo goes into more detail about Fox news and Mooney Times spin. In his update he links to a NY Times story where they interview Iraqis that looted Al QaQaa after the US was supposedly in control.

John Kerry in a landslide, people.

Update: This is awsome. Video from reporters embedded with US military showing explosives at the facility a the time US troops were there.

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 8:52 AM
(0) comments

Saturday, October 23, 2004

Dammit Fellow Liberals!

Can we please stop using the word “inequality” when we mean “inequality of opportunity”? In honor of Rebecca's request to keep my posts short I will end right here.

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 3:24 PM
(0) comments

Friday, October 22, 2004

ASUC.org is being completely redesigned.

Yep, my webmaster and I are starting asuc.org from scratch. 'Cause right now it's really ugly and unsalvagable.

So, what do you want to see on the new asuc.org? What features or links or services could make it better? Thanks for your input.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 10:21 AM
(0) comments

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

Just you wait and see.

Goloshes will be Rainy Season 2004-2005's answer to the Ugg Boot. Mark my words.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 8:43 PM
(0) comments

Monday, October 18, 2004

Veggie Dating

One of my favorite online vegan recipe sources is vegweb.com; since all recipes are user-supplied, some of them are fairly nasty and/or incomplete, but the majority are healthful, tasty, and unique.

This website also offers personal ads. Geekfest '99. Seriously.

Today I came across Ted, one sexy bitch of a vegetarian. He's old enough to vote, he's Californian, and he's got a stunning smile. It also looks like he's posing on his late grandmother's couch. If I were single and thought meeting people on the internet was a good idea, and if I was desparately alone, I might drop Ted a line. I think you should. I bet Ted's a good guy with a big heart. And an indefatigable head of amber locks.

Ryan here will definitely murder you on your first date. Mark my words.

Scott is servicable, but he used "I" when he should have used "me." Damn Canadians.

Lynd thinks ideas are good things. I couldn't agree more.

And so on.

Note that for some reason most people on this site have "eastern" religions, are non-religious, or are simply atheist. It confounds me that more "conventionally" religious Americans (Christians, Jews, etc.) aren't vegan. It's a lifestyle predicated on the belief that the well-being of other creatures is more important than one's non-essential desires.

Anyhow, point is, browsing VegWeb personals is a great way to waste time at work.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 11:35 AM
(0) comments

Sunday, October 17, 2004

Thoughts on Jon Stewart’s Crossfire Appearance

I’m sure you’ve all seen Jon Stewart’s horrible smack-down of the Crossfire duo. I was left feeling a little disappointed. Although Stewart obviously has a good point in his head, one which, if properly expressed I would agree with, it was frustrating to watch him try and fail to explain it. He said that the reporters were too quick to jump on something a politician says while simultaneously letting them get away with everything. If you say it like that it really does sound contradictory as Tucker Carlson said. However, I think he was trying to say that opinion journalists are too eager to jump on misstatements (going too hard on them) and too permissive in letting candidates get away with big lies (too easy on them).

All this sounds pretty basic to you and me, and even though the audience understood Jon I sure wish we didn’t have to mind read him to get it. Anyhow, Jon Stewart is still the funniest thing on television and his show will rock for many years to come. If he wants to become an advocate for change in journalism however, he better study up… or hire a bunch of writers.

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 2:07 PM
(0) comments

Saturday, October 16, 2004

Homecoming indeed.

I am. The only person who goes to Cal. Not. At. The. Football. Game.

I assure you that Moffitt Library (or Boyfriend Number Two, as I like to call it), though, is like a house party. Like a goddamned house party.

Sigh. Oh, and go Bears, I guess.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 4:21 PM
(0) comments

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

Bloggers are people, too. Sad people, sometimes.

I'm almost done. Ten units this semester, four in the spring. Then I'm off to get a teaching credential, hopefully at SF State. After that, besides saving the world, what's next? Marriage, homeownership, child-rearing, obligatory vacations to Europe when I have the money, general malaise of relative affluence? If this is what I have to look forward to, why am I so eager to be done with my undergraduate experience?

Maybe it's Berkeley. The Sproul characters are fun, but they never change. The arguments of angry students are admirable, but nobody ever tries to see anyone's side but their own. The academic courses are awesome, but after a while the reading lists all start to look the same.

Maybe it's my age. I didn't manage to make friends in high school, but I made scores at Cal. But now I have to reexamine what friendship means. Now that I'm already mentally planning my post-grad life, it occurs to me that most the people I've befriended will disappear after May; more upsetting is that I won't care, and they won't care, and we'll make more temporary friends. I'm also more in the throws of being in love than ever before, and the gravity of this privilege is playing no small part in giving me wrinkles.

Maybe it's political. The older I get, the more resigned I am to the fact that life isn't fair. People suffer, and all the blogging in the world won't make people equal. No matter who gets elected, each human is still consigned to pain; there's pain in poverty and in wealth. People are still going to ravage the natural resources that we've commandeered as our own. Americans will always consume more than they need.

What to do about all these boring/obvious/inescapable conclusions? With seven months to go at Cal, and hopefully a few more decades to go on Earth, I suppose the only reasonable action is to remain positive. It's more difficult than it sounds, especially for people like Rebecca C. Brown who really like angst. Even if the Berkeley schtick gets old, at least people are trying to shake up the system. Even if I'm not sure if I even know what real friendship feels like, as long as I think I feel love I'm in the clear. Even if we're all headed to Hell in a Hummer, upholstered with the skins of African AIDS orphans, fueled with the tears of a million abused circus elephants, rolling on tires crafted from millennia-old redwoods, we're all equal when we die (thanks, Defoe), and at least I'm giving it my best shot before that eventual day happens.

I promise my next post will be less Baudrillard and more ASUC insider gossip.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 9:00 PM
(0) comments

An Open Letter to a Republican Friend

I wanted to expand on the point I should have made earlier. Liberals desire to be proactive in remedying the anti-American illiberalism in the Middle East that terror grows from. I can understand why you could want to divert resources from Afghanistan and the hunt for Bin Laden to radically remake Iraq. But your plan is founded on misconceptions about the origins of American power and the threat we face.

America real power is its moral power. It’s why we won the Cold war. It wasn’t just physically supporting countries struggling with democracy and freedom, but by supporting them in ways consistent with those moral standards. It means that war would only be a last resort (pre-emptive rather than preventative). It means that we support international human rights like democracy even where it’s inconvenient (Saudi Arabia, Guantanamo, most of South America). It means we are extra-skeptical of endeavors that force us to cozy up to illiberal anti-democratic regimes (Uzbekistan, Pakistan). And it means acting clearly, not changing our reasons for war after the fact.

The disease we face now is not the threat of rouge nation states that can be expected to act in their own self-interest. Al-Qaeda is not a subsidiary of Afghanistan. Al Ansar Islam is not amendable to logic. You call attention to Libya (a state that was already negotiating to halt sanctions) as proof that police actions will prove that it’s in a country’s best interest to capitulate. Maybe it is, although the recently awakened nuclear ambitions of Iran and N. Korea prove that there is a big downside to the bluff and bluster strategy if you can’t occupy the whole world. That’s not going to do anything to stop the kind of destruction that happened on 9/11. These illiberal anti-American groups we must dissolve are not going to see the error of their ways and come to the negotiating table. Nor is their system of command going to suffer if we just keep blowing them up in twos and threes. In short, we also need to drain their supply anti-American illiberals they recruit from.

You see Abu Grab as an unacceptable PR problem. (By the way, it involved prison guards [possibly accidentally] murdering inmates and the anal rape of children and women. You wouldn’t have heard that on FOX since unlike all other networks, their reporters were directed to underplay the story.) But, you say, it was worse under Saddam so we’ll get by. NO. That is exactly the wrong way to view it. This is not some kind of small detail in the effort to rehabilitate Iraq, this is the main show. When we removed the government of Iraq, we undertook a new moral responsibility: to make the sacrifices necessary to maintain order and to protect Iraqis.

How can we expect Iraqis to appreciate freedom if we don’t act morally? They see Iraqi companies passed over for crony contractors. They see an administration which fails to follow the plan to keep the peace because they were too expensive and required too many soldiers. They see a president threatening to veto $87 million for reconstruction because he didn’t want to ask the rich to invest in the future. They see the president failing to rally our allies because he refuses to share the responsibility of planning the economy and politics of Iraq. We might be able to fail in these things and still pacify the country. But it won’t cure the problem because the way we win this war is as important as how we win it.

Iran provides the perfect example of what can go wrong. We supported the undemocratic Shah because of his “liberal” (though anti-democratic) society. Result? He’s eventually overthrown and the most twisted form of democracy-in-name only is erected. We amorally support the terrorist-like Mujahideen because it is convenient. Result? Osama and his henchmen now have the know-how to attack us on Sept. 11. We support the anti-democratic Saudi Arabia to keep oil prices steady. Result? To maintain legitimacy, the king has to support the same twisted religious schools that turn out terrorist recruits. We support a secular strongman in Iraq to prevent theocracy. Result? Saddam Hussein.

It’s not that amoral actions always breed failure. But the hazard of taking the easy way out is undeniable. We were more successful where we acted morally.

During the cold war, Reagan’s push for human rights (despite all his other failures) was instrumental in inspiring thoughts of democracy in the countries behind the Iron Curtain. In Kosovo, where we went in with overwhelming force and enough allies to keep the peace the genocide stopped and peace is returning. In post-war Japan, Macarthur allowed even the Communists to participate in elections. Compare this to the Bremer’s ham-handed censorship of Sadr’s al-Hawza newspaper which turned a dissatisfied interest group into a rebel faction.

That’s why we liberals understood that democratizing Iraq by force was going to take a lot of resources we could have used elsewhere. To do the job right (i.e. morally) we would have had to mobilize all the troops Gen. Shinseki said we would. We had to invest the taxes Bush wasn’t willing to raise. It couldn’t be done on the cheap because it wasn’t about knocking Saddam out of the picture. It was about accepting a new moral responsibility to help the Iraqi people. That’s why we’re upset that Bush wouldn’t let the UN have a hand in the planning in return for some help. That’s why we get so upset at the rights violations in Guantanamo and the meaningless torture and killings in Abu Gareb. And that’s why we’re upset with the Bush administration. In short; that’s why we’re liberals.

I wish I could divorce the idea of the Iraq war from the way it has actually been administered. In principal, we could have had a good argument about whether the “ideal” Iraq war would have been the best way of bringing freedom to the Middle East. I am confident that a moral version of the Iraq war could be fought. It would have required so many resources though, possibly even a draft (which many liberals support), that it would be clear that our other goals (catching bin Laden, pushing heavy on Saudi Arabia to open up, restoring order to all of Afghanistan) would suffer. We didn’t get that moral war however; just the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time.

We support the current effort in Iraq, and will press for victory, but we should not pretend that it was a good idea to start it then just becuase it's a good idea to continue it now.

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 8:13 AM
(0) comments

Sunday, October 10, 2004

George Lakoff's new book: Don't think of an Elephant. Get it today!

I got it. Read it. It's totally awsome. If you are a liberal and want to know why and how we are going to win this short book is for you.

No seriously. Go read it now.

Facts Machine... I'm looking in your direction.

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 6:30 PM
(0) comments

Friday, October 08, 2004

Catch Phrase for the New Millennium: "Where's the Sombrero?"

That old fart from the 1984 Wendy's commercial has nothing on me.

Anyhow, many congratulations to Heuristic Squelch Editor-in-Chief, 2003 ASUC senate candidate, and all around cool dude Matthew Arthur Loker on his very first Daily Californian column. You should read it. It's insightful. And it has nothing to do with Cal, Christianity, or cunnilingus, so I'm happy.

What's with the sombrero headline, then? Well, Matt originally wanted his column picture to be of him donning said headgear. Obviously one of two things happened: the DC wouldn't let him wear a silly hat in would should be a serious publication, or else he just couldn't get his hands on a big Mexican hat in time for the photo. My guess is the latter.

Instead, the picture features Matt in all his hippie-haired glory flashing the "shocker." For those of you unfamiliar with this guesture, think of it as the college man's (or women's, for that matter) gang sign. Bloods. Crips. Jolly good time.

Matt's column has inspired me to want my own weekly DC feature next semester. (You know that Rebecca C. Brown can't stand not getting maximum exposure.) All I need to think of is an angle. (Oh yeah, and an OGB membership. Or is it the other way around?) Maybe my column could be Sex on Tuesday meets The Economist. Front page story: "George W. Bush's foreign (object) policy and your clitoris: Is this a war we can win?"

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 1:52 PM
(0) comments

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

Why I don't like PETA: Meat, it turns out, is not murder.

I've been a vegan just short of seven years...about a third of my life. That makes me one of the 1% of Americans who abstains from meat (including poultry, fish, and, yes, even "stupid" animals like shrimp), dairy, eggs, and gelatin. It seems natural to many people that because we vegans are such a small yet convicted group of eaters that we would all band together with one mindset, one set of goals, and one attitude toward our chosen diet (and toward people who don't adhere to our diet, which is 99% of you); Joe Omnivore for some reason tends to think that we all jive with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the nation's most visible animal rights groups.

But alas, PETA bugs the heck out me and most my vegan friends. They are nothing short of a half-assed militant group who thinks that the road to unerstanding is paved with judgement, self-reightousness, and fear.

For example, many Cal students have seen the large PETA displays on campus that visually and textually liken animal cruelty to the Holocaust. Hmm. Let's think about this. "You know what would be a great way to recruit people to our vegetarian lifestyle? By alienating them and comparing one of the most tragic events of the 20th century to a legal and socially acceptable practice such as meat eating! This won't offend anyone who's lost a loved one to genocide!" Yee haw, PETA. In general, PETA public demonstrations are obnoxious, and ineffective at best.

Or how about this suggestion, from animalactivist.com, a sub-site at peta.org:

Within earshot of other shoppers in the checkout line, talk with a friend about the television special that you saw on animal experimentation. Have loud conversations on the subway or bus about how great it is to be vegetarian. Be sure to carry literature with you so that when everyone around you starts asking questions, you can provide them with more information. People eavesdrop all the time—use their nosiness to animals’ advantage.

No! Being loud and obnoxious and smug is a terrible way to get people interested in your ideas. This website, plus many PETA pages, also say that massive flyering is a good way to get the word out...'cause if there's one thing that's gonna save the animals, it's exausting reems of bleached paper. Oh yeah.

What about the well-known PETA maxim "meat is murder"? Well, I'm not a law student, but doesn't murder mean that the killing is illegal? I think that using animals for food, clothing, and entertainment is one of the most disgusting and shameless institutionalized forms of abuse in this country, but I'm not going make stuff up in order to get my point across. By making exaggerations, you say to the general public, "I'm right, you're a murderer. I'm saved, you're destined for brimstone."

Lastly (and I'm leaving a novellette of stuff out), PETA panders to the power celebrity, even if it means having spokespeople who have compromised beliefs about animal rights. Pamela Anderson, for example, has become a prominent icon for PETA, due in no small part to the cute contradiction that a beautiful woman would actually have, like, beleifs. She protests furs, and is even identified as a vegetarian. But she eats seafood and other animal products. Why is this a problem? It's not that I oppose support having a broad range of degrees of animal rights lifestyles and beliefs under one organization; it's that I oppose an organization touting celebrities who have lifestyles and beliefs that the organization simultaneously likens to murder. With such a non-inclusive brand of ideology, it's annoying that PETA can only find kind words for "murderers" who have media appeal.

Why can't there be an animal rights organization that believes that compassion and love are the best ways to promote a diet choice that is in fact about compassion and love? How about a coalition of people who supports all forms of animal rights; rather than claiming that eating animals is murderous, this group could say that any small effort that a consumer makes - be it to eat meat once less every week, or to avoid shampoos that test on animals - is a positive step toward a better planet, whether or not you have the resources and desire to be hard core all the time.

After all, you don't win friends with salad.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 9:27 AM
(0) comments

Sunday, October 03, 2004

I'm not a Republican, I swear...A belated commentary on the increased UC minimum GPA from a decidedly "left" thinker.

Okay, so we've all read and heard too much reaction to this as it is (especially from bloggers), but now it's my turn to put in my two cents. (Just in case you were living under a rock for the past two weeks [I guess Berkeley housing is more scant than I thought], the Daily Cal article is here.) Where to start?

Okay, the most obvious critique of the backlash first. What's with this argument? "Hey, minorities can't get 3.0 GPAs! Rather than attempt to provide said minorities with more educational resources in high school that would afford them the chance to get better grades, let's just keep the standards low! It's the American goddamned way!" I'm not gonna pull that cute "the protesters are racist" claptrap that some of my conservative blogging friends have tried to pass off as insight. But I don't see why the solution to the problem of lack of diversity should be a flimsy bandage; the solution needs to by systemic because the causes are systemic. Obviously making poor schools more equipped to produce college students is expensive, but if all the energy and money invested in fighting raised standards were invested into root-cause programs such as Teach for America, the dent would be significant.

Second, GPAs aren't SAT scores; they're fairly comprehensive, and not determined by for-profit organizations. Grades in high school are for the most part given relative to a person's classmates, and take into account how hard he's willing to work (not just how well he does on tests...even in my college prep classes in high school, exams never made up more than half my grade). If you can't muster a B average in high school, well, you don't belong in the UC system. Apparently an epidemic problem in the UCs is that students get in, then get left in the dust because they can't compete; I don't happen to think that it's the university's job (especially not at Berkeley) to hold students' hands and show them how to handle college life. If a student can't manage as many A's and C's in high school, then I fully support her going to Cal State Long Beach or a JC, easing into the college experience, getting awesome grades the first two years, then transfering to a UC if she wants. What I don't want is unqualified students feeling sorry for themselves when Berkeley kicks their ass the first year. I sucked it up here at Cal my first semester, but rather than complaining that the university wan't offering me enough resources, I got my shit together the second semester, and every year's GPA has been better than the previous for me. It's not that hard!

And, for the record, the 3.0 GPA minimum is on an unweighted 4.0 scale, so the availability of AP classes isn't a factor in who gets to come to a UC. Also, only 1% of Cal had a high school GPA under 3.0, so this measure isn't affecting the most selective UCs that much anyway.

Anyhow, it's not that I don't think that ethnic diversity on is an unimportant issue; it bothers me that my campus is disproportionately un-black/Latino/southeast Asian/etc. These demographics are indicative of the systemic discrepancies between wealth and education. I grew up among the poorest of the poor, and I know how much poor schools get shit on. The job of the state is to stop shitting on poor schools, not to lower the standards that make these universities desirable places to attend to begin with.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 1:47 PM
(0) comments

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

It's not the war. It's the humidity.

The great thing about Iraq and the reverse domino theory that justifies it (this week) is that it proved conservatives really understand the lessons of Vietnam: military interventionist distractions are difficult in humid weather. Find someplace dry. That is all.

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 1:39 AM
(0) comments

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

Free speech is cool and all, but...

Today I was advised by an ASUC colleague to not say anything more about the multicultural center because it might be problematic to the people involved with the project if semi-unpublic information was made public. While I appreciate this person's dedication to sensitivity, this conversation was another indication to me that the members of the ASUC take themselves way too damn seriously, and in gerneral oppose being criticized in any way.

For example, as the coordinator of asuc.org, one of my ideas was to develop an ASUC blog in which a variety of interested and talented non-ASUC students would discuss ASUC events and policies and offer their own critiques of our student government. In my proposition to the senate members, I explained that the writers would not be allowed to make personal attacks and would be encouraged to address policy, not parties or people. Unfortunately, though, more than a few senators didn't like the idea of a blog because, to paraphrase, they didn't like the idea of people saying negative things about the ASUC government without the senators being consulted first.

What the balls?

As another example of this weird attitude toward crticism, the senior staff of the Office of the President were discouraged from talking to people in the Daily Cal (or anyone who might know someone in the DC) about happenings in the ASUC lest our discussion be construed as something negative about the president.

Huh?

I obviously see the need for elected figures to have their personal lives independed of the ASUC, and I can kinda get behind the idea that some senatorial and executive conversations should be kept temporarily private, but the general fear of critique, especially from senators, is confounding to me.

Never fear, though. After the dust settles on this semester, maybe a little after the 8th week, I'll spring the blog idea again. I encourage my readers to offer their opinions on the idea because, after all, I'm adult enough to handle criticism.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 9:16 PM
(0) comments

Thursday, September 23, 2004

Sigh.

Word on the street has it that in the negotiations about the proposed Multicultural Center, some people are suggesting that the center should only be available to groups relating to underrepresented minorities on campus. Not even Chinese or Korean or general Asian groups would be part of this underrepresented distinction. There are so many things wrong with this idea.

First, some background. About five years ago many of the etnic studies departments on campus went on strike, and in the negotiations, one of the concessions on behalf of the university was that one day the campus would have a Multicultural Center. The current proposition has the MC Center replacing Heller Lounge, on ASUC property.

I admittedly don't know many of the details about the proposed center, but the idea of limiting access is very wrong (and dare I say offensive, if that's your game) for at least two big reasons. First, restricting the center to only underrepresented minorities (everybody but east Asian and non-ethnic student groups, I guess?) implies that the path to equality is paved with exclusion. Second, this proposition implies that non-ethnically underrepresented student groups are not capable of appreciating or supporting multiculturalism.

Then of course there are plain old logistial problems with the logic of exclusion. Very saliently, what constitutes "underrepresented"? Is this based on campus representation versus state population? In that case, white people are underrepresented (30% of campus versus about 47% of California population.) Or is this based on a visceral reaction against whites and east Asians?

I'd like to learn more about this proposition and the people behind it. More as I find it out.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 11:26 AM
(0) comments

Sunday, September 19, 2004

Why I love Moby Dick

No, there’s nothing witty about my subject line: I really do like Moby Dick. As it’s one of the only three books I brought with me two Italy (the others being a dry book on computer algorythms and the immenently unrereadable “The Left Hand of Darkness”) I’ve had a lot of time to read it and I have done so, twice this trip. I don’t really know how to explain my love of what is often thought of as a dense symbolist tome but let me try.

First, the story is interesting. It isn’t a love story or a faher son story or any of the other stock storys that I’ve heard ten million times before. It’s a story about a guy who goes out to kill a big fat white sperm whale becuase it bit off his leg. Try finding that in Shakespear or Greek myths.

And if I may point out, a white whale is a great metaphor for just about anything. Evil, fear of the unknown, nature, whatever. Go ahead and pick something: Death, God, Revenge. Therer’s gallons of metaphor held in deep pockets in the sperm whale’s hump. Next to all that sperm oil I mean.

Being metephorical wouldn’t do the book any good if you coulodn’t understand it. Fortuently, for all his volumous laguange, Mellville throws big red flares in front of his symbols to let the dimwitted know what’s going on. Ussually it’s something like “For was not Queequa really a nobel savage?” If you’re perpetually unobservant like me, you’ll appreciate the hand-rails and clearly marked exit signs.

Lastly, the book is informative. Although I’m sure the modern scientific knowledge of whales far outstrips eerything Mellville knew (we now know that the Blue Whale does indeed exists) it’s interesting to learn about whaling and sailing at the time. That is all.

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 1:10 AM
(0) comments

Saturday, September 18, 2004

Squelch Bar Mitzvah tomorrow!
8:00pm at Blake's on Telegraph!
Cheap drinks!

Sorry. Not today. Tomorrow. Sunday. Whoopsies.

Thanks to Cooper for the tip. Who needs and intern when I have you.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 1:46 PM
(0) comments

Wednesday, September 15, 2004

Remember when The Simpsons was poignant and clever instead of just absurd and loud?

After graduation this May I will most likely begin the steps necessary to becoming a teacher. I am looking to earn my single-subject credential (math or literature - I'm not sure yet) concurrently with a Master's Degree. Part of my interest in teaching originates from my appreciation of people in the profession (most notably my mother and uncle) who genuinely care about students' well being. I would like to teach in what the industry calls an"underperforming" (read "poor") school; I feel that's where my roots and emotions lay. Having attended this type of school through seventh grade, and having had so many teachers who were actively invested in their students' lives, and conversely having endured so many teachers who didn't give a flying fuck, I've come to believe that I'm capable of being the former kind of teacher. This may just be a manifestation of "liberal guilt" (bah!) coupled with unmitigated conceit, but I'm certain I'd be a damn good teacher to "underperforming" students. My mother, who teaches kindergarten to the poorest of the poor in Long Beach, has repeatedly been told by her peers that she should teach middle-class students instead because she'd make more money and wouldn't have to deal with as much strife (such as having people on crack coming to pick up their kids). Instead, she feels that her experience and talent is more useful where she is.

Anyhow, this is just a very lengthy and unfunny way of introducing one of my favorite quotes from one of my top five favorite episodes of The Simpsons. (I am Rebecca C. Brown.)

"That's the problem with being middle class. Anybody who really cares will abandon you for those who need it more."

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 10:35 PM
(0) comments

Tuesday, September 14, 2004

Why didn't anyone warn me about Mass Comm?

I'm an Interdisciplinary Studies Field major (ISF) here at Cal, which means I get to more or less make up my own course of study within some perameters. In my field of concentration, I have chosen to analyze mass media, consumerism, visual representation, and the like in what has proven to be a more intellectually stimulating series of classes than I had expected. I have taken courses in American Studies, Visual Studies, ISF, History of Art, Women's Studies, and now Mass Communications. In addition to learning volumes about consumer culture, advertising, and visual communication, this academic path has taught me another very important lesson:

The Mass Communications department is for lazy students incapable of conducting critical and/or sub-superficial analyses of social issues!

There, I said it. I swear to Baby Jesus, my Mass Comm discussion section is populated by consumer culture apologists who can't comprehend existence outside their own little personal spheres of affluence and complacency. One woman in my class went so far as to claim that, Hey, we're products of overkill 1980s Regean-era regulation-free advertising aimed specifically at unsuspecting children, and we turned out fine.

NO! No we didn't! We're not fine! We all buy way more stuff than we need, we all inject identity into ourselves via commodities, we all thoughtlessly produces tons of garbage each year and waste water and waste paper and waste plastic, and only see a product for its consumptive value and not the productive process that preceeded our purchase of the product! Aggghh!

I was under the erroneous notioimpression that Mass Comm is for people who are interested in critiquing mass communications; it turns out that it's full of Haas rejects who think this is their second chance at a career in advertising and television. So sad.

In short, ISF rocks. People who go into ISF are there because they want to think for themselves. We're the rebels. We dance to our own beat. And we were most likely unpopular in high school.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 5:11 PM
(0) comments

Monday, September 13, 2004

Squelch DE-Cal!

Are you in L&S and currently enrolled in only three four-unit classes? Do you like jokes? Are you potty trained? Then get into the Squelch DE-Cal.

First class tonight. 204 Wheeler. 5:30pm-7:00pm or whenever Matt and Mark get tired of your ugly mugs. Get CCN tonight. Class filles up quickly. The instructors are also very handsome. One is even single.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 1:52 PM
(0) comments

Sunday, September 12, 2004

Well Sarah Silverman thinks it's funny.

Word on the street has it that comedic temptress Sarah Silverman thinks that "A University Guide to Speech Codes" (the nastly little Squelch article accused of disseminating racist discourse) is hilarious. A couple of my Squelchers went to see her at the Punchline on Firday, where both Sarah and Chris Hardwick (yes, of "Singled Out" fame) were performing. Both enjoyed our magazine. Sarah especially enjoyed "Speech Codes." Then again, she isn't renowned for being racially sensitive in public.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 11:30 AM
(0) comments

Thursday, September 09, 2004

Squelch Bar Mitzvah! Brews and Jews!

Yes, it's that big.

The Squelch has turned 13, and it's time to become a man.

Sunday, September 19th at Blake's on Telegraph. $5 at the door with Cal ID. $3 well drinks, and $3 microbrews. DJ, stand-up, some open mic. Starts at 8:00pm.

Be there or be a gentile with no sense of fun.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 10:39 PM
(0) comments

Monday, September 06, 2004

Yvette Fellarca drops bill...for some reason.

For whatever reason, Senator Fellarca has decided to withdraw the Squelch condemnation bill, at least for the time being. This disappoints me very much; I was looking forward to the debate. With any luck it will reemerge next week.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 9:28 PM
(0) comments

DAAP bullying crosses the line.

While Senator Yvette Fellarca's SB18 bill (the one that would have the ASUC officially condemn the Heuristic Squelch and demand an apology from us to a select few ethnic groups on campus) is in and of itself a bullying tactic, her recent attempt at "negotiations" with Senator Ben Narodick have proven too underhanded for me to support on any grounds. In short, Fellarca promised to withdraw SB18 if Narodick promised to sponsor two of her bills, one pertaining to the removal of regent Ward Connerly, the other in support of affirmative action. While tactics like these are perhaps commonplace in grown-up people government, and while Yvette most likely feels she is simply "politicing," this attempt at coercion is distasteful to me.

It indicates to me that SB18 wasn't penned in an attempt to ameliorate campus racism, but was instead written as leverage. That Fellarca was all too willing to withdraw a bill about which she had previously seemed so vehement in exchange for Ben's cooperation shows that she is not interesting in altering students' views of racism on prejudice on campus; instead, she would like to strong-arm students into seeing through her lenses. She doesn't care that Ben might not support her two other bills, nor does she care that any apology she could squeeze out of the Squelch would be insincere.

These tactics are an unfortunate route for Yvette to take. She and I both are women of strong convictions; though I may not always agree with her, I respect the fact that she is willing to fight to have her ideas expressed. We differ, however, in our choice of means of communication. Many of the official statements of DAAP, for example, offend me as a "non-racist white person," but I would never feel it was my right to stifle or condemn these statements; to repeat a popular if not over-used adage, this is America, and we can say what we want.

Though Yvette's attempt at coercion was unsuccessful (my Benjamin has convictions, after all), she has shown that she cares more about pushing a certain agenda than squelching (no pun intended) campus racism. I hope she and every ASUC official learns that, crass though we may be, the Squelch takes its rights very seriously, and we will not "negotiate" those rights away.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 2:22 PM
(0) comments

Friday, September 03, 2004

Something I can tell my grandkids.

I found out recently that William Hung lived/lives in the Nash Hotel on University between Shattuck and Milvia. The connection to Rebecca C. Brown? The landlords of the apartment I lived in my sophomore year own and operate said hotel! Old Billy Hung and I paid rent to the same husband/wife team. Small world.

On a side note, I'm fairly convinced that the Nash Hotel is a brothel.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 4:47 PM
(0) comments

Monday, August 30, 2004

OSL fee defeated. Democracy safe...for now.

Good news, student groups. Through firm negotiation tactics from your ASUC Office of the President, the proposed mandatory OSL registration fee that would have been imposed on all students groups will not materialize this year. This would-be fee would have prevented any student groups who chose not to pay from tabling, reserving class rooms, or accessing ASUC money. Negotiations with OSL have proven successful for now, though the OSL might attempt yet again to impose this fee next year.

This happy turn of events can be attributed to massive student group outrage at the fee, the president's organized and mature campaign against OSL, and the threat of an Executive Order that would have eliminated the need for student groups to register with OSL in order to receive ASUC money and services. Many thanks to all of the active voices in this campaign. A semi-conclusion about this matter will be published in tomorrow's Daily Cal. If for some reason the OSL continues to make sweeping decisions about student groups without first consulting the groups it claims to serve, the ASUC will be ready to fight again.

More as it comes in.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 3:37 PM
(0) comments

Smart Alec's adds beef to menu. Oh the betrayal.

As of Saturday, vegetarian/vegan/generally-food-conscious mainstay Smart Alec's now serves a beef patty in addition to their chicken breast patty and veggie burger. This bothers me for three reasons.

First, increasing the diversity of uncooked animal products in a restaurant increases the diversity of potential food-born diseases patrons can contract from eating there. Smart Alec's has already served a chicken breast patty for a few years; uncooked chicken meat can contain salmonella and other pathogens, some almost exclusive to chicken. By introducing cow to the menu, Smart Alec's also introduces a slew of additional pathogens that can potentially infect the restaurant's food. Like chicken, there are some bacteria and viruses specific to beef; unlike chicken, we know of certain diseases found in beef that cannot be eliminated through cooking (mad cow is a stunning example). Further, this menu addition increases the chances that vegetarian and vegan patrons might contract meat-born diseases. As much as employees may try to comply with meat/non-meat separation rules (which, by the way are not state law - each restaurant has its own policy, and Smart Alec's happens to cook meat and non-meat separately), there is always the chance that a worker may handle raw meat and then handle vegan food that will not be cooked above 180 degrees; even if this employee thoroughly washes his hands, unfortunatley many meat-born diseases are not wimpy enough to fall victim to antibacterial soap. Again, increasing the diversity of meat increases the diversity of potential disease that can be passed on to vegan and vegetarian customers.

Second, adding beef is a mockery of Smart Alec's claim to serve "intelligent fast food." Like chicken, the production of beef is responsible for massive groundwater pollution, air pollution, overuse of pesticides, inefficient use of water, and waste of plant resources. I'll say it again: it takes eleven times the natural resources to feed an omnivore as it does to feed a vegan. Intelligent indeed. While chicken production is a tax on our environment, per pound, beef production is an even more atrocious polluter and resource waster. It's just a matter of degrees. Pretending that chicken was and "intelligent" choice was bad enough; adding beef to the equation is inexcusable.

Along those lines, there are no provable health benefits of eating beef (or chicken, for that matter). Consuming animal protein inhibits calcium absorbtion, increases one's chance of acquiring certain cancers (especially colon and breast), exposes one's body to countless artifically added hormones and pesticides, and contains no fiber. C'mon folks. For the record, we vegans live a few years longer than regular people, even when you correct for variations in behavior like smoking, excercise, stress, and general quality of diet. Again, beef does not contribute to the intelligent ideal.

Third, killing cows is mean. Killing chickens is mean, too. But at the risk of saying that one species can comprehend death a little more acutely than another, I'm going to claim that cows can comprehend death a little more acutely than chickens. No offense, chickens. It was a tight race, but you the cows just barely edged you out.

So what to do? I honestly don't feel like eating there anymore. Maybe I'll get over it, maybe I won't. Not that they're going to miss my business.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 1:17 PM
(0) comments

Sunday, August 29, 2004

Acting Affirmativley and You

This started out as a comment response but it got too big so I'm posting it on the main site.

1) I find you statement that “no correlation can be drawn a priori between outcomes and opportunities” to be a bit… loony.

On an individual case I would agree a host of other factors can intervene between opportunity and outcome, mostly I would expect luck, competence, and moral failure. But should we really expect consistently persistent inequality of outcome across racial lines? If people rise and fall on their merits (i.e. if America is fair) and we take a large enough sample size then luck is out of the question, and unless you want to argue that blacks are less moral or less competent than average, then competence and moral failure are out.

(You may argue that luck can effect racial groups as a whole. I suppose you'd ask them to "suck it up" and quit complaining. But then, why single out racial groups as having to live with thier lot? Why not shut down public schools and let poor children to fend for themselves?)

Obviously, most of the discrepancy can be accounted for by certain racial groups being poorer than others. If it explained all of it there would be no reason to bring race into it. The problem is when we find consistently persistent inequality of outcome in a statistically large enough group that can’t be accounted for by their disproportionate poverty.

2) Did I misunderstand what you said or just extended you logic farther than you wished or just mistyped? I don’t know and this whole slavery thing is a red herring so let’s move on.

3) “Newsflash: America is already fair, at least as far as race is concerned and as long as you exclude the case of whites screwed by preferences.” Yeah, I let the readers decide that one on their own.

4) "Wuh! "Poor children"? Hold it, I thought we were talking about ethnic groups, not social ones... "

No, that’s you listening to the liberal stereotype in your head again. If you had read what I wrote you would realize that I was explaining that the government’s responsibility to the poor (a group separate from any ethnic identification) parallel’s its responsibility to deserving truly underprivileged groups.

And just so I don’t have to trot out this definition again let’s define the deserving truly underprivileged group as follows:

deserving truly underprivileged group

Any group which through no moral or intellectual failing of their own, performs more poorly than average and whose underperformance cannot be explained by that group’s disproportionate representation in other, better defined group. This classification obviously relies on what other groups one can define. If the group in question is a racial group then the deserving part (that there is no collective moral or intellectual failing) is immediate. An undeserving group would be for example, convicted rapists. They probably don’t do as well average, but I’m not going to lose any sleep about that.

I will refer to these as DTUGs. Poor children form one DTUG (it is plausible that their parents find themselves poor through sloth or other moral failure so the group must be confined to children). Blacks, to a much lesser extent, form another since they do even more poorly than you would expect given their poverty. Obviously, if we had perfect information we could refine our understanding of blacks enough to see that really, their inequity arises from disproportionate membership in other non-racial groups.

For the next part of our intellectual journey, let’s define one more term:

fundamental deserving truly underprivileged group

A DTUG whose underperformance cannot be explained by disproportionate membership in any group, not just the ones we can define.

You are upset because you (and I and almost anyone who thinks about it) realize that blacks are not a FDTUG. Clearly there is some reason which explains their underperformance that does not depend on how much melanin is in the skin. If we had that information, we could define those groups and removes the DTUG status from blacks. We all wish for that day because that is the day we can stop looking at something as stupid as the color of someone’s skin to figure out government policy. However, if we stop collecting data in the first place as you suggest you can bet that we’re going to be having this argument for years and years and years.

To say that we must wait until we can define a FDTUG to start fixing a problem is a fancy way of making the perfect the enemy of the good.

5) “I don't even begin to understand what you mean here.”

Government has a responsibility to help poor children and does so by providing (for example) public education, Other DTUGs also deserve attention of some kind, be it some extra funding for schools they attend or recognition of the extra work a member probably had to go through to have the same results. I don't care to get into the specifics. How to execute public policy isn't exactly my strong suit. But I only wish to explain why race concious pulic policy isn't a priori wrong.

Since I'm leaving the country for a month tomorrow I won't be able to respond to the doubtless witty retorts and accusations of excessive verbosity. I do realize that there are several assumption in my argument that weren't made explicit but I believe that most of them lead us to a kind of crude social darwinism that we can all agree to shun.

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 7:24 PM
(0) comments