Monday, February 28, 2005

Don't picture a Linguistics professor

From the ISF email newsletter:

The College of Letters & Science and The R. Lowry Dobson Lecture
Presents

George Lakoff, Professor of Linguistics
The Mind and Politics: What Cognitive Linguistics Contributes to an
Understanding of Politics

Thursday, March 17 @ 6 pm
Sibley Auditorium, Bechtel Center

George Lakoff is the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Professor of Cognitive
Science and Linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, and
is a founding senior fellow at the Rockridge Institute. He is one of
the world's best known linguists. Since the mid-80s he has been
applying cognitive linguistics to the study of politics, especially
the framing of public political debate. Professor Lakoff's recently
released book is titled Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values
and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives; he is also
the author of the influential book Moral Politics: How Liberals and
Conservatives Think. Free admission and open to the public
For more information, please contact L&S College Relations at
510.643.1964

I won't be there because I'm not interested in George Lakoff, and I'll probably be toiling away at my thesis that night, but I can think of at least one handsome Italian who would be interested.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 11:58 AM
(0) comments

Sunday, February 27, 2005

It's that time of year again

Did someone say ASUC elections?! No? Well I don't care. I'm gonna tell you about them anyway.

The candidate filing period starts tomorrow and lasts through Friday, March 11. To register, just take $5 and to the fourth floor of Eshleman Hall, fill in some easy paperwork, make sure you have a funny nickname, and voila! Also, you need to be a registered student.

The Candidates' Meeting (where people finalize their candidacy) will be on March 15, time and location TBA.

The elections themselves will be held from Tuesday, April 5 to Thursday, April 7 at polls throughout campus.

I'll keep you updated with election schedule information when I find it out and direct you to the ASUC elections website one it's up and running. My webmaster, the Elections Council, and I should be launching it within a few days. If all goes well, it will be incredibly useful and informative.

Speaking of the elections website, is there anything you guys would like to see on the site? I can't promise that I'll be able to include everything, but this site is going to be a top priority for me over the next six weeks, and I'm hoping that all the powers that be will also be able to help provide me and the student body all the best and most updated information possible.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 12:16 PM
(0) comments

Saturday, February 26, 2005

A response to Paul's accusation that Kennedy wants US soldiers to die

As for Kennedy, what he said can be found here.

He doesn't say elections in Iraq are a bad thing. He says:

“We all hope for the best from Sunday’s election. The Iraqis have a right to determine their own future. But Sunday’s election is not a cure for the violence and instability.”

That sounds very different from “Iraqi elections [are] bad”. He does warn that:

“General Brent Scowcroft, who until recently served as Chairman of President Bush’s National Intelligence Advisory Board and who also served as the first President Bush’s National Security Adviser, recently warned of an 'incipient civil war' in Iraq. He said, 'the [Iraqi] elections are turning out to be less about a promising transformation, and it has great potential for deepening the conflict.'”

This is a statement about what a US general believes to be the facts on the ground. It is entirely within the realm of possibility and you don't need to be a traitor to believe it. I'm not interested in arguing whether this assessment is correct, but clearly it is not anti-American.

As for “Iraqis start dying”, you might be surprised to find out that Sen. Kennedy complains about just that happening:

“The tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed last year included nearly a thousand members of the new Iraqi security forces, and a hundred more have been lost this year. The recent killing of a senior Iraqi judge was the 170th assassination of an Iraqi official since June of 2003.”

He then proposes a solution:

“The elections in Iraq this weekend provide an opportunity for a fresh and honest approach. We need a new plan that sets fair and realistic goals for self-government in Iraq, and works with the Iraqi government on a specific timetable for the honorable homecoming of our forces.”

You may disagree with him on the wisdom of setting a specific timetable (I'm undecided on the merits of one), but reading this speech, it is clear that he is proposing what he believe to be in America's best interests.

Now we get to the interesting part. You are mad that Kennedy had the temerity to complain *out loud* that the soldiers are being ill-served by the continued poor planning of the Bush administration - an administration that (as we see it) fails to reprimand or demote those who showed poor judgment in the past.

Where to begin? Let's take my Universal Healthcare example. Let's make my hypothetical world even more outlandish by assuming that UH was as badly planned as Iraq and that the system was doing a poor job of combating a new outbreak of influenza. Let's also say that Republicans believe that the outbreak of influenza was being spread by doctors poorly equipped by Clinton's plan to save money by reusing surgical gloves. You would be right to laugh at me if I proposed that “Republicans are telling doctors that it doesn't matter what you do because the system is so broken. The are telling doctors 'What you did accomplished nothing. Good work. Give it up.'” You'd laugh at me if I said that Republicans are being “anti-Doctor” and that they are motivated by love of influenza. You'd be right to call me an idiot for saying that Republicans were knowlingly acting against America's best interests in questioning UH on the very day that doctors go through the old surgical gloves to find the ones that don't have any blood on them. And yet you are asking me to keep a straight face while you question the patriotism of a man who has served in congress for longer than you or I have been alive.

Please don't drag me into the minutia of whether Kennedy was right or wrong in his assertions or whether his plan is a good one. I don't have a strong opinion on whether a timetable should be drawn up or not. The question at hand is whether he is motivated by a hatred of America or the troops or something along those lines.

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 10:05 AM
(0) comments

Thursday, February 24, 2005

Quite possibly the most depressing lyrics ever.

Tonight, for the first time ever, I actually paid attention to the lyrics of Janis Ian's enchanting 1975 folk classic "At Seventeen." They made we want to cry.

I leaned the truth at seventeen that love was meant for beauty queens
And high school girls with clear-skinned smiles who married young and then retired.
The valentines I never knew, the Friday night charades of youth
Were spent on one more beautiful. At seventeen I learned the truth.
And those of us with ravaged faces, lacking in the social graces,
Desperatly remained at home, inventing lovers on the phone
Who called to say, "Come dance with me," and murmured vague obscenities.
It isn't all it seems at seventeen.
A brown-eyed girl in hand-me-downs whose name I never could pronounce
Said, "Pity, please, the ones who serve; they only get what they deserve.
The rich relationed hometown queen marries into what she needs.
A guarantee of company and haven for the elderly."
Remember those who win the game lose the love they sought to gain.
In debentures of quality and dubious integrity.
Their small-town eyes will gape at you in dull surprise when payment due
Exceeds accounts received at seventeen.
To those of us who know the pain of valentines that never came,
And those whose names were never called when choosing sides for basketball.
It was long ago and far away; the world was much younger than today
And dreams were all they gave away for free to ugly duckling girls like me.
We all play the game and when we dare to cheat ourselves at solitaire.
Inventing lovers on the phone, repenting other lives unknown
That call and say, "Come dance with me," and murmur vague obscenities
At ugly duckling girls like me at seventeen.

Save for the part about making up pretend boyfriends and being from a small town, I can totally relate. I spent most of my evenings my senior year of high school with my family, doing homework, or quietly sobbing myself to sleep. "Don't worry, Rebecca," my teachers would assure me. "You'll find friends in college." Psh. Whatever.

The moral of the story: If you were unpopular in high school, it's probably because you were mean.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 11:04 PM
(0) comments

Monday, February 21, 2005

Making Animal Rights More Human

It's easy for advocates to be (mis)characterized as radicals, no matter what the cause. As someone who instinctively advocates for the rights of non-human animals, it's fairly easy to paint me as a nut. I've been a vegan for seven years, an in that time the novelty of my "lifestyle" (I hate that word) has yielded incredibly dumb yet understandable questions from omnivores.

"Would you eat meat to save your life?" Yes, of course. But, as we learned from the "Lord of the Flies" parody episode of The Simpsons, wherever there is an animal to eat, there is a plant food source, too. (For all you nerds out there, episode 198 is officially named "Das Bus," and it originally aired February 15, 1998.)

"Would you shoot a bear if it were chasing you?" First of all, I would never put myself in a situation where (a) I was trampling on bear territory or (b) I was carrying a gun. But, for the sake of argument, yes, I would shoot a bear if he or she were chasing me. (You'd be shocked at the number of people who have asked me that exact question. It's easily in the dozens. Why is it always a bear? Do Americans have a deep subconscious fear of bears? Why not a tiger or Ted Nugent?)

"If you had to choose between saving a cat and saving a human, which would you choose?" Sigh.

And so on.

I think we animal rights types need better PR. We need someone out there to lend legitimacy to the belief that non-human animals, though certainly not privy to the same protections as us bipedal mammals, have the right to not be tortured.

Enter Bruce Wagman, Boalt School of Law professor here at Cal, who teaches an elective on animal protections in law. As it stands, pets are loosely treated as any other piece of human property - like a furry television or feathered bicycle. There are some limitations on the treatment allowed to pets - obviously you can't go around performing vivisections on Rover or sticking fire crackers up Tabby's ass - and clear-cut neglect or torture is not allowed.

In San Francisco, in fact...

A new "backyard dog" law says canines are entitled to a change of water once a day, palatable and nutritious food in a non-tipping bowl, and a dog house with a top, bottom and three sides. Tying up the dog is highly discouraged.

As Wagman and many other non-human animal rights advocates like to remind pthe public, though, no farm animal in any municipality is protected under anti-cruelty laws. Handlers aren't even required to anesthetize kitchen-bound creatures before slaughter the way any semi-intelligent animal must be before being sacrificed to the scientific community.

The point of this post isn't to describe why I think pets and farm animals are entitled to greater legal protection. Instead, I'm trying to assess whether these legal measures make us rights advocates simply appear silly to the general public, or if such legislation actually encourages citizens to reconsider the cognitive abilities of dogs and cows alike.

The answer may lie in a semi-analogous example: smoking restrictions in California. As laws against smoking in this state have gotten more prohobitive and as state taxes on tobacco have increased, smoking rates have decreased. California has the second lowest smoking rate among states, and smoking prevalence here has decreased at a higher rate than the national average. My assertion is that the law directly influences consumer behavior. This isn't to say that citizens accept law as moral code; rather, the inconvenience imposed by law gives citizens no choice but to change their behavior, indirectly forcing them to accept the moral code implied by the law.

Similarly, forcing pet owners to treat their "property" as sentient beings would probably force them to mentally accept that dogs and cats have feelings.

I would be curious to know if there are any books out there debating this relationship between law and cultural psychology. Undoubtedly I have as many supporters as I do adversaries. I'm not terribly well-read in law theory.

Regardless of public opinion, I feel protection laws benefit non-human animals in the long run. It would be convenient, however, if these laws could protect animals and simultaneously not induce the average person to think that animal rights types are insane.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 8:16 PM
(0) comments

Saturday, February 19, 2005

Cross-Post:Collapse Today!

So I just finished reading Jared Diamond's two books, "Guns, Germs, & Steel” about how and why societies start and grow at different rates, and “Collapse” about how and why some societies end and wane at different rates. It's all very interesting stuff and very scientifically painstaking. At one point he categorizes all the grasses of the world by seed size to show that hunter-gathers living in the fertile crescent, with two of the largest seeded grasses in the world, had an easier time starting agriculture. In another analysis of all large land mammals, he explains why Aurochs* could be domesticated, but not Bison...

To read the exciting conclusion to this post click here to go to my other site. Comment over there please!

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 7:22 PM
(1) comments

Memorial Stadium News

I'm not usually one to disseminate "news" in any conceivable definition of the word, but I thought I'd clue my readers into some fun information I learned today about the Memorial Stadium (slash Haas School of Business slash Boalt School of Law) renovations. The following is aselection of facts from a very reputable source, with a dash of editorializing.

New bleachers will be put in (presumably made of metal and not of dead trees), including quite a few with actual seat backs. I can only assume the ability to lean back during games will only be afforded to high-paying fans.

There are zero plans to move the student cheering section from the 50 yard line to the end zone, the corner, parking lot, or anywhere else. Everyone can agree that students are the most integral fan section of the stadium, even if they pay beans for their tickets. Three cheers to the university to giving the best seats in both the stadium and Haas Pavillion to the people who actually attend Cal.

Permanent artificial lighting will be installed in the renovated stadium, despite the consistent whinings of surrounding residents. All efforts (besides not installing the lighting) will be made to be sensitive to neighbors.

No building will occur outside the existing footprint of the stadium.

Contrary to his claims otherwise, mayor Tom Bates knew about the proposed renovations at least two weeks before the university unveiled the official Long Range Development Plans.

The university still needs to raise a lot more money before the project can begin construction, but they are already in the process of selecting an architect.

As a future alumna (in just 91 days, in fact...sadface), I am thrilled that my alma mater is devoting resources to renovating the stadium. I care much less about Haas and Boalt, mostly because I don't care for students who seek out vocational training at Cal, and I'm especially suspicious of undergraduate business students. I'm also concerned that the expansion of these two professional schools will pave over smaller departments. I will need to await more detailed maps before I can completely evaluate this potential deference to the large and popular programs.

I am also pleased that our university will finally be equipped with (rentable! profitable!) conference centers. The National Writing Project (my paid employer), for example, is located off campus but is semi-affiliated with the university and has a 94720 zip code. When hundreds of teachers from around the country come for reviews and conferences, we have to rent out space in Hotel Durant or the Bancroft Hotel to accommodate our events, rather than working on our beautiful campus. We occasionally rent space from the Faculty Club, but their space is not specialized for meetings. The proposed renovation plan will remedy this problem for any number of companies in this city and can generate revenue for the school.

In conclusion, the city of Berkeley lives in a fantasy land.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 1:37 PM
(0) comments

Thursday, February 17, 2005

The lessons I've learned

I've admittedly been absent to my little blog lately. I've been preoccupied with (a) working 20+ hours a week in a dreary cubicle so that I may pay for food and shelter, (b) volunteering in a middle school math classroom twice a week, (c) conducting research for my honors thesis, (d) conducting research for my thrilling 10-page paper about closets (!), (e) keeping up with my academic reading, (f) fulfilling my indentured servitude to the ASUC, (g) getting paid a handsome $15 for each column I write for our school newspaper, and (f) making sure my boyfriend remembers what I look like. Eariler this week I also hosted my father in Berkeley for two days straight.

In short, it's not like I spend my days watching Blind Date reruns, lounging on the couch in my underwear. Now that I mention it, though, that sounds pretty nice. Mmmm....Rodger Lodge.

But during my hiatus, though, I learned a few lessons about life, love, and the ASUC. I'll benevolently share this knowledge with you, as long as you promise not to ruin the surprise for everyone else:

Gossip about our student government is boring. Like, seriously not interesting.

Guys at the gym are gross.

The library smells really good. Like old paper and leather. And knowledge!

It's cool when people know you even though you don't know them. Now I know how Ernest Borgnine feels.

Watching television makes you less intelligent, but not watching television doesn't make you more intelligent.

Unless there is some sort error in the university's database, Yvette Felarca's real name is Yvonne. Weird, huh? Not that I care one way or the other, and not that this is interesting or anything (see first lesson), but that's seriously weird.

Running a website is extraordinarily stressful and frustrating business, especially when servers lose a week's worth of progress in a split second.

Tommaso posts more when he's not writing for CalJunket anymore.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 11:37 PM
(0) comments

Saturday, February 12, 2005

New!: Old ASUC election data

So after what seemed like 18 months of daily pestering I was finally able to annoy Devin (last year's ASUC election technical Coordinator) into sending me the ASUC election data for 2004. A public thank you to him since he was under no obligation to do that. The data is here.

I haven't made any changes to the ASUC elections tabulator although I have bundled the zip with the new election data and updated the readme accordingly. Also, note the new download locations on the server of the new company I work for. I've only worked on two projects thus far but I think I'm getting into the groove. The first project was a modification of our product for the Joint Forces Command in Iraq. It's nice to be able to support our men in women in uniform at my day job as well as in my personal political activity.

Anyhow, send me any questions, comments, or requests about the ASUC Tabulator. Software is forever a work in progress.

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 9:22 PM
(0) comments

Friday, February 11, 2005

In Offense of Internment

For those who haven't been reading the comments below, I've gotten into a spirited meta-discussion concerning internment with Hov.

Everyone finds certain topics more interesting than others. Internment is on my shortlist of government policies which I don't find interesting at all because the answer is obviously “no”. In this it finds company with other no-brainers like “Can genocide be a good government policy?”, “Would a absolute dictatorship work better than democracy?”, and “Is Communism preferable to Capitalism?”. The answers to these questions are so transparent that few would bother with it. Anyone who believes these things are either crazy, or as have values so wildly different from ours that fruitful discussion is impossible. There are many positions with which I disagree that I could see someone believing in good faith. The shortlist is different though; they are issues that are morally or intellectually wrong on their face.

My position on internment is as non-negotiable as my position on genocide for reasons of morality(although genocide is obviously far more immoral). With good Christian humility I accept that I am faillible and might be mistaken. But barring extraordinary circumstances, I've got to prioritize my time. Accordingly, I wouldn't argue with Stalin about democracy or bother trying to refute Hitler's ravings about international Jewish conspiracies. Better to save my breath and perhaps figure out a good way to stop them.

Hov has a different opinion on internment. In the wide tapestry of American political thought, Hov thinks, people who support Internment as a legitimate government options are interesting and to be respected. He does not mean this just in the limited “ACLU defending Klan members' free speech rights” sense, or the “Let's look anti-evolutionist literature to see how they reason” sense, or even the “let's read Al Queda's web page so we can figure out ways to stop them” sense, but in the “Maybe I disagree, but this guy is a well thought out person with interesting opinions that could conceivably sway me” sense. This is his choice and and he has a right to it even if I disagree.

(There is also the unrelated argument that Malkin's book “In Defense of Internment” doesn't defend interment that much. I guess I'm willing to discuss the non-internment material.)

Now, while Malkin's views don't interest me, the meta-questions do. “What are acceptable criteria for a moral shortlist?” “Is it OK to have one at all?” Hov points out correctly that I'm not very articulate on these points. I mean, Genocide: it's wrong to kill a bunch a people just for being of a specific race because it just is. That's pretty damn circular. To a similar point about internment Hov responds, “you provide only normative (nonconvincing) arguments on your side.” I agree. But then, his answers seem equally incomplete. He is willing to listen to people defending internment but would he be more open-minded than me about genocide? Even I don't think so. His arguments haven't really explained why one and not the other. Is Hov is arguing that you shouldn't have anything on your shortlist at all? or is he just arguing that my shortlist should look more like his?

Either way, I don't pretend to be able to convince Hov's with logic. These moral questions are first principals of the type that we must all have. While I might show the many morals stances in my shortlist are consequences of one or two larger principals, in the end we're still left with something that isn't really supported by logical structure underneath. (It's turtles all the way down). At more everyday levels we might discuss many topics without having to resolves these fundamental disagreements, but moral first principals are for the most part* off the table. This isn't to say that they are all equally valid since of course mine are right and yours are wrong. But I expect you disagree with me so let's not bother.

*(There is the strange case of one person's first principals contradicting each other. That could be fruitful grounds for discussion since someone could help you come to new realizations even if they don't share same moral framework. This is what I was getting at with the anti-Malkin flyers arguing bad scholarship. Sill though, man contains multitudes.)

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 7:45 PM
(0) comments

Thursday, February 10, 2005

Knowledge is power



Things to note: If Foreign aid was listed it would be about 1%. The 7% interest is just one of the many real life negative effects of running large deficits. Thank you Republicans. Lastly, we'd currently have to carve something like 20% out of this pie to bring it into accord with the current revenue. That isn't because of special circumstances like the war and recession, mind you. That's the long term amount we're under-funding the government by each year. And we get to pay it back with interest to!

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 3:09 PM
(0) comments

Tuesday, February 08, 2005

Represent.

In doing some research this afternoon for my Daily Cal column (yes, I actually look up facts...sometimes), I came across some thrilling statistical information about the origin of Cal's students. For all sorts of fun stats, click here!

I've distilled the most important information (California county of origin for undergrads) into this handy table. Almost 43% of in-state students are from SoCal (Ventura and below)! Now I know why it seems like over a two-fifths of my friends are from down south.

County	Total
Alameda	2491
Amador	8
Butte	57
Calaveras	6
Colusa County	7
Contra Costa	1480
Del Norte	8
Fresno	267
Glenn	5
Humboldt	41
Imperial	47
Inyo	3
Kern	138
Kings	19
Lake	16
Lassen	3
Los Angeles	5004
Madera	29
Marin	332
Mariposa	2
Mendocino	35
Merced	56
Modoc	2
Mono	4
Monterey	177
Napa	80
Nevada	37
Orange	1537
Placer	144
Plumas	7
Riverside	273
Sacramento	684
San Benito	11
San Bernardino	362
San Diego	1226
San Francisco	1134
San Joaquin	191
San Luis Obispo	92
San Mateo	838
Santa Barbara	236
Santa Clara	2033
Santa Cruz	177
Shasta	29
Sierra	2
Siskiyou	8
Solano	237
Sonoma	287
Stanislaus	157
Sutter	21
Tehama	4
Trinity	4
Tulare	81
Tuolumne	18
Ventura	356
Yolo	141
Yuba	10
All Counties	20654
Cal Total	22880

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 1:30 AM
(0) comments

Sunday, February 06, 2005

Good bye my friends

Although many of you know I've been working on it for a couple weeks now, I want to make my new blog official by announcing it here. It's called DoubtingTommaso. Basically, I feel constricted to political posts here and I want a site where I can talk about "what I did today" more. Don't worry, a tearful Rebecca made me promise to corss post my political rants on Caljunket so I won't be going far.

As for the wing-bats that have gotten riled up inthe comments sections lateley (RIL, I'm looking in your direction) I bid you a not so fond farewell. I hope that you develop a passing respect for actual discorse in the future or at least that you all come to the consensus that calling people racial slurs is not the best way to start a comment.

As for the regular people who haven't been commenting becuase of the ill-will in the comments section I can promise that I will try to keep things more civil over at the comments of my new site. Check it out!

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 10:37 AM
(0) comments

Saturday, February 05, 2005

The question of conservative guest speakers on campus.
or
"In defense of Lee Harvey Oswald" A thoughtful book defending private gun ownership

This issue has been floating around the Berkeley blogsphere for quite some time and I want to take a whack at putting this old dog out of it's misery. The questions: What type of guests should conservative groups bring on campus. How should liberals react. What should be done about people who wish to protest such speakers.

Let me tackle these in reverse order.

How should protesters act?
Protesters who simply want to voice their decent outside the venue should of course be allowed to do so. As long as they don't intimidate or physically prevent people from attending, or become a safety hazard, or hinder the speaker in any way, they should be provided all the liberty of women's health clinic protesters. Rabble-rousers who try to disrupt the event should be picked up by the police and escorted out of the building.

I have no doubt that the vast majority of my liberals (and conservative) readers are all with me at this point. There remains however, a tiny faction of backwards hunter-gathers on campus. They might argue they want some kind of “equal time” during the event and that they are justified in taking it by force if necessary. I almost don't want to bother refuting this since this minority in a minority in a minority constitutes a kind of living breathing straw-man of “the left”. It should be clear to anyone on campus that these people are a minority even in the Berkeley political scene and have less impact on Democratic politics than equally wacky white separatists do on Republican politics.

Let's run through this for mano's sake: Sure, fine. I'm not going to argue with you about what you're justified in doing. However, as a general rule, I'm going to support the state's power to maintain the (more or less) democratically defined order so long as that's in my interests.

We can run through all the other arguments that boil down to the perceived illegitimacy of the current state but they don't really even hint at a meta-argument that the state should not do all it is legally entitled to do to maintain order. If you think the state is wrong in preventing the ne'er-do-wells from voicing their views in that forum, and that they are justified in taking it by force then I can't see why you should expect someone who believes that the state is right to not also make the leap that it is justified in enforcing it's belief by force.

The second question: What type of guests should conservatives invite?
These answers should be clear: Conservatives should invite speakers that are interesting. If they only care to have speakers interesting to themselves then they are more than capable of deciding that without the help of a liberal like me. If they want to have a speaker who appeals to more than just the hard-core young Republican sect, they are going to have to understand the difference between controversial and interesting.

College Republicans seem to have great difficulty understanding this difference. Michelle Malkin is controversial. Michelle Malkin argues a topic from a fresh angle. Michelle Malkin is not an interesting speaker.

Let me apologize in advance for using former Young Republican ASUC senator Paul Lafata in this next example.

Let's say the Cal Democrats were to invite to speak on campus, a woman who had recently written a book explaining that we should kill and eat Paul Lafata and members of his immediate family. She is certainly controversial. Many people disagree with her. She is arguing a topic from a fresh and untried angle. I would not expect many people to go to this talk.

Arguments would break out over this controversial speaker. Republicans would shake their heads and argue that the Cal Dems should not have asked this woman to speak. Cal Dems shoot back that this is typical Republican close mindedness and anyways, how can you possibly judge her ideas when you haven't even read her 2000 page work: “How to serve Paul Lafata (and members of his immediate family)”.

The point is that if you want to attract liberals and moderate to a talk in Berkeley, you don't do so by inviting people who want to have a deep philosophical discussion about whether the government was justified in forcing my roommate's mom and grandparents to sell their possessions and relocate to an internment camp without trial. You can't expect liberals and moderate to take you seriously if you invite a speaker who wants to talk about whether blacks should receive reparations. (short answer: of course not) You have to pick subject which are not immediately clear to the other side.

If you want something interesting, steer clear of the Fox news set. Why not Milton Friedman? I'd go to see that. How about someone who wants to explain why the universal health care systems of other western countries seems to work so much better than ours? Why not someone who wants to discuss why abstinence only sex ed should be supported despite lack of effectiveness?

Yes, now I'm just being a jerk. But the point is that if you want to engage anyone other than the inner cadre of young Republicans you are going to have to do so in the fruitful areas of political unclaimed ground. If you want to discuss why the president should be allowed to strip US citizens of their citizenship and rights, torture them, and imprison them for life without trial you are welcome to do so. Just don't expect regular people to go. And don't expect me to be sympathetic when you complain about Americans' close mindedness.

The last question is how should liberals react?
Answer: go to the interesting talks and ignore the Fox news set, starving them of the publicity they need to sell their books. If the Young Republicans invite someone really over the top (like Michelle Malkin, or the reanimated brain of Hitler) perhaps a counter speaker could be arranged at a different location. Anything should be done except for loud protests at the site of the talk. Those accomplish nothing but making everyone feel better about themselves (protesters and Republicans included).

If I were in charge of the counter Malkin thing, I would have had activists fan out in front of the venue and politely offer flyers to people attending which explained the poor scholarship in Malkins book perhaps with attached stories about Americans' experiences at the camps.

UPDATE: Added funnier alternate title.

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 10:28 AM
(0) comments

Thursday, February 03, 2005

In a way...

In a way I'd almost prefer for Republicans to take the "nuclear option" and simply declare that filibusters can be stopped with a simple majority. Although it would allow the Republicans to pass all kinds of illiberal and anti-competitive legislation it would also have the effect of limiting the power of the senate in absolute terms. As someone who doesn't like the anti-democratic nature of the senate (dividing legislative power disproportionately to smaller states) I would be a lot happier if that part of the government withered much like the upper house in the British system.

I tend to believe that in the long run, people are capable of telling the difference between a bad idea and a good idea. I wouldn’t mind having the US churn through the bad ideas quicker if it got us around to the good ones sooner.

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 11:18 AM
(0) comments

Wednesday, February 02, 2005

The Editorial Hand Slaps me with Articles

Hey, read my article!

The headline was originally supposed to be "Facebook: Fuck that Shit," but apparently the Daily Californian is a semi-respectable publication that attempts to limit the crudeness of its content. I say sucks to that, but respect the quest for prudence. Kinda.

One point of contention, however, and I am curious to observe what my readers think:

When one uses "Facebook" as a noun, does one include or omit a definite article? In other words, which of the following sentences is preferable:

(A) If Facebook were a person, I'd make sweet, gentle love to him all night long.
(B) If the Facebook were a person, I'd make sweet, gentle love to him all night long.

(A), right? I guess not.

In my original draft, each nounular (yeah I make up words) reference to this online service lacked a "the," however my editors seemingly disagreed with this nomenclature. While I can see that the official name of the service is indeed "thefacebook," I argue that in a column with such a casual tone that common usage trumps official convention. Who says "I saw your profile on the Facebook"?

My distaste for the article here is uncharacteristic; hailing from Southern California, I steadfastly adhere to preceding freeway names with "the" (i.e., "Take the 5 to the 405, exit Cherry South and I'll meet you at PCH with the stuff, vato.") As we all know, Northern Californians are inclined to skip the article; they are also more inclined to be homely. Like, hella homely.

Anyhow, I agree with the editorial decision here, but am wondering if people out there use or omit the "the" when casually speaking about (the) Facebook.

These clearly are the pressing issues of today's society.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 1:42 PM
(0) comments

Tuesday, February 01, 2005

Corrections, Clarifications, and Stuff Like That

In the interest of truth and accuracy, and because someone from the Daily Cal and Andy Ratto seem to want me to (for whatever reason - gee, it's as if people don't like being accused of being incomplete sources or something), allow me to correct some misstatements and revise a conjecture from my previous post about these two sources' Bookswap coverage:

Andy talked to Misha more than a day after the money was stolen (but before Sunday when he and his staff had a moment to count the losses with any degree of accuracy). My mistake.

Andy also didn't quote the $30,000 mark without prefacing it with "Misha reports."

And lastly, someone from the Daily Cal apparently did speak with someone from the Office of the President, but obviously not after the Sunday (Jan 23) when the $6,000 figure was determined, even though the story ran on the following Monday (Jan 24). A more accurate number has been known for over a week, and the newspaper is just today running a report on the revised loss.

As Andy points out, though, our office hasn't gone out of its way to publicize the smaller $6,000 figure. Misha didn't feel like it was necessary to do much damage control, despite my urgings. He's just too darn optomistic. Perhaps if I had debunked the $30,000 total the same day that the DC article came out they would have cheerfully withdrawn this information the next day. Unfortunately, though, I don't see this blog as a breaking news source, and I usually only post when I have the chance, hence me not posting until Thursday.

Anyhow, this is all incredibly boring to my readership, and if you didn't read this or Andy's post about this topic, my feelings aren't hurt.

(By the by, lest anyone be confused, though I am somewhat affiliated with the Daily Cal, I spend only about 30 minutes a week in their office, and I don't have a lick of "inside" information about the workings of the paper. A DC editor wanted me to clarify that.)

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 10:16 AM
(0) comments