Sunday, January 30, 2005

Democratic Solidarity

I'm sure most of our readers have already seen the really great idea over at CalStuff but I wanted to make sure everyone saw it. Solidarity with those struggling for freedom and democracy is an important part of finding better ways for our country to live up to the promise of the inalienable rights of man. Though we may disagree (strongly) on the best ways to nurture freedom, we can all agree that those who risk their life to vote represent the best values and offer a glimpse at the promise of democracy.

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 5:41 PM
(0) comments

Thursday, January 27, 2005

News is way more interesting when you don't concern yourself with facts
Or, Rebecca C. Brown responds to some erroneous accusations surrounding the Bookswap money theft

Deservedly so, the Bookswap money theft has been making news around campus. This theft is in part the result of poor planning on behalf of my colleage and (more importantly) very good friend Misha Leybovich. The planners, including Misha and a few of his staff members, should have accommodated for the unprecedented turnout once it was clear that three staffers was not enough at any given point. This was a mistake. Given that Misha appreciates my candor as much as he appreciates my ability to humor him, I can freely editorialize and say that our office made a few mistakes that accumulated into a crushing loss.

But the mishandling of Bookswap money gives reporters no license to repeatedly distort the truth. I hope that the good people of CalStuff and the Daily Californian will kindly explain that less than $8,000 was stolen from the Bookswap with as much fervor as these pseudo-sources claimed that $30,000 was stolen. Both outlets should print the accurate figures now that they are known. Though at first it seemed that accurate figures would not be obtainable, this has proven not to be the case. Students deserve to know these facts as much as they deserved to know about the theft to begin with.

Given that no source from our office spoke with the Daily Cal about the theft, I can only assume that the newspaper got the the $30,000 from Andy Ratto at CalStuff. (That's some good journalism, folks.) Andy in turn got this figure from Misha almost immediately after the theft was reported and before Misha had even had a moment to look at the receipts and envelopes. Less than a day after Andy had spoken with Misha, our office had been able to determine the more accurate and significantly lower figure. Thanks to laziness on behalf of both news outlets, the larger (and very wrong) number has been repeated to the extent that it has become popular "fact" among students, or at least among students who comment on CalStuff.

I won't dignify the accusations that Misha (or any other Office of the President staff member) committed the theft with a response.

This of course isn't to say that $6,000-$8,000 isn't a big deal. It's a huge deal. I hope that the person responsible is found so that the money can be restored. Barring the safe return of the stolen money, the ASUC will need to pay for $5,000 of the re-cooping costs. This is very frustrating to me for two reasons: first, that each student on campus will in essence need to contribute 15 cents to paying back Bookswap sellers; and second, that the ASUC's image has been tarnished despite over a semester of fantastic work from all five executive offices and the senate.

And for the record I'm writing this out of my own frustration and not because Misha wants me to do any damage control. He specifically turned down my offer to use this blog as a medium for him to comment on the published errors. Why do people hate Misha so much?!

But, again, CalStuff and the Daily Cal have an obligation to run follow-up articles that disclose the true numbers.

(Let's see, I'm a volunteer worker for the ASUC, a paid employee of the Daily Californian, and a volunteer friend of Andy and the others who run CalStuff. Let's see how many conflicts of interest I can shove into one post.)

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 10:50 PM
(0) comments

Wednesday, January 26, 2005

Shameless self-promotion!

For whatever reason (perhaps modesty, but I'm not sure if I'm capable of that emotion) I didn't ue this blog to plug my first Daily Cal column last week. I shall not repeat the mistake.

Read this. It's funny.

And you can read this too while you're at it. It's funny from last week.

While I'm on the topic, I couldn't help but notice that the slate of columnists is for the time being as bad as it usually is. Sex on Tuesday has resorted to citing Dan Savage. That guy on Friday who goes to the gym a lot was incredibly dull. (Yet he magically reappeared on Monday.) The guy on Thursday made the stunning observation that there are too many awards shows. And that chick on Wednesday didn't even have a point to her columns.

Unfortunately, Daily Cal columnists have a history of sucking, save for Kevin Deenihan's reign of terror and Matt Loker's brief stint. Either they try too hard to make a point, they don't discuss any campus-related issues, or they don't feel obligated to have a point.

Rumer has it that CalStuff iron fist Andy Ratto will be assuming the role of Reader's Representative very shortly. This person is supposed to be the veritas arm of the newspaper, in weekly column form. Good luck to him, though I continue to encourage him to at least attempt to be funny; otherwise the columns are going to be extremely boring.

Anyhow, here's to seeing my face in the paper!

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 5:31 PM
(0) comments

Good site

Left2Right is an absolutley awsome blog although I'm sure most people will find it intensly boring. Check it out. This is how I would write if I were smarter. Also, I've given up on getting Rebecca to add somelinks to this site so instead I'm going to mispell her name: Rebbeca rebeca REbeCka.

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 4:26 PM
(0) comments

I Oppose the Legalization of Torture

The original title for this post was going to be "Standing up for America's values". I decided against it because I've heard all those different words misused so many times I want to let them rest, even if it means giving them a Sunday when legitimate work calls.

What does America mean if we don’t follow our own constitution? I don’t know. I don’t really know what the point of having America would be if we could just disregard our founding principals at the bidding of a single politician. It’s all very confusing and that’s why I’m confused that Republicans are nominating Alberto Gonzalez as Attorney general.

Torture doesn’t work. All scientific evidence shows that. It corrupts the torturers soul and when legally recognized, the torturer’s country. It spits on the bill of rights and the limitation on the government. It has lead to many gruesome deaths of innocent Iraqi (who would otherwise have been allies) and the sexual molestation of children and women. This stuff is wrong. And if we don’t stand up against the guy who tried to hem and haw and tried to appeal to “the power inherent in the president to set aside laws in a time of war” then we have no right calling ourselves Americans.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue. Everyone should be on board with this.

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

Sunday, January 23, 2005

Cavalcade of Right-wing Social Security misinformation

There is a lot of false information out there and even though this subject is a dead-horse (hopefully one that Democrats can sling over Bush's neck to slow down his dismantling of the American dream for the next four years) I'd still like to clear the air.

• African American, Latinos, and other minorities do not benefit as much from Social Security insurance as whites do. (Variations of this claim ascribe this fact to black mortality rates and other factors)
  
  
  This seems reasonable on first glance unless you actually look at the numbers. It turns out that the higher mortality rates of these groups are mostly concentrated in the time of life before people start participating in Social Security. Specifically, these groups tend to suffer higher infant mortality rates and higher death rates in their teens and twenties. Although there are still measurable differences in mortality after this, these groups receive proportional recompense through survivors benefits for orphans and windows and disability benefits.
  

  
  

• Social Security privatization can be done without incurring extra government debt.
  
  
  Even Republican politicians admit this is false. While pessimistic assumptions show the government needed to raise additional funds for Social Security around 2050, George Bush's plan would have the government needing to raise additional funds starting in 2006. While Republicans are in charge this will be done by borrowing (essentially taxing future Americans who conveniently don't have the right to vote yet). Different plans show different amounts but 1-2 trillion would be a starter with additional multi-trillion dollar infusions to come. All to be paid back with interest.
  

  
  

• Social Security insurance started as a modest government program but has ballooned into a giant political give-away
  
  
  In fact Social Security benefits have stayed at about 40% of a regular paycheck since it started. Though survivors benefits and disability benefits were added FDR signed the first bill Social Security only grew as a percentage of GDP until the 80s. It is projected to remain between 4 and 6% of GDP for the foreseeable future.
  

  
  

• In any 20 year period since 1929, stocks have out performed bonds. We can expect this to be true in the future.
  
  
  There's a reason they used 20 and not 10, but I digress. The economist reports on why the conclusion is just false. Basically, a lot has changed since 1929, not the least of which is that people now appreciate stocks more than they did in the past pushing the price of stocks to historic levels (in absolute terms and price-earnings ratio terms) and devaluing bonds accordingly.
  

  
  

• The money that has been accumulating for the baby-boomers since 1980 is in government bonds and therefore has no value.
  
  
  I suppose in a way the money in my pocket is just a government promise. In a way, I don't really have any money. I guess then all that money Bush has in the bank isn't real either.
  

  
  Oh, I see, that's different. There's political repercussions to having the US government devalue the money in my pocket. Ah, but defaulting on trillions of dollars of Social Security receipts isn't going to cause any political repercussions since it's a promise from the government to itself. Certainly, old people aren't involved at all. Good thing too, because I heard once that old people are an amazing force in American politics.
  

  
  This one would have an easier time passing the giggle test if someone – anyone – in American politics seriously held that this fund shouldn't be honored. Even all-powerful Republicans who hate SS can't admit that. The best they can do is indicate that somewhere out there, twirling his handlebar mustache is some political party of some kind that honestly is willing to say out loud that the fund shouldn't be honored. Perhaps this political group could be distracted by leaving a fair maiden and a length of rope near some empty train tracks.
  

  
  

• The Bush Privatization plan aims to keep benefit levels the same or raise them.
  
  
  Again not so. While pessimistic assumptions indicate that Social Security might need to be reduced by 20% or so in 2050 Bush's suggestion of indexing to price inflation (instead of wage inflation) would reduce the benefits by much more than that far sooner than 2050.
  

  
  

• If someone doesn't like the risks of Privatization they can just invest their money in government bonds.
  
  
  No. The privatization plans* call for reducing benefits by more than you are given to place in funds. This means that a cautious individual would definitely lose a large portion of their Social Security insurance benefits. Whereas people who are willing to risk might on average get just about as much as they would have anyways (but no promises!).
  

*I must grant that Bush's privatization plan is not yet public but it is assumed to be similar to the three proposals which his Social Security privatization task force outlined.

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 11:52 AM
(0) comments

Wednesday, January 19, 2005

The Devil and Daniel Webster

For no good reason at all I read the above named short story yesterday and found it to be very entertaining. Told in classic American “Tall Tale” style the story is about how the famous senator is called upon to defend a hapless farmer against the devil's legal machinations.

First Webster explains that being an American citizen, his client can't be forced into the service of a foreign prince, but the devil explains that he's lived in America since before it's founding and that he's well known in every town. Then Webster asks for a trial by jury - any American jury - and the devil complies. Fiendishly the devil takes it upon himself to pick America's worst historical villains, scoundrels, and turncoats for the judge and jury pool, bringing most back from the dead.

The story got me thinking about who I would pick for my jury of the damned. “The Devil and Daniel Webster” was limited by people who lived at or before Daniel Webster (the story itself was written in 1941 or so) but I wouldn't hold myself to that. Here's my list thus far. I would like to have included some of the 9-11 hijacker but they were here on visa's so they don't count.

• Benedict Arnold
  
• John Wilkes Booth
  
• Jefferson Davis
  
• Nathan Bedford Forrest
  
• Richard Nixon
  
• Oliver North
  
• Lee Harvey Oswald
  
• Aldrich H. Ames
  
• Ann Coulter
  
• Timothy McViegh
  
• John Walker
  
• Ted Kazinski
  

And the judge would have to be Scalia of course.

I wanted to add an America hating leftist (there has to be at least one I suppose) but since Jane Fonda repented I can't really think of any. Chomsky maybe? I didn't have room for Grover Norquist or George Wallace, but I didn't want to be too politcal. Who's on your jury of the damned? Remember, they have to be or have been American citizens (or have lived in America before the founding of the United States).

Update: Ok, I changed my mind about the judge. Roy Moore would probably be worse than Scalia (though Scalia sets a pretty high bar for badness). In the original story, the judge was judge Hawthorn of the Salem witch trials.

Update: Are you happy now, Matt? I took out the damned ending. Or should I say the ending of the damned?

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 9:18 PM
(0) comments

Trendwatch: Death is the new black!

Maybe I'm just a little sensitive when it comes to killing people, but the rabble-roused reactions to the death of Donald Beardslee and death IOU of Scott Peterson in the past month kinda creep me out. Strike that. Really creep me out.

When the death verdict for Peterson was announced, many outside the courtroom cheered. (God knows how many people at home exchanged high-fives.) Members of Peterson's family were jeered by complete strangers who had no connection to the trial.

In the aftermath of the sentence, jurors became instant celebrities, offering television interviews and "behind the scenes" accounts of the moment they decided Peterson deserved to die. Twelve people became valorized for their ability to put someone to death.

My disgust has nothing to do with the fact that Peterson was convicted on completely circumstantial evidence, or that police arrested Peterson before any other suspects had even been considered. I'm not sickened by the public's bloodthirst because Peterson is disputably not guilty.

Donald Beardslee is most definitely guilty of killing two women 23 years ago. Yet his guilt does not make his death or the media frenzy around his excution more palatible.

I don't understand the appeal of having reporters in the execution viewing room, nor do I see what the public can gain by knowing the source of his last calories. The hours leading up to his lethal injection were treated by local news as if they were the hours leading up to the dropping of the new year's ball in Times Square.

I could discuss at length the constitutionality of the death penalty, or whether or not Beardslee was mentally stable enough to comprehend his actions, or whether Peterson was treated to a fair trial, or how two wrongs don't make a right for God's sake. But instead right now I want to rant about how screwed up in the head humans are.

I can be accused of being very simplistic and maybe even child-like in my thinking when I say this, but to the day that I finally die I will never understand how a culture can celebrate death in any capacity. Death! The most scary thing in the whole world. And we cheer.

People who murder are bad people. They have committed the most definable affliction on society. They often have destoyed the lives of the victim's loved ones in ways immeasurable. People who have without dispute murdered other people should be put into prison, sometimes for life. I ain't soft on murderers.

But somewhere down the road Americans (and others, of courrse - but I write what I know) learned that in some circumstances killing someone against his will is a-okay, and that death is worth celebrating if it was "just." Then again some (not me) would argue that this attitude is inherent to the human psyche. Either way, it's alarming and, in the latter case, worth correcting.

This discussion doesn't need to be political, but I can't help but ask if the proponents of the "culture of life" are the same people who push for the death penalty. Actually, I don't need to ask. I already know the answer. Sorry.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 8:45 PM
(0) comments

Monday, January 17, 2005

The only preferable alternative is to not buy books at all. (Which I did last semester.)

BOOKSWAP, bi-atch!

5th semesterly ASUC Bookswap: Monday-Wednesday!

Come and save money by buying, selling and trading textbooks with other students.
ASUC Student Store will also be participating with their Low Price Guarantee and buyback.

Monday - Wednesday, January 17-19
9 am - 3 pm
Sproul Plaza

IMPORTANT CHANGE FROM LAST SEMESTER:
To sell: Bring your book, drop it off, we'll sell it for you, come back later to pick up $$$
To buy: Just show up with a class list and some cash

for more info ...
email: bookswap@asuc.org
web: one.berkeley.edu

Be there or be a regular equiangular quadralateral.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 5:55 PM
(0) comments

Monday, January 10, 2005

No Child Left Behind: How George W. Bush pens laws that simultaneosly defy good Republican values and support bad Republican values...and other long headlines.

Part One: Why conservatives should oppose NCLB

As if his lax immigration policy, deficit spending, (botched) nation-building, and aggregious curtailment of Constitutionally-guaranteed civil liberties weren't enough to curl any self-respecting Republican's hair, George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind law should do the trick.

In short, all public school students are tested annually in a series of categories; schools that fail to meet strict standards are required to offer free tutoring and after-school academic services; students attending these schools are given the option of transfering to a higher-scoring school in the district, and the district must pay for transportation to the new school if necessary; students at persistently failing schools must be given funds to attend a public or private educational service provider.

As lovely as all these additional services sound, Bush has failed to provide adequate money to administer tests or provide tutoring, transportation, or supplemental education services. Each aforementioned service mandated by NCLB must be paid for by Title I funds - preexisting monies allotted to states and districts independent of the monetay need imposed by NCLB requirements.

No Child Left Behind is like George's illegitimate child: he's happy to bring it into this world, but he's not going to pay for it to grow up.

What should be problematic about this law to Republicans and conservatives are the limitations it imposes on state and local legislatures in deciding how schools are run. Rather than giving "underperforming" (and I use that word semi-facetiously) schools the freedom to devise their own improvement plans, here the federal government mandates simplistic solutions that most likely interfere with local communitites' preexisting values and educational techniques. The authors of the law (none of whom decided to include any scientifically-backed evidence that the impositions in NCLB are effective) are declaring that they know more about education than trained educators.

Further, every "option" afforded to parents, teachers, schools, districts, and states are "options" that wouldn't be available to them had NCLB become law. In other words, the Bush administration created choice where no restrictions previously existed. It's like if I broke into your house and said "You can either give me your television or your wallet." Isn't choice great?!

Again, in many instances of local "choice," schools and districts are not given enough money by the federal goverment to provide services like school selection. Every claim of choice in this law is completely illusory and an attempt to bait advocates of local control into supporting this misguided set of restrictions.

Independent of this federal versus local control debate, every American should support educational reform drafted by individuals (preferably educators) who have scientific or hands-on experience with assessing deficiencies in the classroom and diagnosing effective techniques for improvement. This is not the case with NCLB.

Which brings me to Part Two's topic: How No Child Left Behind undermines teachers. I bet you can't wait.

For more splendidly sugar-coated information about NCLB, vist your government's website on the topic.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 5:51 PM
(0) comments

Wednesday, January 05, 2005

My take on government and personal donations to tsunami aid effort

Sometimes it's not so easy being a cynic. But I might be in good company this time around.

You don't have to be a pinko leftist to think that George W. & Friends would have been content to donate just $35 million to tsunami relief had the media not made a big deal of Washington's relative stinginess, thus raising a small outcry among emotionally-swayed Americans. (Let's not forget that taxpayers spend nearly three times the eventual $350 million donation every week in Iraq for Operation: I'm Not Sure.)

More heartening has been Joe Lunchbox's contribution to the effort - the money that private individuals of all economic backgrounds have donated for whatever reason, even in light of our own mini-recession. I am genuinely impressed by what is seemingly a genuine effort on behalf of most Americans to help people whom we can't see or hear or necessarily relate to from a geographical or cultural standpoint. I wish this sentiment and united effort could continue without the prompting of media hype.

Which brings me to my more contentious pearl of cynicism: I speculate that there are less heart-warming reasons that the private donations have proven so bountiful, not least of which is the more or less constand media attention the disaster earned in the last week of December.

One Chrinicle reporter posed this query about the plentiful individual aid:

But why didn't other natural disasters, albeit smaller, move this many people?

One year before the tsunami struck, more than 43,000 people died in an earthquake in Bam, Iran. Two months after the quake, $52 million had been pledged to the Red Cross, an amount that was nearly matched within a week after the tsunami.

And while the AIDS crisis has devastated Africa and India for years, there hasn't been this type of widespread public sympathy or attention.

I believe it all stems from media coverage. For starters, late December is a slow news period...footage of fat Americans standing in line to buy Christmas gifts or standing in line to return Christmas gifts only captivates a nation for so long. (This is the same reason the Scott Peterson trial became a headline event. Creeps kill their pregnant wives all the time. Just not photogenic wives during a lame news month.) Had the tsunami occured in the hours before Super Tuesday, coverage would have been a fraction as laborious, and Americans wouldn't have been as motivated to shell out cash.

Second, the media have done a splendid job of emphacizing the stories of American, European, and other white victims in this disaster, implicitly and explicitly injecting a "this could have happened to me" sentiment into the average American viewer. I was outraged to find that two of the biggest human interest stories to bubble up from the tsunami aftermath were of the Swedish boy reunited with his father and the Czech model to clung to a tree for twelve hours and suffered a broken pelvis, not of the average Thai whose life had been washed away. As always, brown people are easier to ignore because, hey, they all look the same anyway.

This might be why the African and Indian AIDS epidemics have never been on the lips of the nation. It is difficult to get worked up about dead African babies if we cannot even locate five sub-Saharan nations on a map, or if their way of life seems primitive and alien to us. (There is also the prevailing idea that AIDS is the fault of the beholder, and that certain groups of people are too ignorant and uneducated to even make AIDS relief worthwhile. It also doesn't help that many on the Religious Right insist that US aid not go toward condoms or condom education. But I digress.)

Similarly, though the Iran earthquake also happened during December, and though tens of thousands were killed, it would be surprisingly bold of media groups to tell Americans to spend their money to save the lives of Iranians, or any Muslims for that matter. Iran is a bona fide enemy of the United States, replete with real life nuclear arms, and neighbor to our failing war; the suffering of Iranian citizens is perhaps less newsworthy because of their geographic, religious, cultural, and political similarities to Iraqis. If we were to decry the death of Iranians, a comparable response to the death of innocent Iraqis would be in order. That would be bad for ratings.

I am not contending that individual media personnel or American citizens are racist; I do believe, however, that the race and nationality of victims determines in large part how American media cover a disaster and, therefore, how citizens respond to the event.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 9:38 PM
(0) comments

Monday, January 03, 2005

It's official: The best album of 2004 was...

..."Scissor Sisters," by Scissor Sisters. According to whom?, you ask. None other than the geniuses at If Six Was Nine. Check it out to discover what great albums you weren't cool enough to know about for the past 369 days.

You may also be asking why I'm claiming that "Scissor Sisters" was voted the best album of the year, even though the team clearly chose Brian Wilson's "SMiLE" as the top point-getter. Frankly, I don't think that "SMiLE" counts. Every song on the album was recorded in 1967 when the semi-unreleased Beach Boys version of "SMiLE" was originally produced. Nearly every song on the would-be album was eventually featured on subsequent Beach Boys albums, including "Pet Sounds," "Smiley Smile," "Surf's Up," and others. Further, some lucky individuals do indeed have LP copies of the pre-Moon-landing version of "SMiLE." Thus, though Brian Wilson's solo recording of this gem is the best album of 2004 purely in terms of listening pleasure, to cite it as as such would be unfair in terms of identifying the best music of this past year. In short, live in the now.

On a related note, I'm going to be seeing the Scissor Sisters in concert on Sunday, January 30 at the Warfield. Be there or be square.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 9:18 AM
(0) comments