I’m guessing that these four propositions (74-77) aren’t going to generate as much debate here as Prop 73 currently is doing… But these propositions are the reason that we’re having a special election in the first place, so here’s the post where you can say whatever you want about one or all of them.

Quick summaries of each from the IGS:

Proposition 74: Teacher Tenure

Proposition 75: Use of Union Dues for Political Purposes

Proposition 76: The California Live Within Our Means Act

Proposition 77: Redistricting

Support the Governator’s Reform Package? Against them all? Some, but not others? Go.

UPDATE (10/31): The police log for that day has been posted. It turns out that my friend didn’t file a report, so I wasn’t able to find his name on the log. Interestingly enough, there was a suspiciously similar incident at 8:48 PM of that night. Strong arm robbery, Haviland Hall (near Memorial Glade), 6-7 black male suspects, Asian victim. So unless there was another criminal gang running around that night…

///

Original reporting, for once, though I wish I didn’t have to.

Earlier this evening, one of my friends became a victim of violent crime. While on his way to the library, he was stopped by a group of around 10 African-American youths (most likely from Berkeley High). They then proceded to beat and rob him, before finally taking off. His bloodied body was lying near Doe Library until two female students who were exiting the library ran up to him and called the police. This story is terrible enough, but wait…

As this was happening, a group of around 30 students from an Asian student association were having an event (Ultimate Frisbee) on Memorial Glade, in front of the library. The crowd stopped what they were doing and proceeded to watch the crime in its entirety. No one intervened, and it is doubtful that anyone called for help. Even after the attackers left, no one went up to see if my friend was alright.

What the hell?

I hope this crime gets the attention it deserves. My only reason for posting this is to let you guys know that such a shocking incident occured, in case none of the local media finds this newsworthy enough. How could such a thing happen in the middle of our campus, in a heavily lighted and trafficked location? How could such a large group of onlookers not even have the human decency to help my friend up, let alone try and intervene before it started? What if the criminals didn’t stop where they did? Kitty Genovese anyone?

Next time you’re in a crowd, just imagine what you would want if you were the guy getting his ass beat…

We all knew it was coming: Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination to the Supreme Court. I think this will be looked back upon as a major turning point in the Bush presidency. Up until now, conservatives have been willing to go along with Bush even as he was pushing arguably “liberal” policies. This newly found resistance comes a couple years too late, so it’s about time. The question is whether Bush moves even further left or rejoins his base. His choice for the next nominee will help answer that question.

Here’s a list of possible nominees. I’m personally very much in favor of Janice Rogers Brown, as I’ve mentioned time and again. Another great choice would be Alex Kozinski. And apparently, some at Berkeley think John Yoo is on Bush’s list… I personally doubt it, but it would be fun to see the reaction.

From Nuts & Boalts via Beetle:

I’ll definitely have more to say about this later, but this morning’s disruption of Con Law by those who can’t live without a cause to fight for really pissed me off (as many noticed). If you weren’t around this morning, about half a dozen protesters stormed into Booth where Prof. Yoo was in the middle of asking me a question to protest his torture memos (yeah I know, some people still live in the past). I’m glad my classmates were for the most part in agreement that the means was not appropriate.

I’m 99% sure that this was initiated by the World Can’t Wait folks. In one of our previous posts, it was revealed that this organization is a front group for the Revolutionary Communist Party, a Maoist front group.

Why do I think it was them? On Monday, they were passing out fliers featuring John Yoo, “War Criminal!!” On the schedule of events, “Demonstration against John Yoo, 10/25/05 @ 11:00 am.” Maybe with the early warning, the class could have moved somewhere else for the day, leaving the protestors to storm an empty room.

Every couple of days between now and the election, we’ll have an Open Forum post on each of the propositions. I imagine that not everyone shares the same opinion on each one or it’s going to be a very boring election. So in the spirit of constructive debate, here’s the first one.

Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies has a through guide to the propositions, with links to both sides of each issue. I’ll be excerpting from the guide as a starting point.

Proposition 73: Parental Notification of Abortion

This initiative would require doctors to notify a minor’s parent or legal guardian 48 hours before performing an abortion. Parental consent is not required, only a 48-hour waiting period. The minor can apply for a waiver from a judge, and a physician may perform an abortion without notification in a medical emergency. The initiative also requires that physicians report abortions, and that the State compile statistics.

Proponents of the initiative claim that their main concern is the safety of girls, not eliminating abortion. They argue that minors need help to make important health decisions. They claim that the 48-hour waiting period ensures that parents have a realistic opportunity to consult with their daughter and explore her options before she makes an irrevocable decision.

Opponents argue that parental notification laws do nothing to keep teens safe or promote family communication. They hold that the real outcome of these laws is delayed medical care for the most vulnerable teens, putting them at risk for health complications.

Looking out for teen safety or anti-abortion trojan horse? Go.

The Cal freshmen over at the Initiative Madness blog will be live blogging tonight’s debate on the ballot initiatives. These are usually fun, so you might want to check it out.

Concurrent with a 6 p.m. broadcast by KTVU (Channel 2) of this event focusing on Propositions 74, 75, 76 and 77, the Berkeley freshmen will file live commentary on a special Contra Costa Times discussion board. The public also has been invited to participate in the online discussion. The students will watch the televised debate at a public viewed hosted by the Institute for Governmental Studies in Moses Hall.

Via Berkeley NewsCenter

What other surprises does Harriet Miers have in store for us? A revelation from the Washington Post:

As president of the State Bar of Texas, Harriet Miers wrote that “our legal community must reflect our population as a whole,” and under her leadership the organization embraced racial and gender set-asides and set numerical targets to achieve that goal.

The Supreme Court nominee’s words and actions from the early 1990s, when she held key leadership positions as president-elect and president of the state bar, provide the first window into her personal views on affirmative action, an area in which the Supreme Court is closely divided and where Miers could tip the court’s balance.

Now this isn’t going to go over very well…

John Yoo, a conservative law professor at University of California at Berkeley who served as deputy assistant attorney general during President Bush’s first term, said the fact that Miers did not object to the policy “is another worrying sign that her real views on the kind of issues she’ll decide on the Supreme Court are not as conservative as President Bush suggests.”

“When you start setting numbers like that, you can call it a goal or anything else, but it smells like a quota,” he said. “The message is pretty clear — you are encouraging hiring based on race.”

Tradesports is predicting that there’s a 30% chance that Miers will be confirmed, down from 90% at the beginning of the month. She’ll be gone by the end of the week.

From the standpoint of advancing any kind of intellectual argument about the relative benefits and drawbacks of AA last nights debate between Mason Weaver and Shanta Driver of BAMN did not do much in that arena. What it did provide were some nice amusing moments. Drum Roll please:

Most Obnoxious: That Oakland school teacher who used her question time to yell and make declarative statements.

Most Provocative:When Mr. Weaver declared that he wanted to put the public school education system along with that Oakland teacher out of business.

Most Cliché: Mrs. Driver’s comments were dominated by lots of recycled rhetoric.

Rudest #1:The kids seated in my vicinity on the left side of the room. Yelling repeatedly while others talk wins you last place at the kindergarten awards, yet strangely it’s in vogue at a major university.

Rudest #2: Mr. Weaver was fairly rude towards the end but by that point the audience had already instigated it by throwing derogatory remarks his way.

Best Point: Whoever asked the question about Asians and Institutional Racism

Worst Point: Mrs. Drivers continual categorization of underrepresented minorities as ideologically homogenous. Sorry Mrs. Driver you do not speak for me!

Best Quote: “We have a system, it’s called capitalism.”- Mr. Weaver

Worst Quote: “We need to build a new civil rights movement.” Mrs. Driver. Hopefully it gets built in fantasyland.

Worst Attempt at Staying Neutral: Dean Holub… We know how you really feel!

I am thinking of going to go to the “Minorities Oppressed at Cal” event BAMN is hosting to pick a verbal fight with those people. Someone needs to speak up for “underrepresented minorities” who do not feel victimized, do not feel discriminated against, and generally resent civil rights imperialists unfairly grouping them into their misguided struggle.

If anyone wants to come observe, hit me up. It would be nicer not to feel alone in front of what will surely be a hostile crowd!

John Yoo co-wrote an opinion piece in Tuesday’s LA Times demanding that Supreme Court nominee Miers pass a “litmus test”:

The most useful way of discovering a nominee’s views is through “litmus tests.” One question would yield the maximum information about a nominee’s judicial philosophy (without requiring a commitment as to any future ruling): “What do you think of Roe vs. Wade”? The answer could explain her theory of constitutional interpretation, her views on the judicial invention of rights not set forth in the Constitution, her views on when courts should follow precedent, and her views about the judiciary’s role in our constitutional system.

Conservatives should insist that all nominees should interpret the Constitution in strict accordance with its text, structure and original understanding. Judicial decisions that depart from these principles amount to freewheeling policymaking from the bench. Precedent always should receive respectful consideration, but it cannot trump the Constitution. Because the Roe vs. Wade decision ran contrary to the Constitution and sound principles of constitutional interpretation, conservatives can maintain, forthrightly and without fear, that no judge should be appointed to any federal court who thinks the case was correctly decided as an original matter.

When are we going to find out more about Miers? Or better yet, when will she withdraw? If she can’t answer these simple questions then we can’t take the risk of her on the bench.

Furthermore, Roe vs. Wade isn’t about abortion, it’s about federal vs. state power. As much as conservatives and liberals like to argue about abortion, there are hundreds of equally important issues that the courts decide. Miers may or may not help overturn Roe, but if she does so solely because of her own personal preference, that tells us nothing about how she would rule on cases like Kelo or Raich. We need someone we can count on, not just a vote against Roe.

Look for this news to hit talk radio and Fox News in three… two… one…

The City of Berkeley is cancelling this year’s Veterans Day celebration over concerns that it may be hijacked by the anti-war movement. From the Contra Costa Times:

Berkeley’s Veterans Day ceremony, scheduled for Nov. 11, was abruptly canceled on Monday because the volunteer organizing committee split over the political content.

At issue was a proposal by the chairman, singer/songwriter Country Joe McDonald, to have Bill Mitchell, a co-founder of Cindy Sheehan’s organization, Gold Star Families for Peace, as the keynote speaker…

Some committee members worried that Mitchell would inject an unwelcome note of partisanship into the event, which has been scrupulously non-political in years past.

“If you want to have an anti-war rally, count me in,” said Linda Perry, an aide to City Councilman Laurie Capitelli. “But not on Veteran’s Day. It’s neither the time nor the place.“

You’d think so, but it seems like it’s always the right time and place for a protest in Berkeley.

McDonald, backed by other members of the committee, disagreed, saying that not permitting Mitchell to express his point of view would be tantamount to censoring free speech…

But on Monday, McDonald circulated an e-mail among the committee reading, “The disagreement over the participation of Gold Star Families, with their anti-war reputation, in our 2005 ceremony has made it impossible to continue. Without consensus we have no program. The event is cancelled.”

Putting aside your feelings on the war, what do you make of this decision?

I would like to call your attention to a troubling issue: the demise of the California Patriot Watch blog. For years, that blog has focused on one thing and one thing only: our magazine. Each time a new issue came out, you could always count on CPW to bash every article the first chance it got. It was literally a rite of passage for our new writers to be mentioned.

But then the guy graduated. Two issues have already been released this school year, yet nothing but silence from CPW. I’m starting to miss being a target.

For that reason, I support the effort to keep CPW alive. From the CPW Facebook group:

Hello! I’m Jon Pennington, editor of the California Patriot Watch. I’ve just graduated from Berkeley and I need new people to help me with the important job of monitoring right-wing activism on Berkeley and other college campuses. Email me at jpenning@berkeley.edu if you want more info on getting involved.

So please, if you hate us, get in touch with Jon or start a blog of your own. We’re counting on you.

At tonight’s Berkeley College Republicans meeting, the topic for debate was whether or not marijuana should be legalized. Interesting arguments were given by both sides, though no consensus was reached. It seemed like people still had more questions or things to say when time ran out, so I’m going to open this post up for continued debate on the issue. Knock yourselves out.

For starters, this Wikipedia article contains arguments both for and against drug prohibition in general.

Should marijuana be legalized? Go.

Anyone see those horrible chalkings all over campus?

The World Can’t Wait!
Drive Out the Bush Regime!
Walk out of Class!
Resist or Die!

Seriously, they’re everywhere. On the floor, on the walls, all over. So what’s this all about? Well I went to their site, worldcantwait.org, to find out more:

People look at all this and think of Hitler—and they are right to do so. The Bush regime is setting out to radically remake society very quickly, in a fascist way, and for generations to come. We must act now; the future is in the balance…

We are talking about something on a scale that can really make a huge change in this country and in the world. We need more than fighting Bush’s outrages one at a time, constantly losing ground to the whole onslaught. We must, and can, aim to create a political situation where the Bush regime’s program is repudiated, where Bush himself is driven from office, and where the whole direction he has been taking society is reversed. We, in our millions, must and can take responsibility to change the course of history.

And what do they intend to do?

To that end, on November 2, the first anniversary of Bush’s “re-election”, we will take the first major step in this by organizing a truly massive day of resistance all over this country. People everywhere will walk out of school, they will take off work, they will come to the downtowns and town squares and set out from there, going through the streets and calling on many more to JOIN US. They will repudiate this criminal regime, making a powerful statement: “NO! THIS REGIME DOES NOT REPRESENT US! AND WE WILL DRIVE IT OUT!”

So any guesses on how many will turn out worldwide on November 2nd? Just in Berkeley? Will they reach their goal of millions? I mean, we have to resist or… die? Man, I’m convinced.

And you thought P. Diddy was bad enough…

That’s right, our October issue is finally out! But we have a good reason for the delay: the Patriot is now printed in 100% color. Eat gloss, competition!

Pick one up on Sproul this week, or check it out online in either HTML or PDF. We’re just pro-choice like that.

Some highlights: Robert Eberhart updates us on post-Kelo eminent domain abuse in the Bay Area. Andrew Quinio interviews the guy behind the Abolish the ASUC campaign. James Fullmer takes a look at politics behind PS1AC. Ben Chapman sticks up for Christopher Columbus (Happy belated Columbus Indigenous People’s Day!) And Rohit Joy has the final word on Chief Justice Rehnquist.

Have at it.