Watching the feed on Yahoo…

6:01 - Chief Justice Roberts has a bald spot.

6:05 - Justice Alito staring off into space.

6:08 - Who’s standing next to the First Lady? Looks like a taller Gary Coleman.

6:09 - Clap. Clap. Clap.

6:13 - End clapping.

6:14 - Bush praises Mrs. King. Camera focuses on black members of the audience.

6:15 - 2006. Decisive year.

6:16 - 9/11.

6:17 - Mentioning triumphs of democracy: Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine

6:18 - Argh… Yahoo switches me to a Nyqil ad. Hope I’m not missing anything important.

6:20 - “Never surrender to evil.” Camera focuses on Kerry.

6:24 - One side standing ovations are always good.

6:27 - Sarah Joe and Bud. 3 parents? That tripped me up for a bit.

6:29 - “Must recognize Israel!” Interesting change of tone there.

6:30 - “Liberty is the right and hope of all of humanity.”

6:32 - USA to Iranians: Let’s be friends.

6:33 - “Serve interest of America by showing compassion of America.”

6:35 - Reauthorize PATRIOT Act… hmmm

6:37 - Long war ahead of us. Lead world toward freedom.

6:40 - Reject protectionism. Reject government intervention in economy. Props to immigrants.

6:41 - Reduced growth of spending? Cut spending? Right. Only the Pubs up in front stand up and clap.

6:42 - McCain claps ecstatically at earmark reform mention. Pass line item veto.

6:43 - Dems stand up and clap for ignoring Social Security reform. Look at Hillary smile.

6:47 - Medical reform… cut to Frist.

6:48 - “America is addicted to oil.”

6:51 - American Competitiveness Initiative?

6:55 - Life of personal responsibility is a good life. “Government has played a role.” ugh.

6:57 - Cheer for Alito. Guess O’Connor can finally take a break from these.

6:59 - Helping America’s Youth Initiative?

7:01 - Thinly veiled references to blacks. The camera confirms this.

7:03 - Fin.

Provacative item in the Washington Post:

For their study, Nosek, Banaji and social psychologist Erik Thompson culled self-acknowledged views about blacks from nearly 130,000 whites, who volunteered online to participate in a widely used test of racial bias that measures the speed of people’s associations between black or white faces and positive or negative words. The researchers examined correlations between explicit and implicit attitudes and voting behavior in all 435 congressional districts.

The analysis found that substantial majorities of Americans, liberals and conservatives, found it more difficult to associate black faces with positive concepts than white faces — evidence of implicit bias. But districts that registered higher levels of bias systematically produced more votes for Bush.

I remember taking this test a while ago. When I saw this on Drudge, I decided to retake them. Here are some of my results:

Your data suggest a strong automatic preference for White American compared to Black American.

Your data suggest a moderate automatic preference for George W. Bush compared to John F. Kennedy.

Your data suggest a moderate association of European American with American and Asian American with Foreign compared to Asian American with American and European American with Foreign.

Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between Other People and Arab Muslims.

Your data suggest a moderate association of European American with Harmless Objects and African American with Weapons compared to African American with Harmless Objects and European American with Weapons.

Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between Straight People and Gay People.

Check it out. It’s a nice little timewaster. I’m not so sure that I completely agree with their interpretation of the findings, but it’s interesting nevertheless. Or maybe I’m in denial:

“If anyone in Washington is skeptical about these findings, they are in denial,” he said. “We have 50 years of evidence that racial prejudice predicts voting. Republicans are supported by whites with prejudice against blacks. If people say, ‘This takes me aback,’ they are ignoring a huge volume of research.”

Here’s a pretty cool story:

“Cool” remains the gold standard of slang in the 21st century, as reliable as a blue-chip stock, surviving like few expressions ever in our constantly evolving language. It has, despite the pressures of staying relevant and trendy, kept its cool through the centuries - even as its meaning changed drastically.

Some cool professor from our cool school adds:

Geoffrey Nunberg, a linguist at the University of California at Berkeley, said the word should have faded away at the end of the fifties. Instead, it was adopted and redefined by hippies, followed by surfers, rappers and techno-geeks.

“Click here for cool stuff,” Nunberg says of its current incarnation. “There’s some question whether this is reinvention or retro.” he says.

And here’s a pretty cool fact:

As the centuries passed, cool took on new meanings. By the 17th century, the word helped define a woman’s ability to allay a man’s passion through sex.

Now that is totally rad cool.

Via Volokh: “Gold star mother Cindy Sheehan has decided to run against California Senator Diane Feinstein if Feinstein does not filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel Alito.” [please run. will do wonders for Berkeley’s image…]

Via Sploid: “After a decade-long crusade the students of Yale have finally convinced the administration to put hand soap in the dormitory bathrooms.” [next item on the agenda: toilet paper]

Via SF Chron, on higher ed: “Keep tuition as low as possible, because I know there are thousands of souls like myself who want to succeed and are surviving on rice and beans to make it happen.” [and ramen. don’t forget ramen]

Via boingboing: 100×100 burger [this is why we need an In-N-Out on campus]

Quote: “I think our [Democrats] slogan should be: ‘They grab your wallet, we grab your wife’” -Paul Begala, The Colbert Report

Quote: “My dad smoked pot at Berkeley, so it’s pretty much ruined for me.” -Seth Cohen, The O.C.

Feel free to add on in the comments.

Government knows best…

California became the first state to declare secondhand smoke a toxic air pollutant Thursday, putting tobacco fumes in the same category as diesel exhaust, arsenic and benzene because of its link to breast cancer.

Pro-smoke:

R.J. Reynolds spokesman David Howard said regardless of the dangers from passive smoke indoors, no research supports regulators’ decision to declare it an air pollutant.

“No studies exist that show that exposure outdoors leads to any increased risk of tobacco-associated illness,” he said.

The air board must next consider regulatory steps to reduce exposure to the smoke, a process that could take years.

Anti-smoke:

“This is no longer some crazy, California, Left Coast way of thinking,” said Cynthia Hallett, executive director of Berkeley-based Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights. She cited smoking bans that have been enacted or are being considered across the nation and in other countries.

Eventually it’ll be more socially acceptable to shoot heroin than to smoke a cigarette.

On a related note, I’m looking forward to the movie Thank You for Smoking, based on the novel by Christopher Buckley. I’ve heard that it’s a hilarious satire on both the tobacco industry and anti-smoking zealots. Check the trailer.

So I’ve run out things to say, for the time being. What kind of things do we want to see here in the future?

By the way. If any of you are interested in contributing to the Patriot, meet in the lobby of Wheeler at 6 pm on Thursday. If you can write or draw, then you’re set. If you can’t do either, join the crowd and see me about assisting with the layout (Adobe Photoshop, Indesign), website, or this little blog.

Link:

A new project by La Fabricadecosasbonitas (The Factory of Pretty Things) has recently been awarded money as an “incentive for further production” by Vida 8.0. The Spanish activists plan to take 20 robot-demonstrators to the G8 summit, to be held in the summer of 2007 in Germany…

The superior part of the final robot could wear glasses equipped with camera, earings with microphones, clothes bearing protest messages and it would also carry posters with slogans. The inferior part is a robotic vehicle (inspired by Segway) equipped with sensors to avoid obstacles and police.

I say we should welcome the development of future RoboProtest technology. Chances are they would be less annoying than their organic counterparts. Can’t wait to see them on Sproul, facing off with robot counterprotestors, of course.

ASUC Senator Igor Tregub has resigned. Melissa Jones, of the Berkeley College Republicans, will be the replacement.

More details from our ASUC correspondent:

ASUC Senator Igor Tregub Resigns
Berkeley College Republicans win spot in the senate
By Chris Page

This evening ASUC Senator Igor Tregub of Student Action stepped down from his senate post. Igor cited his inability to give his full effort to serve the students who elected him and those who did not. When describing his energy and commitment to his constituents, Igor said “199% is a deficit.” He summarized the progress on his latest bills and his fondest memories of this past year and a half of being a senator. Tregub promised to continue his work on Diversity Week if asked and noted that he is confident the members of the Senate will continue to represent students in an excellent way. Tregub received a standing ovation at the conclusion of his farewell address.

Tregub was first elected to the ASUC senate in 2004 and served on the Commercial Development Committee and the ASUC Store Operations board. He worked to represent the interests of Cal students living on the Northside of campus, and committed himself to adopting an Academic Bill of Rights.

Tregub’s senate seat will be filled by the candidate who placed 21st in the 2005 Senate election. The ASUC website indicates that Melissa Jones of the Berkeley College Republicans party is next in line to replace Tregub.

Over the weekend, the Contra Costa Times took an indepth look at college drinking, with a focus on Berkeley:

Looking back at UC Berkeley’s history, it’s easy to see where the “Animal House” stereotype of free-wheeling beerfests comes from:

• California legislators, shocked at seeing drunken students stumbling across the new Berkeley campus in 1873, established a 2-mile no-alcohol zone around the school. The zone was later reduced to 1 mile, then eliminated altogether.
• In 1937, besotted Cal fans rioted several times after football games, overturning streetcars in downtown Berkeley.
• In 1956, a drunken mob conducted a mass panty raid in female dormitories and sorority houses in Berkeley. University police later collected more than 1,000 female undergarments.

Several UC Berkeley songs from the early 20th century extol the virtues of heavy drinking. Among them is the California Drinking Song.

“Drink, drank, drunk last night, drunk the night before,” the lyrics read. “Gonna get drunk tonight like I never got drunk before.”

Now everyone sing along! Anyway, these kinds of articles can’t end before making victims out of the irresponsible:

Current and former students have lamented that drinking has become too ingrained in college culture in the past 20 years. Sayles has watched as two grandchildren got carried away with that culture in the California State University system.

“They both got A’s in partying and flunked out cold,” he said.

I would lament the fact that these kids couldn’t find the proper balance between work and play. Hopefully they learned their lessons, even if it was through the hard way. The rest of us owe it to ourselves to figure this out before entering the real world. I think I’m almost there.

Here’s to personal responsibility. Let’s drink to that.

On the Governator:

Just as during his 2003 recall race, “He’s becoming a Democrat again,” said an admiring San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, assessing the governor’s political instincts. “It’s a good sign for him and a bad sign for the Democratic Party,” Newsom said. “He gets it. He’s learned his lesson. … He’s running back, not even to the center — I would say center-left.”

So when are the Republicans going to officially disown this guy? I mean literally kick him out of the party. The national GOP is in the middle of a revolution, bringing hopes that fiscal conservatism will finally replace big-government corruption. Let’s try and do the same in California.

I remember back in 2003, the mainstream Republicans warned that if we voted McClintock we would get a Democrat for governor. I guess they were right.

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
-Martin Luther King, Jr.

Via a student mailing list:

The Office of the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education is pleased to announce a unique opportunity for Berkeley undergraduates to participate in an action research seminar designed to enhance the campus’s understanding of issues of diversity and inclusion…

The research findings will be presented to Chancellor Birgeneau, senior campus administrators, and other campus and community stakeholders at the end of the semester and will help inform campus policy decisions and initiatives regarding diversity and inclusion.

Chancellor Birgeneau has been pushing his anti-209 agenda since he first arrived at Berkeley. In both speech and action, his intentions are clear: bring back affirmative action. It appears that his latest tactic involves granting university credit to students willing to further his campaign:

Ethnic Studies 198: The Prop. 209 Project

Co-Instructors: Professor David Montejano, Ethnic Studies; Professor Taeku Lee, Political Science
Time: Tuesday 4-6 PM (first class meets on January 24)
Location: Shorb House Conference Room, 2547 Channing Way @ Bowditch
Number of Units: 2
Course Enrollment: 12
Requirements: Students must have completed a minimum of 60 units.

Course Description: In the 1990s, California voters passed a series of “anti-diversity” referenda-the “anti-immigrant” Prop. 187 in 1994, the “anti-affirmative action” Prop. 209 in 1996, and the “anti-bilingual education” Prop. 227 in 1998. Many have interpreted these results as a backlash against the rapid demographic changes taking place in the State. In this research seminar, we will examine this hypothesis-and also speculate about possible antidotes. Taking Prop. 209 as our chief case study, we will explore the various facets that made this campaign a successful one, including looking at the weaknesses of the “pro-affirmative action” campaign. In the first part of the course, you will map out the likely geography of anti-diversity, pro-diversity and swing districts in the State. In the second part of the course, you will use this analysis to craft a political strategy for a successful “pro-diversity” initiative in the State. What kind of voter turnouts would be necessary, what kind of campaign would have to be mounted, what “framings” of affirmative action policies are most likely to succeed, what contextual factors have to be in place, and so forth? This second part of the class will allow for considerable creativity on your part. Projects will be evaluated on an individual basis. A presentation of each project will take place at the end of the semester.

I’m guessing that there won’t be much “diversity” of thought in this purely political course. All the dissenters will be weeded out long before the time comes to craft the “pro-diversity” political strategy. So Birgeneau gets his blueprints for a future initative, and the grunts get two units closer to attaining their Ethnic Studies degree. Everyone wins! That is, except for the people of California.

Beetle has started updating his blog again, so go check it out. Meanwhile, I’m gonna pull a CalStuff and take a break until school starts. Hopefully, this semester will provide tons of posting material. And if not, we’ll try our best to manufacture a controversy or two. Keep up the commenting. Late.

I saw the movie Grandma’s Boy last Friday with my buddies. It’s not doing too hot at the box office, but I’m sure it’ll be a cult classic. Definitely a movie that will be watched over and over again and never get old. I don’t usually post about my movie viewing habits, but I’ll make an exception for this one. Apparently Kathryn Jean Lopez of the National Review is a fan too, and the man behind the movie, Allen Covert, is one of the rare Republicans in Hollywood. So it’s nice to see that in 2006, Republicans can write, produce, star in, and enjoy stoner flicks. Go check it out.

It’s an exciting time for political junkies. Scandals, resignations, confirmations, an upcoming election.

It’s even more so for the Republicans, because we’ve finally reached the point where we can no longer postpone making the tough choices. The future of the party is up in the air.

Drudge juxtaposed two articles that offered different visions for the GOP. The first one, from the Financial Times:

With Republicans embroiled in an influence-peddling scandal that could threaten their control of Congress, the biggest pressure for reform is coming from lawmakers who charge that the party’s woes have come from abandoning its core conservative principles.

Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican congressman who co-led the petition drive that helped oust Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, said in an interview yesterday: “We don’t just need a new majority leader, we need a course correction…

A group of more than 100 members organised as the Republican Study Committee is hoping to use the leadership race to rein in what they see as runaway government spending championed by Mr DeLay and his allies.

It’s time for fiscal conservatives to take control of the party. No real leader has emerged in the race to replace DeLay, so I hope that Rep. Flake realizes that we need someone like himself. Others around the blogosphere would like to see this happen too. From what I have heard and read about Flake, he is the type of conservative that the GOP sorely needs: a libertarian. We need more like him.

On the other hand, Dick Morris is suggesting another course for the Republicans to take:

But the data are becoming overwhelming that the nation is moving left and is likely to stay that way through at least the 2006 election — and, if President Bush doesn’t adjust, for a lot longer…

Two new solid Republican issues are begging for attention from the White House: immigration and drugs.

The administration’s guest-worker program is a good step in the right direction to appease Hispanic voters, but it must be accompanied by some red meat for the base — the border fence passed by the House. The fence without guest-worker rights will alienate the fastest growing bloc of voters, the Latinos. The guest workers without the fence will do nothing to move voters toward the GOP.

As the victory of Evo Morales in Bolivia makes clear, cocaine is concomitant of oil in fueling terrorism in the Western Hemisphere. The narcoterrorists use our dependence on black oil and white cocaine to power their anti-American work and terrorist activities. Soon their terror will spread to our shores. Already the cocaine infects our young.

Bush should urge drug testing, with parental consent, in schools in his State of the Union address and put drugs back in play as a domestic issue. Crime is down, but drug use is still a vital Republican issue. Put it back on the agenda.

Any attempt to solve the immigration issue without tackling the underlying economic issue (read: the welfare state), is futile at best and pandering to xenophobia at worst. That’s all I have to say about that.

Of bigger concern to me is Dick’s suggestion that the War on Drugs be escalated. His wild-eyed rhetoric about “narcoterrorists” makes me sick. I don’t doubt that some drug money goes to Al Qaeda and such, but then why multiply their income a hundred-fold at black market prices? Who’s fault is that? And school drug testing? I guess that would be the next logical federal intrusion in education after the No Child Left Behind Act. Drugs should be a Republican issue, but in the exact opposite way that Dick wants it. We need to take a cue from notable Republicans like Milton Friedman, George Shultz, and Gary Johnson, and make ending the War on Drugs part of the Republican agenda. Doing so would not only be Constitutionally correct, but morally correct as well.

If the GOP goes with Dick’s plan then I’m just going to give up and vote Libertarian.

So there we have it. Two possible paths for the Republicans to take in the coming years: small government fiscal conservatism or reactionary social extremism. Is it wishful thinking to hope we take the one less traveled by?