My brother Avi has a piece running in next month’s Washington Monthly.

The jist of it is that contrary to conventional wisdom, troop morale in the field is not correlated with the level of political dissent against the war. To quote:

“…a series of Pentagon surveys suggests that most troops in Iraq have grown more satisfied with their jobs, not less, even as criticism of the war has grown stronger. Troop morale, it turns out, depends on many factors, the most important being immediate conditions on the ground—how comfortable troops feel at their base, how often they get to call home. Levels of support for the war among elected officials in Washington or the U.S. public at large have little, if anything, to do with it…”

“A recent Zogby poll found that 72 percent of troops in Iraq believe the United States should withdraw in a year, and 29 percent think it should do so immediately, numbers that closely track polling on the home front. Another poll of active duty military personnel conducted by Military Times similarly shows a sharp decline in support for President Bush and the Iraq war. Soldiers are increasingly coming to the opinion that we’re not winning the war, we’re not likely to, and that we should begin withdrawing sooner rather than later. But, as they’ve come to this conclusion, their morale has held steady or improved, and there are no indications that their performance has suffered in any way. It’s hard to imagine better evidence that the tough criticism of the war we’re now seeing doesn’t hurt morale.”

I think its about time that this argument is put out in the open, I’m sick and tired of people telling me that supporting the mission is somehow linked to supporting the troops.

If people want to do something good for the troops, they should advocate policies that will stop them getting killed and maimed, such as withdrawal from Iraq; telling them that they’re going to be fighting in an Arab civil war for the indefinite future probably isn’t going to lift their spirits.

I was fully expecting that the ASUC slates would be available online somewhere by now. I would have posted them last week, but I’ve been told to keep it on the DL. Anyway, information wants to be free and all so I’m going to take advantage of a loophole and let you readers collaboratively fill out the following. Once a consensus is reached on a position, I’ll update the post with your information (not mine).

UPDATE: a CalStuff commenter finally lets the cat out of the bag. There is still a major independent candidate to fill in though…

UPDATE 2: Excellent, CalStuff has it all now plus senate candidates too. Paste:

PRESIDENT
Bell, Thomas - Independent
Gabriel, Oren Benjamin - Student Action
Karasek, Lauren Suzanne - SQUELCH!
O’Leary, Pammy - Independent
Ratto, Andrew - BEARS UNITED

EXECUTIVE VP
Gupta, Vishal Kumar - Student Action
Narodick, Ben - SQUELCH!

ACADEMIC VP
Liou, Joyce - Student Action
O’Connor, John - SQUELCH!
Ratto, Andrew - BEARS UNITED

EXTERNAL VP
Chu, Jason MacArthur - Student Action
Ratto, Andrew - BEARS UNITED
Tregub, Igor - INDEPENDENT
Waste, John - SQUELCH!

Continue to let the gossip flow. We’ll have much more commentary as the campaign season starts for real.

The polls have closed in Israel’s parliamentary elections and Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s Kadima (”forward”) party has emerged as the victor with 28 seats, enough to secure a coalition government. The election was essentially a referendum on Ariel Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal plan, now under Olmert’s banner.

For the first time in years I am hopeful for peace in Israel. I am hopeful because the Israeli public has finally grown tired of the Oslo pipe dream and decided to adopt a realistic solution to the security situation.

The plan, in short, is to withdraw the outlying settlements in the West Bank leaving the majority of the land to the native Palestinians, and then to wall in the remainder with a state-of-the-art security fence (the area in question is small enough to completely surround with an electrified barrier). The area inside the fence will be given to a new Palestinian state that can be run in any way the Palestinians please.

This represents two key realpolitik advances in strategy.

First, the public has rebuked the Jewish extremists who have twisted dreams of ethnically cleansing the Arabs from the West Bank and establishing a new kingdom of David. The mainstream Israelis have realized that the West Bank is mostly the home of the Palestinians, and it is absurd for Israelis to push settlements inward.

Secondly, the public has realized that a contiguous barrier (only possible by withdrawing the outlying settlements) will cripple the Palestinian’s ability to attack Israel. The current wall, although not complete, has slowed attacks to one every few months when it used to be every other day.

The Palestinian’s chief weapon, the suicide bomber, is only effective if Palestinians can enter Jewish territory by crossing the border. If no Palestinians can cross the border, then no suicide bombers will be able to attack the cities.

The only option remaining to Hamas will be to attack well guarded checkpoints. In these engagements Israel has the decisive advantage. Not only are the Israeli soldiers always able to repulse these attacks with large Arab casualties, but with the settlers removed from Palestinian areas the Air Force can strike back at will without worrying about collateral damage against Israeli settlers. The Army will also be able to operate more freely in retaliation raids because Israel will no longer be responsible for policing the areas they attack.

Hamas can huff and puff, but they will never blow this wall down.

Some may say that the barrier is unfair because of all the suffering it will cause the Palestinians. I believe that self defense includes the right to inflict suffering on your enemy, in fact, it almost always does. Israel is a secular society under the firm rule of law and prosperous markets; they have the right to separate themselves from a society governed by religious fanatics who swear themselves to the destruction of Israel. If that separation is what it takes to stop the killing of Israelis and to preserve the nature and prosperity of Israeli society, then so be it.

For now, I wish good luck to Ehud Olmert as he forms a new government, and good luck to the people of Israel in their fight to preserve themselves.

Becky O’Malley is the Daily Planet’s stopped clock. It’s about time that she’s right again:

Another story in Tuesday’s Planet was the big pot bust in Berkeley. Five months, 21 officers, 5,000 marijuana plants, 100 pounds of dried weed and some arrests. Was it worth it? And the federal raid on marijuana candy sellers in Oakland last week? Are we safer yet? […]

A somber New York Times story on Monday detailed the trajectory of a substantial percentage of young black men, like many in Oakland, who haven’t got much going for them as they become adults, and who turn to crime because they have no education and no alternative vision of how to make a living. The story notes that “among black dropouts in their late 20’s, more are in prison on a given day—34 percent—than are working—30 percent—according to an analysis of 2000 census data by Steven Raphael of the University of California, Berkeley.” And incarceration in California does nothing to improve the young men who experience it, except perhaps sharpen their criminal skills, so that when they come out they know better ways to steal car radios, and can go back to prison quickly. Not all thieves are men, and not all are black, but if you’re a young black man you start out with the odds stacked against you, and they don’t get better…

And for that matter, what will become of the young white men who were busted for marijuana cultivation in Berkeley, Brentwood, Castro Valley and other suburban enclaves last week? The kind of sophisticated factories that they were operating cost a pretty penny to set up and produce substantial revenue for investors. Seized cash alone came to $120,000. Typically what happens in situations like this is that well-connected white pot growers manage to avoid doing much time, unlike the black street kids picked up for simpler crimes who don’t have the same economic base and access to lawyers.

O’Malley is correct on two points. First is her claim that locking people up in the name of the War on Drugs isn’t making us any safer. All the money and time focused on drug offenses takes resources away from dealing with crimes that actually affect you and me. Someone tried to steal O’Malley’s car radio. My roommates and I have been buglarized once, almost twice. A good friend of mine was mugged and assaulted on campus. So when the cops celebrate their latest drug raid, I’m at the point where it disgusts me. Color me cynical, but I fail to see how my life is now safer. “Protect and serve.” Right… Oh, and let’s not even get into the fact that one of the primary causes for street crime is the black market that Prohibition forces into existence. If the guy who robbed me did so to finance his crack habit, the government deserves a large part of the blame for making crack so expensive.

Point two: the War on Drugs is racist. There, I said it. Now, I’m not the type who tries to blame racism for every social problem. In fact, I pretty much think racism isn’t much of a problem anymore in contemporary society. The exceptions are when government gets into the picture. The War on Drugs is the most egregious example, and I’m in full agreement with Milton Friedman:

Can any policy, however high-minded, be moral if it leads to widespread corruption, imprisons so many, has so racist an effect, destroys our inner cities, wreaks havoc on misguided and vulnerable individuals and brings death and destruction to foreign countries?

Towards the end of her editorial, O’Malley goes back to being wrong. She says we should redirect the War on Drugs budget to other goverment programs that try to make things better. No thanks. I say just end it entirely and things will get better on their own. In the mean time, I’ll have to be extra careful to not get robbed again while the cops are busy confiscating plants.

In other BDP news, the Berkeley marijuana raid was technically illegal under city law. I’m kind of doubtful about this, since such a revelation would merit much more than a letter to the editor. But maybe someone can investigate.

There is hardly an economic discussion from a Berkeley professor that does not touch on China’s holding of US bonds and the tremendous danger thereof. It is especially fashionable amongst the professors to view Chinese economic expansion as inherently bad for America and that the Chinese are purchasing our debt as part of a grand scheme to undermine our power.

But really, what would China actually do with the debt to hurt us?

In one scenario the Chinese loose faith in the government’s ability to repay its debt (probably preceded by a drop in our sovereign credit rating) and sell the bonds, driving down the value of the dollar and America’s ability to raise capital.

The problem with this scenario is that investors all over the world, in America and abroad, would be selling their bonds en mass if we were actually approaching default. This would be rational investor behavior. Everyone buys bonds for the same reason: that the profit of the interest and increasing face value will outweigh the risk of lending. This is true for investors in Topeka, Shanghai and Bombay.

The cause of this first crisis would not be pernicious China but the fiscal stupidity of Congress who would have spent America into the ground. Blaming the foreign bond holders in this scenario would be like a broke gambler blaming the bank for lending him money to waste.

The second scenario is that China, in reaction to a crisis with the United States, would sell the bonds in order to punish us. The problem is that this move would not benefit China in any way, and would cause as much harm to it as it would to us.

The moment that China makes indications to sell its gigantic holdings, the markets would immediately start shorting the dollar and selling bonds; it is a persistent phenomenon of markets that no one wants to be left holding the bag (a sale of bonds on the scale of the Chinese holdings would take some time to execute). By the time that the Chinese bond order is completed, the value of the notes would be significantly hit and China would suffer an enormous currency loss on the transaction. In addition, the plummeting value of the dollar would render their pegging of the Yuan useless and cut down on their export capacity.

In short, they would loose most of their money themselves and their currency advantage would be eliminated.

America as well would be hurt, but it would be rather odd for China to shoot at us through their own foot.

It is tempting to blame foreigners for America’s fiscal problems, but they are ultimately home grown. Foreigners want to buy bonds and invest capital in the United States because we have low taxes, regulations and a stable state. These things are contingent on our domestic leadership. It is the responsibility of our Congress to keep spending in line and maintain free trade, otherwise we may well face a Chinese sell-off, and one that is entirely our own fault.

Andrew Quinio reports on a surreal incident that took place on Sproul today:

Students from PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, drew an angry crowd on Sproul after displaying images that compared animal treatment to the lynching and enslavement of black Americans. About a dozen Berkeley students furiously engaged the PETA members, accusing the animal rights group of racism. The situation intensified when one member of the crowd threw ketchup and mustard on the PETA display and another tore down part of the exhibit.

One image presented by PETA featured a chained elephant foot juxtaposed with the chained foot of a slave. Another showed black individuals hanging from a tree by their necks contrasted with the image of a cow being hung by its hind legs. Several black students shouted down the PETA students and called for the display to be taken down. One student who was upset by PETA’s comparison of slavery to animal mistreatment shouted amid tears, “I’m not trying to say that people should eat meat. I understand you, but the way you’re depicting our history, the way you are depicting the things that happened to us, the thing that happened to our ancestors, it’s not ok, it’s not ok!”

Read the whole thing for more details plus pictures and videos.

The Patriot editorial board has a piece condemning a recent Berkeley study:

The Journal of Research Into Personality, a supposedly academic journal at our very own University of California, has recently published a ludicrous article that attempts to correlate youthful disposition to political thought. The article, supported by University – and thus public – funds, draws the absurd conclusion that conservatives begin as “whiny, insecure kids,” while children who are “confident, resilient, [and] self-reliant” grow up to be liberals.

The conclusion of this ‘study’ is patently ridiculous. The children put under observation in this study, all 95 of them, were based in Berkeley, in the hyper-liberal atmosphere of the Bay Area. It is hardly surprising that in an atmosphere of such intolerance and repugnance of conservatism, those children who are more apt to become liberals are going to be more comfortable and feel less pressured to be insecure about their views…

Last I heard ASUC elections are 25-27, a month and a spring break away.Yesterday I saw Student Action began their campaign efforts.

The last sign says 11% funding increase for engineers. Another sign talks about how Cal Lobby Day was also “DONE.” Personally I would like to know what $500 fee increase they think they stopped.

If SA wants to campaign now, I am ok with that, even if it is early. But they are not ready. The website listed on the flyers is a year old. While I would be glad to vote for Manny, I don’t think he is running. So update your stuff before you begin littering campus with an outdated website.

To mark the three year anniversary of the war in Iraq, four members of BCR tied yellow ribbons to the trees on Sproul. While there were rallies planned in support of the troops and some against the war, the fickle Berkeley weather rained them out. Lets all hope and pray for the safety of the troops.

Thanks to Amaury, Andrew, James, and Way-Jen.

The second episode of the Alex Marlow Show is now available on Patriot Radio. This time, he talks about affirmative action and BAMN with guest Andrew Quinio, the Patriot’s News Editor. The show is pretty entertaining and it seems like Alex is getting the hang of it. I look forward to future shows (hopefully with liberal guests to mix things up).

Subscribe to the podcast feed if you want to be notified when a new show is released. Apparently other hosts will start podcasting on Patriot Radio in the near future, so you’ll want to know when that happens.

Feel free to leave comments on this post or on Alex’s blog.

Found this interesting post on Shanghaiist, via SFist.

Apparently, a familiar Berkeley chain has the honor of spawning a Chinese knockoff. Like a Folex wristwatch or a Panaphonic television, the quality is most likely a few notches below the original. For example, the menu is sadly lacking. I mean, they have the classic beef “Frankforters” and all… But no Hot Links? Well that’s communism for you.

I’m guessing the libertarian propaganda didn’t make the cut either…

As Bush’s poll numbers continue to plummet and support for the war wanes, the San Francisco Chronicle reports that anti-war organizations are stagnating. A variety of explanations are offered, all trying to show how people are afraid of really standing up for their opinions, or that the movement is not correctly targeting a diverse array of political identities.

The leftist writers at the Chronicle never paused to consider that people might be turning against the war without turning towards the anti-war movement. They could never imagine the question:

Why does being against this war mean that someone has to be anti-war or anti-American in general?

The truth is that the protestor’s explanation of the war as a cartoonish oil grab by a Hitleresque president makes as much sense as Bush’s argument that he invaded for weapons of mass destruction. There were no weapons found, nor were oil fields plundered for lower gas prices . If Iraq is now part of the American “empire”, we certainly are not getting any of the benefits of evil colonialists.

The time has come to separate the anti-war movement from the anti-this-war movement.

I am against this war not because the US is an “imperial” power out to screw the world and not because I oppose the state’s use of violence, but because there is no evidence that our continued military presence will get us any closer to our objective and there is stark evidence that the costs of the war (2,318 dead, 16,653 wounded and 200 million dollars a day) are continuing unabated and even rising.

I support the troops; I want them home. If putting them in danger does not advance the interests of the United States, then keeping them there is not supporting them, but is getting them killed, maimed and traumatized for no material benefit.

Hopefully when the elections roll around these poll trends will continue and Americans will find hard political reasons to punish Bush for his maladministration, instead of turning to shrill leftist radicals who offer nothing but conspiracy theories and alienation from rational debate.

Today there was a large demonstration against the war in Iraq at San Francisco’s Civic Center. While people from around the bay area gathered to exorcise their right to protest, not everyone was in agreement.

Twenty-one members of BCR met with other CRs and Protest Warriors to support the troops and American actions abroad. Members dressed as suicide bombers and the girls taped their mouths shut to protest the silencing of woman’s voices in the Middle East.

Near the end some people, including a contingent of 12 year olds, with their Palestinian flags were a little mad when seeing us across the street. They started to cross to confront us, but over thirty of San Francisco’s finest wisely kept them from crossing the street. Thank you SFPD for allowing both sides to practice their first amendment rights without physical altercation.

While it is a few days late, this is just too fun to avoid a post. On Wednesday members of the Berkeley College Republicans took a plunge against cancer. A dunk tank was set up on Sproul and for mere dollars passers by could buy balls to land people in water. While the day started out nice and cold, that did not deter Josiah Prendergast, Melanie Smith, Andrea Rasmussen, Amaris White, Victoria Mitchell, or Melissa Jones.
My complements to the Daily Cal photographer who captured Amaris’s shock.

Melanie did not want to risk Josiah staying dry, so she just pushed the button.
Sponsored by BCR and the Cal Dems, the event brought in around $500, all of which will help fund breast cancer research.