William Fischer has an article on OpEdNews about Muslim-Americans taking a greater interest in legal careers after 9/11:

His name is Junaid Ahmad. He is 24 years old. And he is among a rapidly increasing number of first generation Muslim-Americans who have decided to pursue careers in the law…

Ahmad says he is “worried about the politics of fear” that the Administration of President George W. Bush has encouraged since the terrorists attacks of September 11th 2001. He adds that “Many Muslims in America are being routinely harassed and stereotyped and “might feel more comfortable with lawyers who understood their language, culture and customs.”

Perfectly understandable. What I’m concerned about is this quote from Ms. Rufiath Yousuff of the National Association of Muslim Lawyers:

“After 9/11 there came a shocking realization that there were not enough Muslims in the profession to protect the rights of Muslims both within the U.S. and also the international community. And, that those who did not profess the Muslim faith may not understand the subtle dimensions and intentions of those who practiced their faith or culture in a manner that peripherally seemed un-American, when in reality no treason was intended.”

I think that this is dangerous reasoning, the idea that only people who look or worship like you can defend your civil liberties. I think that this only leads to more division. What we really need is a greater appreciation for what civil liberties really mean. The liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights should apply equally to all of us, and we all should be concerned during the times when this isn’t the case.

It really doesn’t matter if we understand the “subtle dimensions and intentions” of a certain group or not. If no one is being directly and provably harmed, then it ends there: the government shouldn’t tread on your liberties. Do you think that the ACLU defends KKK members and neo-Nazis because they understand these groups’ “subtle dimensions and intentions”? (Not to make any comparison whatsoever with Muslims, except in the “understanding” department). No, because that stuff is totally irrelevant.

Wanting to help people that are like you isn’t inherently good or bad. But wanting to help people that are totally different from you is a true American ideal. From time to time our nation faces difficult questions. These questions wouldn’t be nearly as hard if we always keep in mind the values that America should represent.

The news of UC Berkeley’s wasteful new Diversity Czar position is making waves around the nation. This article from a Virginia paper puts it bluntly:

Question. If Mr. Birgeneau and his fellow administrators were spending their own money, would they spend it on something this dumb? The answer reveals a great deal about bureaucracy, government, academia and human nature. Alas, it’s a lesson that few people — including those outside of Berkeley — seem to be learning.

Right on. Unfortunately, they mar their argument with a familiar typo:

The combination of bureaucracy, politically correct thinking and taxpayers’ money is not a good mix – as illustrated by the University of Southern California at Berkeley.

How’s that for tying together two of my main themes for the week?

Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross shed some more light on Cal’s new Diversity Czar in today’s Chronicle:

UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau has just announced he’s creating the new post of vice chancellor for equity and inclusion — a job that not only has an impressive title, but an equally impressive salary of between $182,000 and $282,000 a year… Plus an office budget in excess of $4 million.

In a post a few days ago, Beetle commented: I will note that, considering the bitching about overpaid administrators, this should probably be picking up a whole lot more opposition, especially since there’s no real evidence that this new “vice chancellor of equity and inclusion” will actually be doing anything.

It looks like that opposition is coming from an unlikely source:

The creation of the new post comes at a time when the university system is already under fire over executive pay — and for having so many high-level positions…

Judy Shattuck, president of Local 3 of the Coalition of University Employees, which represents about 2,000 clerical workers at UC Berkeley and the Office of the President, said she feared the new appointment was just “window dressing” intended to give the appearance of addressing discriminatory behavior at the campus.

Chancellor, when the bloggers and the unions agree that something is a waste of time and money, maybe it really is. Cut the BS.

This year’s midterm election is shaping up to be pretty interesting. I could care less if the Democrats take control of Congress. One could even argue that the Republicans deserve to lose… But we’ll save that for when we’re a little closer to voting.

What I’m really interested in are the races with strange circumstances. Most interesting of all would be Tom DeLay’s old district in Texas. After his fall from grace (and the position of House Majority Leader), he decided he would try and get reelected. He faced a primary and prevailed. Then he decided not to run, but the Dems took advantage and forced his name to stay on the ballot. DeLay didn’t want to run, and the GOP couldn’t replace his name, so the party was left without a candidate! In an overwhelmingly Republican district!

The only candidates on their ballot will be Democrat Nick Lampson and Libertarian Bob Smither. If elected, Smither would be the first Libertarian in Congress. He has already promised to caucus with the Republicans and would probably be a closer match to the conservative district than Lampson. The choice is between your average Democrat and a person who is probably more conservative and principled than 95% of Congress. Any Republican with a brain can immediately see what the answer is to a question we shouldn’t even have to ask. If I lived in that district, I know how this Republican would be voting.

Of course, we’re assuming that people go with principle over party. Isntad, the GOP will be running a write-in candidate: Shelley Sekula-Gibbs. For those able to remember her name, they’ll have fun trying to enter it in on the voting machines that have no dash. I think it’s poetic justice. Why does the party want to lose to the Democrat rather than supporting the Libertarian? The local GOP chair said this to Hammer of Truth:

I think it’s safe to say that Republican leadership is promoting the Republican who was the preference of the grassroots Republican leadership, who voted in the Republican Primary, and attended the Republican Precinct, Senatorial, and State Conventions OVER someone who identifies himself with another Party.

Just because a third Party candidate considers himself more of a Republican than a Democrat and will therefore caucus with the Republicans, that does not mean he would represent my views or vote like a Republican.

Can’t do it in good conscience.

And you know what, that’s perfectly fine. Party members should vote for party candidates. Seems fair.

Oh wait, what’s this about Republicans supporting former Democrat Joseph Lieberman over their own Republican candidate in Connecticut? Alan Schlesinger, the GOP candidate, is polling at 2.1%; support so low that a third party candidate would laugh hysterically. Where’s the conscience now?

In the latter case, one could argue that the Republicans are choosing principle over party, in a twisted sort of way. The principle happens to be (1) War over all else, (2) Big government over all else, or (3) both.

If I hear more Lieberman-boosting from so-called conservative Republicans, I think I’ll be sick. Give me a straight answer about why Republicans voting for Lieberman is a good thing, but Republicans voting for Libertarians is bad. I want to know, as it’ll explain a lot about the current state of the GOP.

This should be good. And sad.

Sometimes a typo can be unintentionally funny. Take, for example, this bit from the University of Kansas Daily Kansan complaining about their school’s lax admissions standards:

In my opinion, these requirements aren’t exactly stringent. A 2.0? A C average? Let’s be honest: that’s no great achievement. At USC-Berkeley, the number-one ranked public university, out-of-state students must have a 3.4 or higher to be considered.

I can imagine it now… and I just might approve…

Why South Park is patriotic.

Today, I received a call asking me to donate to Arnold’s campaign against Phil Angelides. The woman on the phone asked me if I would be ok with putting down $100. After I explained that I was a college student with no disposable income (for politicians at least), she asked if I would be able to spare $50. I said that I was instead planning to volunteer on the local level (another lie), but she kept at it and asked for $25. Somehow I was able to get out with my wallet intact, but I’m sure it could have went either way.

Do any college students actually donate to political campaigns? I’d imagine that nearly-free labor from college volunteers would be worth more than a couple bucks from students’ booze funds.

Not that I’d ever donate money to candidates soliciting for some. If there ever comes a candidate that I can whole-heartedly support, I think I would donate my time and money to him or her without having to be asked. Since that won’t be happening any time soon, I suppose my donation will be going toward a pitcher of hard cider this weekend. Sorry, Arnold. At least you have my vote (ambivalently, not a lie).

The Stanford Daily reports on new legislation designed to protect public university newspapers from censorship. The law doesn’t apply to Stanford, a private institution, so the paper goes into how other schools will be affected, namely the neighboring UCs. A Daily Cal writer is quoted:

Public universities across California will be affected in varying degrees by the bill. Among those closest to Stanford, Berkeley’s Daily Cal will experience little new freedom, as writer Katlyn Carter noted that the student newspaper already enjoys full freedom of the press.

“Our paper is independent from the University,” she said. “It broke with the University over an issue of free speech. It had to do with the Vietnam War, and the paper printed an editorial that was very against it. The University wanted them to retract the editorial, and the paper decided to stand by what they said, and they broke [off from the University].”

What courageous young journalists. Always remember how the Daily Cal stood up to the university on such a major world issue. Let’s see how the Daily Cal site remembers their monumental turning point:

The Daily Cal earned its independence in 1971 and publishes with the name, The Daily Californian, pursuant of a licensing agreement with the UC Board of Regents. The move towards independence was initiated after the university administration attempted to fire three editors because of a controversial editorial regarding People’s Park, a university-owned lot in the Southside neighborhood of Berkeley that became an unplanned park for locals.

People’s Park? Now that’s either some piece of Vietcong territory or the Daily Cal is full of it.

There has been much controversy in recent weeks over the use of the term “Islamofascist.” President Bush recently referred to the 20 or so potential terrorists (and the movement behind them) who hoped to bomb trans-Atlantic flights in the same fashion. Talk radio and conservative bloggers use the term as an epithet as well.

But some take offense to the term. Many Muslim groups, including CAIR (The Council on American-Islamic Relations) blast the term as offensive and inaccurate. But is it? Is the strictest form of Islamic Sharia law comparable to fascism? The American Heritage Dictionary defines fascism as:

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

The definition fits the term like a glove: Ahmenijad is hardly of the mind to share his authority with others. The Taliban never let its subjects purchase or even possess certain things, including music and television sets. Terrorism is, without question, axiomatic in this case. Censorship is common, certainly in the case of Salman Rushdie. And belligerent nationalism/racism is self-explanatory when you take a look at the desire for a pan-Islamic caliphate devoid of Jews.

I’m obviously convinced, especially when you observe the emphasis (in fascism and in Sharia) of the state or the society over the individual. Thoughts?

Chancellor Birgeneau:

The second major initiative we have, and this is actually the first public announcement of this, is that at Berkeley we are creating a new leadership position which will be at the highest level other than chancellor and it will be a vice chancellor for equity and inclusion. Right after Labor Day, we’ll be putting together a committee, which I will chair, to begin a national search to fill this position…

This position is relatively new in the United States. I want to emphasize that this is very different from what is at most universities… [where] there’s a single person who’s special assistant, say, to the president or the chancellor, and that this person will have a large organization under them and will act with authority on these matters.

One has to wonder what sort of “matters” the “vice chancellor for equity and inclusion” will “act with authority on.” It all sounds like a waste of time and money, accomplishing nothing but feeding the egos of those who thrive on feel-good positions of power.

The not-so-hidden objective is obviously getting around Proposition 209, the state’s affirmative action ban. That has been Birgeneau’s plan all along. Everything else about sexual orientation, religion, disabilities, etc. is just a smokescreen. It’s about 209.

And even if it’s about more than 209, I still don’t see the point. Birgeneau states:

“to be part of this community, they’re not required to homogenize and assimilate into basically one set of identical people with a single set of views.”

I completely agree, this is what makes us human. So keep it at that. Why set up these wasteful bureaucracies when the only requirement for people to be free is to just let them be? Personally, I think that this “large organization” that can “act with authority” will only serve to make things worse, pitting minority against minority.

Here’s hoping we’ll at least get some good blog fodder from the new V.C.E.I.

Freshmen and other students began moving into the dorms this weekend. Not even a day went by before they got to experience their first taste of Cal:

Custodians at U.C. Berkeley staged a noisy protest on Sunday as freshman and returning upper classman started moving into the dorms.

Chants of “No Justice, No Peace” and “Escucha, escucha, estamos en la lucha” filled the south side of campus as thousands of students unloaded their boxes of belongings on Move-In Day…

For the last seven years, Guadalupe Castro said, she has earned $24,000 a year to keep student dormitories neat and tidy. “I can’t support my family,” she told KCBS reporter Doug Sovern.

Just the first of many. The first of many…

The latest issue of The American Conservative is dedicated to trying to answer the question: “What is Left? What is Right? Does it Matter?” To do so, their editors invited figures from all over the political spectrum to contribute. Where else are you going to see representatives from The Nation, The American Prospect, The Weekly Standard, National Review, Reason, and much more, all in the same place? I think that the editors of The American Conservative should be applauded for making this issue happen. Let’s hope that they spur the discussion that this country desperately needs to have.

I really recommend that you check out all of the essays, but I’ll try and sum up and comment on the key points below. I have only read the first half of the issue, so I’ll save the rest for another day. (more…)

Earlier this week President Bush signed a bill into law allowing the transfer of a 29 foot cross from the city of San Diego to the federal government. This could put an end to a legal battle that has raged for 17 years.

The trouble started in 1989 when an atheist Vietnam era veteran sued the city over the religious display on public land. He claimed the cross was showing a preference for Christianity and excluded other faiths and people of no religious belief. The cross has been in place since 1954. The saga of the Mount Soledad Cross is long and involved.

Does the presence of a cross on public land constitute a government endorsement of religion? I say no. I don’t see an endorsement of Christianity in a cross in a park. I don’t see government agents or anyone else blocking the exercise or expression of anyone’s religion, except maybe the ones who want to tear down the cross.

Even worse is the removal of a cross from the Los Angeles county seal in 2004. While it was there to represent the influence and early settlement by Spanish missionaries it was seen as a government endorsement of religion and removed upon threat of a lawsuit by the ACLU.

This is part of a larger trend to remove any display of religion from public life. Which is just as dangerous as a state sponsored religion. I don’t know the difference between an officially atheist government and one that shuns all religious displays. At the rate we are going we will soon find out.

The Daily Cal reports on Berkeley’s upcoming anti-underage drinking efforts:

A state alcohol agency that traditionally only funds city law enforcement has awarded UC Berkeley police a grant to combat underage drinking for the first time in campus history, while also handing Berkeley city police funds for the fourth consecutive year.

With the $40,000 grant, the UC Berkeley police department becomes the first university police force to receive a grant from the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control’s grant assistance program.

“We understand our responsibility being the first ones to get it,” said UC police Lt. Doug Wing.

What responsibility? Waste tax dollars?

The funds to campus and city police come as local and state officials report a rise in underage drinking, and local neighborhood associations lodge complaints about a spate of alcohol-related nuisances, including large parties, vandalism, litter and public urination…

Wing said the new funding will go toward a number of uses, including minor decoy operations, inspections of facilities licensed to serve or sell alcohol, and presentations to help alcohol servers identify fake identification cards and otherwise comply with state laws.

“What this does is give us money to bring officers in on over time that are specifically focused on these areas, so we can do more of it then we were able to do before,” he said, adding that campus police will continue collaborating with city police.

Great. The only thing worse than bad laws are when bad laws are mercilessly enforced. Besides killing the spirit of liberty, using resources to target victimless crimes takes away from targeting crimes that actually hurt people. Like theft. Or assault. Crimes that have actually affected me and my friends, and probably you and yours. The 19-year-old who uses a fake ID to buy some Smirnoff to drink with his roommates? Explain to me who the victims are.

Now there will always be people who are irresponsible with their alcohol. I happen to think that this problem has been exacerbated by the unreasonably high drinking age. Instead of making things worse by forcing the problem deeper into the underground, let’s try a different approach: Reduce enforcement of alcohol offenses to the lowest levels and increase programs for real campus safety. Let the alcohol establishments decide for themselves how strict to follow regulations. I’m sure this is all very illegal and will piss off the state and the feds, but isn’t that what Berkeley is known for?

None of this will ever happen, of course. I wonder how much narcs get paid…

The university’s press release is also available.