A few weeks back, I posted about how a growing number of conservatives and libertarians are hoping to see Republicans lose control of Congress in the upcoming election. I count myself among the discontented.

So I probably shouldn’t have been so surprised to have found myself subscribed to the mailing list of the Campaign for a National Majority, the self-described “Future of the Democratic Party.” They asked me to publicize their endorsement of the Democrat candidate for State Controller of California. I even got a personalized followup email from them, nagging me about their endorsement.

I can see how they could have gotten confused about my intentions. “I want the Republicans to lose.” That supposedly translates to “I want the Democrats to win,” which couldn’t be further from the truth. In our de facto two-party system, one party losing means the other party wins. It’s crap, but it’s reality. I don’t want the Democrats to win, but that will be the side effect if my hope of Republicans losing comes true.

In a perfect world, we would be able to punish the Republicans without rewarding the Democrats. Both deserve to lose. As former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey put it in this footnote to his recent GOP bashing:

Perhaps the only thing more embarrassing than being a loyal Republican in this election season is being a loyal Democrat.

With so much discontent in the air, the two-party system is either a few election cycles away from death or stronger than ever. I hope for the former, but the latter makes more sense given the embrace of sadomasochistic politics (that is to say, partisanship for partisanship’s sake).

In conclusion, I will be voting against the Republicans nationally this November. I will be voting against the Democrats statewide. Both parties have abused the power they have in their respective jurisdictions, and only a fool would vote to grant them more.

How’s that for an endorsement?

A new study is making some waves online. From the San Francisco Chronicle:

Out of 50 schools surveyed, Cal ranked 49th and Stanford 31st in how well they are increasing student knowledge about American history and civics between the freshman and senior years. And they’re not alone among major universities in being fitted for a civics dunce cap…

At UC Berkeley, the results showed freshmen knew more than soon-to-graduate seniors. Freshmen scored an average of 60.4, and seniors scored an average of 54.8. That earned Cal a failing grade, the researchers said.

The backers of the study call it a “crisis”:

“It is at a point in history in this country where it has probably never been more important,” said Eugene Hickok, a former U.S. deputy secretary of education and a member of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. “The study tells us we have a rising generation of bright, intelligent citizens that won’t have the knowledge they need to be informed citizens. We are really only a generation or two away from a republic in pretty big trouble.”

Some professors are skeptical, but acknowledge the importance of learning history:

“There may be real issues here about how universities should organize their curriculum, but there is a scandal-mongering aspect to the way this survey has been presented,” said Professor David Hollinger, chairman of the UC Berkeley history department. “I would not assume that this is a credible survey without more scrutiny.” […]

“I do not doubt that Americans would be better off knowing more history than they do,” Hollinger said. “And I do not doubt that Berkeley would be wise to consider requiring more history than it does.”

And some Berkeley students are pissed at the media’s focus on Berkeley.

Conclusion:

Among the key recommendations in the report are that colleges and universities increase the number of required history, political science and economics courses, improve their assessments of what students are learning, and build academic centers on campus to encourage and support the “restoration” of teaching American history and civics.

To be honest, I’m probably among the seniors who have forgotten much of the historical facts that they came in knowing as freshmen. Yet from the reading I do (in my spare time, never assigned…), I probably know a lot more in general about history, politics, economics, etc. than I did before. Maybe not specific dates or names or places, but important stuff nonetheless. I’d rather not be forced to learn this stuff in a class. Maybe some students are only motivated to learn about these subjects in a classroom environment, but it works the opposite way with me (and probably many others).

More class requirements? I’d rather not. But how about the rest of you?

You can find out more about the report from americancivicliteracy.org.

Sad news from Truth Caucus (via Wonkette):

Justin Zatkoff, the executive director of the Michigan College Republicans, was brutally beaten after leaving a party in Ann Arbor on Saturday night. The Oakland University junior from Bloomfield Hills, Mich. was rumored to be targeted by militant leftist groups. Zatkoff, pictured above, did not know his attacker, and no money was stolen.

A source close to Zatkoff reports:

Justin may have been 1. randomly attacked (but not robbed??), 2. attacked by BAMN (well known for violence andstrong in Ann Arbor), or 3. attacked by a homosexual rights group (Justin received an ‘odd/threatening’ email from a gay rights group about a day before the attack.)

I’m not one to jump to conclusions. I go with the assumption of random violence unless there’s credible evidence otherwise. There’s something unsavory about using a personal tragedy to score political points, especially when a connection is pure speculation.

I blogged about another case of violence in Michigan last year, where a BAMN member was murdered and a BAMN supporter tried to place the blame on their political opponents. He quickly retracted.

In any case, let’s hope that the victim recovers and that the criminals are found and punished.

Execution by lethal injection is about to go on trial in California:

Attorneys for Michael Morales, who was sentenced to death for the 1981 murder of Terri Lynn Winchell in Lodi, will try to show that California’s procedures violate the 8th Amendment to the Constitution because they may inflict unreasonable pain upon inmates.

The case has ramifications not only for the 638 individuals scheduled to die in California but for inmates in other states, including Maryland and Missouri, where court challenges to lethal injection are also pending…

The issue may wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The goal here is to ban a potentially “cruel and unusual” execution method. However, I believe that the big picture goal is to end the death penalty alltogether. What I wonder, in cases like these, is whether the wrong strategy is being used.

Suppose that the lethal injection (in its current form) is ruled unconstitutional. Wouldn’t the state just find change the chemical composition of the injections, or use an entirely different “approved” method? The winners of the case have spared the condemned only from the “cruel and unusual” part of an execution, not the execution itself. Of course the victory may be of inherent value (preventing suffering), but does it advance the larger cause?

I think it could even hurt the cause. Hypothetically, what if a mixture of chemicals existed that was scientifically proven to execute someone blissfully? What happens to the current strategy of knocking down individual execution methods on the basis of “cruelty”? All of that time was spent arguing the specifics of each method at the expense of arguing the bigger picture point. End result, the public is satisified with compromise while the activists return to square one.

The same pattern also applies to ending the War on Drugs. Medical marijuana, though a legitimate issue in itself, is not the same as full-blown legalization. The time spent arguing the medical uses of the plant does nothing to advance the philosophical arguments against prohibition. In fact, the whole issue gives credence to the notion that there has to be a good reason for a drug to be legal (and thus government has a role). If and when medical marijuana is legalized thoughout much of the country, what next? Argue for the medical use of another illegal drug? Square one.

Same thing for those wishing to outlaw abortion by first outlawing partial birth abortion, or those wanting to completely privatize schools by first supporting school vouchers. If the vast majority of people are satisfied with the compromise, then does that dilute the support for the larger issue? Is compromise worse than losing?

The counterarguments that I can think of are two: One, the subissue is something worth fighting for and at least a step in the direction. Two, the subissue can be a trojan horse by at least getting people to reconsider their viewpoints.

I don’t know. Any thoughts?

Sorry about the lack of blogging. Honestly, there’s just not that much in the news these days that I feel motivated to blog about. So allow me to return to the letters to the editor that I’ve ignored for some time now. There, in the profound and profoundly stupid rantings of our fellow humans, I can always find inspiration.

In today’s Chronicle, Justin van Zandt of San Francisco writes that liberals should raise more children to compete with conservatives:

People say it’s “socially responsible” to have 0-1 kids. As a liberal Democrat raising four in San Francisco, I ask: Are you thinking about this and not selfish concerns? If so, adopt children. If all liberals, gay, lesbian and straight, had or adopted two to three kids from here or abroad, we’d get future liberals.

Liberals adoping children helps alleviate the problem of children without parents while also allowing the liberals who are concerned with population control to honor their beliefs. I’d say that a child having at least one loving parent is always a good thing when compared to the alternatives. Yes, even in the case of homosexual adoptions. So even if spreading ideology is an ulterior motive, one can hardly argue against (and should mostly applaud) those that choose to help children in need.

Moving on to the idea that ideology is transfered from generation to generation… Is this always the case? No one will argue against the fact that a child is profoundly impacted during the process of “growing up” (in both obvious and subtle ways). Yet how often is it that a grown child believes exactly what his or her parents believe? Will all of the children now growing up in religious right Republican households vote that way 20 years from now? Same question for the children growing up in progressive left families. Is the political landscape of the future solely determined by today’s family compositions? Or do social factors play much more of a role? I personally believe in the latter, given the massive and seemingly unpredicatable political shifts that seem to come every 20 years.

Switching gears again, van Zandt unfortunately slips in some arrogant condescention:

A well-raised kid here grows up with better culture, education and experiences than is possible in Utah or similar spots.

How can he even state this with a straight face? This is the kind of elitism that the left so conveniently ignores while railing against the other “-isms” of the world.

“I’m better than you because you grew up in Utah.”

“I’m better than you because you are black.”

On the surface, the latter seems much more offensive. However, I personally believe that the two are equal expressions of intolerance: Hate based solely on subjective notions of value when comparing things that are not inherently dangerous to others. This may seem like a radical idea, and I think that’s because it is. Both the left and right have much to learn when it comes to true tolerance. If van Zandt’s children do pick up his ideology, then I can only hope that some external social force helps guide them toward a more enlightened understanding of tolerance.

Which brings me to my last point that brings together all of my recent thoughts. Over the weekend, I finally had the chance to view the movie Thank You for Smoking. Let me say that I’ve finally found a movie (and a great one to boot) that says the things that I believe. I really enjoyed the dynamic between the father and his son, as the father tries to teach his son about how he sees the world. The twist is that the father has a libertarian worldview that makes much of the country uncomfortable. So, at least in my opinion, by giving his son the opportunity to learn about choice and freedom and tolerance, he deserves the top spot in the Hall of Fictional Fathers.

I guess I can see where van Zandt is coming from, trying to raise his children to believe as he believes. If and when I have my own children, I hope I can do as great a job as the dad from the movie. The left and right still rely on selective notions of tolerance to support their convoluted beliefs. All I would need to do is pass on the principle of tolerance, and liberty naturally follows. Can it be that easy?

A particularly disgusting story:

The defense attorney for a 19-year-old San Leandro man admitted today that his client participated in the “horrific” beating death of a 100-pound homeless woman in Berkeley last year but said he shouldn’t be convicted of murder.

In his closing argument in the trial of Jarell Johnson and Derrell Morgan, a 19-year-old Berkeley man, for the death of 49-year-old Maria Catherine King, Alameda County Deputy Public Defender Ray Plumhoff said Johnson “is a thug, but that doesn’t make him into a murderer.”

Plumhoff told jurors that Johnson should be convicted of something less than murder because “he was reacting to a dispute that got out of hand but he had no intention of killing her.

What did this “non-murderer” do?

Beltramo said King was “motionless, soundless and defenseless” after being knocked to the ground, but instead of helping King or just walking away, Morgan and Johnson kicked her in her vital organs at least three times each.

He said the manager of an apartment building across the street who saw part of the incident from his window said the two men were kicking something as if they were kicking a soccer ball as hard as they could.

Beltramo told jurors, “It wasn’t a soccer ball, it was a woman’s head.”

How about thug and murderer? Lock this guy up and cut off any form of human contact. Death would be too kind for this monster.

Today the Governor issued this statement about the economy:

“In August, California added 37,000 new jobs, nearly 30 percentage of the 125,000 jobs created nationwide.� I am proud that since taking office we’ve seen over 600,000 jobs created for California.� � The Golden State continues to help lead the way to economic prosperity - this is terrific news for all Californians and the country.� � We have created a positive business climate. We’ve turned our economy around, cut taxes and lowered workers compensation costs.� California is the economic engine for the nation.”

I couldn’t agree more with the Governor, and am very pleased to see businesses thriving in California again, and people able to find work. The Governor’s economic policies are working.

We are creating jobs.

National Review Contributing Editor Deroy Murdock has an excellent article out about the ridiculous September 8 Senate report that showed Saddam and Al Qaeda had no operational link.

Thoughts?

P.S. Bonus points will be given to thoughts that deal with the original topic at hand.

Andrew Quinio reports on today’s union protest on campus for higher wages and against the Diversity Czar:

A group of protesters gathered outside California Hall, the building that houses the office of Chancellor Robert Birgeneau, to decry what they considered “poverty wages” being paid to University of California custodial staff. About 40 people participated in the demonstration, including UC Berkeley students and UC employees represented by the AFSCME Local 3299, the union representing state, county, and municipal employees. Protestors marched in circles during the late afternoon and yelled out several slogans, while others gathered signatures for a petition that expressed support for their cause…

But wages were not the only thing that the crowd was upset about. What initially sparked today’s protest was the announcement of the new Vice Chancellor of Equity and Inclusion position. The new post, announced by Chancellor Birgeneau in late August, will come with a salary of between $182,000 and $282,000 and a budget of $4.5 million. “The 4.5 million budget is appalling,” Schlitz said. According to Schlitz, the Chancellor told the union that there was simply no money to increase the salaries of the custodial staff.

The progressive Washington Monthly magazine has published an issue full of articles from conservatives. The feature is entitled “Time For Us To Go: Conservatives on why the GOP should lose in 2006.”

Bruce Bartlett says: “Bring on Pelosi.” Joe Scarborough sighs: “And we thought Clinton had no self-control.” Bruce Fein demands: “Restrain this White House.”

My favorite came from Christopher Buckley, son of anti-Bush conservative hero William F. Buckley of the National Review, and brain behind the recent movie Thank You for Smoking. His essay is entitled “Let’s quit while we’re behind.” Allow me to excerpt the great conclusion:

What have they done to my party? Where does one go to get it back?
One place comes to mind: the back benches. It’s time for a time-out. Time to hand over this sorry enchilada to Hillary and Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden and Charlie Rangel and Harry Reid, who has the gift of being able to induce sleep in 30 seconds. Or, with any luck, to Mark Warner or, what the heck, Al Gore. I’m not much into polar bears, but this heat wave has me thinking the man might be on to something.

My fellow Republicans, it is time, as Madison said in Federalist 76, to “Hand over the tiller of governance, that others may fuck things up for a change.”

(Or was it Federalist 78?)

Can’t deny the logic.

Today in game theory, my professor introduced us to an example of a situation in politics that he called “the scoundrel versus the upstanding candidate.” He then proceeded to describe two options either candidate had: run an issue-based campaign or a dirty campaign, and then proceeded to list the possible outcomes of what could happen if the two candidates picked different options.

I thought it was an over-simplification. Then I came home and read this about the source of those� terrible, racist� private tape recordings that fell short of damaging the Governor.

I feel sorry for Angelides and his campaign people at this point. To me, it’s a sign of desperation. They truly are reaching for the bottom of the barrel, since the Governor has Angelides beat on the issues, and in terms of personality and managerial skill. Sean Hannity said it best: “The only person it offended was the one guy that doesn’t have a campaign to run on, who has a history of basically running in gutter politics.”

By the way, in case you� were wondering, the upstanding candidate wins in the scenerio when the scoundrel plays dirty. In theory.

A memorial was held on Monday night in memory of those who were killed five years ago.

The speakers included a representative from the University of California Police Department. ASUC President Oren Gabriel reminded those assembled of the selfless actions of Cal graduate Mark Bingham, who was on board Flight 93. Jewish Student Union President Lev Ingman shared what the freedom of the United States meant to him as an immigrant. Including the sacrifices his parents made so he could have the opportunity to attend a school like Cal. The Berkeley College Republicans and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies sponsored the event.

Yesterday was a difficult day for me. Aside from attending six hours of class my heart was broken. As I was standing listening to everything, the magnitude of the lives lost hit me. Aside from those who died children lost their parents, husbands and wives lost their spouses, and people lost their next door neighbors.

Then I realized that no matter how terrible my day could be 3,000 people never had a chance to live today. Their lives were abruptly ended on what seemed like any Tuesday morning. They can’t laugh, they can’t cry, they can’t listen to a friend, so I have to. That is why I have to live a good full life. After I die I will met some of those people who died that day. They will inevitably ask me what I did with my life, especially after theirs’ were cut tragically short. I want to be able to look them in the eye and say I lived the best life I could. I want to say I used every minute they never had. There can be no greater disgrace to those who died then a life only half lived.

Scott Lucas, former Cal Dems president and current Daily Cal columnist, had a column today entitled ‘Five Years of Politicking.’ Lucas seems to be calling for less namecalling and more bipartisanship, especially in the area of foreign policy. Pretty standard stuff. Way to play it safe.

His conclusion, however, stuck out like a sore thumb. Is he trying to be rhetorical here, or is he just plain ignorant?

It’s been five years since Sept. 11, and in the aftermath the president and many others made the case that American life was going to be different, and that we were going to have to make sacrifices during a time of war. I ask how much and in what ways has the country changed, if at all? How many sacrifices have we made?

Let’s see:

• ~3000 dead in initial attacks
• Many thousands more physically and mentally scarred
• Millions indirectly from impact on businesses
• Fear of terrorism imprinted in national psyche
• Shift in balance from liberty to “security”
• PATRIOT Act
• Department of Homeland Security
• TSA
• Millions of man-hours wasted on “security” checks
• Spying on and wiretapping citizens
• War in Afghanistan and Iraq
• Thousands of soldiers killed, many more injured
• Damage to America’s international reputation
• GOP abandonment of any bright spots on domestic agenda
• GOP embrace of big government
• GOP embrace of reckless spending
• GOP embrace of warfare state
• Widespread disillusionment on all sides

Do I even have to continue? Feel free to add on.

“What ways has the country changed, if at all?” I don’t know how you can even ask that question, with that qualifier, when we all know full well the laundry list of responses. That day profoundly affected the course of history. All for the worse.

From the Chronicle:

A new state law makes it a punishable offense to take more than 25 copies of a free newspaper for reasons other than reading them.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill that would fine offenders up to $250 for the first infraction. On subsequent offenses, the crime could become a misdemeanor punishable by up to 10 days in county jail and a fine of up to $500….

Berkeley’s City Council passed a similar ordinance in 2003, about a year after Mayor Tom Bates admitted that during his campaign he took 1,000 copies of the Daily Californian, a UC Berkeley student newspaper, and tossed them in the garbage.

The paper had endorsed his opponent, incumbent Shirley Dean.

Bates was fined $100 for petty theft. He pledged at the time to push for local and state legislation specifically banning stealing free newspapers.

The Patriot helped break the Bates story back in 2002.