This may be why Ifill’s moderating the Vice Presidential Debate.

I am still waiting for Obama and Biden to get grilled by the media, and I’ve been paying very close attention. Even O’Reilly’s interview let Obama off easy. Biden’s recent gaffes have basically been brushed off by the media, as if they are simply laughing, “Oh, there goes old Joe again. It’s what he does.” And Obama and Biden seem to disagree more than McCain and Palin, but the differences between the latter are more widely reported.
It’s also not just gaffes we are talking about. It’s real issues regarding the candidate’s backgrounds that the media is inadequately reporting. They seem to think that Wasilla, Alaska has more political dirt and corruption than Chicago.
I also wouldn’t say that Obama’s foreign policy credentials count as “experience.” He certainly has foregin policy knowledge, but the real experience comes from McCain.

You may or may not have noticed the pro-Obama table on Sproul earlier today. I sure didn’t.

But a friend of mine did and he noticed something that, while not totally unexpected, is rather unfortunate, whichever way you look at it:

$ FOR OBAMA
DARTS @ PALIN

a sign reads. With a dartboard.

From what I have heard, this was the sort of thing where you donate money and you get to do some carnival-like activity. In this case, the idea is to give away your hard-earned money to throw darts at a likeness of Gov. Sarah Palin.

As usual, liberals, super classy.

But, as I suspected, the Obamaniacs on Sproul aren’t the only ones to have thought of capitalizing on the campus’s hatred for Republicans.

In fact, this reminds me of the time when another political student group asked for donations while offering a fun carnival-like activity.

All in favor of dunking a Republican: Head on over to the BCR table, located on Sproul, 10-2, Monday thru Friday.

From the comments and tags my last article has been getting, I take it most people out there want the media to scrutinize the Republican’s V.P. candidate, Governor Sarah Palin:

“If he wins, John McCain will be the oldest president ever elected…. Therefore, it is imperative that we know what our potential VP thinks about the economy, foreign affairs, and the like.”

“A vote for McCain is a vote for Palin. And that’s a scary, scary thought.”

And, my favorite: “If she’s to be a future VP of the US, why not? There’s nothing wrong with grilling the people you’re going to vote into office.”

True, true, and true. Well, maybe true, 26gut. I don’t know if it’s as scary a thought as you think, especially considering the alternative. But I understand the need for concern.

My point, I guess, though it is simple, wasn’t clear enough: Why not all the attacks on Obama? Or Biden, for that matter! Last I checked Obama had a V.P nominee. Today, I may have to go searching the archives on the New York Times website for articles telling me his positions on foreign policy or on Youtube for his latest interview with Charles Gibson. As a young voter, and a Republican, I’m concerned I don’t know enough about the man who may be President. Because, looking at the evidence, shouldn’t we be more worried about Obama dying in office than McCain? Sure, Obama’s the younger of the two, and McCain is old. But McCain’s mother is still alive!

Yep, in case you missed it, People Magazine did a cover story on the McCain family—twice! In it, we learn all about John’s long history as a Vietnam veteran, POW, second-career Senator, father of seven, Washington “Maverick,” and now Republican Presidential nominee—though he ran eight years ago, bowing out as the runner-up, and George Bush’s only real contender. In it, we also learn that his mother is alive and well, 96 years young. (Yes, Roberta McCain can still be seen out on the campaign trail every now and then.)

But, so what, right? Obama’s received death threats non-stop since he began campaigning. Even a staggering number of famous liberals have predicted their chosen one will be assassinated if not before he wins the White House, then soon thereafter. So, you’re right, McCain’s age is what we need to worry about. Be it even at the cost of overlooking Obama’s only recent decision-of-note: Choosing Joe Biden to be the next Vice President of the United States.

(FYI: Some of Biden’s qualifications after thirty-four years in the Senate:

1) Longest-serving U.S. Senator in the history of Delaware;
2) chair of the confirmation/embarrassment hearings of then-nominated Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas;
3) son and brother accused of defrauding their former business partner and an investor of millions of dollars;
4) blowhard;
5) failing his first year of law school;
6) plagiarism;
7) and getting 1% of the people of Iowa to vote for him earlier this year in his second bid for the White House.

Clearly, Palin is the only one we need to vet; the only “scary, scary thought” in this election.)

If my point isn’t clear yet, here it is: Grill! Grill! Grill! If Sarah Palin is running to lead the country, absolutely the media should jump on her every word. Now, cross out “Sarah Palin” in that sentence, and write in “Barack Obama.” Then, cross out “Barack Obama,” and put “Joe Biden.” And after that, cross out whosever name you wrote last, and put “John McCain,” because they are all running in this election, and if you really want to be fair, and if you really think that it is imperative that we know where each candidate stands on the issues of our time, affecting our country, then, please, grill them all.

An interesting debate took place over the last few weeks in the ASUC Senate regarding the end of the tree sitters. It began at the September 10th meeting when Senator Kifah Shah made these remarks:

Israeli historian Ilan Pappe refers to the uprooting of the indigenous Palestinian population’s olive trees as “memoricide.” As the Israeli government displaces Palestinian people, destroys their homes and villages, and uproots their olive tree groves, it expects us to forget. But we will never forget Palestine.

Similarly, we are currently living on stolen Ohlone land, and this past weekend, the oak grove was uprooted. What the oak grove represented was not only an environmental issue, but also a political one. The United States government has yet to apologize for the genocide of 96 million indigenous peoples of the Americas who died from starvation, disease, forced removal, false treaties, reservation systems, and murder.

I am here to ask that we as leaders of this campus acknowledge that the oak grove’s destruction means that we are allowing the University and our student government to participate in memoricide. We are all guilty of turning our backs on the Ohlone people, as well as the other indigenous communities of this land, when we allow the university to bulldoze the oak grove and in its place build a sports facility.

The next week, BCR (Berkeley College Republicans) Senator Tommy Owens offered a response:

So I’m glad that a Senator last week raised the issue of the tree-sitters/lawsuits, because it’s an issue I feel very strongly about. In the interest of time, I will try to keep my announcement brief.

The total cost of this protest, as estimated by the Daily Cal, is somewhere in the neighborhood of $21.5 million — $20 million in construction delays, $1.5 million in security costs. To the pro-tree-sitter Sena­tors and audience members, because you so ardently supported this protest and the financial implications thereof, I’ll be passing around a hat for donations after we adjourn.

The fact is that the tree-sitters made no attempt to include the student body in their quixotic demonstra­tion. Perhaps it’s due to the fact that they were not Cal students themselves. Perhaps it’s due to the heavy influence of recreational substances. Or maybe, just maybe, they didn’t have anybody’s interests at heart but their own.

If we as a Senate value dialogue, we should have a voice in protests occurring on our campus. If we value underprivileged high school students coming to Cal on scholarship, $1.5 million bucks to guard four knuckleheads in a tree is a shameful crime. And if we value the financial health of the University, given the State budget and the national economy, there are 20 million reasons to not support this monstrosity of a publicity stunt.

I yield none of my remaining time

A very interesting point. How can a person who values higher education and believes it to be underfunded also support allowing a protest to continue that eats up vital and limited dollars?

In Katie Couric’s interview of Governor Sarah Palin, the umpteenth attempted “gotcha” moment—coincidentally, also the umpteenth question—was when she asked Gov. Palin whether or not it is wise to engage in direct diplomacy with rogue nations, as supported by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Couric asked: “Do you believe the U.S. should negotiate with leaders like President Assad and Ahmadinejad?” Palin responded, resolutely: “Not without preconditions.”

The gotcha nature of this question became clear once The Affable Eva Braun of Morning TV (now of CBS Evening News, and not so affable) shot back: “So are you saying Henry Kissinger is naïve for supporting that?” Palin had just met Kissinger—now all of a sudden the MSM’s go-to guy when it comes to foreign policy. But while Palin holds the same position as the rest of today’s foreign policy experts, including the current Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Katie Couric felt the need to “correct” the record. After the interview, Couric announced: “Incidentally, we confirmed Henry Kissinger’s position following our interview; he told us he supports talks if not with Ahmadinejad, then with high-level Iranian officials without preconditions.”

Two things come to mind from all of this: First, what exactly is Katie saying here? Is it more important to make Sarah Palin look like a fool than it is to grasp the idea that when dealing with heads of state who think Israel is a “dying corpse” and needs to be annihilated, it is best to use what leverage we have in order to make the best deal possible, and, more importantly, concede nothing to those who may become our mortal enemies?

Moreover, does the MSM’s goal of eviscerating the Republican V.P. nominee on public television trump common sense? Whether or not Kissinger would negotiate with Iran and Syria without preconditions is irrelevant when the fact of the matter is we are talking about dealing with leaders who are for funding terrorists, blowing up Israel, and executing its own people for being gay.

To use a recent quote by Matt Damon, Couric’s fascination with watching Palin squirm is not just creepy, “it’s absurd!”

Which brings me to my second observation: Why all the attacks on Palin? Obama is the one who has been waffling—and not just on this issue! In his first presidential debate with John McCain, Obama denied the fact that he has been pledging throughout his campaign that he would meet with rogue nations without preconditions. As early as March of this year, Hillary Clinton called him out on this, saying her opponent’s intentions at the time were “irresponsible and frankly naive.”

And, not to belabor the point, who is to say Couric’s closer is completely accurate? Grammatically speaking, there is a slight ambiguity. One thing John McCain mentioned in the debate Friday was that Henry Kissinger may be for meeting certain representatives of state without preconditions, as is and has been standard policy, but that he certainly has never advocated negotiating with leaders of those states without preconditions. Katie’s use of “high-level” is even disputable in this case, and as I haven’t come across any record contradicting the conventional wisdom of those who we know have met Kissinger, I am tempted to side with the Republicans on this one.

But alas! While CBS’s David Letterman is privy to unaired tapes of Couric’s “exclusive” Sarah Palin interview, no sound-bite, email, or otherwise semi-legitimate documentation of Kissinger’s admission has yet been made available by the reputable news network. Once again, it seems, we’ll just have to take C-BS’s word for it.

The first presidential debate between Senators Barack Obama and John McCain is tonight! Come watch it with the Berkeley College Republicans (and maybe even some Cal Dems) at the IGS Library, 1st floor of Moses Hall. Get there early–the debate starts at 6!

A great step forward for fiscal responsibility in the UC system. Let’s hope it’s the beginning of a trend.

This year, September 11 marked the seventh anniversary of 9/11, a day that will indeed live in infamy—even if in only half of America. When the Berkeley College Republicans invited the Cal Dems to participate in the Young America’s Foundation-sponsored 9/11 Never Forget Project this year, the Democrats at Cal declined.

Now, this may have been for various reasons, not least of which happens to be the fact that these are Democrats and Republicans we’re talking about! But as September 11 rolled on by—relatively uneventful, thank God—one would have to be thick to believe that the memorial of flags outside California Hall was anything but Republican. The Berkeley College Republicans not only were alone at 6:30 am setting up, and later that evening taking down the couple hundred or so flags, short of several thousand, that marked the memorial, they were also alone throughout the day as they tabled at the site (picture a panorama of American flags, table represented by Berkeley College Republicans, no table represented by Democrats), and were alone as well for a candlelight vigil, moment of silence, and recital of God Bless America.

Democrats, this doesn’t sound too conservative, I hope.

You would think that as members of a party that is still so worried about “unity” as far as the upcoming Presidential election is concerned the Democrats would be jumping at the opportunity to follow the head of their ticket’s lead. As a reporter who attended the 9/11 BCR Meeting last Thursday put it, “What does it mean to you that Senator Obama and Senator McCain both attended the memorial at Ground Zero this morning, and that they were seen walking together, side-by-side?” I would again be pointing out the obvious if I told you my response was: On a day such as 9/11 partisan politics do not matter. Seven years ago each of us exemplified that patriotism, despite our political beliefs, and quite simply put our country first.

So why, seven years later, do some at Berkeley, and, sadly, across America, hesitate or even refuse to take part in Patriot Day*? Evidently, Barack Obama has no problem with taking the same stride as John McCain on such a day. But based on the Berkeley Democrats’ absence from any of the activities surrounding Thursday’s memorial, one is forced to conclude one of two things: Either Obama’s attendance at Thursday’s memorial in New York City is part of a shameless ploy to court undecided and Independent voters, or—and this is the one I believe is accurate—his sensibilities vary considerably with the “youth vote” that so many Cal students seem to represent.

Moreover, it was not just students that were neglecting the remembrance of those lost. As I later heard it, it was up to members of the Berkeley College Republicans to remind the University that the American flag flies at half-staff on September 11 after it was noticed that the University had, in either a lapse in judgment or sheer ignorance, neglected to make sure this was done.

In the seventh year of a terror-free America, I am proud of my country. In fact, I am as proud as ever. And with the help of the men and women who defend this country, and a little recognition every now and then from our universities, there should still be an America by next year’s Eleventh of September. We should all take notice of an American flag then, too.

*Reminder: Patriot Day, for those of you who have wittingly or unwittingly forgotten (which is understandable, as it is a fact seldom uttered), is the Eleventh of September, and has been ever since a group of Muslim terrorists hijacked American planes, and flew them into the ground, the Pentagon, and the Twin Towers, taking an estimated 3,000 lives seven years ago.

Down in Oakland, they could really use some leadership. The city had 127 homicides last year and has experienced 102 so far this year (as of this past Sunday). This has a direct impact on Berkeley as well, since the boundary line between Oakland and Berkeley is so featureless that any crime spike down there is sure to drift up north.

Unfortunately, the city isn’t getting the strong, anti-crime mayor that it desperately needs. A very interesting article in the East Bay Express suggests that perhaps the reason Mayor Rom Dellums can’t get the traction he needs is because of his wife, who they portray as a “quasi second mayor.”

A very thought provoking read.

A California Court of Appeal in Sacramento has sent back to Yolo County Superior Court a case which challenges the legality of in state tuition for undocumented residents. The case had been thrown out of superior court.

The Volokh Conspiracy has posted the basic findings of the opinion:

[T]he most significant issue [in this case] is whether California’s authorization of in-state tuition to illegal aliens violates a federal law, title 8 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) section 1623, which provides as pertinent:

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.”

The respondents argue the federal statute is not violated for two reasons:

1. Respondents say in-state tuition is not a “benefit” within the meaning of the federal law. For reasons we shall explain, we conclude in-state tuition, which is some $17,000 per year cheaper than out-of-state tuition at UC, is a “benefit” conferred on illegal aliens within the meaning of the federal law.

2. Respondents argue in-state tuition is not granted “on the basis of residence within a state” as required by federal law. Respondents point to the fact that in-state tuition for illegal aliens is based on a student’s having attended a California high school for three or more years and on the student’s having graduated from a California high school or having attained “the equivalent thereof.” As we shall explain, the three-year attendance requirement at a California high school is a surrogate residence requirement. The vast majority of students who attend a California high school for three years are residents of the state of California. Section 68130.5 thwarts the will of Congress manifest in title 8 U.S.C. section 1623.

While not directly related to the legality of the in-state tuition, this raises a significant question for the UC/CSU/State of California respondents that will be trying this case in the Superior Court.

Is the state actually willing to suggest that making college education much cheaper is not a benefit? If it is not, then isn’t the logical extension that college education as a whole is not a benefit to me? If so, then why am I in the process of spending four years of my life here at UC Berkeley? Am I wasting my time? If the state’s argument is true, then I must be.

It seems that the state has clearly been caught with its pants down violating the clear intent of the federal law.

Democrats frequently like to remind John McCain, and voters in the process, that he is “out of touch” with the everyday American who is struggling with finances at the kitchen table. Democrats often like to state that they are in touch with the middle-class, as they go to bed at night thinking that their economic policies best benefit those that are struggling with increasing prices at the grocery store and the pump. On the other hand, they wake up each day as if it were Christmas once McCain says something like the “fundamentals of our economy are strong” thinking they’ve got just the thing to zing him with. Well, they’re wrong.

The McCain campaign may be attempting to spin this by stating that the economy is faring poorly because of a culture of greed and corruption that exists both in Washington and Wall Street but I see it differently. McCain, I agree wholeheartedly with you that the fundamentals of our economy are in fact strong. Americans, as well as many around the world today, are facing greater economic adversity; you cannot deny that as oil, a raw material that our economy (and much of our daily lives) revolves so much around, increases exponentially in price and food grows greater and greater in cost. Yet, it does not mean that our economy is on the brink of destruction. Likewise, each and every day we are reminded of the aftermath and fallout of the housing bubble bursts as one blue-chip financial institution after another appeals to the government (and taxpayers) to bail them out. Liberals, you need not remind us constantly; we know, as does everyone else who stays even remotely in touch with some outlet of the news. It does not mean that the fundamentals of our economy are weak or poor, however!

What the Democrats (and liberals for that matter) have wrong is this: capitalism, the foundation of this nation’s economy, is what made us prosper and flourish. Capitalism has spurred great innovation intellectually and industrially, as private individuals seek participation in the economic system to get a cut of the pie. People work hard because they can achieve some value from it, they are able to make profit and be better off than they were beforehand. Capitalism is still alive and strong and is the economic system of each and every player in the world stage today. Liberals, you cannot use our current hurdles as an excuse to push your nanny-state, never-ending, all-encompassing-government-policies! We do not need the government to hold our hand; in fact I’d like it a whole lot if the government would simply keep its hands to itself; no means no Big Brother!

We need tax cuts to keep more money in people’s pockets so that they can spend, spend, spend. Did everyone forget that we are a consumer-based economy? To maintain a sense of equilibrium, which I must say does not seem to be in Washington’s understanding nowadays, we need to “fight the pork” as McCain would say. Cut the life support to all the wasteful spending in government and axe programs that would be best served in the private sector. To increase efficiency of the private sector, it would also do well to cut regulations to create a more free market. For example, allowing people to purchase health insurance across state lines would increase competition and thus be more resourceful in the realm of health care. McCain, you may draw the ire of some conservatives, yet your policy and personal stances are most definitely true and correct, you just need to remember the basics of fiscal conservatism. It’s capitalism, stupid!

The tree sitters finally had to come down today. They did so voluntarily after UC officials promised them some sort of input on campus planning, the exact details of which have yet to emerge.

Yours truly was on hand for the end. I saw all the helicopters overhead after my Philosophy class so I decided to head over to the tree grove to see what was amiss. Needless to say I was not alone. About three to four hundred other people had stopped along the side of Piedmont Avenue to observe the scene. There was definitely a silent majority present in favor of cutting down the trees. Nearly everyone I ran into was there to celebrate the end of a long, inconvenient ordeal for the UC Berkeley campus.

About 1PM word began to spread through the crowd that an agreement had been reached between UC police and the protesters to come down voluntarily. A pair of UCPD representatives in a cherry picker had been talking to the sitters all morning, obviously trying to avoid a violent and potentially dangerous confrontation.

Finally the four protesters began to descend. At this point the silent majority began to use its voice. As each member of the tree sitters began to lower themselves to the officers waiting on a scaffold below, cheers went up from the onlookers, drowning out the drumming from the hippies. Smatterings of “Roll on you Bears!” and “Go Bears!” could be heard. One gentleman near me even held up a sign announcing “Free Firewood!”

And then it was over. All the protesters were swiftly brought down and taken away in police vehicles. The crowd, including myself, began to disperse and get back to their lives and responsibilities. Unlike the tree sitters, these citizens had real things they had to do.

All and all, very good job by UCPD. They managed to avoid a confrontation while giving up nothing but the temporary loss of sanity that will come from the input sessions promised to the demonstrators. The only complaint I have is that it happened about 20 months too late.

Go Bears!

Ever since the adoption of Proposition 209, which banned the use of affirmative action in admissions decisions at California’s public universities and colleges, various campuses and departments have devised ways to increase minority enrollment without blatantly violating the law. Methods have included giving special preferences to applicants who have faced certain circumstances in their lives, such as poverty, being raised by a single parent, debilitating injury, and similar hardships. The expectation is that because minorities often experience these circumstances at a higher rate than non-minorities, the proportion of minorities at campuses will increase without the explicit use of racial preferences.

Of course, when you skirt a law you will oftentimes face accusations that you have indeed broken it. Such is the lesson being learned by the Cal Extension Campus known as UCLA, which in addition to stealing UC Berkeley’s fight song also adopted an admissions policy that is very similar, one that looks heavily at applicant’s life experiences with the non-stated goal of increasing minority enrollment. Professor Tim Groseclose, a former member of UCLA’s committee on Undergraduate Admissions, has published a scathing report that alleges the campus did in fact use race as a factor in violation of Prop 209. The full report can be read here but the professor’s main allegation is that when a minority applicant happened to mention their race in the personal statement section of the application (aka the essays) they were generally advantaged.

In order to further investigate his suspicions, Professor Groseclose asked the university to provide him with information regarding students who mentioned race in their statements. UCLA has refused his request, citing privacy concerns. Even after the Groseclose pledged to use the findings for the sole purpose of improving the admissions process at the campus and not to release them publicly, he was rebuffed.

UCLA may or may not have been illegally considering race in the application process. There is not enough evidence in the professor’s report or elsewhere that would prove such a finding. That said, there is certainly more than reasonable basis for suspicion. We know that UCLA was under tremendous political pressure to admit more minority applicants. We know that they created the new “holistic” admissions system with the all but stated goal of increasing diversity on campus. And we know that a professor who was once involved in such admissions decisions believes impropriety has occurred and his efforts to further investigate have been snuffed out.

If UCLA is truly following the law and not in any way considering race in admissions decisions, it has no reason to hide. The claim that the release of admissions information would jeopardize student privacy rights is ridiculous. The only real number that would need to be known is the percentage of students who mentioned race in their personal statements who were eventually admitted. Such numbers are routinely, often eagerly, provided by admissions offices, such as the SAT scores of entering freshmen and demographic breakdowns of students. There is no reason this data cannot be provided not only to Professor Groseclose, but to the owners of UCLA: The people of the State of California.

Perhaps UCLA is not in fact guilty of considering race in admittance. Maybe the only thing they are guilty of is considering hardships when evaluating applications, a completely acceptable practice if done in an unbiased manner. But the campus, and all public colleges and universities, had better start answering to the people of California and shine some light on this very suspicious process that can make or break a student’s dreams.