Last night, the Berkeley Objectivist Club, sympathizers, and skeptics packed a lecture hall in VLSB to hear Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute speaking on capitalism, free markets, and their “failure” in the current economic crisis.  Brook first asked the crowd who was to blame for the mess.  The answer he was looking for: financial institutions, greedy corporate titans, free markets, capitalism.  He then asked, if free markets are to blame, did we have free markets?  The short answer: no.

The government has long had a policy of manipulating and distorting incentives and markets, and that policy has not been limited to the political left.  For greater than a half century, the government has subsidized homeownership by deducting interest from taxation, so that home prices are artificially low.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, having an implicit government guarantee, were able to offer loans at interest rates that drove out competitors.  Under the Community Reinvestment Act, subprime mortgages were mandated (that’s not a typo).  Add to that the Federal Reserve’s policy of keeping interest rates exceptionally low, and you have a recipe for a housing bubble. The list goes on.

Homeownership is a wonderful thing.  It fosters an ownership society, where people work for and maintain their possessions, and more importantly, their communities.  For some, the equity can be used to take out lower-interest loans, which dramatically reduce the cost of education (particularly for the homeowning poor, who need the benefits of education most).  But everything has a cost, and when prices do not reflect costs, markets will not function.

Even if this was the limit of government intervention, the mere presence of statutes such as the CRA meant financial institutions saw profits being generated by banks and decided to hop onto the bandwagon just to keep up and prevent their capital from flowing out of their companies.  Furthermore, this regulatory atmosphere leads companies to use regulators as an excuse.  During the Chinese consumer good scare a few months ago, the toy industry lobbied extensively for more regulation, simply because that would shift legal liability away from them and onto bureaucrats (which are rarely, if ever, held responsible for the damage they cause).  And, if that fails, the companies in question can merely lobby for a bail-out, which severely distorts economic incentives and makes the problem fester, all at the expense of taxpayers whose wallets have been pried open by ever-more-willing politicians.

Capitalism and markets behaved exactly as they should have, given the rules they were forced to play by.  Given that the market in this case was not free, all we can say about this crisis is that a mixed economy, partially government controlled or regulated, and partially free, cannot function smoothly.  Now we must only ask ourselves if the direction we want is more or less freedom.  For Yaron Brook, the answer is a resounding affirmation of economic freedom.

But to do that, we need to dispel some ideas about morality and self-interest.  Today, children are taught to play nice, share, don’t be selfish.  But why?  Why should any person hold another person’s life above his own?  What moral claim do others have on their neighbors’ lives?  Self-interest is not myopic greed, it is merely individuals determining for themselves what is in their best long term interests, and to deny that as a real possibility is patronizing, paternalistic, and patently false.  If morality is understood to mean avoiding any kind of harm to others, by action or omission, free market capitalism is the only moral economic system, because it does not confiscate the wealth or freedom of one group for another’s benefit, but instead demands that all parties trade value for value, on mutually beneficial terms.  Brooks ended by asking not that people go out to support capitalism, or self-interest, but that they support a code of ethics that values individualism and freedom, and as a consequence, free markets.

This view contrasts starkly with a previous lecture at UC Berkeley, given by Economics Professor Martha Olney, on the same subject.  The lecture, directed at engineering majors who had little to no economic or legal background, grossly misstated the causes of the current economic problem and blamed them squarely on lack of regulation and evil corporations.  She dismissed the Fed, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the CRA as “Republican talking points” with “no value whatsoever”.  Olney, while evangelizing a largely uninformed audience of her particular political beliefs, conveniently forgets that financial firms are some of the most heavily regulated in the country, and that freedom will be the cost of her preferred solution.

The appropriate conservative and libertarian response to such nonsense is simply that markets were not free, and that an immoral economic system was doomed to fail.  Perhaps if free markets are perceived to be a moral force in our culture, we will know the end to government’s creation and exacerbation of economic problems.

I just came back from an ASUC Senate meeting (still in progress, heading into the eternally painful guest announcements). The liason from the UC Police Department, Sgt. Tucker, had the simplest explanation for how to avoid brawls like last week’s. To paraphrase, it was “don’t be mean. Be nice.”

Several senators really, really, really wanted the police department to release information about what actually happened at the brawl. It was an illustration of how folks aren’t yet interested in bringing about peace or reconciliation or a deescalation of tensions between the two groups.

Stop and consider for a moment: Why would anyone want the details of the fight publicly revealed? My journalistic nerve certainly clamors for that information, but I also recognize the problems that arise from publication of the events. If the goal is to provide information to punish perpetrators of violence, then the information needs to go to the police department, not the public. Publicly announcing information like this serves only one purpose: public vilification of the opposition group.

The two groups are engaged in a public relations war. They aren’t really calling on folks to take any action to solve a problem, but to simply convince them to take “the right side.” And so public vilification of the opposition is simply an attempt to take political advantage of the situation. This isn’t limited to one side or this example. The competing press releases, which out of respect for humanity I won’t link here, waste no time in claiming racism from evil unprovoked attackers. Extremist news outlets on both sides have picked up these press releases and are trying to control public opinion elsewhere. (So far, there has been no mainstream news interest, which is probably a good thing for Cal)

The fact of the matter is that every attempt to publicly vilify the opposition, every accusation of racism, or refusal to dialogue, or swinging first, or whatever, is an escalation. It attempts to involve those who are not involved, and to do so in a manner that brings them in on a particular side. It sets battle lines that make it difficult for the opposition to do anything but defend themselves by striking back. If they are to be taken seriously as folks interested in preventing these kinds of conflicts, they need to simply stop. Stop trying to convince folks that the other side is evil. Stop trying to extract political advantage. Stop refusing to accept the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the other side is, in fact, acting in good faith.

So it’s “peace not prejudice” week here at Cal. Excellent. Considering that things these days haven’t really been so “peaceful” here on campus, especially between the pro-Palestinian and the Zionist voices, perhaps this peace and not prejudice week is a good idea.

As I walked on campus early this morning, I didn’t really see or feel or hear much of a change. In fact, it felt like any other day walking down Sproul. The only difference was that the pro-Palestinian students decided to have a little rendezvous right where I wanted to walk. Surprisingly, I first thought it was Greek dancing (which put a smile on my Hellenic face); but then I heard the music, noticed the Palestinian flag, and the convenient location of the celebration located right in front of the Cal Democrats table. I couldn’t help but feel a little annoyed. Maybe this was because not too far down from all the happy dancing were the pro-Israel students, holding the Israeli flag and feeling a little aggravated. This is a great step towards peace and not prejudice. I wonder what else I will witness this week.

I think it’s great that people celebrate their own culture and identity. No one should ever be ashamed of doing so. However, following the recent brawl and the extremely high tensions between these two groups, a better step towards peace could have been less obnoxious today and a little more, well, peaceful. I think this week could be better used if the pro-Palestinian and the Zionist students attempt to come together and reconcile their differences here on campus. I know that isn’t as easy as it sounds, and the fundamental differences in beliefs can be a huge road block, but if the two groups really want “peace” and not “prejudice”, then they should be seizing this opportunity. Call me an idealist, but why shouldn’t they try to reconcile differences (if only for this week) for the sake of peace and not prejudice? And why can’t the two groups come and celebrate together on Sproul? UC Berkeley should be a place of free speech, thoughts, and opinions which people can express without the fear of being harassed. If the pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian groups actually come together in peace, then that would be honoring what this week (and Cal) is supposed to be about. In fact, if I saw that, I may just join in on the celebrating too… although I might end up Greek dancing out of pure habit. It looks similar anyway.

Fighting over Israel and Palestine is a popular pastime at Cal. I mean no offense to my more politically inspired fellow students, some of whom I know personally (on both sides), but there comes a time when you really have to scratch your head and wonder what it is they’re trying to accomplish.

Following up on the graffiti wars of September, and the speaker disruption of October, seeing a balcony brawl as a followup isn’t nearly as surprising as one might hope.

The second floor of Eshleman Hall, by the way, houses the ASUC, which is the student government at Cal, and it is currently in the hands of the pro-Palestinian CalSERVE party. The Palestinian flags appeared from that balcony, apparently after receiving permission from ASUC officials meeting there. As an aside, I think the ASUC should perhaps reflect a bit on how appropriate it is for the student government’s facilities to be used to directly engage in activism to counter the activities of student groups.

The Zionist voice on campus has undergone a fairly dramatic change in recent years, as the Israel Action Committee has been displaced by more active and confrontational groups such as Tikvah. The pro-Palestinian groups have engaged in an opposite shift, moving from occupying buildings to a much more defensive posture, which some pro-Israel groups have been happy to play aggressor to, as was the case when the pro-Palestinian event was disrupted by Zionist activists in October.

So now we have both a sitting and a former ASUC Senator reported as being involved in a brawl. Their party, the SQUELCH! party, which has traditionally been the party involved in bringing common sense levity to overly egotistical ASUC activities, has likely suffered damage to its reputation that will be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse, leaving the student body without the “fight the entrenched interests” option they’ve had for student government. And, of course, pro-Palestinian groups have the perfect public relations victory heading into Peace Not Prejudice Week.

My advice to Zionist groups? Chill. Get a good grasp on what, exactly, it is you’re trying to accomplish at Cal, and target your activities towards that goal. Generically “fighting for Israel” may feel good, but your cause isn’t improved by outbursts of anger. A golden opportunity to question the ASUC’s hostile attitude towards certain groups and causes was blown.

Putting aside the “Us vs. Them” mentality may be a good start. I don’t mean this in the generic, Obamaesque “unity is good” sense. Drawing battle lines of allies and enemies makes sense if you’re actually fighting a battle that involves some form of victory. Conquering land? Us vs. Them. Moving hearts and minds? Not so much. If you aren’t on either side, why would you care about the views of folks whose goal seems to be simply to defeat the opponents? Talking about the importance of freedom and how valuable and rare Israel is in the region for its respect for human rights comes across as empty if trying to settle differences in a much more peaceful and secure place ends in a brawl.

The radical left, anti-American, communist, World Cant Wait organization held a protest today led by Cindy Sheehan. It began at MLK park and then went to the Marine Recruiting Center.

Of course, the Berkeley College Republicans were also there to support the Marines and America against the hateful WCW group.

This picture shows a school teacher with her students passing by chanting “No more War!” They start them young in Berkeley…

Berkeley College Republicans

World Cant Wait protesting on Shattuck Avenue and Allston, while BCR members were standing right next to them chanting “USA! USA!”

Berkeley police keeping an eye on the protestors

As I return from the counter-protest of World Can’t Wait, I stand amazed by how much our Marine Corps and servicemen alike receive so much disdain in their very own country. Actually, I am appalled to be frank. This afternoon, the Berkeley College Republicans were joined by two other College Republican organizations in the Bay Area: the San Francisco State University College Republicans and the St. Mary’s College Republicans. They were joined by one or two members of Code Pink as well as some high school students from nearby Berkeley High.

The protestors took the streets from Martin Luther King, Jr. Park to Sproul Plaza. They then marched along Telegraph attempting to figure out where they were going. Eventually, they marched back to Shattuck and Downtown Berkeley to congregate outside of the now infamous Berkeley Marine Corps Recruitment Office. It was there that many memorable quotes were shouted such as (but not limited to):

“Why do you support this country?”
“How can you support the Marine Corps?”
“What’s wrong with communism?”
“Did you know that Reagan was a communist?”

To my surprise, they also showed an amount of disdain for President-Elect Barack Obama, one of the most liberal presidents to be elected to office in the United States. Isn’t Obama on your side? When your membership and leadership consists of members of the Maoist United States Revolutionary Communist Party, wouldn’t you think that you have some common ground with the new president to-be? Don’t you think it’s a bit outlandish to attack Obama before he is even inaugurated? I never thought I’d be defending Obama but it’s ridiculous to criticize him when he hasn’t even redecorated the Oval Office yet!

Again, I am amazed by the audacity of World Can’t Wait. They are blind in their hatred to realize what the Marine Corps and the military fight for. They are protesting the very institutions that allow them the right to protest. Yes, you read that last sentence correctly; it doesn’t seem to make sense because their actions are irrational. To members of the military, I must thank you tirelessly for your determination, your honor, and your courage that allow all Americans their rights and freedom. I thank you for fighting fascism and authoritarianism around the world in the name of freedom and what is right.

I’d like to wish the United States Marine Corps a fantastic and happy 233rd birthday. Oorah! Please do know that there are Americans that do support you unlike these crazies. Semper Fi for Corps and Country!

So I was walking on campus today and I saw this guy hanging out on sproul. I’m pretty sure he is from the ACLU

If you don’t know who is in the guys picture, it is Boalt Law Professor John Yoo, who worked for the Bush Administration from 2001 to 2003. He is one of the few conservative professors in Berkeley and the Patriot will be interviewing him on Thursday for the December publication.

Send Sasha and Malia to private school, of course.

Public education hasn’t yet garnered the Obama stamp of approval, it would seem.

B. Hussein and Michelle would rather decide how to spend their own money. The tax-and-spend couple have chosen to choose where their daughters go to school.

Proposition 8, as I’m sure you are all aware of, is an initiative to change the California Constitution. It would add the following fourteen words into the document: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.” In fact, that is the entirety of the proposition’s text verbatim, unabridged. Now these words may seem familiar to some of you that are reading this; this would hold true if you were able to vote eight years ago. Proposition 22 eight years ago was an initiative that won the votes of many Californians with the same text as our modern Proposition 8. Proposition 8 has passed and according to California law, the amendment to the Constitution takes effect the day following the election. Proposition 8 was successful in overturning judicial activism and reinstating popular sovereignty. Proposition 8 showed what its counter-part Proposition 22 showed eight years ago: Californians agree with the traditional definition and custom of marriage — that is, marriage between a man and a woman.

To avoid beating a dead horse any further, I simply bring this up to address some issues from the opposition that have been arisen in this close and hotly debated initiative, which continues to this day forty-eight hours after it has passed and come into effect as the supreme law of the State of California. I will not argue the semantics of marriage already being regulated by the government or any other arguments in the same vein given that it would be pointless. Proposition 8 is already in effect as law as of now. Still, I simply cannot get over the following:

As you have most undoubtedly heard from teenagers and adults alike, “Proposition 8 is really Proposition H8!” or perhaps you’ve heard “Discrimination is hate! Vote no on 8!” I cannot get over the fact that that is not true one bit. Sure, I cannot dispute that some forms of discrimination are motivated by a hatred to one group or another but it does not necessarily mean that proponents of the proposition are hateful or bigots. It does not mean that discrimination is hate. For instance, many of us ride public transit or watch movies at the theater. Both public transit firms and the movie theaters regularly discriminate amongst their customers. Do they hate the young, students, or the elderly? On the other hand, do they hate the middle-aged populace or adults? Proposition 8 does not wish to discriminate a group of the population; it merely wishes to maintain the definition and tradition of marriage that has lasted for decades and centuries.

By ending on that note, I’m sure many of you will also be quick to point out that at one point interracial marriage was disallowed and that I am contradicting myself by wishing to maintain the tradition of marriage from “yesteryear.” It’s clear that I cannot dispute that and I will not try either, as I’m sure you know it’s futile for me to do so. I can admit that. However, I must say this: the definition of marriage was not changed with the abolition of that custom nor was it changed with the practice of such a ban. Whether or not people of different races could or could not marry did not dramatically change the definition or practice of marriage as an institution bonding a male and a female together in union recognized by the state.

I’ve also heard the following: “Proposition 8 is unfair! It was funded a great deal by those that are illegible to vote in California! Mormons from Utah were funding the proponent’s side. California truly does not support this amendment!” I cannot dispute nor will I try to argue that our side did not receive donations from those out of state; it’s a fact that we did receive support from non-Californians, yet, it would be ridiculous to say that the No on 8 Campaign did not either. Both sides received funding and support from non-Californians; we essentially have a case of the pot calling the kettle black on both sides. Furthermore, Californians do support this amendment. In fact, over five million Californians that are eligible to vote and have done so, came out on Tuesday to show their support for traditional marriage and the overturning of legislation on the bench contrary to the voice of the people.

Lastly, I have to address the argument that Proposition 8 takes rights away. The truth is Proposition 8 lives up to their campaign: it won’t be taking the rights away from anyone. This new amendment adds fourteen words to the Constitution to maintain the definition and tradition of marriage that we have all known and come to understand. It seeks to prohibit the overriding of the will of the people. It seeks to prohibit redefinitions of marriage, as it is an institution that is fundamental to the functioning of any society. Yes, divorces and separations do occur but it does not change the fact that marriage as an institution is fundamental to society. Had Proposition 8 not passed, you would still see divorces and separations amongst homosexuals, bisexuals, or other groups that are affected. Furthermore, Proposition 8 takes no rights away from any group; please show me where in the text that it does so. I’ve typed out every single word of the new addition to the California Constitution.

I’m sure proponents will now argue that I’m advocating for a practice of separate but equal, which has been rendered unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. The precedent in which they refer to is undisputable, as not one side affected could in good conscience argue that the decision was poor. It was quite blatant and obvious then that the doctrine of separate but equal was in fact separate but unequal at that moment in time and history. Nonetheless, this is not the “Aha!” argument that you were expecting. The California Constitution guarantees homosexuals, bisexuals, and other affected groups the same rights that heterosexuals do; it guarantees it to all Californians. Proposition 8 had not effect on those rights that you already have! In this case, the doctrine of separate but equal actually does apply. Heterosexuals, bisexuals, homosexuals, and other affected groups can look at this same document at the same time and agree that they have the same rights, as the same words and document applies to all of them in the same manner!

All righty, now that we’re getting attacks in different languages, I should try to be a bit clear on our commenting policy.

Nobody cares about any individuals here. Both commenters and posters here are pretty much nobodies. As a consequence, nobody cares what you have to say about them. So discuss stuff, not each other. If you want to hurl insults at each other, I’ll probably end up deleting comments, even if you also have something interesting to say.

It was 8 pm Tuesday night, election day, and our President of the United States of America had already been decided. I thank all of the intelligent people out there for voting for Obama. As one UC Berkeley student put it: “I feel awesome. I feel magnificent. I feel like the heavens above have opened.” We no longer have to wander through life hoping to find the Messiah, he’s already here. He has promised us change; he has promised us hope; and he has promised us a brighter future. Praise the Lord, or shall I say Obama, that he is our President (I think I hear terrorists praising Allah too).

But I’m not so sure about our future which will be subjected to a “socialist agenda”. This new American idol that we have elected is going to have to work pretty hard to live up to the public’s standards. Or will he? Could it be possible that this man has achieved such stardom, such a cult gathering, that it won’t matter what he does? Immediately following his election, I couldn’t help but feel apprehensive about the future, and this is why.

Let’s just look at the current situation. Maybe it’s just my libertarian tendencies, or maybe it’s just my natural inclination to be weary of one man having too much power. Too much power and influence breeds corruption. But this is what I see. I see people walking around with a president on their t-shirt (even before he was elected) in a fashion that harkens back to Che Guevara t-shirts. Now, I’m not going to go into how I feel about Che (the evil of Latin America responsible for killing many innocent people), but I will go into how I feel about a president being paraded around on a t-shirt. The president is elected of the people, by the people, and for the people. This is a symbolic position for a man elected to lead the Land of the Free. Obama is supposed to be on the same plane as us, and for good reason. We must never forget that we are what makes this country. But instead we have elevated a man to the status of an idol. Obama’s support has turned into a cult following and transformed into a fashion statement at the same time. This is a tremendous change in the way we view the president, and we should be weary of this. Now I’m not saying that Obama is an evil man or has “bad intentions” for our country (if you don’t count quasi socialism as bad), but I am saying that these sorts of sentiments and role reversals of the expectations of the president remind me of recipes for dictatorships. It makes me worry for the Land of the Free.

But why shouldn’t people express their overwhelming support for him in this way? They finally have found a president that they “actually like.” At the end of the day, it’s not doing anybody any harm, and as some say, he’s inspirational. Sure, it doesn’t really matter, but it’s the message being portrayed that is significant and it’s the feelings behind the movement that are significant. Like I said, it creates a sort of culture, or a cult status, which in turn leads to an inclusive-exclusive society. You are either with the Obama lovers or not. And if not, you’re clearly out of style, anti-change, anti-hope, and anti-inspiration. So buy a t-shirt, they’re cheap on Telegraph Avenue in Berkeley. Bye-bye freedom and individuality and hello forced ignorant assimilation. I want to be in the “in crowd too” which is perpetuated by the media. They support this divide through popular programs which champion Obama’s cause.

And the “in crowd” is everywhere here on campus. It doesn’t even escape the classrooms where one would expect to find a neutral zone of learning. Instead, I have to sit in a lecture and listen to the Professor pour compliments on Obama for five minutes. The day after the election, I walk into class to find a huge projection of Obama on the board and the Professor telling us that he’s not really endorsing a president because we have to support him since he is now our president. Exactly. I support him just as much as the Democrats supported President Bush. How dare a Professor tell us that we have to support Obama. Did he support Bush? NO. My point is: Was this really necessary? I doubt he would have put a picture of McCain up if he had been elected. The classrooms are not a place to be biased. This just shows how much the nature of how the public supports the government has changed and how the biased educational system can mold the young minds of America to think in a certain way. And again, I don’t like it. I wouldn’t like it even if McCain was projected on the board.

But Obama’s entourage is everywhere. Literally. Right after his election, the streets around the University were swamped with what looked like every possible liberal in the city. Disregarding the law, students rushed to the streets and blocked traffic (which made people like myself angry in our attempts to get home). This was the high point for Obama’s cult. They welcomed this new era of change by coming together into a mob, disturbing the peace by yelling and honking horns all night, stopping traffic, defacing public property by spray painting sidewalks, thrusting a cardboard figure of McCain into people’s faces, and just generally pissing off people who wanted to study. I commend the liberals for being so peaceful, so moral, and so refined. Obama sure did unite UC Berkeley students. It makes me wonder what will happen in the future. This is change; but not for the better. Putting his “fair” policies aside, is a president who can move the public in this way really good for America? Is President Obama becoming a fashion statement and idol in line with American standards?

Let’s take a step back for a second. I guess I can appreciate the fact that finally the youth can be excited about someone, even if he is a quasi socialist president. Even more so, what I love so much about America is the fact that we can have a peaceful transfer of power after an election. At the end of the day, he is the president of our country, and I will stand by him. To see so many young people so happy, holding American flags, and finally showing some pride in their country is a refreshing sight at UC Berkeley. Yet, this still doesn’t change the fact that Obama is a new American icon. This doesn’t change the fact that the youth have been indoctrinated to love a President just because of his image. Love him or hate him, Obama becoming president of the United States is an historical event. I just hope that our future doesn’t see a time in which the framework of our country continues to be unraveled and that any criticism of our new American idol, President Barack Obama, will fall on deaf ears. Don’t let stardom blind you. And no, I won’t buy a t-shirt with his face on it.

At least we can count on The Onion to give an honest assessment.

It’s being reported that Obama answered it is “above my pay grade” when asked how he would change things as thousands of college students, unemployed Obamaniacs, and sobbing sycophants shut down a street near you.

I wonder how long this took.

The following Resolution, SB 104, as amended in committee, was authored by Mr. Nahabet and was co-sponsored by Mr. Smelko, Ms. Hussain, Ms. Ro, Mr. Moghtader, and Ms. Dhar:

SB 104, In Support of the Cal Football Team

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE CAL FOOTBALL TEAM

WHEREAS, UC Berkeley currently has the greatest football team in recent campus history; and

WHEREAS, the California Golden Bears record thus far is 4 wins and 2 loss; and

WHEREAS, the California Golden Bears will continue to defeat their opponents, including the UCLA this weekend; and

WHEREAS, the ASUC has a responsibility to support its athletic teams on behalf of the student body; and

WHEREAS, the ASUC also has a responsibility to present an example of responsibility and sportsmanship; and

WHEREAS, GO BEARS!

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the ASUC Senate shout “GO BEARS!” upon approval of this bill in the general Senate meeting.

Ms. Oatfield said she pulled the bill from the Consent Calendar. She read the following:

—————

Begin Statement by Ms. Oatfield

I’m afraid that many of you will be more skeptical of me as a politician and as a person after I make this statement, but I feel like the words I’m about to speak are words that haven’t been spoken other than in hushed whispers behind closed doors. But I think they very much need to be said out loud, and publicly.

Before I came to Berkeley I saw images of the Free Speech Movement; I watched a documentary entitled “Berkeley in the 60’s” and saw masses of students actively engaging in pressing political issues of the day.

Now that I’m at Berkeley, I see masses of students passively walk to class everyday and I see masses of students and community members attending football games at the Stadium down the street from my house on Saturdays during the fall.

On game days, rowdy drunk people flood the streets near my home and the streets are littered with plastic red cups for days afterwards. I often wish that we could channel all the energy that students put into attending football games and cheering at them into standing up for civil rights and community service.

My mother grew up in Europe where sports teams and universities are very separate entities, and the culture of college football is still to this day a very strange concept for her, though she’s been living in America for nearly 30 years now. Though I was born in the US, this culture of college football is strange to me as well; I don’t understand why sports take on such a high level of priority in the academic world here. As a good friend of mine pointed out, the California Golden Bear was practically driven extinct by Europeans who slaughtered them. At the same time, the Europeans slaughtered and committed genocide against the indigenous peoples of this land; the mascot of an extinct bear is similar in tone and cultural content to mascots such as the Cleveland “Indians” and Washington “Redskins”.

The football stadium itself reminds me all too much of a Roman coliseum. These aggressive and disrespectful elements of Cal football culture distress me. I’m proud to be a UC Berkeley student not because of our football team but because of our outstanding academic programs and our legacy of promoting civil rights and environmental justice.

This bill calls for the ASUC Senate to shout Go Bears! I do not believe in shouting this statement. If the bill passes, I will not comply with it in a peaceful act of civil disobedience, with all due respect to the sponsors of this bill and their positive intent.

End statement by Ms. Oatfield

—————

Ms. Hussain said that with all due respect to previous speakers, she was a huge supporter of Cal football and a huge civil rights activism in her own right. She didn’t think the two were mutually exclusive. She understood people might be perplexed about why college football was the way it was in general, but it served not only as a wonderful pastime for those who enjoy the game, but also allowed people to show pride. The University can be known as a great academic institution as well as a great sports institution.

A motion to call the question was made and seconded by Ms. Raffi and Mr. Tran and passed with no objection.

A roll call vote was requested.

Roll call was taken on the motion to approve SB 104, as amended in committee:

YES

Sheila Chen
Tara Raffi
Sarah Cho
Claudia Rodriguez
Meghana Dhar
Lyell Sakaue
Mary June Flores
Kifah Shah
Saira Hussain
Will Smelko
John Moghtader
Lisa Tran
Eddie Nahabet
Tu Tran
Tommy Owens
Obiamaka Ude

NO

Christina Oatfield

ABSTAIN

Oscar Mairena

A motion to close the rolls was made by Ms. Shah and was seconded and passed with no objection.

THE MOTION TO APPROVE SB 104, AS AMENDED IN COMMITTEE, PASSED 16-1-1, RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE CAL FOOTBALL TEAM. Voting comments were heard. The Senate did a “Go Bears!”

Doesn’t the ASUC have more important things to spend 6 1/2 hour-long meetings on? Like resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for instance?

Since Reagan, the idea of “trickle down” economics has been hotly contested, particularly by the Keynesian camp (which holds, among other things, that government should distribute wealth to those who will consume more - the poor - and that government should nationalize all investment [not to be confused with nationalizing businesses]).  I came to thinking, and as it turns out “trickle down” is nothing of the sort.  In fact, prosperity trickles up!

How can I say that?  Obviously, tax cuts to “the rich” (whoever they are) benefit the rich, not the poor.   The increase in profits comes first to the entrepreneur, and then some of those profits go to labor and resource expenses.  Obviously, “the rich” benefit first, and the poor get only marginal benefits.

Turns out, the situation is a tad less obvious than it seems.  The decrease in tax rates certainly does increase the profitability of enterprise, and that does benefit entrepreneurs, certainly.  But from the standpoint of the economy as a whole, this decrease in taxes is only a transfer of wealth, not wealth generation.  This component really has no impact on the economy other than a distributional one.   The real magic is coming from different incentives.   When a business operator sees that he can keep more of his hard earned money, he will be more willing to pursue it.  But he can’t do that by himself.  He needs to hire labor, buy resources and capital, rent or build facilities.  He has to spend before he can earn any profits.  That means, the working class who furnished the labor, resources, machinery, and so forth benefits first.  The entrepreneur is never guaranteed a profit, and is actually quite likely to lose money.  Yet the new incentives cause him to undertake economic activities which are certain to benefit others, with only a chance of benefiting himself.

Are capitalists “noble”?  Certainly not from the common perspective of nobility.  Is betting on the self-interest of “the rich” really the right way to organize society, given that?   Absolutely: betting on self-interest tends to be pretty safe.  Even though the entrepreneur does not intend to help others, and is serving only himself, he must serve the interests of others (his workers, suppliers, consumers, investors)  before he can serve himself.  The implication there is that society can be organized where nearly every interaction is win-win.  Everyone wants to maximize the total “winnings”.  A great way to do that is by changing the incentives facing businesses owners so they are more likely to pursue activities that can help everyone.