On behalf of the entire staff of the California Patriot, we would like to thank you for your support. As you know, the California Patriot does not receive any funding nor does it receive the support of the university. As we like to say, they are not responsible for the content that we put out as an independent student organization and publication and you can certainly bet that we are not responsible for the content of the university nor Berkeley itself!

The staff wishes and hopes that you have had an exciting 2009 year whether you were fighting for liberty and freedom as a compatriot in the workforce, in our armed forces, getting educated, or keeping the family a strong central unit in our society. Whether big or small, we are proud of your services to this nation and to be your fellow compatriots and we salute you for your work!

We would also like to take this opportunity to thank you for your support of the California Patriot whatever your part in the publication. As a member of the senior staff, I’d like to thank my fellow staff members for their contributions in art, writing, editing, logistics, advertising, and publication. I would also like to thank you for reading whether it is by subscribing for that hardcopy mailed directly to your door or online in your lounge chair; it is people like you for which we work for. We would also like to thank our subscribers which allow us to stay in publication. We understand that Obama’s policies don’t necessarily translate to the best in economic times, which is why we would like to thank our anonymous donor for their gift of $5,000 to the California Patriot Foundation.

God bless you all and thank you again for your continued support. Thank you for a fantastic 2009 and remember 2010 is OURS!

Sincerely,

I disagree with the article on sticking to the center. The Republican Party is a center-right party but it needs to be more conservative. We tried going to the center with John McCain and while I voted for him and definitely supported him over Obama, it clearly didn’t work. We lost because we went to the center so why set ourselves up for defeat again?

Jim Chen
San Francisco, CA

Despite winning the Nobel Prize in Economics, Oliver Williamson’s name is often unrecognized among Berkeley’s student population – which is a shame because of the man’s tremendous insights and revolutionary approach to economics. His work defines the field of transaction cost economics, reshaping how we understand business practices and carry out regulations, particularly anti-trust regulations.
Williamson’s approach to economics is quite refreshing. Rather than the “rationalist” approaching economics with rigorous mathematics and thought experiments, Williamson is a devout empiricist with very little regard for untested theory and uncritical ideology. He described observing a conference in which the late Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman presented the results of the first empirical tests of Keynesian monetary theories such that Friedman “had the data on his side,” and was able to stand “against the whole world,” demonstrating the errors of Keynes’ theories using cold, hard data instead of elegant mathematics or debatable logical arguments. Williamson’s view of economics allows for the omission of rigorous mathematical models and demands a high degree of empirical validation – both, as he says, “breaths of fresh air” in the field. The approach has served him well, allowing him to analyze economic phenomena in a far richer context than can be examined by mathematical models, while his ivory tower colleagues generate theories divorced from reality.

The particular course of Williamson’s work was set while he was on leave in Warrick, where he read about an economist of the 1930’s – not Keynes – who influenced him greatly. That man, John R. Commons, took exception to what Williamson calls “the resource allocation paradigm,” the traditional view that characterizes firms as single actors responding to prices and demand schedules to produce and deliver the optimal quantity of goods and services. While this can often be useful, it reduces economics essentially to calculus problems, as any student in the Econ 101 series can attest to. This approach tends to dehumanize core issues and dismiss the rich context that gives rise to particular solutions to economic problems, hence Williamson’s criticism of the “firm as production function” model of economics.

Commons believed that the concept that economics should be founded upon was one that can find a way to combine “conflict, mutuality, and order.” The study of governance thus addresses the “means to infuse order, mitigate conflict, and realize mutual gain.” Commons, and Williamson, take this fundamental economic unit to be, not firms, but transactions. Unfortunately, Commons never found a way to give transaction costs what Williamson describes as “operational content”; Commons was unable to formulate a model, verbal or mathematical, and so was unable to give transaction cost economics sufficient momentum.

Central to Williamson’s work is a study of contracts. One aspect of this is the broken contract: someone simply does not cooperate, or there is an honest disagreement that can harm a party who made an investment that can’t be easily liquidated or redeployed – a characteristic he terms asset specificity, which has itself redefined how we think about economics. Traditional solutions to broken contracts include information disclosure rules and auditing to ensure more complete information and thus more appropriate contracts, or penalty clauses to discourage breach of contract. Says Williamson, “if push comes to shove, we get a special dispute system to arbitrate – not the courts – whose objective is to get back on track, not to extract wealth punitively.” Such an arbitration system produces order, deters conflict, and promotes harmony and mutual gain. Williamson describes this process as “a way to think about contracts in a constructive, not legalistic, way.”

To analyze contracts, we must be able to describe the organizations that make them. Both Chester Barnard and Friedrich Hayek described organization as a tool to facilitate adaptation. Barnard, a management theorist, took adaptation to mean deliberate, purposeful, and coordinated changes – the kind that define a “hierarchy,” or a heavily structured organization. Hayek, a Nobel prize-winning Austrian economist, instead framed adaptation within the context of relatively disorganized markets,  with signals such as prices communicating information that people adjust to autonomously to re-equilibrate the system and restore order.

Williamson is dissatisfied with choosing either of the two views, as each has strengths and weaknesses that make them more suited to certain contexts than others. His work attempts to characterize these governance structures and determine which one makes transactions more efficient, in which contexts, and why.

He is also quick to point out the range of phenomena the transaction-cost and governance approach to economics can explain. Williamson’s work has touched economic and administrative issues such as credit versus equity financing – redeveloping finance in constructive ways – to anti-trust laws and business regulations – providing information on the contexts in which these laws don’t work, and suggesting alternative strategies that promote harmony and mutual gain.

His work in anti-trust alone has forced countries across the globe to rethink what economic ends they pursue and how they do so. Williamson, as the Special Economic Assistant to the head of the Anti-Trust division within the US Department of Justice, noted how classic economic theory did not appropriately respond to monopolies; the DoJ had, in his mind, “the wrong perspective.” After Williamson, vertical integration (where a company owns all stages of production, such as a power plant owning a railroad line and a coal mine) is no longer itself a justification for anti-trust suits. He showed how this arrangement in fact stabilizes and lowers prices by making supply more consistent and efficient. He has also criticized anti-trust leveled at companies whose sole fault is that they are big, regardless of their efficiency. As economist Thomas Sowell observed, even 100% market share does not make a monopoly – the company has to be doing things directed at keeping the competition out, and selling more for less isn’t a legitimate claim for “anti-competitive” business. The notion that we should have competition for competition’s sake has only resulted in wasted resources and losses to consumers.

His work in the anti-trust field has even led to the reconsideration of how we evaluate the monopolistic nature of companies. In one such memorable case, large oil companies had contracts with each other to buy and sell from each other in particular regions. When one oil company ran a shortage in one area, a second company would supply the necessary oil from its surplus. The first would then supply the second oil at another region. At first this seems to be a scheme to keep the little guy out and entrench the large oil producers. But internal company memos defended the policy by indicating that small suppliers characteristically have minimal investments in a given region, increasing the likelihood that they will not be able to fulfill long term contracts, thereby increasing the volatility of supply and prices. The “monopolistic” actions of the company were in fact intended simply to promote order in the marketplace, to the benefit of both consumers and the economy at large. Empirical evidence like this has at least partially restored the presumption of innocence in the legal system, even (and especially) for business.

Perhaps most importantly, Williamson has demonstrated that decentralized, voluntary associations are viable “governance structures” and that government management of the economy is often neither necessary nor desirable. For all of his many achievements over the course of his long and distinguished career, Oliver Williamson deserves to be saluted.

2. Lou Dobbs Leaves CNN
On November 11th, advocacy anchor Lou Dobbs announced on his final program that he would be leaving CNN. In his broadcast, he recognizes his esteemed colleagues and support that the network has given him. CNN was the “world’s first news network,” according to Dobbs, who was one of the original anchormen 30 years ago, where he began acting as chief economics correspondent and host of “Moneyline.” CNN President Johnathan Klein agreed to release Dobbs from his contract, and called him “a valued founding member of the CNN family.” Dobbs continued on the show by  saying, “Over the past six months it’s become increasingly clear that strong winds of change have begun buffeting this country and affecting all of us, and some leaders in media, politics and business have been urging me to go beyond the role here at CNN and to engage in constructive problem solving as well as to contribute positively to the great understanding of the issues of our day.” He has aspirations to engage in dialogue and help resolve a wide variety of issues, including health care, immigration policy, climate change, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which he wants to put an end to the partisanship behind these ideals, and try to come together to realistic, comprehensive solutions to these issues. Dobbs went on to point out the current flaws in our capitalist economy and the supposed “true lack of representation” at the capital. His accolades include the George Foster Peabody Award for excellence in broadcasting in 1987, and the Emmy for Lifetime Achievement that he received in 2005. He temporarily left the network to start a Web site related to space topics. He then returned to CNN as an anchor and managing editor of Lou Dobbs Tonight and for CNN/U.S. Dobbs says he will continue as anchor of The Lou Dobbs Show, a daily radio show that began in March 2008 and is distributed to more than 160 stations nationwide by United Stations Radio Networks Inc.

3. Climategate

While the rest of the media ignores the most recent developments in the debunking of global warming theory, ie. the e-mails leaked from pro-warming climatologists that suggest skeptics may be right to be even more skeptical, Americans all over the country are experiencing one helluva cold start to winter. Snow in Sacramento forecasted, the earliest snowfall ever in Houston, and arctic chills spanning the continent this December, one should rather believe that we are at the helm of a new ice age. Indeed, scientists predicted ice back in the 1970s, and, curiously, at the center of the leaked e-mails controversy, “climategate,” if you will, is the fact that most of the data indicating warming is from before the 1970s. There have been suggestion by skeptics that the global warming trend has much more to do with the political climate than the planet. Still, the issue of whether climate change is man-made or not will most likely remain a cloudy one as those scientists responsible for determining so rely heavily on money from the government.

4. Party Crashers

Also known as the White House crashers, Michaele and Tareq Salahi have recently made a name for themselves as they managed to successfully crash the White House dinner honoring Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The couple gained media attention after posting pictures of themselves at the dinner on the global social networking web site, Facebook. One of these pictures included the couple posing with Vice President Joe Biden. The Salahis are being considered for The Real Housewives of D.C., an upcomng reality show on Bravo. There is a criminal investigation into how the couple managed to get into the high-security White House dinner without fooling anyone. As for the chances of successful White House crashers in the future, the Secret Service should probably start executing its tasks properly.

5. Afghanistan

Fortunately, Obama made a decision on whether to send more troops into Afghanistan. Unfortunately, it took him months to do so. Staying in line with our former commander-in-chief, President Obama also made the unfortunate error of wavering on just what our goals in Afghanistan are and when it will be time for our troops to come home. We’re there to win a war against terrorists (even though many of them are in Pakistan now), kill bin Laden, possibly help establish a new regime, fight for civil rights, and on and on and on. The American people are no different under Obama than under Bush. We want to know what the mission is, what our priorities are, and when our men and women will return home. Anything else is simply politics as usual, and we deserve better than that.

The UC system is one of many social organizations that have taken a hit due to the state’s $26.3 billion budget deficit, leading directly to a $813 million budget cut to take place over two years. State employees are suffering income reductions, while over $470 million worth of IOU’s are clogging government ledgers. In addition to the 30% fee hikes that are slated to occur for the spring semester, many UC students narrowly avoided having their Cal Grant awards withdrawn. Many California residents have protested that students should have high priority despite the state’s budget issues, arguing that thousands of students would be unable to continue attending their school should their tuition be raised. This was cited as a key dilemma by the Commission, who recognized that limiting the amount of college graduates is a detriment to the long-term goals of the state and would have ominous implications for the economy in upcoming years.

Yudof reflected upon the state’s funding limits, saying, “The candid truth is that the state of California has become an unreliable partner and has been an unreliable partner for years. The commission is designed to take an integrated, holistic look at all of UC’s priorities, knowing that we do not have the financial resources to maximize all of those values.”

The Commission is comprised of five working groups, each with different focuses on how to better the situation for UC students and faculty. The first is Size and Shape of UC, chaired by UC Santa Cruz Chancellor George Blumenthal and UC Santa Cruz commission member Cynthia Brown. This group’s goal is to effectively maintain ideal enrollment levels and high quality of academic programs. UC Berkeley School of Law Dean Christopher Edley and UC Davis professor Keith Williams oversee Education and Curriculum, a group that focuses on creating cost efficient alternatives for delivery models that can maintain high program quality. A third group, Access and Affordability, is chaired by UC Student Regent Jesse Bernal and UC Irvine Chancellor Michael Drake and aims to make a UC education attainable to students of all backgounds. The Funding Strategies group is chaired by UC Santa Barbara Executive Vice Chancellor Gene Lucas and UCLA Vice Chancellor Steven Olsen, and focuses on how to effectively generate revenue for the UC system. Academic Senate Immediate Past Chair Mary Croughan and UC Santa Barbara Chancellor Henry Yang chair the final group, Research Strategies, the goal of which is to examine how UC schools can recreate research practices and collaboration.

The first stop for the Commission was at UC Santa Barbara on October 22nd, where students gathered to give input on how the crisis was limiting their ability to attend their university. This meeting was followed with visits to UC Merced and UC Irvine, and by mid-December the Commission plans to have visited all 10 UC campuses.

These meetings served as an outlet for students and stakeholders to voice their frustrations. Many students who attended these meetings reflected that fee hikes will cause minorities to be even more underrepresented in the student population of UC’s, while others lamented that their tuition is planned to increase at the same time that their parents’ income is set to be reduced. A number of students also shared frustration at the lack of an effective outlet for their ideas. UC Irvine senior Sarah Thompson acknowledged her school’s lack of concern for student input during the Commission’s visit to her campus, sharing an encounter she had when she asked a financial aid counselor for advice. “I asked, ‘Where do I protest this? How do I get involved?’ And she laughed at me.”

The UC system has a long and difficult road ahead of them toward the goal of maximizing student interests while staying within financial constraints. Despite many students’ view that their voices are not being heard, Yudof has vowed to take every student into consideration. “Being president of the University of California is like being manager of a cemetery: There are many people under you, but no one is listening. I listen to them.”

This exhibit, known as the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP), puts images of aborted fetuses next to pictures of universally recognized forms of genocide, including victims of the Holocaust in Europe and of lynchings in the southern United States. At first, many people might call this comparison a stretch, while others would say it is downright offensive. Yet let us consider what the common justification for all these evils was and is: that the victim is somehow subhuman, or at least not on par with those deemed to be “persons.” The unborn child is not recognized as a human person, even though he or she is a biologically human entity with his or her own unique DNA. That child is not just human; he or she is a distinct person who just happens to be in the earliest stages of human development. But if we strip away that personhood, the victim is no longer human, and thus the act of destroying “it” is no longer immoral. Hitler and the Klan also considered their victims to be of unequal status relative to the “superior races”; their victims were thought of as being devoid of either personhood or humanity altogether. Furthermore, we ought to recognize that such a comparison could be deemed “offensive” only if one is under the impression that we are dehumanizing victims of genocide and trivializing that tragedy. On the contrary, we affirm not only their humanity, but the humanity of the unborn child. This recognition of this being’s humanity is precisely what makes abortion so tragic and so evil.

Abortion’s connection to genocide runs even deeper than that. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, wrote in a 1939 letter to Clarence Gamble, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” In the book, Pivot of Civilization, p. 187, Sanger is quoted as saying: “We are paying for and even submitting to the dictates of an ever- increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.” Naturally, Sanger’s solution to the perceived problem of “Negro overpopulation” was to become active in the American Eugenics Society (AES) and to found her own organization (which at the time was called the American Birth Control League, later Planned Parenthood) by which she could subtly eliminate those who in her mind were undesirable. (From Maafa 21, a recently produced documentary about abortion and eugenics.) Furthermore, the writings of AES affiliates influenced Adolf Hitler himself to develop his own master plan to “purify” the human race. (From “The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics,” by Edwin Black; an article from a historical project belonging to George Mason University.)

Today, Sanger’s goal of targeting racial minorities is still being realized. Black women are targeted the most by Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers (apx. 56% of all abortions in the US), with Hispanic women coming in second at apx. 32%, thereby accounting for 88% of all abortions in our country (Maafa 21). While these statistics differ from those currently available from the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Walter Hoye’s Issues 4 Life Foundation had discovered that AGI had actually published misleading statistics to try to hide the fact that abortion targets minorities at an extraordinary rate. (For this reason, AGI only provides a statistic that combines the total number of abortions from 1973 – the year of Roe v. Wade – to 2005.) How can we allow ourselves to believe that preventing the births of minority groups so disproportionately can be considered anything other than genocide, especially when you take the origins of Planned Parenthood into account? Abortion truly is America’s hidden genocide, and a legal one at that.
Though the genocide aspect of the display has been the same everywhere that the event has been held, the Berkeley exhibit differed from all other past installations. This year, both BSL and CBR were proud to debut new signs that put images of aborted fetuses next to images of President Barack Obama. Each of these signs was accompanied by a quote stated by Obama. These quotes were such that most people would agree with in principle, but they were highly ironic in light of the positions Obama has taken with respect to abortion. We sought to highlight Obama’s astonishingly duplicitous rhetoric, as well as to make his unbridled support of abortion known to those who may not have been aware of it. Those who follow right to life issues know that Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion president in our nation’s history, but his carefully crafted rhetoric makes many think that he is a moderate on the issue who is truly concerned with finding “common ground.” Some will say that this approach is inherently partisan; we hold that it is merely a straightforward analysis of President Obama’s own words. Those who were offended were probably upset by the fact that the man who is revered by so many in Berkeley has been exposed as a deceiver.
Despite the hotheaded reactions and a counter-protest consisting mostly of students from a women’s studies class (at the behest of their professor) and members of Berkeley National Organization for Women (BNOW), GAP staffers were pleased to have many enlightening conversations with countless students. The fact is, Berkeley is no longer the liberal bastion it is often believed to be. Today, it is a very apathetic campus, and it takes a large scale event to get people to talk about issues that matter. These curious students held all sorts of beliefs on abortion, from staunch pro-lifers to staunch abortion supporters, and many who were uncertain. Yet what was particularly pleasing was the fact that these students were very willing to engage in rational dialogue. Even some of the counter-protestors eventually engaged with us in a very respectful discussion, for which we are very grateful. Of course, most of them continued to demonstrate their unwillingness to engage in rational dialogue, preferring to resort to the shouting of slogans. (“My body, my choice!”). One young woman, rather than join the shouting, wore a sign reading “I had an abortion/It was GREAT!” showing utter disdain for human life. This revealed a great deal about the nature of the two sides: the pro-lifers always kept their calm, and were happy to debate rationally and civilly with people.

The counter-protestors were happy to scream themselves into a state of acute laryngitis. I think many people realized that most of the abortion advocates were not really interested in having meaningful discussion. They were there simply to make a scene, which actually worked in our favor, since many more students came our way as a result of the ideological clash. Ultimately, our primary objective was to change hearts and minds, because before the battle against abortion can be won in the courts and in legislatures, it must be won in the conscience of the people. We are confident that we took great strides toward that end as a result of the Genocide Awareness Project.

Initially, there was a dispute regarding the set up of the display on Sproul Plaza. Amanda Carleton, the Director of Student Involvement at the Center for Student Leadership had said the reason BSL’s Genocide Awareness Project was unable to set up their display at Mario Savio steps was due to a previously-reserved time that was placed in the middle of BSL’s requested time slots. Also, CBR had reported that the set-up and take-down of the giant cage was too labor intensive to accommodate on the steps for the other group to be able to host their event in the middle of the day.

Alberto Gonzalez, President of Berkeley Students for Life, had a different interpretation of events. Initially, the campus was accommodating to their display set up, but the space they wanted to reserve was denied by CBR due to the intricate design of the set up, but the northern part of the plaza was deemed acceptable on a “first come, first served” basis. However, there was a conflict about what area that was and due to potential safety  oncerns, it was much more difficult to get that space for the display. CBR was preparing to file an injunction on First Amendment rights, while Gonzalez for BSL was encouraging members to take action by sending e-mails and making phone calls to Ms. Carleton’s office and follow the e-mail sent from BSL alumnus Morgan Figures to her office requesting follow-up information on the issue and why there were excess complications for their GAP. Upon having the dispute turned over to a higher authority, the event was processed through the university, and BSL was granted access to use the plaza for GAP, despite administration later telling BSL they would have preferred CBR had not been involved to begin with. CBR was the forerunner of this display, as they had hosted this on over 100 different campuses across the nation and Canada.

According to Gonzalez, “GAP is intended to raise awareness about the bloody truth of abortion. Photographic evidence of what an aborted fetus looks like is compelling, and opens many eyes to this awful reality for the first time. The display is also intended to show how abortion, like universally recognized forms of genocide, is justified by its proponents by inferring that the victim is somehow subhuman. [BSL and CBR] hoped that GAP would serve as a stimulus for calm and logical conversation on the matter of abortion.” Berkeley’s display was unique from others due to photographs and quotations of Obama interspersed in the display, and Gonzalez says that they “sought to highlight Obama’s astonishingly duplicitous rhetoric, as well as to make his unbridled support of abortion known to those who may not have been aware of it.” People approached the hosts of the events throughout the day and engaged in healthy discussion about the two sides of the abortion issue.

This display did indeed spark conversation around the university and even a sizable counter-demonstration at that. The National Organization of Women (NOW) spearheaded a campaign that included members of a women’s studies class offered at Cal and lined up in front of the display linking arms, chanting, “my body, my choice,” or ‘their body, their choice” in the case of the males participating in the protest. Gonzalez appreciated the active demonstration by NOW, as he stated “bad publicity is no publicity,” and they captured media attention as a result. For the rest of the week, they had a table out and approached people on Sproul to write a letter against the university for allowing for the display to occur and declaring their outrage at the demonstration put on by BSL. Unfortunately, a representative from NOW was unavailable for further comment.

Gonzalez says that “BSL makes it a point to host several on-campus events that raise awareness about abortion and other right to life issues, such as embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia” and that “we [the members of BSL and CBR] were very pleased with the success of this historic event.” This was one of the largest events put on this semester at the university, and it will be interesting to see if there will be more provocative demonstrations conducted during the rest of the year.

The entire protest movement is rife with contradictions. Shouting “Who’s University, Our University,” they prohibit other students from using the university facilities. Claiming a “right” to education – meaning a right to force someone to pay for their education – they infringe upon other students’ true right to education – the right to undertake a course of study with the consent of both the student and educator. In the course of their protest, they disrupted over 100 classes, affecting nearly 4,000 students. While they decry the university and legislature depriving students of their imagined rights, they seek amnesty for violating the real rights of thousands of students. And when it comes time to actually assert their demands, the issue of fees is nowhere to be found; instead, the university is pelted with demands not to allow Panda Express near campus. The protesters are right — a question of priorities, indeed.

The actions of the occupiers was a trespass, pure and simple. Each one is guilty of intentionally interfering with the operation of the university, obstructing and intimidating innocent civilians, and refusing to leave when asked. The university’s response has been rather predictable: negotiate with the protesters and attempt to come to a peaceful solution. This has proven far less than satisfactory. They employed negotiators such as Professor George Lakoff, who told the protesters that they could “come out, no handcuffs, no arrests, just a misdemeanor equivalent to jaywalking.” Lakoff, a leftist linguistics professor who has developed a reputation for “framing” (euphemizing) issues, once more showed his talent for lying to achieve his ends – the penalty for trespassing is up to six months of prison and a $1,000 fine. The fact that the university would employ him in this, or any, capacity, reveals their terrible intellectual dishonesty and shortsightedness (more on this anon).

The conflict did finally end when the police pushed through the crowd, arrested the offenders, and cited each of them with trespassing. But this is what they ought to have done from the outset – the protesters had every right to protest outside the building, but none to occupy it, and none to obstruct foot traffic (One protester said “Students are no different from police – you respect the police barricade, you respect the student barricade”, showing an inability to differentiate from a barricade meant to restore order and protect rights and one intended to sow chaos and infringe on rights). The right to free speech and assembly does not entail the right to deprive others of their rights. There are those who will point to videos of “police brutality,” which include striking protesters with batons and shooting particular protesters with rubber bullets. Such reports mischaracterize police brutality, which refers to capricious, unwarranted, and excessive use of force by the police. This was not the case in this situation: protesters were ordered to stand aside to allow the police into Wheeler to make their lawful arrests; failure to comply with such an order is a felony with a penalty of up to four years in prison. Police officers’ use of force was provoked by protesters’ obstruction of legitimate arrests, and cannot be considered excessive given the offense, especially within the context of existing law.

Yet the university, rather than defended the legitimate police action, apologized for it. Chancellor Birgenau wrote in an open letter to the campus community, “Many of you have written to us expressing concerns that police action at Friday’s demonstration in front of Wheeler Hall showed brutality toward individuals who did not appear to be presenting any imminent threat… We truly regret the incidents that brought physical and emotional injury to members of our community.” The university seems to believe that the proper role of the police is to nurture protesters’ emotions rather than advance justice and protect rights. Taking it even further, the university dropped the charges against Wheeler’s occupants, letting them walk away from an incredibly damaging and disruptive affair without penalty.

The university imagines it is somehow smoothing ruffled feathers and calming a tense situation. Their actions are worse than a trade of justice for order. The Monday following the occupation, protesters rallied around Wheeler, with organizers shouting that the resolution of the conflict had nothing to do with good-faith university negotiations, but merely that the police realized that if they did not let the protesters off, “shit would go down.” “It showed that we have power, as a force!” cried the same organizer. The tone and content of these statements indicates that these protesters are more interested in being rabble than advocating their agenda with civility, and that in the long term, the university is working to encourage rather than minimize the disruptions.

If the protesters really wanted to have their concerns addressed, they would do better to approach the issue civilly and rationally. If the university wished to educate students effectively in an orderly environment, they would do better to serve justice and rights rather than the malicious caprice of intellectually arrested students.

Berkeley College Republicans

Spencer Doyle: How has BCR membership fared this semester?
Chris Odneal, Internal Vice President, Berkeley College Republicans: BCR membership is doing well this semester. Our events have been well-attended and our members are excited about what the club is doing on campus such as the memorial for 9/11 and our speaker event with Fox News’ Greg Gutfeld.

SD: What is your main concern going into the spring semester?
CO: As the gubernatorial primaries get closer during the spring semester, the goal is to get members excited about the Republican candidates. We have the most experienced and knowledgeable candidates in our field and with the current budget crisis in California, this is one of the most important gubernatorial races in years.

SD: What keeps you going? What are your main motivations as Internal Vice President?
CO: At its core, I still think the Republican Party is conservative and has the best solutions to offer our country. In California, we are fighting an uphill battle as we try to convince voters that our party’s policies are best for our state’s future, but it is still important that we are ready and willing to provide the answers when called. On campus, conservatives are definitely in the minority and I believe the club offers an outlet for students who don’t feel like they necessarily belong in the “radical” Berkeley atmosphere. As internal vice president, I am motivated by the passion I hear from every one of our members for the conservative cause. They are excited and vocal about the issues they see as crucial for our future as a nation and they motivate me to keep promoting the Republican Party on campus.

SD: How do you see BCR making an impact on campus in the future?
CO: In the immediate future, I think the greatest impact our club can make is educating Cal students about the upcoming gubernatorial election. California is in desperate need of leadership in Sacramento that offers real solutions to the problems facing our state. As the Democrats only have one candidate, I think our club and our party have a great opportunity to bring new students into the Republican fold with the wide range of candidates our party is offering California next year. With the ongoing disputes surrounding funding for public higher education in California, the stakes have never been higher in the upcoming election and student interest will probably be at one of its highest levels next year for a statewide race. The best way to attract these students is to convince them we have the best solutions for funding the public university systems.

SD: What do you believe is BCR’s role as a club?
CO: I think BCR’s main role on campus is to be a conservative voice among the noise that is Berkeley. I’ve found since coming to Cal that although students may lean to the left on a lot of issues, much of the student body is apathetic on political issues. I think we have the responsibility to answer students’ questions and also to question the reasons students hold the beliefs they do. We can do this through debating clubs on campus, bringing conservative speakers to campus, and also through engaging in discussion amongst ourselves and with students we meet on campus.

BCR meets Thursdays at 7PM in 24 Wheeler. You can view the website at http://berkeleygop.com

Berkeley Students for Life

SD: How has BSL membership fared this semester? I’ve noticed a few new faces in addition to more activity from members who were here last year. What do you think has contributed to BSL’s growth and relevance as a club on campus this semester?
Alberto Gonzalez, President, Berkeley Students for Life: A great part of our present success has to do with the recruiting we did in spring ’09. At that time, we reached out to many groups which were likely to have members that would be interested in our own group. (BCR was one of these groups. We also tried to reach out to the Cal Dems, hoping to find some Bart Stupaks among them. Unfortunately, all of our requests to speak to the group were left unanswered.) This recruitment method provided us with a small, but committed group of individuals who were willing to take on a leadership role for our group and propel forward. According to my recollection, this is the first time that BSL has ever had enough commitment to form a full executive board. This has been a goal of mine for quite some time; the fruitfulness of a group’s efforts is infinitely greater when more people are involved. This has been instrumental in our success this semester. It’s also true that we have a good number of new recruits, most of whom signed up at the beginning of the year at Calapalooza. They are all new students – one transfer, the rest freshmen.

SD: The GAP demonstration was perhaps the most striking of all the various clubs on campus this fall. How did that come about? Was BSL asked or did it volunteer? There was quite a lot of emphasis on Obama in that demonstration. How do you see Obama’s role in regards to your club’s efforts?
AG: Last semester, BSL co-hosted the California Students for Life Conference here at UC Berkeley. Gregg Cunningham, who is the Director of the Center for Bioethical Reform (which organizes GAP) was one of the speakers. He approached me after the conference and expressed his desire to bring GAP to Berkeley; it had almost happened about five years ago, but then it fell through. At that time, I had assured him that GAP would come to Berkeley the following year. I contacted him early on in fall ‘09. The Berkeley GAP exhibit was in fact the debut venue for CBR’s new Obama signs. Many will misconstrue the Obama signs as being outlandishly partisan, but such comments are unsubstantiated. The signs consist of a picture of Obama that has appeared in any of a variety of respected magazines/media sources in the US, accompanied by an Obama record statement and a picture of an aborted fetus. The Obama quotes are general statements that most people would agree with in principle. Unfortunately, those who have been tracking Obama’s abortion record can ascertain that Obama is undeniably the most virulent supporter of abortion to have ever occupied the White House. Everything that he says about caring for the least fortunate or of protecting our liberties or of creating a better future for America’s children are blatantly hypocritical so long as he remains an ardent abortion advocate. Obama is a master of rhetoric, and far too many people have been effectively duped by his well-crafted speeches. In fact, we’ve encountered many people who actually believe that Obama is pro-life! We hope that these images, which put Obama’s words next to the gritty truth of abortion, will make people see Obama for the hypocrite that he is. He is two different men when it comes to comparing his words with his deeds.

SD: What are some of your club’s priorities going into the spring semester? What have been your accomplishments this semester?
AG: Our basic priorities are a constant work in progress: we want to continue to grow as a group, and we want to continue to serve and educate the campus and local community, particularly by networking with off-campus pro-life groups and on-campus groups of many varieties. We also want to be an active component of California Students for Life, a coalition of pro-life student groups from around the state. This semester, we continued some successful practices from the past, but we have also managed to include many new activities. GAP, of course, was the most notable of these. We have also begun volunteering at a local pregnancy resource center. The Diaper Drive is a BSL staple, but it has been expanded to become a week-long, on-campus event this year. We have brought two film screenings to campus this semester: Maafa21 (abortion & genocide) and Lines that Divide (stem cell research). Both events attracted students who are not members of BSL, as well as people from various parts of the Bay Area. These events are essential to our outreach/networking efforts.

SD: Diaper drive, volunteering at pro-life clinics, praying outside abortion clinics, the GAP project, giving out free cupcakes on Sproul, these have been some of the more noticeable activities of your club and of any club I know of for that matter. How do you decide what to do and how to have the most impact for your causes? Who’s idea was it to have the free cupcakes? How effective do you believe these efforts have been?
AG: Our activities are planned in advance through the efforts of our executive board, which includes Jonathan Paul (Secretary), Andrew Lee (Treasurer), Katelyn Sills (Director of External Affairs) and me. We meet on a regular basis to brainstorm group activities, and how to best execute them. Of course, we’re always open to suggestions, and we have considered many ideas from some of our newest members. The free cupcakes, for instance, were suggested by Anne Morse, a freshman. The on-campus Diaper Drive is the brainchild of Katelyn and three new members: Anne (again), Lindsey Cook and Katherine Mullin. We have noticed that the buzz around our group has grown. We have gotten a great deal of on- and off-campus media coverage since last semester. I think that the campus has “rediscovered” BSL after a relatively quiet period. This process started last semester, but took off this semester. More people come by our table now; there is a genuine interest in what we do. One of the most rewarding experiences is meeting people who come up to us to express their support. Some people may feel timid when it comes to the matter of having to express their pro-life views in the midst of a largely indifferent campus environment, but our visible presence lets them know they’re not alone.

SD: What are some of your plans and goals for the next semester?
AG: We always start the spring semester with a bang: the Annual Walk for Life West Coast in San Francisco and our Annual Celebrate Life Week. These are held within the first two weeks of the new semester. We are currently planning the events for Celebrate Life Week, but they will include a noon rally on the Savio Steps, at least one speaker and a ribbon memorial on the Sproul Trees. In February, we will have a guest lecturer – Mary Meehan. We expect to be going to the Oakland abortion clinic for prayer vigils more often, as another 40 Days for Life campaign gets underway from February to March. Finally, in the spring, we will once again co-host the California Students for Life Conference. Currently, we’re hoping to have that event at UC Irvine. It would be the first time ever that the Conference is hosted in Southern California.

BSL meets Tuesdays at 7PM in 203 Wheeler. The Berkeley Students for Life has a website where you can find out more about their activities, who they are, and useful advice and resources should you ever find or know anyone who needs help at http://berkeley4life.org. All services and visits to the website are confidential.

Berkeley Students for Liberty

SD: How did Students for Liberty come about? I remember John Wyrwas held discussion groups last year. Did the club evolve from those?
Casey Given, President, Students for Liberty: Essentially, two specific things happened that stimulated the beginning of Students for Liberty. First, last semester, Ashok Krishna and I became friends. We discovered we were both libertarians and had  vague idea about starting a libertarian club at Cal. Second, John Wyrwas told us he wanted to start a Young Americans for Liberty chapter at Cal. Although Ashok and I had a general idea for starting a club, we were not really planning on doing so until John told us his idea. With a graduate student at our side, we figured this would be a great opportunity to actually make our idea come to life. So, at the end of last semester,  we officially became Students for Liberty.

SD: What are some of the motivations for having your club? Does it have anything to do with Obama being elected?
CG: The main motivation for starting our club was basically because there was no liberty oriented club on campus. When I first came to Cal, I was eager to find a club dedicated to promoting freedom. Instead, I found that all the political clubs on campus are lovers of government and want the state to manage their lives. The cofounders and I felt that Cal needed a voice that would promote the idea that the individual has the right to control his or her own life, not the government. Cal needed a voice to promote individualism, limited government, and freedom. So, we started the club.

SD: I’ve been told that writing a piece on conservative clubs on campus would be a mistake, since SFL wouldn’t consider itself one. Is this accurate? Specifically, I’ve been told that whereas Republicans and Democrats, conservatives, liberals, think of the ideological spectrum as a line from right to left, Students for Liberty see it in three-dimensions… Would you agree? How would you describe SFL’s ideological tendencies?
CG: I would agree that our club generally does not see itself on the two-dimensional line because that spectrum has a huge logical contradiction on it. Although conservatives claim to like “small government,” they promote large government on social issues. And vice versa with liberals. Although they claim to love “active government,” they essentially want complete freedom on social issues. This is a blatant contradiction. Our club tends to see itself on a three-dimensional spectrum that measures both economic and social issues. On that spectrum, we are on the top right. We consistently believe in freedom, both fiscally and socially. However, we do not have a collective position on issues. We have made it very clear from the beginning that Students for Liberty is a group of like-minded individuals, who think for themselves and can have dissenting opinions. So, there are quite a few different perspectives in our club, from constitutionalists to libertarians to anarchists. However, the basic tendency among club members is that we consistently believe in freedom, fiscally and socially.

SD: After attending the debate a few weeks ago between BCR and SFL, it seems to me SFL has become somewhat of a formidable rival to the College Republicans, if not just another politically-oriented club on campus with similar (or more) turnout. How many members does SFL have? How many more have joined since your first meeting? What do you think are the major factors contributing to the growth of your club?
CG: As far at the numbers in our club, we consistently have about twenty people show up to each meeting. Our speaker events can draw a few more. Our Facebook group has 62 members and our ListServe has over 100 emails. So, the club has been fairly successful for its first semester. I think the major factor that has caused people to join is apathy. Students are fed up with seeing politicians in Washington and Sacramento just make America’s situation worse. With endless war, continual bailouts, and government only growing and growing, students are beginning to see the failed policies of our government. Under these circumstances, our message of freedom for all sounds very appealing.

SD: You’ve had several speakers throughout your inaugural semester, more than BCR had, I believe. What is your club’s selection process for speakers and how has the turnout been for these events? I’ve read in recent emails that you have even more planned for next semester. Who will be speaking next semester?
CG: We have had three speakers this semester. Ashok happens to be well-connected in the Bay Area’s libertarian circle, so he was able to network with these individuals. And next semester, we already have more speakers planned (many of them fairly big names). Patri Friedman, Milton Friedman’s grandson, has expressed interest in speaking. Kevin Takanaga, the chairman of California’s Libertarian Party, wants to speak. And, most interestingly, John Dennis, the Republican candidate running against Nacy Pelosi in San Francisco’s congressional district, has contacted us about speaking (for that one we will probably get a joint event going with BCR).

SD: What would you like to do better? How do you see SFL improving in the near future? How do you see SFL’s role at Cal?
CG: As for improving, I would like to see Students for Liberty be more active with the campus community. Although we have a strong internal circle, I feel we need to get our message out more. So, we plan to have more events like speakers, debates, and possibly even a rally on Sproul. We want to get our message out there so everyone can hear it.

Students for Liberty meets Wednesdays at 7PM in 263 Dwinelle. You may find their website at http://studentsforliberty.webs.com.