The film begins in the United States, where it introduces former CIA agent Bryan Mills (Neeson) who retired in order to spend more time with his daughter. His daughter, Kim (Grace), lives with her mother, who divorced Mills and is now married to a wealthy businessman. Though Mills’ relationships with his daughter and ex-wife are strained as a result of his unusual devotion to his job as a CIA operative, he now seeks to mend things and to be the father he always wanted to be but never was.

When Mills discovers that Kim plans to travel to France with her similarly young and naive friend Amanda, he becomes defensive and worried, attempting to convince her that it is unsafe and that she should stay home. He then tries to convince her to let him tag along for the trip, but in the end Mills gives into the demands (and manipulations) of his ex-wife and agrees to let his only daughter travel Europe unescorted.

When Kim and Amanda arrive in Paris, they meet a deceptively charming young man who asks them where they are staying. As soon as they leave, the young man passes on the information by phone to an associate of his. Once at the large penthouse which Amanda rented for the trip, Kim goes to the bathroom, where she receives a call from her concerned father. During the phone conversation, through the atrium window she sees Amanda struggling in a fight against a handful of intruding men, and informs her ex-CIA dad of what is occurring. He urges her to hide, and if caught, to reveal all the identifying features of her captors before she is completely whisked away. She follows her father’s advice but is quickly discovered and captured by the men.

With the helpful hints provided by his daughter in the moments before she was snatched, Mills immediately boards a flight to Paris to track her down and rescue her from kidnappers he suspects are an Albanian gang active in the sex trafficking trade. At one point, he manages a phone call with them and pledges to hunt them down, find them, and kill them. He follows through on his commitment, tracking down the organized criminals who orchestrated the kidnapping, destroying many of their facilities and killing many of their men. Eventually, he finds Kim and brings her safely home to the U.S.

His heroic acts in the pursuit of rescuing his daughter earn Mills the admiration and gratitude of his ex-wife and her husband, as well as a strengthened relationship with his daughter. By the end, Mills helps his daughter pursue her dreams of a singing career, setting up a voice lesson for her with a famous singer for whom he had recently done security work: a good ending for all but the villains.

Besides simply being an excellent story with an exciting plotline and exhilarating action scenes, Taken also embodies a number of good, conservative values that most definitely help make this movie one of the best action films to hit the screen in recent months. From a strained beginning which shows the struggles wrought by divorce and the importance of maintaining close family ties, to the celebration of a hero who saves his daughter no matter the personal cost, and to the happy-ever-after ending which shows reconciliation between father and daughter and between ex-spouses, the movie is unequivocally pro-family, showing the toll of family neglect and the value of hands-on parenting—especially obvious in the scenes where Mills is seen fighting his daughter’s captors. In addition, the film seems to champion Mills’ lone acts of bravery, and his unrelenting drive to do what is right, to butt heads with evil, and to defend his daughter’s innocence.

The film also highlights the often-forgotten but very real and urgent crisis of the global human sex trafficking trade. Though most Americans remain woefully uninformed on the issue, the fact of the matter is that all across the world—including right here in America—this sick and twisted practice takes place, depriving many defenseless young women of their freedom. Taken reminds us that evil is alive and well in the world, and that it must be battled with vigilance and perseverance continuously.
Though it may exhibit too much action and violence for those who are on the squeamish side, Taken is the perfect choice for anyone looking to see a film which emphasizes the centrality of family, the importance of forcefully confronting evil in the world, and which ends with a renewed and strengthened relationship between father and daughter.

Taken (FOX) DVD goes on sale May 12, 2009.

The following will be the last of my California Patriot articles. I would like to thank everyone on the Patriot staff with whom I worked – 2005 to 2009. It has been a wonderful ride! It’s hard to believe it’s been almost four years since my first column. God speed to all of you, and thanks everyone for reading.

A relatively minor controversy has erupted over U.C. Berkeley’s Spring 2009 commencement speaker. The Californians, who choose the speaker every year, selected Chris Gardner – the real-life inspiration for the film The Pursuit of Happyness.
The Facebook and Twitter pages of my friends were filled with venom. “Chris Gardner!?! Who? WTF!” one read. Another threatened to boycott the graduation ceremony altogether.

For those who haven’t heard of him, Christopher P. Gardner is a self-made millionaire who lived on the streets in the Bay Area for almost a year with his son. He slept in locked BART station bathrooms and even on this very campus in the early 1980s. He passed his stock broker’s exam, worked his way up the corporate ladder, and is now rumored to be worth $165 million.

I concede Mr. Gardner is not a household name. Far from it. But did anybody bother to look up his biography before blasting his selection? All in all, my fellow seniors were probably hoping for a more political and even more famous speaker (never mind the fact that they must cross union picket lines – a no-no in Democratic circles – or that Berkeley is best-known to avoid cultural mainstreams). It is rumored that Oprah Winfrey and Stephen Colbert were runners-up to Gardner. But what angered seniors most was the selection of Michelle Obama by U.C Merced (est. 2005). “UCM got the First Lady?!?” one Facebook status stated.

The Daily Californian Editorial Board and I are probably in the minority of people in Berkeley impressed with Gardner’s selection; the former ran a fairly positive op-ed on April 10. But I’m convinced that Gardner’s speech – and his inspiring story – will trounce any speech by the fake news personality or the overexposed talk-show host or even the new first lady.

The basic fact is that Gardner is an ideal commencement speaker. He breathes and lives inspiration. He is a testament to the power of the individual and the American Dream. His story (his homelessness and where he made his millions) takes place right here in the Bay Area. That he is relatively unknown should not be a detriment to the speech he will give and the people he will undoubtedly motivate, but should be part of his appeal.

I cannot even imagine what a U.C. Berkeley commencement address from Michelle Obama would sound like. Global warming, health care, multiculturalism, the White House vegetable garden, Barack, Bush, and so on. Spare me. If I want to be lectured on such topics all I have to do is (a) go to class, (b) listen to an A.S.U.C. speech, (c) walk down Telegraph Avenue, (d) watch a television channel other than Fox News, or (e) read a newspaper not named “The Wall Street Journal”. See, I want something different for my commencement address.

Fortunately, with Chris Gardner, I’m pretty sure that’s what I’m going to get. More refreshing and pertinent to the majority of Americans (and soon-to-be jobless Berkeley graduates) is Gardner’s story. When he was homeless, who did he blame but himself? When he became a multimillionaire, who did he have to thank but himself? He didn’t need a bailout, a stimulus package, or even a tax cut. He worked himself to the bone, caring for his son and studying and working all along the way. If that doesn’t top the list of stories sure to inspire Americans today, I don’t know what is.

Why should we, the U.C. Berkeley Class of 2009, value stature over content? Does it really mean more – in the long run – that someone that famous speaks as we receive our diplomas? Or is the content of the speech itself more important? I would like to think that after four years of rigorous academic and philosophical exercise we have shed some degree of superficiality.
An entrepreneur speaking to graduating seniors in the year 2009 is, if not inspirational, an absolute necessity. Given the economic downturn and the changing economy of late, we need, now more than ever, to foster creativity, emphasize personal responsibility, and encourage people to pursue their dreams and their own happiness.

A commencement speaker who rejected government intrusion when it mattered, determined not to let the federal government pay his bills and bail him out of his mistakes, is not just timely and important to have at graduation this year, but is worth boasting about and exemplifies the unique qualities that have earned Berkeley a world-renowned reputation for excellence. Chris Gardner is the living example of these principles. Neither Mrs. Obama, nor Oprah Winfrey, nor Stephen Colbert is a better fit than that.

1.    UC Fees to Rise 10%

UC students will likely face fee increase of almost 10% and employees may be laid off; however, UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau has said that he’s unwilling to take a pay cut himself. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the chancellor

currently makes $436,800 a year, plus “a generous package of benefits.” The chancellor told the Chronicle, “Obviously [salary reductions for top administrators] is one of the things that we have considered. Further reductions of senior administrators’ salaries would make us less able to compete with other universities … seriously damaging our ability to attract outstanding people.” Not all administrators are so selfish. Frank Yeary, a vice chancellor, has opted to forgo his $200,000-a-year salary. The fee increase has been designed with the Communist slogan “from each according to his abilities” in mind. Families earning more than $100,000 would see fees rise by 9.3%. Families earning from $60,000 to $100,000 would face an increase of 4.65 percent, while those earning less than $60,000 would not be subject to any increase. The UC regents have approved the increased fees for the summer secession, and are expected to vote in May to extend the increase to the 2009-2010 academic year.

2.    UC Officials: What Recession?

Chancellor Birgeneau isn’t the only UC official making big bucks during the recession. Despite the economic crisis, in March the UC regents added more senior administrators to the university’s already bloated bureaucracy, hiring two executives with salaries greater than $350,000 a year. At the same time the regents authorized two former chancellors to take paid administrative leaves; according to the San Francisco Chronicle, one will receive $315,000 a year while the other makes off with a whopping $402,200 annually! Over the past several months, the regents have given pay raises of up to 22.3 percent to a half dozen senior administrators, the Chronicle reported. Paul Schwartz, a spokesman for the UC Office of the President, said the sky rocketing salaries should be viewed in the context of “a pay freeze for existing senior staff, restrictions on travel, and a host of other cost-cutting measures here and on every UC campus.” Anyone who’s been in a crumbling, overcrowded campus building knows there certainly are cost-cutting measures in place. The university’s statement is loud and clear: students should pay up while UC fat cats make off like Somali pirates.

3.    State Sales Tax Spikes

Many Californians felt like fools on April 1st, when they learned that state sales tax had increased by one percent; however, the higher tax rate is no joke. California state sales tax is now six cents on the dollar, although local sales taxes mean that the average Californian pays 8.95 percent on most purchases. In the Bay Area, sales tax rates are even higher and, if Oakland officials have their way, the regional will continue to be the tax leader in the state. In what we can only assume is an attempt to make Oakland the worst place to live in California, Oakland City Councilwoman Jean Quan proposed asking voters to raise the sales tax to 10.25 percent. Currently, sales tax in Oakland is a whopping 9.75 percent; Berkeley residents pay the same sky-high rate. If the proposed sales tax increase is approved, Oakland would tie for the highest sales tax rates in the state. If rampant violence wasn’t enough of a reason for shoppers to avoid Oakland, a higher tax should do the trick and kill of any businesses left in the city.

4.    Terrorists Strike Berkeley Marine Recruiting Center

On the eve of the six-year anniversary of the Iraq war, the windows of the Marine Recruiting Center in Berkeley were broken and splattered with red paint (or pink, depending on the lighting). Although the perpetrators have yet to be brought to justice, the Iraq war anniversary was celebrated the next day by antiwar activists Code Pink and World Can’t Wait. We can’t help but wonder why the anti-military forces aren’t targeting the one man who has authority to stop the war—Commander in Chief Barack Obama. In the past Code Pink never hesitated to call out President Bush, even as they misdirected their anger at the Marine Recruiting Center which has no power to shape defense policy. If these vandals and criminals care about ending the war, they should direct their protest at the president using slightly more legal avenues to express their opinions. If instead they choose to intimidate the Marines with acts of violence, they should be treated as the terrorists that they are.

5.    Barbara Lee Chills with Castro

Oakland is in crisis. Recently four police officers and a UC student were slain on its violence-plagued streets (see the news section for our coverage of these horrific events). In the midst of these tragedies, one might ask what are Oakland’s elected officials doing to bring an end to the bloodshed. Oakland’s Democratic Representative Barbara Lee was soaking up the sun on an exclusive Caribbean island—Cuba. That’s right, Rep. Lee violated the embargo to travel to Communist Cuba and was hosted by none other than Fidel Castro himself. The Oakland liberal came away impressed with the Communist country: “There were no barricades, but beautiful plants and trees,” Lee told the San Francisco Chronicle. We’re glad Rep. Lee enjoyed her trip—we only wish she could have stayed longer. Since this Commie-loving liberal isn’t doing anything to end the violence in her own city, she might as well retire to the worker’s paradise that is Cuba. Of course, maybe we’re just mad that she didn’t bring us back any Cuban cigars.

6.    ASUC on the Brink of Bankruptcy

The ASUC recently rejected a proposal that would have allowed fast-food chain Panda Express to open a restaurant on campus in a move that may do more than just deprive Cal students of cheap, tasty food. According to ASUC Auxiliary Director Nadesan Permaul the deal with Panda Express is necessary to keep the auxiliary fiscally afloat. The auxiliary is currently facing a $200,000 deficit, according The Daily Californian. According to Jan Crowder, director of student affairs, the ASUC is itself on the brink of insolvency and the deal with Panda Express would have been a way for the organization to regain financial stability. “I am extremely concerned about the possibility of falling prey again to the circumstances that led the ASUC to a $6 million deficit and near bankruptcy in 1998,” Crowder told The Daily Cal. “If ASUC does not enter into a contract with Panda Express, it will not have other options available to stay afloat.” This is just the latest example of the ASUC taking an ideological stance instead of deciding in the best interests of the students. On second thought, maybe this item doesn’t belong on this list—would it really be so bad for the ASUC to go bankrupt?

A president of the United States should not expect to be spared from media criticism on account that something which had happened wasn’t really his fault. If he is a Republican, he should be especially sure of this. So if White House staffers made an honest mistake in not overly qualifying a banner meant to express admiration for the success of an aircraft carrier crew back from the longest tour of duty since the Vietnam era, President Bush had no right to complain when he was accused of prematurely declaring victory in Iraq, even as he warned on that infamous May Day, “Our mission continues. Al-Qaida is wounded, not destroyed.”

He was wrong in stating that the end of ‘major combat operations’ had come. Yet, quietly, almost unnoticed by the vast majority of Americans preoccupied with an economy that is tanking, the brave men and women of our armed forces, led by General Petraeus, a brilliant soldier-scholar in the mold of the legendary Xenophon, and by the resolve of a president who refused to accept defeat when it was supposed to be the only option, have created facts on the ground in Iraq such that it would be completely apt to bring that ill-fated banner out of retirement, six years later.

There were three primary goals that American policymakers had, but failed to clearly elucidate, when we opened up the Iraqi front in the war against Islamic radicalism: 1) to remove an aggressive, violent dictator as a threat to order in the Middle East, 2) to remake Iraq into a model of democracy for the rest of the Islamic world, and 3) to move the battleground away from Manhattan. The first was accomplished within weeks. Yet, the latter two took longer, and may have even seemed like pipe dreams for a time. However, today, six years later, we see that all three have been accomplished.

There is a line of thought, popular among both those on the left who sympathize with the grievances of our enemies and those who self-righteously proclaim themselves to be “realists,” that terrorism is impossible to defeat; rather, its “root causes” must be dealt with. In other words, we must appease the demands of our enemies, for then they will no longer hate us. Such is wishful thinking and empirically false. Israel’s Ariel Sharon was called a warmonger when he rejected such beliefs, but bus and pizzeria bombings virtually disappeared due to measures like targeted assassinations and a security fence widely criticized by the left. Terrorism went from an existential threat to a nuisance for the Jewish State.

The war we wage against terrorism is similar. Many have argued that our fight in Iraq would be counterproductive, that is, it would merely encourage terrorism. Yet, not one major terrorist attack has occurred on American soil since the adoption of Bush’s anti-terrorism strategy following 9/11. Correlation is not necessarily causation, but there is a strong case to be made that what we did in Iraq succeeded in reducing the chances of another terrorist attack happening here at home. Terrorism cannot be fought effectively on our soil without us surrendering the civil liberties that make us the freest people on earth. The battle must be brought to the terrorists.

That is precisely what happened. Foreign fighters streamed into Iraq to fight the Great Satan—which means that the terrorists and their resources were not flowing into America. We paid a terrible price in blood and treasure but we successfully destroyed Al Qaeda in Iraq. On April 20, 2007, as the surge was in full swing, Harry Reid unequivocally said, “The war is lost.” Wishful thinking for defeatists, perhaps, but terrorism has been fought and defeated. Whereas, scores of American soldiers would die in roadside bombs a few years back, today, hostile deaths of American military personnel have fallen precipitously (it’s amazing what happens when one directs leftists to icasualties.org) to levels that, while still tragic, are indicative of our military’s enduring success.

The ideological and psychological effects of this are no less relevant than the fact that limited terrorist resources were expended in Iraq. Osama bin Laden has long spoken of a weak horse and a strong horse and the tendency of individuals to gravitate towards the strong horse. One may be willing to die for a cause they think will win, but one will think twice when theirs is a cause that is losing. September 11th may have established radical Islam as the ’strong horse’ and our initial bungling in Iraq may have confirmed that for many. But the defeat of Al Qaeda in places like Anbar province showed that America can win, and that she will not be deterred from her mission by any amount of sustained resistance from her enemies.

We have struck both a material and a psychological blow to the terrorist wing of Islamic radicalism that becomes more crucial with the ascendancy of the new administration in Washington. For the Obama administration to accomplish the diplomatic goals it spoke of with such conviction, it is hugely beneficial to speak from a position of strength—the position of a nation that has fought terrorism against the counsel of many and prevailed.

Yet, we were not merely fighting Al Qaeda and foreign terrorism; we were waging war against Iraqis who falsely mistook our motives as those of occupiers and not liberators. Many say that a popular insurgency cannot be defeated militarily. They are poor students of history. Comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam have been made passé by mindless protesters desiring to relive the past, but they are not entirely useless. As the eminent Vietnam scholar Lewis Sorley documents in his book, A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America’s Last Years in Vietnam, American military prowess had crushed the Viet Cong and the NVA following the Tet Offensive and President Nixon’s victory was undermined only by the post-Watergate Democratic Congress withdrawing aid from our South Vietnamese allies. Fortunately, President Bush has successfully managed the conclusion of our battle against the insurgency in Iraq.

Today, the democratically-elected Iraqi government faces a whole set of problems, but its existence is no longer threatened. Iraq will remain a country ruled by its people, not by a dictator or a monarch who traces his family lineage to Mohammad. The Iraqi people have shown an appreciation and excitement for democracy and have not reacted to it by electing the most radical party possible, as the residents of Gaza did with Hamas. An Islamic coalition supported by moderate clerics rules the country, not the Sadrists, whose message is virulently anti-American and pro-Iranian. It is not a complete model of civil liberties, but it is not the Islamic theocracy many feared it would become. Baghdad, once ruled by gangs of puritanical fundamentalists, is seeing its nightclubs and liquor stores reopen and its parks fill with couples expressing their affection for one another perhaps a little too publicly.

The central thesis of the “democratizers” who argued for our military action in Iraq was that people would choose freedom and peace over violence and tyranny when given the choice. In a region that previously had one democratic Moslem state, the introduction of a second one where there has been no tradition of liberalism will act as an inspiring model for the rest—most importantly its neighbor, Iran—showing that religion can coexist with democracy without the need for all-powerful religious clerics. For democratization to work optimally, a period of somewhat benevolent dictatorship for the proliferation of liberal values in a controlled environment has proved invaluable, but as we skipped this step in Iraq, the nation will require a sustained commitment from us following the end of our military engagement there.

The Democratic Party has been portrayed as weak on issues of national security for more than a third of a century because of its complicity in the loss of a free Vietnam. We ought to pray to God that, as the party wields almost unchecked power today, it will not make the same mistake with Iraq—not for its own sake, but for the sake of the Iraqis and freedom-loving people everywhere.

On Saturday, March 28, one of our own fell victim to the rampant violence that plagues Oakland’s streets. UC Berkeley senior Vincent Choi was gunned down outside Dan Sung Sa, a Korean bar on the 2700 block of Telegraph Avenue in Oakland. His death is part of a recent wave of crime in the East Bay that has residents, students and officials concerned about safety.

A political science student, Choi was scheduled to graduate in May. According to Oakland Police and The Daily Californian, Choi and five friends were involved in an altercation with a group of eleven men and women outside the bar, when one member of that group pulled out a gun and opened fire. Choi was fatally shot and died on the scene, while two of his friends, one of whom is also a Cal student, were injured. A grad student instructor who taught Choi, told The Daily Californian that Choi wanted to be a police officer so that he could help people in need.

The murder of Choi came just days after the assassination of four Oakland police officers, and follows a stabbing outside of a fraternity house near the university and a series of sexual assaults on the south side of campus have caused concern among residents and officials. These crimes are part of an increase in the number of high profile crimes that have occurred in the Oakland/Berkeley area in the past several months.

On March 21, two Oakland police officers were killed in East Oakland as they conducted a traffic stop. Shortly thereafter, after receiving a tip from the public, police stormed an apartment building where the suspect, Lovelle Mixon, was hiding. Before he was killed, Mixon killed an additional two officers, including UC Berkeley alumnus Daniel Sakai.

Just two weeks earlier, a UC Berkeley fraternity member was stabbed at the corner of Piedmont Ave and Channing Way. According to bystanders quoted in The Daily Cal, the victim attempted to intervene in an altercation involving a woman and a man who was harassing her.  The stabbing came in the wake of a series of 20 sexual assaults mainly on the Southside of campus. In most cases, a man approached women from behind and attempted to sexually assault them before fleeing in the opposite direction.

Students and residents alike have expressed a heightened concern for safety in the wake of the recent events. UC Berkeley freshman Taylor White told The Daily Cal about the heightened anxiety. “I have friends whose parents are calling and asking them if they’re okay,” she told the paper. “It’s definitely had an impact on our image in a negative way.”

Officials have also expressed concern about the impact recent criminal activity will have on the perception of the region. “I am greatly concerned that there may be a perception that UCPD is not doing enough to protect the safety and well-being of our campus and its members,” Dean of Students Jonathan Pollard told The Daily Californian, adding that he is concerned about the effect it may have on the decisions of students admitted to Cal deciding whether or not to enroll.

Safety was also a key issue during the ASUC elections held on the Berkeley campus during the second week of April. Dani Haber, the Student Action party candidate for External Vice President, which deals with issues outside the direct purview of the campus administration such as safety, supported more emergency call boxes on campus and increasing the number of police officers on foot and bicycle. One of her opponents, Joan Jones of the CalSERVE party, also highlighted safety, though offered few specifics. “Because of recent assaults on and around campus, the ASUC must do everything it can to ensure a safe campus,” she wrote on the party’s website.

But the call for more police presence has not been uniform. Some local residents and activists have complained in the aftermath of the police slayings that police may be part of the problem, not the solution. On the local liberal website Indybay.org, various posters have complained about the activities of police. “Oakland has a very clear publicly supported policy of police containment, implementing an incessant martial law with ever-present SWAT teams and police helicopters circling over neighborhoods daily. California’s prison population is the fourth largest in the entire world and the OPD does everything possible to feed young African men and women from Oakland into that system for their entire lives,” one poster wrote.

Regardless of the reasons for the latest round of criminal activity around UC Berkeley and the East Bay, police urge the public to remain vigilant and for students to take advantage of safety services such as Bear Walk and the night shuttles.
“UCPD encourages everyone to utilize the free safety program and services, such as the BearWalk Night Safety Escort, Owl Service, and the Night Safety Shuttles, and to exercise safety precautions during your travels on and around the campus,” the department wrote in an official release.

The 21-month-long Oak Grove tree sit that began in December 2006 finally came to an end on September 9, 2008. In opposition to the development of the Student-Athlete High Performance Center, whose construction requires the removal of 42 Oak Grove trees, hundreds of protesters occupied the oak trees while court battles regarding the construction proceeded in the community. Despite Alameda County’s permission for the university to take any necessary action to forbid the tree sit, several tree sitters still remained, eventually occupying only one tree by Summer 2008. In early Fall 2008, after further rulings by Alameda County and the California Court of Appeals in favor of the University, a tree service began cutting down all of the trees, except the one that was still occupied. After much negotiation, the police were eventually able to persuade the tree sitters to voluntarily come down from the tree, and the last tree was cut down later that day. The last four protesters were charged with contempt of court for violating Judge Keller of the Alameda County Superior Court’s order forbidding the tree sit. Two of these protesters were sentenced to 5 days in jail, another was able to serve his time in jail while waiting for a hearing on an unrelated misdemeanor charge, and the last protester was given credit for time served while awaiting trial. The remaining protesters were given 50 hours of community service.

Code Pink Quits, Protests Continue

There is no doubt that Code Pink made its mark in Berkeley by infamously protesting the opening of the Berkeley Marine Recruiting Center for an entire year. In an effort to close down the Recruiting Center, the members of Code Pink spent every Wednesday standing outside the building, holding their anti-war signs and repeating their peace-reflecting chants. Various groups, including the Berkeley College Republicans and local veteran organizations, often stood across the street from Code Pink and counter protested the group’s cause.  In February 2008, the Berkeley City Council granted Code Pink six months of sound permits and a parking spot directly in front of the Marine Recruiting Center to continue their weekly protests, which began in September 2007. Putting the Berkeley City Council in the spotlight, these permits were later said to be a “mistake” by Berkeley City Mayor Tom Bates. By October 2008, the attention, along with the members and funding of Code Pink, died down, and the protests came to an end. With the Recruiting Center’s victory, everyone thought Code Pink had reached a stopping point. On March 18, however, a number of unidentified people vandalized the building by smashing windows and spraying red paint across the front of the center. Even though the vandalism occurred on the eve of the Iraq War’s 6th anniversary, it is unknown whether the incident is related to the past protests. Code Pink claims that the group has nothing to do with the vandalism that occurred, as they do not condone violence, but understands the frustration that people may have with the Recruiting Center. There have recently been several protests outside the center regarding the U.S. military policy in the Middle East. With the seemingly endless anger that people have towards the our troops, it is unknown when the protests will stop.

Anti-Israel Students Recall Senator

The Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC, pronounced “A suck”) put its reputation as student government into question when it decided to hold recall elections for former ASUC Senator John Moghtader. Several months ago, when Moghtader and two others asked the Students for Justice in Palestine group to take down their flag at a concert on Lower Sproul, a physical fight ensued, of which Moghtader was not a part. Even though there is video evidence that Moghtader was completely removed from the fight, the recall supporters wanted to use the claim that he was involved as a reason for his recall. Another important reason behind the recall is Moghtader’s pro-Israel position: his effectiveness and legitimacy as an ASUC Senator began to be questioned by the recall supporters who have opposing views regarding the issue of Israel and Palestine, even though Moghtader has never imposed his views on the Senate and supports all student groups equally. At the cost of $20,000, the recall was supported by 72% of the student voters (a fraction of the total student population, since most don’t care enough to vote) . As Moghtader’s removal of ASUC office was made official at the Senate meeting on Wednesday, April 15th, Moghtader was replaced by Marcus Caimi, a Student Action runner-up in last year’s general elections. The ASUC’s ability to jump to conclusions and not fully examine or investigate the issue has lead to an unnecessary recall that many would describe as injustice.

Students Swarm Sproul…to respectfully listen to their government

In yesteryear, angry students used to gather on Sproul and demand their government’s attention…on January 20, 2009, they gathered there to listen. UC Berkeley held a screening of the Inauguration of President Obama on the steps of Sproul Plaza, where more than 10,000 students, faculty, Berkeley residents, and local Berkeley elementary school students viewed the ceremony and welcoming of the nation’s 44th President. One of the biggest crowds on Sproul Plaza that the campus has ever seen, the viewers were very excited to witness Obama’s historic Oath of office and shared a strong sense of unification and patriotism in supporting the new President.

Dear Readers,
Have a great summer. See you next year.
-the staff of the Patriot

This year, 11,016 students, or 31% of the student body, voted in the A.S.U.C. elections, which is a 5% jump from last year’s turn out.

In contrast to the single party-dominated executive board, the Senate was more evenly divided, with Student Action landing eight seats, CalSERVE winning seven, and the last five won by independent and third party candidates.

One SQUELCH! candidate, Emily “Joe the Plumber” Carlton, made it to the Senate, coming in at number eighteen. The SQUELCH! party is famous for providing the alcohol and making professionalism in the A.S.U.C. look completely overrated…in all seriousness, of course. Coming from a party that makes the A.S.U.C. look like one big circus, Carlton’s win is a big one. Her platform emphasizes fair allocation of money to the students and student groups, while being aware of where the money is actually going. Carlton promises to bring transparency, efficiency and responsibility to the A.S.U.C. as a senator.

The Berkeley College Republicans candidate, Rick Chen, was not elected to the Senate. Chen claimed, “I was disappointed initially, but I am excited that there was justice for John Moghtader and I’m happy that CalSERVE lost the executive positions. I’m also happy that SQUELCH! was able to win a place in the Senate.” With Chen’s loss, and BCR’s current senator, Tommy Owens, graduating this year, BCR will no longer have representation in the A.S.U.C.

Ariel Boone, a member of the Cal Berkeley Democrats, was able to land a seat in the Senate, running for CalSERVE.
The Student Action executive victory serves as a drastic change for the A.S.U.C., as this is the first time that Student Action candidates have won all four executive positions since 2006. CalSERVE has controlled most of the executive positions for the past two years, which ultimately created a Student Action fever during the elections. People wanted something different, something new.

CalSERVE can be thought of as the more liberal of the two parties, as its platform emphasizes multiculturalism, social equality and social justice, or basically the ideals behind a huge support system for affirmative action.

The Student Action party is concerned with accountability of the student government to get every voice heard, while also improving the quality of student life. The party’s goals include providing more accessible studying space, increasing student resources and research opportunities, working towards Lower Sproul re-development, and increasing student safety.
These platforms are all very stimulating, but how much do the students actually care about them? The not-so-impressive 31% voter turnout illustrates how detached the A.S.U.C. really is in student life. Apparently 69% percent of the student body doesn’t walk to class preoccupied with who their student government officers should be and what to do about such issues as former Senator John Moghtader’s recall.

Followers of A.S.U.C. news will remember the controversy about Moghtader’s involvement in a physical fight at an anti-Israeli event. The recall supporters brought into action a recall election, despite video proof of Moghtader’s complete detachment from the violence. Of the approximately 35,000 students that attend the University, 2,689 students voted in favor of the recall and 1,021 against it, which allowed the A.S.U.C. to take official action in Moghtader’s removal from office. At the cost of $20,000, Moghtader’s recall raises questions about the A.S.U.C.’s ability to budget their already limited spending.

At the election results meeting, Tommy Owens, current A.S.U.C. senator and BCR member, held a sign that read “Justice” and had Moghtader’s picture on it. After the Student Action sweep, Owens waved the sign towards the defeated CalSERVE crowd. The Student Action win was a happy one for Moghtader’s supporters.

One may wonder how such a large number of students can simply not care about the actions of the biggest student government in the nation. Maybe it’s the corruption, or maybe it’s the shocking political apathy of college students. Either way, the A.S.U.C. does not seem to be doing its job in reaching out to students.

Of the students that do vote, there are a considerable amount that feels quite strongly about which party they vote for, and others who remain uncertain about who are the best candidates.

Tikvah member Matthew White stated, “I voted Student Action all the way, and I encouraged all the people in the club to vote Student Action.” In support of Will Smelko’s candidacy for President, White claimed, “Will Smelko was one of the few people in the Senate who dared to defend John Moghtader.”

Mia Pskowski, member of the Cal Berkeley Democrats, believes that the executive board works better when it is split between two parties, and that the dominance of CalSERVE in the past created a strong want for change, leading to the Student Action sweep. Pskowski stated, “There was only a 30% turnout of votes, which means that the A.S.U.C. really needs to start reaching out to students.” Pskowski believes that it is important for the students to be knowledgeable about voting because the A.S.U.C. has a big impact on student life, including funding for student groups and Lower Sproul development.

Mariam Sarwary, member of the Muslim Student Association, stated, “I didn’t know the stances too well, so I didn’t want to vote for all of the positions.” Sarwary voted Isaac Miller for Academic VP under CalSERVE and for another MSA member for Senate. Sarwary claimed, “Many of the candidates focus on getting out their views and platforms, but they do not necessarily advertise their names well enough for people to remember who they are.”

As the new executives and senators of the A.S.U.C. embark on the 2009-10 school year, a new kind of student government will be in place since recent history, and the student body (or at least 31% of it) will await the changes promised by these new student government leaders.

A Californian who voted for Proposition 209 in 1996 expecting it to be the beginning of a new era of merit rather than political considerations being the dominant factor in UC admissions would have been sorely mistaken. The regents, laughably criticized as reactionary conservatives by radical leftist groups like BAMN, approved in February a plan that would eliminate the SAT Subject Test (popularly known as the SAT-II) requirement starting for the current high school freshman class. In so doing, they eliminated a measure that is both useful and fair: two one-hour tests on a Saturday morning, with fee waivers for those who cannot afford it.

A little thought experiment for those questioning the need for Subject Tests: individual A goes to a large public school where achievement is high, while individual B, otherwise equally qualified as individual A, goes to one where achievement is low. For whom is it going to be easier to achieve the more stand-out grades?

To adequately evaluate applicants, the university needs to differentiate between students A and B. The Reasoning Test is closely correlated with IQ, which in turn was successfully demonstrated by Harvard Professor Richard Herrnstein’s tour de force, The Bell Curve, to be indicative of many forms of human economic and social potential. But intelligence is not the only criteria the university has to take into account. It must also make sure that its students have been both academically well-prepared and have a track record of exerting effort in their studies. An IQ test like the Reasoning Test fails to do this, and so comes the utility of the Subject Tests, which tests academic preparation to a greater degree. Indeed, the most widely cited anti-SAT study, Saul Geiser’s 2001 study for the University of California Office of the President, even states that the Subject Tests are a better predictor of freshman grades than is the SAT-I.

If the regents truly wanted to remove a barrier to entry without harming academic standards, they would have loosened the very strict A-G requirements that disqualify thousands of scholastically successful students and discourage thousands of others from even considering the system. It is always ridiculous when, as a result of poor counseling, an otherwise-qualified high school senior discovers he is ineligible for the University of California because he took two semesters of art, but not in consecutive semesters, as is required by the A-G requirements. Most elite colleges such as Harvard and Yale have no specific high school course requirements, merely recommendations which it is highly advisable to follow but failing to fulfill one does not result in automatic disqualification. There is no reason for the level of stringency the UC practices, especially noting the trend away from points-based systems to holistic reviews.

Ironically, the initiative will fail in accomplishing its goal of increasing “diversity” in the University of California—that is, the number of black and Latino students. According to the UCOP, although more may apply, the percentages of both admitted will not change significantly, with the only substantive difference being the balance between white and Asian students, with the numbers of the former rising at the expense of the latter. Attempts to artificially create diversity in academia are much harder to accomplish than they initially seem and often have repercussions that would be amusing were the stakes not as high.
But connect the dots. This has little to do with the increased numbers of eligible students; it has to do with differences between races in what test they do better on. As UCSB’s Daily Nexus points out, data compiled by the National Center for Fair and Open Testing reveals that Asians do better relative to whites on the Subject Tests than on the Reasoning Test, explaining why eliminating the SAT-II hurts them disproportionately.

Regardless of which test gives admissions officers the most accurate picture of the applicant, having more information cannot hurt, especially when considering the individual idiosyncrasies of tens of thousands of applicants. A high math Reasoning Test score and a low Subject math score may reveal a lack of adequate preparation, or simply be the mark of a slacker. Admissions officers use these two tests together with grades to get the most complete picture of applicants’ academic capabilities. There is no reason to take this tool out of their hands—unless one, of course, has an antipathy to Asian-Americans in higher education.
In fact, many white leftists do. Asian-Americans threaten them in ways that Latinos and blacks do not, due to the low numbers of the latter two groups going to college. The white suburban Californian soccer mom may support Obama, but she knows her child is competing against an “Asian math prodigy” for admission to the top colleges. Her child knows that just as well as she does and often bears resentment toward Asian students for challenging the hegemony he feels entitled to.

These attitudes may be silent sometimes, but they often are not. As Harvard Professor Stephan Thernstrom writes, “My wife, Abigail, appeared on Crossfire many years ago and was asked by liberal co-host Bob Beckel whether she would ‘like to see UCLA Law School 80 percent Asian.’” In a 1995 interview, President Clinton said that “there are universities in California that could fill their entire freshman classes with nothing but Asian Americans.” In 1998, a writer for Newsday asked, “Since Asians outscore everyone, would we accept an all-Asian class?” Who at Cal today has not heard from an avowedly leftist white acquaintance that “there are too many Asians here”?

What lies at the roots of this attitude? Democrats thrive off of keeping minorities poor and uneducated—that way, they can capture their vote share for perpetuity. And they are used to minorities being just that. When a minority that has endured a history of discrimination succeeds in America without the aid of government and even does better in many respects than the majority group, white leftists are left confused because that is so contrary to their paternalistic view of viewing the racial diversity in America. When people’s basic conceptions of the world are disturbed, they often respond with anger at the source of whatever the disturbance is. In this case, it happens to be Asian-Americans.

This may sound like a conspiracy theory, but considering that eliminating the SAT-II will not increase minority enrollment, as it is intended to do, will give admissions officers a more limited view of the applicant, and otherwise accomplish nothing positive, there seems little other explanation for the regents’ decision than anti-Asian sentiment.

The lesson to be derived from this sorry episode is that while social engineering generally does little to help those it tries to help, it can do wonders in hurting a minority group that succeeds without and even in spite of the government’s help.

Proposition 1F—which would bar elected officials from receiving pay raises during deficit years—seems like a no-brainer. One wonders why this wasn’t put into effect years ago. The other five propositions, however, require a bit more consideration.
According to the California Voter Guide, Proposition 1A “increases [the] size of [the] state ‘rainy day’ fund from 5% to 12.5% of the General Fund,” with the expected result of “limiting spending.” One might assume, based on this wording, that the proposition would merely expand the percentage of the General Fund to be reserved for the Budget Stabilization (“rainy day”) Fund, thereby reducing the amount of money at the legislature’s immediate disposal. If this were indeed the case—if the aim of the proposition were to “limit spending,” no strings attached—perhaps there would be some reason to believe proponents’ claims that “1A forces budget stability and accountability.” This is not, however, the case. There are strings attached—our purse strings. In order to acquire revenue to meet the 12.5% goal, the proposition entails an extension of tax increases passed by Governor Schwarzenegger and the legislature in February 2009 (specifically, the Sales and Use Tax, the Vehicle License Fee, and the Personal Income Tax).

Some might argue that more taxes are a small price to pay for a stabilized budget. The goal of 1A, after all, is to prevent California from plunging into another deficit—an aim which, if accomplished, would surely make up for any short-term losses inflicted by a continued tax hike. But the projected results of Proposition 1A are anything but certain. Qualifying language abounds as the Voter Guide analysis attempts to assess the measure’s benefits: 1A will result in “potentially less ups and downs in state spending over time,” “could make it harder to approve spending increases in some years,” “would likely make that year’s [2011-12] budget easier to balance.”

“In other years, however,” the Guide continues, “the effect of the measure on the ability of the state to balance the budget is unknown.” Also unknown is “the precise effect of having more rainy day funds,” although opponents of the measure remain convinced that if 1A is passed the “rainy day” fund will be used instead as a slush fund.

But surely, you say, the proposition has some redeeming qualities. 1A would, in fact, increase the governor’s ability to reduce spending without the legislature’s go-ahead. Perhaps under another administration this might be advantageous for the state, but even setting aside the fact that this authority would apply only to strictly limited circumstances, it would only be beneficial under a governor who actually intends to cut spending.

In addition, the measure includes nothing that might hinder future tax increases, while the restrictions it places on spending are feeble at best and easily circumvented. This proposition is by no means a step towards creating a responsible government; if anything, it provides an excuse for continued reckless spending, without the consolation of the stable budget its proponents claim it will provide. In fact, it seems that the only thing guaranteed by Proposition 1A is the simple fact stated in bold italics on the front page of the Voter Guide analysis: “Measure results in tax increases.”

There appears to be no opposition to Proposition 1B, which involves funding education. This is likely because the measure is tied to 1A. If Proposition 1A does not pass, 1B will not go into effect.

Proposition 1C—the Lottery Modernization Act—would grant the state the ability to borrow from future lottery profits in the hopes of acquiring $5 billion in the 2009-10 fiscal year to help alleviate the current deficit. Currently, 50% of lottery revenue is spent on prizes, while no more than 16% funds lottery operation. The remainder has been designated to support state educational institutions since the California lottery’s creation in 1984. Under Proposition 1C, all lottery profits would be redirected from education to pay off lottery borrowing, hopefully resulting in something approaching a balanced budget. The measure will also allow legislators to up the percentage of lottery revenue assigned to prize money, with the intended result of increasing sales.

Theoretically, the legislature will increase prize money to maximize profits. None of these profits will go towards education. Instead, the state will borrow $5 billion dollars from imagined future profits and pay them off gradually (and with interest) using lottery profits. Any profits not used to repay lottery borrowing will be directed to a new “Debt Retirement Fund” that the legislature may use for a number of purposes. In other words, lottery profits will be used to pay back money borrowed from…lottery profits! Baffled? You’re not alone. But the point is the state will be $5 billion closer to paying off the deficit.
Maybe. There is, after all, no guarantee that California residents will take the bait of higher prize money and spend more on lottery tickets. The Legislative Analyst suggests that, if prize money is increased, lottery sales may increase anywhere from 30 to 80 percent from $3 billion worth of tickets sold in the 2007-08 fiscal year. That would amount to $3.9-5.4 billion of revenue. However, the Voter Guide offers no figure for how much of this revenue will actually consist of profits, although it is clear that even in the absolute best case scenario profits will remain under $2 billion. Considering that Californians who spend more money on lottery tickets will then have less to spend on other things, the Analyst remains skeptical. “Increases in lottery sales,” he writes, “would be partially offset by declines in other state and local revenues.”

And what about the measure’s effect on education funding? The California lottery was initially created to assist with education without raising taxes, and Proposition 1C alters this original intention drastically. However, to make up for the diversion of funds from schools, more money will be drawn from the General Fund for educational institutions. This seems to present no actual loss to schools, but, strangely, the Voter Guide suggests that the contribution of lottery profits to education is negligible anyway, as if there is any possibility of education not receiving the promised funds.

While it could be an improvement to allow the legislature to maximize lottery profits, as in other states with more successful lotteries, it may be too much of a gamble to allow borrowing from future profits. The Voter Guide states that legislators have planned the budget under the assumption that they will receive that $5 billion, and it threatens that “if voters reject Proposition 1C, the Legislature and the Governor probably will have to agree to billions of dollars of additional spending cuts, tax increases, and/or other solutions,” even while forecasting “future strain on the General Fund.” It seems that Proposition 1C is just another measure that assists state funds temporarily while promising future budget difficulties and greater legislative power.

Moreover, lottery profits currently supply $250,000 to the state’s Office of Problem Gambling (apparently an educational institution). Proposition 1C demands that this figure be increased to $1 million. Which, incidentally, we are likely to need in the event of the measure’s passage because, according to the Voter Guide, “The projected increase in lottery gambling activity also may contribute to more Californians having gambling problems.”

In March, the university announced that the department would be reorganized as part of the Institute of International Studies, headed by a director instead of a dean. Curiously, that means that the current deanship, under which Professor Roy serves as associate dean of academic affairs, will be dissolved and effectively replaced by the directorship of the IIS.

When Executive Vice Chancellor George Breslauer announced to the student body that the university had decided to restructure and cut funding for the International and Area Studies Department, students and teachers alike organized in protest. Chief among them was Roy.

In an op-ed to The Daily Californian, Roy disagreed with the university’s claims that the changes were made with sufficient consultation with IAS administrators like her, and argued that the claims of cost-savings by the university were probably untrue. She also argued in favor of having a deanship rather than a directorship, citing the importance of having an administrative position devoted mostly to representing students and faculty when it comes to dealing with the demands of the more powerful university administrators at California Hall.

But by Roy’s own reasoning, isn’t that exactly where the current deanship failed? If Roy is right—that the dean protects the interests of the IAS Department—then it wouldn’t be necessary for professors like her to go public in opposing the administration’s decisions by writing to student newspapers and rallying students to their side.

In addition to Roy’s op-ed in The Daily Californian citing her reasons for opposing the restructuring, the newspaper’s editorial board was quick to come out in favor of “transparency.” Likewise, every student-written article since has hinged on that notion.
In the weeks that followed the ignition of the IAS restructuring controversy, more than 1,300 students and faculty signed a petition opposing the changes and calling for more transparency. A group called the IAS Coalition formed in response to the university’s decision and has since written several pieces calling for little more than “transparency” and complaining about the inefficient campus bureaucracy that has deterred them from making appointments with the chancellor himself.

Ironically, the IAS Coalition’s attempts to “Declare a moratorium on restructuring of the IASTP” and “Hold open meetings for public comment and discussion with stakeholders”, if they achieve anything, will significantly slow down that already frustratingly inefficient bureaucracy.

We’re all for transparency. But as Breslauer stated in his op-ed to The Daily Cal, “‘Consultation’ does not mean taking a binding vote among all stakeholders, and ‘transparency’ does not mean making all decisions in public. The role of senior administrators is to consult, to make the hard choices that are within their jurisdiction, and then to explain their rationale publicly.” Indeed, it is not the responsibility of students to ensure that they are receiving an adequate education; it is the responsibility of university administrators and instructors.

We at the Patriot are all in favor of students taking an active interest in the decision-making of university administrators, and even of protesting when protest is due. But in the case of the recent controversy over the reorganizing of the IAS Department, we do not yet see why students should care enough to see that the chancellor sits down with 40 different IAS Coalition protesters. Sure, it’s great for dramatic effect, but for what other purpose than that?

In one of the more recent op-eds on the subject, the situation seems to have boiled down to one where students simply don’t know exactly what’s going on or why exactly Professor Roy is so displeased. Transparency—or lack thereof—undoubtedly remains the main issue for students. But taking into consideration the overwhelming lack of specific grievances other than there being a perceived “lack of transparency,” the real reason for all the protesting, indignation, and opinion writing seems to have more to do with Ananya Roy leaving Berkeley, and less to do with the actual decisions made by the administration.

Roy has claimed to be most dismayed by the impact that the new changes will have on the IAS Teaching Program—the program that supposedly serves thousands of students both within the department and university-wide and that played a key role in establishing her Global Poverty and Practice minor. Yet little to no specific reasons have been pointed out as to how the Teaching Program would suffer as a result of the changes.

Those who are skeptical of the wide-spread opposition to the proposed changes say the move could be indicative of the university’s trend toward more financial independence. The administration has estimated the changes will result in at least $250,000 in savings to the university annually, in addition to making the division more accessible to researchers and alternative funding. Also, some believe much of the opposition to be based on a prevailing fear of academic diversity. Some would like to see alternative points of view regarding “global poverty,” “political economies of industrial societies,” and “peace and conflict” (all three currently being offered as academic concentrations by the department) while others would prefer to keep classes ideologically monochromatic.

Why all the flak then from Professor Roy and her students? Does anyone know? Perhaps it is time for Professor Roy to elaborate and for students to reserve their protests for issues they know more about and administrative missteps that are slightly more egregious than “the lack of transparency.” Transparency, after all, comes from the full disclosure of both sides.