Infinite Tolerance for University PR Spin?

Over on Kevin's blog, Mike of Potatochucker has revived his "defense" of the University: You know damn well that no one ever announced a "zero tolerance for political protest" That was SJP propaganda. He cites himself.

My response? Duh. I would thank Mike for stating the obvious except that he seems to be convinced that it somehow counters what SJP is saying. No duh, the administration doesn't issue press releases about its new lack of tolerance for political protest. No duh, UC PR folks are not entirely stupid. No duh, they spin everything in the UC's favor -- its their fucking JOB. They do it regardless of whether they are deflecting attention from the unfair way UC treats SJP or trying to pump the latest research claims UC scientists are making.

So the newsflash is that "Zero tolerance for political protest" is how SJP characterizes recent Administration policy and practice. So if that's what Mike means by "SJP propaganda", then right on. If Mike wants to believe that "SJP propaganda" is all it takes to get the press, ACLU, NLG, and Academic Senate interested in a non-issue, then I think the tin foil hat is on a little too tight. Good thing IAC hacker Tomer Altman is busy working to keep Mike unswayed by that vicious SJP propaganda while so many others are being converted to evil.

Folks who understand that everything is "propaganda", on all sides, may want to understand why SJP characterizes things the way we do. The phrase "zero tolerance" comes from communication with the University prior and pursuant to April 9th, in which the University took pains to establish an understanding with SJP that there was a new, stricter standard it was going to hold protesters to, and insisted that it would show "no tolerance" for disruptions. The exact phrasing "zero tolerance" has since made it into public statements and communiques over this summer passed up from the rabidly zionist Governor Davis (at the behest of the ADL - read their description of April 9th!) to President Atkinson (and Chancellor Reed) and onto campus heads such as our dear Chancellor Berdahl. The language of "no tolerance" has now became "zero tolerance", and what started being cultivated by the University way back at the first Wheeler occupation has made the journey from rhetoric to real, official policy, dictated at the State level and supported by numerous committees and working groups in the administration whose job it is to take the teeth out of pro-Palestinian protest.

More corroboration: in communication with us before the Barak demo, the OSL laid out, as a warning, that the zero tolerance policy alluded to before the Wheeler demo was now official policy (whatever that means). This change in policy was substantiated in the nature of the "behave yourself or else" warning read at the beginning of the barak talk, and the way the dean of students, Karen Kinney, comandeered the police department to detain people simply for walking out - LEAVING - a talk. If that doesn't merit a "zero tolerance" award, I don't know what does.
- posted by Mano Negra @ 6:33 PM |

 
Berkeley Blogs versus the World
So you might ask, how do the Berkeley Blogs (Kevin's children that is) rate with blogs nationwide?

Pretty well, actually.

According to BlogStreet.com, out of 28067
blogs...

Angry Clam is #268
Cal Stuff is #560
The Puddle #976 (surprise!)
ProgCal #1139

Albatross #1605 (tie!)
Beetle Beat #1605
Praglib #1863 (weird)
Greenthink #2014
Res Ispa #2763
Berkeley Anonymous #4629
Phat utopia #4629
Pettiness and Randomness #9295 (haha!)

(partial list)
How accurate is this? Good question.

- posted by Progressive @ 6:07 PM |

 
Nonsense from the Administrators

This is crazy!

"Hearings for the Wheeler 33 may now be held in the middle of finals and dead week, according to university officials."

""We think (the date) is deliberate," said Noreen Farrell, one of the protesters' attornies. "The university has chosen to go on the sixth, for the minimal amount of press coverage, (and the) least likelihood to get a full committee.""

Damn right it was deliberate. Now, if the university's case is so strong why do they have to resort to Hongish methods?
- posted by Progressive @ 1:26 AM |

 
Sharkansky the Poser

Over on this guy Sharkansky's blog there is a raging debate over his picturetaking. He boils down the debate over his actions after the Barak speech:

I think that everyone agrees that
(a) the woman who disrupted the speech turned herself into a news item
(b) She was in a public place, so I had every right to take her picture
(c) she didn't want her picture taken, yet had no basis to deny me permission to do so. Her only legitimate defense against being photographed would be to walk away or cover her face.

So the question becomes what is best way for a news photographer to get a picture from a hostile subject? The best way, probably, is to try to establish trust. But that's not guaranteed to work. In many cases, the subject simply doesn't want their picture taken, but the picture is taken anyway and the subject is left feeling royally pissed off. Tough toenails, sucks to be her. But I believe the law is clearly on the side of the photographer.

The issue is not whether I'm experienced and skilled at verbally disarming hostile subjects in order to take their picture (I don't claim that I am). The issue is the robbery and destruction of my property.

But let me turn this around to all those who think they know a better way to handle the hostile woman and still walk away with her picture. (And if you were there and saw both the way she disrupted Barak's speech and the expression on her face when I took her picture, you would know she was in the mood to start a fight). I especially want to hear from any experienced photojournalists. How would you have handled the situation?

Can you spot what's wrong with this picture?

Sharkansky expects us to operate under the assumption that he is "a news photographer." If he is a news photographer, how come he is taking pictures with a disposable camera? Are we supposed to believe that he doesnt own a real camera? Or perhaps he knew what was going to happen before he went out to "take pictures."

He talks about "verbally disarming" a subject in order to take their picture? Since when does a subject need to be verbally disarmed, and for what? Photons dont reflect off activist bodies while their cloaking shields are up?

He's right, the real issue is taking of the camera, and the fact that Sharky apparently wanted to get the camera taken away from him. Which is probably why he brought a disposable and operated it in a manner where it might easily be snatched.

But the fun doesn't end there. Apparently, someone at Berkeley posted a comment questioning Sharky's version. His/her failure to post a real name or provide an email address got the following off the handle, creepy response from Sharky:

Naturally, those who like to think they are most brave to come here and accuse me of lying, racism, cowardice, etc, are invariably the ones who decline to give their real name or e-mail address. This particular coward posted from IP address 128.32.79.44, which resolves to dwin-b3-4.WMF.Berkeley.EDU

Apparently, if you disagree with the guy, he will try to track you down. Believe him or else... or else provide him with your name, email, phone number, and employment records so he can, um, be convinced, you arent, a, uh.... coward....

Update - 11/24: Apparently "Straight Bull", the originator of the stalker-inducing criticism, is now being censored on Sharkansky's blog. I read a long post of his in the comments section this afternoon, unfortunately Sharky saw fit to delete it from his comments section by this evening. I guess that's an easy out when the debate isnt going your way.

- posted by Mano Negra @ 5:41 PM |

 
Wheeler 32 Big Legal Update

From the Wheeler Solidarity Site:

University attorneys today called SJP attorneys to admit that Roberto's hearing has been illegally held. However, instead of dropping all the charges, the University has decided to throw out Roberto's current student conduct committee (ie, jury) and start all over again.
    This is a tremendous legal victory. We've been arguing this over and over to the University: in motions before Roberto's hearing, in court, and in informal attempts to get the University to drop the cases. What does this mean for now?
    1. Roberto's hearing on Weds, 11/20, has been cancelled.
    2. The University is going to reschedule his hearing (and everyone else's) before a new student conduct committee. No word yet on when this will be.
    3. The University has admitted--finally!--that the criminal records are sealed so they cannot be used in the hearings. But it's still unknown exactly what evidence the University is going to try to admit (if any.)

- posted by Mano Negra @ 10:11 PM |

 
Takaki Honored
The polular ethnic studies professor Ronald Takaki has been awarded the Fred Cody Award for lifetime literary achievement and for service to community .
- posted by Progressive @ 12:27 AM |

 
More BCR Stupidity
The Cal Patriot has published another ridiculous story. Here are some choice quotes:

They still believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. They don’t know how to spell their last names or tie their own shoes. But they do know that “war is bad,” and that “Bush is a bully.”

Though most students at the rally could not even name Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, many seemed certain the pending U.S. led war in Iraq is about oil.

Now, while I wouldn't dream of defending such a stupid rally myself, I love how hypocritical the Patriot is being. The entire article seems to imply that rallying one's children is something done by liberals alone. So, to prove the utter stupidity of this article, I will post two pictures.




How can the children even salute the flag? They still believe in Santa Klaus!
How can the boy hold that flag? His father is forcing his beliefs on him!

Pretty lame, eh Patriot?

Update
Try this one then:



You don't seem to get the point. Around the country, EVERY DAY, millions of children take politic stances (yes, pledging to the flag is political). Obviously, these children are too young to have reasonable arguments for doing this.

My problem with Steve Sexton's "article" is that it focuses on one case; out of billions (yes, with a "b"...do the math) of cases each year of young children involved in political activities, it singles this out as crazy.
- posted by Progressive @ 11:45 PM |

 
Daily Cal Editorial Cartoon
This cartoon from today's Daily Cal (Friday, November 15th, 2002) is hilarious.



- posted by Progressive @ 8:13 PM |

 
Another SA Scandal Unfolding?
Background
Joe Henchman brings in an interesting perspective in his letter to the editor.

"Instead, Gabriel's own insistence on secret meetings to address the problem should get him impeached. At the very least, the record of all these illegal secret meetings should be unsealed immediately."

Alex Kipnis has an interesting, though in my opinion flawed, response here.

Makes one think, no?

Update from Comments
Joe Henchman responds to Kipnis in the comment section. It's important, so I'll reproduce it here:

Mr. Kipnis rightly points out that the entire question of whether these closed sessions are legal or not depends on the interpretation of “litigation.” His view is that “litigation” includes negotiations and potential negotiations that occur before a case is filed.
My view is more explicit – that litigation is “a lawsuit…a judicial contest, a judicial controversy, a suit at law.” That’s from Black’s Law Dictionary. I also take the lead from _every_ government agency in California, where the only litigation discussed in closed session involves cases that have been filed and that have a name (Encinitas v. NCTD, for example). These agencies publicly announce and post the name of the case, and only then may they discuss it in closed session.
So too are the ASUC’s rules. The ASUC Constitution requires that “[t">he agenda for closed sessions shall be approved in open session.” I was present when the Senate when into its first closed session; President Gabriel simply called for one and Vice-President Hong entered it. I asked, out loud, what the reason was – Gabriel’s response was simply, “Pending litigation.” No agenda was approved, no case was named, no vote was taken, no notice posted. More importantly, it was a lie – there is no pending litigation.
Mr. Kipnis’s interpretation is not supported by any court decision or sunshine ordinance that I’m familiar with, and would, in practice, be a disaster. In modern America, almost any action or decision is potential litigation. Any issue undertaken by the ASUC could be conducted in secret because there is the possibility that someone may someday sue over it. But the ASUC Constitution does not say “potential litigation” or even “pending litigation” (as it does elsewhere), but simply “litigation.” Seems pretty specific.
Most importantly, it seems that the purpose of these secret meetings was not to develop legal strategy, but rather cover up a crisis and keep it out of the newspapers. Mr. Kipnis rightly says that the stakes are high -- the independence of the ASUC, a large part of the budget, and so forth. I say this is all the more reason that these meetings should be public, so that decision-makers can be held accountable by the public. I can think of many instances where government agencies have made stupid mistakes in secret that wouldn’t have happened in open meetings. Even now, Gabriel and Hong’s priorities have shifted to finding the leak – an outrageous reaction that relies on the assumption that “we” should not be privy to what “they” know. From what I hear, the Senate is working hard to solve the financial crisis, a process that would be better served with the input of lots of students.<
Just a quick example – two years ago there was an ASUC Pension Fund of over $1 million – money that reverted to the ASUC when their employees were transferred to the university pension plan. I have heard no mention of this money in the last two years, and I am not aware of any expenditures made from it. Has this been discussed? I don’t know, because the minutes of the meetings are sealed. Look for a letter from former Senator Erwin Tam on this.
It is my belief that overzealous executives convinced the new senators that this matter is rightly kept under wraps, but they are mistaken. Not only do these secret meetings, designed solely to find a way to cover up a financial crisis, violate the ASUC Constitution, they violate the entire purpose of open government. That’s why I wrote my (brief) letter and I urge the ASUC to unseal the records immediately.
I sued the ASUC Senate last year over a secret meeting they held to de-fund a student group; the argument too was “litigation.” The Judicial Council unanimously rejected this interpretation and ordered the records of the meeting unsealed. I have no doubt that, if asked, they would do so again.
- posted by Progressive @ 2:52 PM |

 
Brandon is Back, and Han
Well, Brandon Mills is back. Hopefully, Brandon, you won't post for three days, say your going to update calupdates, then leave for 2 months.

In any case, here's a great post:

"Han is proving to be the worst EVP, at least in the last few years. As an officer of the ASUC whose purpose is to support the Senate in their actions (As per the constitution "To ensure that actions directed by the Senate are performed."), she is doing a terrible job of letting the Senate get its work done. After the debacle over illegally ending a previous meeting becuse "her" choice for Attorney General was not approved she resorts to the old Student Action trick (As per Ian Chaffe 2 years ago) and end the meeting abruptly while business was being attended to. Do your job, Han! Stop with your role as Senate Dictator and do your job to support the senators to do theirs. Take the time to inform them of their options instead of trying to control them."

Oh, I agree. Easily the worst. Also, when did Han get elected, May? And she still doesn't know the rules? Is she lying when she gets rules wrong or she's just that (fill-in-blank)?

- posted by Progressive @ 4:51 PM |

 
11PM Rule, Part II
Students ask, "Why doesn't the ASUC senate get anything done?" Once again the answer is Han Hong. Last night, she again ended the Senate meeting mid-debate because no one extended the meeting time. As before, Han "I was part of the worst senate!" Hong did not remind any senators to extend time (though of course she knew it was expiring).

Now Han, answer me this, why in God's name did you want to be Executive Vice President if senate meetings bore you so much that you maneuver to end them early?

Twelve items were still up for vote...
- posted by Progressive @ 7:31 PM |

 
Just Cause Anyone?

Let's hear it for a real victory in Oakland. Measure EE was approved and we should not let this significant new protection for Oakland renters (such as myself) escape attention just because our comfortable asses educate ourselves in Berkeley!
- posted by Mano Negra @ 2:49 PM |

 
ANDY KATZ CAN WIN!! LET'S MAKE IT HAPPEN!!!

Hello Folks -- I know everyone is tired after the Election, but Andy Katz is in an excellent position of winning.

Yesterday, he was endorsed by Janice Thomas -- the president of the Panoramic Hills Neighborhood Association, and an Anne Wagley supporter. He is also going to meet with Anne Wagley on Monday. A lot of non-students in the District are unhappy with Gordon Wozniak, and Andy can be the candidate who will be sensitive to their concerns about issues that matter -- like traffic and safety.

On the student front, WE HAVE UNTIL NOVEMBER 18TH TO REGISTER MORE STUDENTS TO VOTE. Be sure to talk to every student you know who lives in District 8. A lot of students in District 8 are either registered back at home, or not registered at all. Tell them to re-register so they can vote in the December 3rd runoff. I spoke with the City Clerk yesterday, and she assured me that anyone who registers before November 18th will get a ballot in the mail for the run-off. She admitted that they may get it a few days after everyone else did (around November 22nd), but they will nevertheless get one.

Let's make history guys. Andy would be the first student elected to the City Council since 1984 -- and only the 2nd student ever. He's also the best candidate for neighbors in the District, because his experience on the issues that matter far exceeds Gordon Wozniak. Sure, he's only 22 years old -- but it's really impressive how much experience he has gained at such a young age when Gordon is almost 60. I mean, Andy has gone to more Planning Commission meetings than Gordon Wozniak has -- and Gordon is *ON* the Planning Commission. Andy's been going to Planning Commission meetings for the last 4 years, fighting for important issues. Gordon was appointed to it just one year ago -- and it was purely to build up his resume to run for City Council.

For those of you bummed out by the national results of Tuesday's elections, consider this. This Election had an enormous number of parallels with what happened in 1984:

(1) Republicans win across the country.
(2) Walter Mondale loses.
(3) Progressives dominate local Berkeley elections.

And, of course, 1984 was also the year that Nancy Skinner became the first and only Cal student elected to the City Council. Let's repeat this again!!!

In the immediate short run, ANDY KATZ NEEDS MONEY!! We need to raise thousands of dollars in the next few days to make it happen. I dropped by his apartment last night and gave him a $250 check -- the maximum legal contribution. I'm at my job right now in San Francisco, and have already had some of my co-workers give money too. Kevin Deenihan has pledged to give $75 to Katz's campaign, and is urging other bloggers to do the same. Let's do it!!

Please mail your contributions to:

Andy Katz for City Council
2310 Piedmont Avenue, #303
Berkeley, CA 94704

Or check out his website at http://www.andykatz.org
- posted by Paul @ 11:39 AM |

 
Things are looking Good
The new Attorney General (Steven McCatty) and Elections Chair (Tommaso Sciortino) have been approved. Looks likes it's going to be a good election.
- posted by Progressive @ 9:48 AM |

 
Jim's Brief Return
Jim has returned for a couple days. Check out his endorsements and predictions asap.
- posted by Progressive @ 9:31 AM |

 
Another BCR Presidential Gem
Bret Manley, the now (thanks to ProgCal) infamous president of BCR, has this beautiful quote on AngryClam's comments.

"Do you all forget that city council is NON PARTISAN?"

I think that speaks for itself.

And then, in a further stroke of brilliance, Bret poses as another student in the comments. Rory, however, catches it.

"You know, I find it funny that both Bret Manley and "Another BCR boy" have exactly the same IP address- 12.233.127.32 Way to go, Bret."

This is the president of campus republicans? BCR is a joke!
- posted by Progressive @ 6:04 PM |

 
Today's Daily Cal endorsement of Shirley Dean is grossly mis-informed. I know they meant well, but once again, they were tricked by the most destructive and manipulative politician Berkeley has seen in decades.

They give her credit for the Interstate 80 bicycle overpass and the Downtown public library --- although Shirley Dean actually *fought* to prevent these (and other good projects) from getting passed. After the progressive majority on the Council defeated her, she now turns around and takes credit for it.

Most outrageous is their quote - "[Shirley Dean's] record in significantly improving Berkeley while working with a harsh opposition speaks for her unique ability to effect significant change despite political backlash."

The progressives on the Council *supported* all these good accomplishments --- and it was despite backlash from Shirley Dean that they still passed anyway.

The Orwellian doublespeak is mindboggling.


- posted by Paul @ 12:18 PM |

 
Hey Folks ---

The election is a mere 48 hours away, and I'm concerned taht a lot of students haven't made up their minds yet about the Mayor's race.

Here's a few pointers on Tom Bates v. Shirley Dean:

(1) Bates has always supported rent control --- Dean has always opposed it. In 1980, they were on opposite sides on Measure D, the Rent Control Ordinance that created Rent Control in Berkeley and established the Rent Board. In 1995, Shirley Dean lobbied the state legislature to pass Costa-Hawkins -- which ended vacancy control in Berkeley, and is the reason why students pay so much higher rents than long-term tenants. Meanwhile, Bates voted against it. And in 2000, Bates supported Measure Y (the measure that cracked down on bogus, economically-motivated evictions), whereas Dean opposed it.

(2) Four years ago, in her last re-election campaign, Shirley Dean took a campaign contribution from the notorious Berkeley slumlord and sex offender -- Lakireddy Bali Reddy. She's not so stupid as to take money from him this time around, but she *did* take money from Reddy's lawyer, Susan Luten. In fact, Shirley Dean has taken in more than $22,000 from Berkeley landlords, real estate speculators, and eviction lawyers.

(3) Three years ago, Andy Katz and I worked together to organize a Housing Summit on campus, where we invited the Chancellor, the Mayor, and other leaders. When asked how to address the student housing crisis, Shirley Dean's only response was -- "decrease student enrollment." She also said that the Southside has "too much density," and, by implication, no more housing should be built there.

(4) You know that vacant lot at Haste and Telegraph?? (The one between Rasputin's and Amoeba's, and caddy-corner from Cody's Books??) Ever wonder why it just rots in misery?? There actually was an opportunity to build 39 units of low-cost housing there *SEVEN* years ago, but Shirley Dean killed the project. Meanwhile, Tom Bates wants the University to take it over by eminent domain and build a dorm.

(5) Don't believe the bullshit you hear about how Tom Bates tried to block the construction of student housing at Foothill. What actually happened (back in 1988), was that the University started bulldozing some apartment buildings with no permits and without consulting anyone in the community. So Tom and Loni Hancock drove their car and parked it in front of the bulldozers and said "we're not moving until the University works with us."
Because of that incident, Tom Bates was able to use his status as an Assemblymember to get state funding to help subsidize Foothill. If it wasn't for Tom Bates "blocking" the bulldozing project, students in Foothill today would be paying higher rents than they are today -- because the project would have to have been entirely self-sufficient with no state funding.

(6) Both Mayoral candidates claim to be "pro-student" -- and point out the student City council candidate who they have endorsed.
Tom Bates has endorsed Andy Katz, who is one of the most qualified students to serve on the City Council that we have seen (or probably ever will see.) Andy was going to run for the City Council anyway, regardless of Tom Bates' ambitions. I love the Patriot attacking Andy Katz as a "ferocious advocate for tenants rights." We couldn't have *PAID* them to write that.
Shirley Dean has endorsed Micki Weinberg, who is completely unqualified for the job. His only experience in City politics is going to a few City Council meetings regarding the Israel resolution. He doesn't know a damn thing about the Southside Plan (that Andy and I have worked on for years), housing policy, parking policy, zoning policy -- the nuts and bolts of city government. Shirley Dean was just desperate to cater to the student vote, and to find a token student to defeat Kriss Worthington (her sworn enemy on the City Council because he has butted heads with her for years about tenants' rights, the environment and students.)
Micki Weinberg's campaign is an insult to the intelligence of Cal students -- to think that students will just vote for a student without knowing anything else is not only naive but cynically manipulative. And it also speaks volumes about the contempt Shirley Dean has for Cal students.

REMEMBER TO VOTE ON TUESDAY!! POLLS ARE OPEN FROM 7 A.M. TO 8 P.M.!!
- posted by Paul @ 10:31 AM |

 
Bret Manley and Barbara Lee Agree
According to CalStuff, Bret Manley (President of the Berkeley College Republicans) agrees with Congresswoman Barbara Lee. Even though the GOP should have endorsed Mr. Wozniak (District 8) for his moderate views, Bret Manley sided with Barbara Lee to help a progressive (Andy Katz) campaign. Thanks for the help Bret!
- posted by Progressive @ 7:11 PM |

 
Card2:
Philip S. Lu Rookie Card


Nicknames: Ferlar, Enfo
Position:Patriot Layout Editor and Webmaster
Favorite People to Hate: LGBTs
Second Favorite People to Hate: Muslims
Website: Phat Utopia
Favorite Conservative: Hannity
Ignorance Level: High
Philip Lu is new to the Conservative scene, but he's entered with a fury. Know for such quotes as "Islam is a no no" and "Gay/lesbian/transgender culture is a culture centered on sex....Their agenda is to promote their own lifestyle of free, sex without consequence through overfunding of AIDs research, ADs that promote protected sex, not abstinence, abortion, etc."
Links:
-Philip Lu on AIDS victims
-Mano on Philip's Homophobia
- posted by Progressive @ 9:00 AM |