Oski68: Heading to job interview now.
Think I’ve got this thing in the bag.
@jefftedford WISH ME LUCK!!!!

INT. OFFICE – DAY

A sharply dressed man sits behind a desk. Behind him are awards and framed photos with famous people. In front of him is the largest iMac available. A younger man knocks on his door and enters.

INTERN: Mr. Gorgen, your 1:00 interview is here.

GORGEN: I’m ready for him.

Interviewee enters office, looking good. He and Gorgen shake hands.

OSKI: Danny Gorgen – a legend among men! Great to finally meet you.

GORGEN: Yeah, thank you. Have a seat.

Oski sits.

GORGEN: I’ve been looking over your resume. Pretty interesting stuff here.

OSKI: Thank you, I’m really proud of it.

GORGEN: Says here you come from Cal, great Mass-Comm program. Let’s start with a few things I noticed. First of all, your current employment is listed as "Trending Topics." Can you elaborate? I’m not sure if this is a company I’ve not heard of or, I mean I’m sure you can’t be referring to Twi-

OSKI: Right, I should explain. I’m actually responsible for three trending topics on Twitter.

GORGEN: Oh, so you are talking about Twitter.

OSKI: Yeah, had three of ‘em make the top ten. Pretty sweet.

GORGEN: Yeah, it’s, I’d imagine it’s not easy to do. All those millions of people saying stuff.

OSKI: Yeah I mean, when you think about it, the chances are so slim. Like, you say something about words during sex and then all of a sudden, literally millions of people are tweeting about "words during sex."

GORGEN: Ok, that was my next question. Because under the description of your duties, you wrote "#wordsduringsex," "#WeLuvYouSouljaBoy" and "JoeWilsonLie$."

OSKI: Right, he does.

GORGEN: Hmm?

OSKI: Wilson, he was totally lying when he said Obama lies. I mean, think about it.

GORGEN: Ok, yep. But I mean, a lot of people were talking about Joe Wilson that night, so how can you be sure you were the first?

OSKI: Oh, I think you misunderstood. I meant I was the first person to spell "lies" with a money sign instead of an ‘s.’ Which was sick.

GORGEN: …

OSKI: I should state, in the interest of full disclosure, that Diddy and Weird Al Yankovic re-tweeted #WeLuvYoSouljaBoy when they saw it, so they definitely helped me out.

GORGEN: …

OSKI: Are you ok?

GORGEN: Yeah, just lost my train of thought for a second. Let’s, uh, let’s move on. You list Synergy Media Firm as a previous employer – you interned with them last summer? Describe that experience for me. What sort of assignments did you have?

OSKI: Great question. RT @Gorgen What assignments did you have?

GORGEN: What was that last part?

OSKI: Oh, just telling you I thought you asked a great interview question. I wanted to re-tweet it.

GORGEN: Oh, I get it. Like our conversation is happening on Twitter. Cool.

OSKI: Totally.

GORGEN: So the question…

OSKI: Right! Well I must say, my internship at Synergy was so amazing. They run a really tight ship over there, and I learned so much. Especially.

GORGEN: Especially what?

OSKI: Sorry, I ran out of character space. That 140 is so damn constricting sometimes, you know? Lolz.

GORGEN: I’m sorry, I know this sounds insulting but you do realize we’re not talking online, don’t you?

OSKI: Uhh…

GORGEN: I mean, I can literally smell on your breath whatever it is you ate right before you came in here. We’re like two feet apart from each other, and I’m pretty sure it was a breakfast burrito.

OSKI: I love those.

GORGEN: Right, well I think I’ve got all I need for now! I’ll let you know about my decision as soon as I can.

OSKI: Love it. Thank you so much for your time. Hey, I’ve got a blog if you wanna check it out.

GORGEN: You know, I have to get back to this. (points to computer)

Oski stands to leave.

OSKI: Right! I know how that is. Back to the important stuff. Check out Ashton’s last Twitpic from Starbucks – hilarious!

GORGEN: Have a good one.

OSKI: Follow me!

Exit.

BY DAN FOSTER

In the ongoing debate about US foreign policy, it’s easy to get lost in the bewildering array of voices. However, one viewpoint is often underrepresented: that of the United States’ military servicemen-and-women whose job it is to actually carry out the policies which are the subject of such intense debate.

To shed some light on this perspective, and perhaps present some issues a little closer to home for Cal students, the Berkeley Political Review interviewed three current UC Berkeley students who served in the Iraq War. Trevor Sparks (Air Force, Political Science), Brandon Biegert (Army, Political Science), and Marcus Martinez (Navy, Political Economy) described their experiences in Iraq, as servicemen, and in civilian life. (The interviews, performed separately, have been placed together here, and edited for space.)

BPR: What was your first impression upon arriving in Iraq/the Gulf? Had this changed by the time you left?

Trevor Sparks: It was a pretty eye-opening experience. Within the first, you know, I’d say two or three weeks you were there, there were definitely some nearby explosions that would start happening on frequent basis. There were mortars and things like that coming into the area, as well as just the totally different kind of mantra, you know a mindset having, you know, constantly on your guard.

As well as my position working with the Iraqis, it was an interesting way to engage with a deployment that you don’t usually get a chance to do on other deployments.… I think my impression changed, about the environment I was in. After talking to the Iraqis for four months and getting firsthand accounts of some of the destructive nature of what we were doing there, and how personal experiences that were told to me did change my impression a lot. I mean, that was almost the turning point of staying in after my term or getting out.

Brandon Biegert: It was one of those things where nobody really understood, I mean we understood, but it was kind of clear that we didn’t understand the reality of it. By then, a lot of the debates and things were already coming up. By the time I left in August of ‘04, it was very clearly just a gigantic fiasco…. You had people trying to wage a political battle; at the same time, you know, they’re using soldiers to wage a political battle.… And so as a result, they were approaching it with the mentality of "Well this isn’t combat, so we’re gonna have peacetime rules!" So meanwhile, we’re getting shot at and blown up, and they’re like, "Oh but that’s OK, it’s not hostile action! That’s just, you know…"

I started out questioning it; I wound up despising the whole thing. An example, we got the inserts for our flak jackets two weeks before we left. We were told not even to unwrap them, because that way they could give them new to the people replacing us. So as we were packing up to leave the country, they were giving us our protective gear, right? And there just were lots of things that happened like that, where it was just like, "f*** you." It was — it was very frustrating.

Marcus Martinez: Well, when we first got there, we didn’t think too much of it I guess, because a lot of things hadn’t happened right when we got there. But as we remained in that area, a lot of activity was occurring, and so as that happened, we started sending more marines out to that area. And it actually became a very depressing environment, because like I said before, a lot of these guys would go out and they wouldn’t come back.

Not only that, but it was also a very tense and stressful environment, because the longer we were there, especially the longer we were out at sea, and away from our families and away from our loved ones, and not able to really communicate with them, because a lot of the stuff we were doing, we were not allowed to talk about it with family members and what not.

Nor were we allowed, for much of the International time, to even communicate by phone or email or any of that. Sin that respect it was a very tense and stressful environment, and it made it difficult to even keep some of the coherence among the group, as well as among other members. But at the same time, a lot of these guys, like I was saying before, they were so motivated and so well trained that they were able to pull themselves together when the time came that they had to fight, to serve.

BPR: How did you feel about the public debate about the war back home? Did you feel like the troops were getting enough support?

BB: It’s funny, ‘cause there was a guy in my unit, and he was actually in Vietnam. He was in Vietnam, and got out for a long time, and then got back in after 9-11 as a specialist, and he was an interesting guy. He was talking about that, how when he came home from Vietnam the debates that were going on — well, "debates" in quotes — that were going on, and just the way they were treated when they got home. And he would comment a lot on the nature of the debates back home. And he was always pointing out that at least they’re saying, well, "Support the troops, to hell with the war," kind of thing.

But, another thing that he pointed out, which is is true as well, is that a lot of the people who are saying "Support the troops," are the same people that are completely full of shit on every other issue…. So it’s almost like, "Let’s shut down the debate by using the troops as a shield from any kind of debate," which is almost as insulting, because the military is not a political shield. You can’t just say, "Well I support the troops, you don’t like the troops?" — and all of the sudden any issue of legality disappears from the debate. You can’t have an effective government if that’s how the military is used.

He was saying that, on the one hand, it’s more comfortable for us, because we’re not getting called names, it’s nice to have people support us. But at the same time it’s kind of disappointing, to see that particular exploitation of the whole issue…. I think it’s disappointing that some people chose to do it how they did, but a healthy debate is a healthy debate; that’s what this country’s about.

I think the people that really pay attention to why we serve understand that you can’t just say, "Well that view is bullshit, you can’t have that debate," because that’s the whole purpose. That’s why we exist: to protect that right.

MM: I feel like the troops were getting support from groups that, well for example from family members, and from people that may have known a lot of these service members, and they were kind of holding their own debates.… But, I think that for a lot of the other civilians, who really didn’t know exactly what was going on, and they didn’t have any kind of direct connection with any of the service members, and they didn’t have any direct connection with being informed as to what was going on.

And based on a lack of knowledge, and kind of an ignorance, in a way, they really were not giving the troops as much support as they should have. Because I think a lot of the focus was on the President sending these people to war, but at the same time, a lot of these people didn’t understand that a lot of these guys wanted to go to war, and they wanted to serve their country. It’s a volunteer service, you know? They decided to go out, and to join for that purpose.

I think that some of the attention was focused so much on what a lot of people felt was the President’s lack of, I guess, caring or understanding for the troops, and was more focused on that, and less focused on what the actual troops themselves really felt about being where they were, and fighting the war, and stuff like that.

BPR: So what was it like coming home?

TS: Specifically with Iraq, it was just an adjustment. It’s just like most other adjustments are made, like when you start school or start something new, it felt like you were starting new again. You readjusted your mind, you started driving again, you started sleeping in a bed, all over again, and eating the American kind of food you eat.

And little and simplistic as those are, just feeling like you’re making an adjustment doing those things was part of the mind-altering aspect.… You take your time off for that four months, or eighteen months, or twelve months, and it’s just like time off, but it seems like you feel like you’re becoming a new person, just trying to reestablish yourself as the person you were. That’s what was hardest.

And then in the same sense of getting out, it’s just reestablishing myself as a civilian and getting into school and feel comfortable, and not having all the little aspects of the military.… Kind of being your own boss, allowing creativity to thrive, and individualism — those were the things that I was so excited to let prosper after getting out of the military, having that hive mentality, that team, group work. You can be yourself, and wake up whenever you want, and go to class or not go to class — you know, big changes.

BB: It was hard coming home. Like I said, I was in a reserve unit, I was in the reserves, at least for that particular time. So I had built up my life, and then we got deployed for a six months deployment. I mean, this is when it first kicked off, nobody knew what was gonna happen, and we were told to prepare for six months, so I prepared for six months.

While I was gone, everything that I owned was pretty much, for various reasons or circumstances, disappeared. So when I came home, finally, my entire life was pretty much gone: I didn’t have a job, I didn’t have my home, all my belongings and possessions were gone…. It took a couple years, really, to get my head wrapped around that, and everything that had gone on. You kind of push through it, but at the same time it’s just kind of a shock.

The best way I heard it described was by this other Vietnam vet: It’s like a rubber band. The whole time you’re over, you’re not thinking about this shit, because you can’t think about it — you’ve got stuff to do. You can’t be sitting there dwelling on, "Oh my god, my life is hard," kind of thing. But it’s like a rubber band that just keeps on stretching, and keeps on stretching, and then when you get home, well now you don’t have all that other stuff to worry about, so all of the sudden all that force just kind of whips you in the ass, and hits you from behind.

And it’s pretty much a habit, it took a few months, but I spent a while trying to piece my life back together, and salvage what was left. Luckily my parents are still around, and were supportive, so, you know… It took a little while, but then I got back into school, and here I am.

BY MEAGAN KUNERT

The passing of Edward “Ted” Kennedy has been mourned as the end of an American political dynasty. However, while the patriarchs of the Kennedy clan — America’s own version of royalty — may indeed be deceased, there lives on another Kennedy family: one born out of Capitol Hill.

Ted Kennedy’s political debut, a landslide Senate victory in 1962, signaled the start of an extraordinary political and private life. Two years after being elected he was nearly killed in a plane crash with Senator Birch Bayh, who freed him from the burning apparatus. Kennedy would unfortunately not be spared more grief, as two family deaths followed his accident. His brothers and American political icons President John Kennedy and presidential hopeful Bobby Kennedy were assassinated.

The so-called “Kennedy curse” did not end there, however, as Ted’s son lost a leg to cancer at a young age. In addition, scandal found its way into his life when he crashed his car, killing passenger Mary Jo Kopechne.

Despite a life of great hardship exacerbated by constant media attention on his family, Kennedy emerged as one of the most influential senators of our time. As a ferocious “Lion” in the Senate, he pushed through Congress the Voting Rights Act, which lowered the voting age to 18, and was instrumental in championing public healthcare and implementing Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Health Insurance Program. Kennedy was also an unstoppable force behind Title IX, which mandated equal funding for both men’s and women’s collegiate sports.

But thanks to Kennedy’s tremendous accomplishments in the Senate, we often forget that he was perhaps the most beloved member of the chamber. As the following stories demonstrate, his friendships reached across party lines and show that above all else, Ted Kennedy was a man with a kind heart.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger:

In a statement Schwarzenegger made in August, he called Teddy “the rock of our family: a loving husband, father, brother and uncle.” The “Governator” married Kennedy’s niece Maria Shriver during his days as a body builder. Schwarzenegger professed that Teddy helped him cultivate a dedication to service through the pursuit of a life in politics.

In 2004, Kennedy supported legislation that would allow naturalized citizens to run for the presidency, a decision clearly made with his Republican nephew in mind. Ted never stated whether he would have crossed party lines and endorsed his nephew, as the bill did not pass.

Vice President Joe Biden:

A close friend and pupil of Ted Kennedy, Vice President Biden sat next to Kennedy in the Senate and on the Judiciary Committee. Biden credits Kennedy with restoring perhaps the most significant source of inspiration in his career, a sense of optimism in politics: “it was in that process, every day I was with him——and this is going to sound strange——he restored my sense of idealism and my faith in the possibilities of what this country could do.”

Biden remembers Kennedy’s selflessness, even in times of hardship. Kennedy’s seizure on the day of Biden’s inauguration, undoubtedly the pinnacle of his career, was no exception. While in the hospital, Ted called Biden to ensure that his granddaughter, who had been seated next to Kennedy, was not frightened by his collapse.

Biden’s admiration for Kennedy as a political legend and kind human being is matched only by his gratitude. He thanks Kennedy for helping him achieve a personal, not political, victory——that is, coping with the death of his wife and daughter——by speaking with Biden on the phone daily and sending medical specialists for his injured sons.

Senator Orrin Hatch (Utah):

Across the aisle from Kennedy sat Senator Hatch, whose original goal in coming to Washington was to fight against Kennedy. What Hatch did not know was that his political nemesis would actually become his closest ally.

The close friends worked on many pieces of legislation together despite their ideological differences. Kennedy always joked if they sponsored a bill together, he would tell reporters that it was obvious that one of them hadn’t read it. Once, Senator Hatch played along, giving him a heavily highlighted copy, saying “Here, Teddy, you can have mine. The important parts are already highlighted.” Kennedy responded with his hearty laugh.

Former Senator Birch Bayh (Indiana):

The two colleagues met on their first day in the Senate and quickly became close friends. Most famously, they survived a historic plane crash that claimed the lives of the pilot and an aide. In the wreck, Kennedy suffered a broken back, but Senator Bayh pulled him to safety. The tragedy forced them to confront their mortality and ultimately united the Senators for eternity.

While in the hospital, Bayh brought Kennedy the best strawberries he could find, as they were one of his favorite foods. Although it was difficult to position him in a way where he could eat them with limited movement, Kennedy was extremely grateful.

Bayh remembered Kennedy for his resilience and optimism: “After his illness in 2008, I saw the same resolve I had witnessed after the crash: Ted hanging tough, a smile on his face, resolute in his determination and not letting anything stop him from enjoying life.”

Former Senator John Culver (Iowa):

Culver and Kennedy’s friendship has its roots in playing football together for the Crimson at Harvard. Culver went on to work in Kennedy’s office and eventually to become his colleague in the Senate, but his memories of Kennedy are as a carefree and fun-loving college boy.

Culver remembers his first time on the ocean during a weekend sailing trip in Nantucket that Kennedy organized. Despite a storm approaching, Kennedy insisted that he knew what he was doing and they would be fine. After seven hours of battling the elements, Culver and Kennedy finally reached the shore. But the adventure was far from over as Kennedy, like Captain Ahab in Moby Dick, recruited a young boy to join their sailing crew and complete the race.

What began as a weekend in Nantucket developed into a lifelong tradition of taking sailing trips across the world. In this instance, Culver remained true to his college self, never learning to sail because “Teddy always gave [him] a pass.”

Senator Robert Byrd (West Virginia):

Senator Byrd’s description of Ted Kennedy as one of his “all time, all time, all time favorites” illustrates Kennedy’s ability to befriend even his political opponents. What these two shared was deeper than politics: “a love of history, an affection for poetry, a commitment to the less fortunate in our society.”

Ted Kennedy gave him a book of poetry in July of 1996 with a special message saying “To Bob, the master of our legislative poetry who has already left so many extraordinary footprints on the sand of time. See page 371.”

Byrd’s admiration of Kennedy’s “extraordinary contributions to this great and magnificent country” is second to the loss of his friend in the Senate: “By habit, I shall immediately look for Ted Kennedy whenever I enter this chamber. In a thousand ways, large and small, he will simply be deeply, deeply missed.”

Senator John Kerry (Massachusetts):

Senator Kerry first met Kennedy when he was 18 and worked on his campaign before he went to college, and again upon returning from Vietnam. “For almost 25 years, it was a beautiful friendship, as I worked at his side, learning from the best. Teddy was the best natural teacher anyone in politics could ask for. I may not always have been the best student, but he never stopped dispensing lessons…”

Kennedy helped with Kerry’s presidential campaign in Iowa and New Mexico, using his humor to appeal to voters. In New Mexico, Kennedy and Kerry’s daughter, Vanessa, partook in a Native American ritual: extending their hands and bowing to be touched by a sacred feather while chanting. Ted whispered to Vanessa: “I think we just got married.” He even sent a note later saying, “No matter what, we will always have New Mexico.”

Senator Chris Dodd (Connecticut):

Dodd has become one of the Senate’s most passionate champions of health care reform. The two were close friends, beginning with Kennedy helping Dodd’s victorious campaign in 1981. Much to Dodd’s appreciation, Kennedy was the first to call him after he got out of his own surgery for prostate cancer, even joking “Between doing prostate cancer surgery and town hall meetings, you made a great choice.” This was during Ted’s own recovery time for surgery on his brain tumor.

BY PATRICK NIEMEYER

Speaking to an as yet uninspired crowd about social entrepreneurship at a conference in 2005, Van Jones, former green jobs czar to Barack Obama, pointed out to an audience member whose baby would not stop crying, "[Your child] is a social entrepreneur. [He] is changing the rules, see? Speak when you want to speak."

This story is more than just an anecdote. In many ways it defines Van Jones’ character and, by extension, an important part of Bay Area culture. The Bay Area has long been a home to outsiders and revolutionaries. It began with the California Gold Rush, when people from countless ethnic and cultural backgrounds found themselves in the same environment with a similar purpose and discovered coexistence was a necessity.

Since that time, many activists whose beliefs or reputations would tarnish their respectability elsewhere found their careers flourishing in the Bay Area. In 1934, union leader Harry Bridges organized a strike in San Francisco that remains the only successful general strike in American history, a groundbreaking act of defiance that was also notable for its multi-racial participation. In 1977, when Harvey Milk became the first non-incumbent, openly gay man to be elected to political office in the country, the American gay rights movement began to permeate the national consciousness. For as long as Bay Area culture has existed, people have come here who "don’t mind getting a little bit uppity," to borrow another phrase from Van Jones.

There are some who would say that getting a little bit uppity has always been Jones’ modus operandi. While working a summer job for a newspaper in Louisiana, Jones burst into the editor’s office and refused to leave until his response objecting to the paper’s coverage of a rap concert was printed. At Yale Law School, he knew he stood out as a fiery radical with a Black Panthers bookbag surrounded by wealthy elites. "I wasn’t ready for Yale, and they weren’t ready for me," he said. He shifted his focus from journalism to activism, moving to the Bay Area and finding work as a legal observer for the Rodney King trial. Jones was swept up in the mass arrests that resulted from the riots over the trial’s outcome, and though charges against him were dropped, he recounts meeting many interesting people in prison, "radical people of color…communists and anarchists. And I was like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’" From there, Jones began working for increasingly radical causes, in 1994 co-founding Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), a group that counted Marx, Lenin, and Mao Zedong among its influences.

But in the midst of fighting police brutality, among other causes, with STORM and another group, Van Jones came to understand that he might be able to incorporate other, more sweeping issues into his work. In 1996, he co-founded the Ella Baker Center, a non-governmental organization (NGO) devoted not only to eliminating police brutality, but human rights abuses in general, and to promoting civil rights to undercut the racial inequality that lay at the root of much community violence. As STORM grew in size, its membership realized if they wanted to end such problems as the over-incarceration of juveniles, they should prevent crime by building communities that were more economically sound and—presciently, more environmentally friendly.

Van Jones has spoken of "build[ing] a pipeline from the prison economy to the green economy," and of ending "eco-apartheid", referring to wealthy, largely white, environmentally friendly neighborhoods built adjacent to low-income, pollution-choked ones. Jones started bringing together disparate issues and organizations, uniting the causes of ending racial and social injustice with a common goal of building a greener economy. Arianna Huffington, a close friend and supporter, wrote, "One of the things I’ve always found so impressive about [Jones]…is his ability to build coalitions and create unlikely alliances. In pursuit of a clean energy future for America, Van has successfully brought together urban youth with clean-tech entrepreneurs, labor leaders with business leaders, civil rights activists with environmentalists."

In 2008, Van Jones became a national figure when his book The Green Collar Economy reached #12 on the New York Times’ bestseller list. The book detailed Jones’ plan for solving socioeconomic inequality by creating jobs that simultaneously required modest skill or education and addressed environmental issues, such as installing solar panels. Mainstream politicians ranging from Al Gore to Nancy Pelosi praised the book, and by the time Barack Obama took office, it was clear that he too had taken notice. In March 2009, Van Jones was appointed Green Jobs Advisor to the Obama Administration. There is where the controversy began.

Jones’ ideas propelled him into the mainstream and the White House, however it was his history that his critics used to drive him out. FOX news commentator Glenn Beck criticized the activist in no less than 14 episodes of his show, citing everything from Jones’ admission that, as a young man, he would have "joined some underground guerrilla sect" had he lived in another country to his purported signing of a 9/11 Truth Movement petition calling for an inquiry into the possibility of the Bush Administration’s involvement in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Congressmen including Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Rep. Mike Pence (R-Indiana) called for Jones’ resignation, with Pence saying that his "extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this Administration or the public debate," in part referring to Jones’ public comment that Republicans are "assholes." Jones apologized for the remark and denied ever sharing the views of the 9/11 Truth Movement, but his critics were not appeased. On September 6th, he tendered his resignation, explaining he "could not in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. The White House needs all hands on deck fighting for the future."

Van Jones once said, "One of my big heroes is Malcolm X, not because I agree with him, but because he wasn’t afraid to change in public." Indeed, the shift Jones has undergone from revolutionary to environmentalist has been a dramatic one. To quote an editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle, "In the politics of the San Francisco Bay Area, a fiery radical past is almost a rite of passage." In Washington D.C., however, Van Jones could never fit in, no matter how dramatically he reframed the issues he once fought for as a communist into issues he now fights for as a capitalist. Van Jones’ short career in Washington was doomed by his own past, the same past that provided him a vantage point in which to envision a green jobs economy.

Whether or not Van Jones has a place in the Capital, his ideas certainly have found a place in the Obama Administration’s agenda. In his time in office, Jones did see to the distribution of $500 million that President Obama had allocated for green jobs training. Several Cabinet members are on record arguing for a green jobs agenda similar to the one Jones envisioned. In his resignation statement, Jones urged his supporters to continue to "[s]pread the green jobs gospel," and to carry on with his work in places where he cannot — such as the White House.

As for Jones’ future, there are those who feel he is more effective as an outsider. Arianna Huffington blogged that he was better suited to working "on the outside" than sitting "behind a desk, working out the details of tax credits for green jobs." Another opinion writer said, "As a citizen again, he doesn’t have to apologize for his past." Van Jones the activist now can be less concerned about offending people with his outspokenness and more focused on convincing others of the righteousness of his cause. To his allies, he has always been better at uniting than dividing. Former Ella Baker Center board member Juliet Ellis said, "Van’s role…is really to evangelize, to spread the word of his vision." In his first public statement since his resignation, Jones quoted Winston Churchill who, when told that his losing an election might be a blessing in disguise, remarked "Damned good disguise."

Work at the Ella Baker Center and Green For All (a green jobs group that Jones founded) continues with a self-admittedly more patient Jones as figurehead. Speaking of his movement away from radicalism, Jones said, "Before, we would fight anybody, any time…Now, I put the issues and constituencies first… I’m willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends." The screaming baby has left the room, but the impact of his presence could endure.

BY EMMELINE SUN

The health care debate is producing so many newsworthy soundbites that even the CNN ticker is struggling to stay apace. While the rhetoric of the debate may have degenerated, at stake are issues that require clarifying and even redefining American conceptions of liberty and rights. Is health care a privilege or a right? To what extent can we cover the American public? Are we essentially punishing the middle class with these proposed increased taxes?

Health care is too large and complex an issue to be considered as a whole. Instead, evaluating the public option on a microeconomic level, specifically the university Student Health Insurance Plan, is far more effective as it uses a model that is already in place. Is SHIP comparable to Obama’s plan for a public option? How does it stand up to private health care, an option also utilized by many students on campus?

There are several layers of healthcare to consider. The first layer covers basic illness, non-urgent matters normally treated by a primary care physician. This may include over-the-counter medication or oral contraceptives. The second layer of coverage concerns pre-existing conditions and terminal illnesses students may have or contract during their years at Berkeley. If you need daily insulin injections, you can get it at the Tang Center. The third layer concerns emergencies such as coverage of ICU stays, ambulance fees, and emergency room charges.

The question remains: why get SHIP in the first place? Doesn’t a public option equate to a decrease in the quality of care? Well, there are several reasons why SHIP is a working and desirable option.

SHIP communications manager, Kim LaPean simplifies this intricate and often headache-inducing system by explaining that SHIP is a dual-action program. On one hand, it works similarly to an HMO, in which you have a primary care doctor who will direct you to more specialized services in the event that it is necessary. “But it’s also a hybridization of all student needs, encompassing medical, optometric, and dental work. Because it is guaranteed insurance, it covers all pre-existing conditions.”

SHIP covers 80% of most professional services, excluding ones that may fall under the category of cosmetic services such as acne medication and orthodontia. It further caters to the student population by providing mental health coverage, access to subsidized oral contraceptives and even a $100 subsidization for alternative medicine. Fees from outpatient examinations and hospital visits are reimbursed through SHIP, which requires that the student have a 20% co-pay.

What a bargain. But the real question is: how is SHIP funded? This is the breaking, or selling point (depending on individual perspective) of most public health care options. Much of the furor sparked by Obama’s healthcare proposal stems from the idea that upper middle-class taxpayers will bear the burden of providing tax credits and nonprofit co-op healthcare to those at the poverty line. How does SHIP exist as a purchasable public option?

Contrary to speculation, SHIP is not subsidized by the government. Instead, it operates on a self-funded model. It receives the premiums the students pay — approximately $698 per semester for undergraduates, $966 per semester for graduates and international students — and also receives money from the services (under University Health Services) that are open to all students, whether they are covered by SHIP or not. Incidentally, many students who don’t have SHIP choose to use University Health Services on campus to treat minor problems, receive a physical, or get a flu shot. Because these services are not covered by private health insurance, the centers’ open access also produces a steady stream of revenue. While it may cost a student covered by SHIP $15 to receive a TB test, it will cost a non-covered student upwards of $70 for the same test. For many students, convenience offsets the cost.

Clearly, SHIP — and for that matter, a public health option at large — seems like the solution to healthcare at the macroeconomic level. A self-funded model with complete coverage and no discrimination toward pre-existing conditions. Why would the public settle for anything else? Discounting the obvious incentive of profit, there are several reasons why SHIP works better on a microcosmic level than on a large scale.

The first point of consideration is the SHIP demographic. True to its name, SHIP is a student health insurance plan. Students generally occupy the 18-30 year old range, a range often referred to as “the prime of your life.” While the stereotype that students are in perfect health is naïve, it does in fact point toward the minority that is students with serious illnesses. This varied patient population allows SHIP to remain inexpensive and accessible, as well as comprehensive in its coverage.

An often overlooked but nevertheless vital source of revenue comes from negligence in waiving SHIP fees. Many students don’t waive the $695 a semester payment, despite the fact that they already have private insurance. This dual-layer insurance plan may be contributed to a number of factors. Some students have permanent residences far from Berkeley, and their plans don’t extend to the Bay Area. This is especially true of international students. In emergencies, it is more prudent to be covered by the school than to pay the exorbitant hospital bills that aren’t covered by long-distance insurance. Such students may also use the dual-layer insurance as a means of efficiency and convenience.

We also have to consider the “bank of mom and dad” to which many students belong. Though it is a public school, we can safely assume that many students are financially dependent on their parents. Though $1400 to $2000 a year is an extremely low premium to pay for insurance, this is largely made possible through parental income (which often pays for the aforementioned dual-layer insurance.)

Another way SHIP is covered (and free of student charge) is through financial aid. If insurance were not mandatory, and students were financially independent, SHIP would be significantly less effective as a public plan.

Furthermore, as was previously mentioned, SHIP does not covered cosmetic services and orthodontia, categories that would be covered under certain “Cadillac” insurance plans. Students are still required to shell out money for specific dental work. There are deductibles and coverage maximizations that must be adhered to.

While SHIP is supported by a steady revenue stream from students, the same cannot be expected from the American public for a national system structured along the same lines. In a country whose leading causes of death include heart disease, cancer, chronic lower respiratory disease diabetes, Alzheimer’s and influenza, it is without question an expensive country to cover. And though the US backs Medicare and Medicaid as government-funded programs, such public programs are very costly (3.9 taxpayers support every aging American that receives Medicare) and thus, bear the brunt of much ethical and fiscal criticism. A lot of money is also lost through high administrative costs and increased medical expenditures among an increasingly afflicted population.

Canada’s publicly-funded health care plan raises another fear: some perceive that the plan offers decreased quality of service. But is this actually the problem? Canada’s average life expectancy, according to the global Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, is 80.7 years, with the United States follows at 78.1 years. Most significantly, healthcare costs (as a percent of GDP) add up to 10.1% in Canada, and a whopping 16% in the U.S. This clearly indicates something about the general demographic rather than the state or form of health care. The main problem with a public option isn’t the public option itself, but rather, the skyrocketing expenses associated with an increasingly unhealthy public.

Take rising obesity levels in the United States. Fast food may be cheap, but gastric bypass and amputation (as a result of diabetes) are not. And according to the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, approximately 133.6 million U.S adults are overweight or obese. That’s roughly 66% of the population — quite a hefty burden for taxpayers to bear.

The fact that these exorbitant costs make even the most basic healthcare plan expensive shows us exactly why public healthcare may (at some level) work for Canada, but not for America. As of 2006, the National Health Interview survey showed that 14.8% of Americans were not insured. Of this number, a significant portion simply cannot afford insurance, private or public. So what happens when an uninsured person gets into a car accident or contracts a serious illness? Without insurance, the afflicted face sky-high medical costs that they can’t possibly cover.

Who covers hospital care, emergency room costs, and physician visits? A major part of the compensation comes from state and local government tax appropriations. In other words, the taxpayer’s pocket. It’s a vicious cycle: the inability to pay for basic services leads to increased costs, which have to be absorbed by an American public that cannot necessarily pay the gigantic premiums required. This is why a public option similar to SHIP, cheap and all-encompassing as it could be, is not feasible on a large scale.

Though SHIP can be considered a solid example of the public option, it is hardly scalable on a national level. The SHIP demographic is, unfortunately, an ideal demographic that the American public is unlikely to reflect in the near future. It would perhaps be more effective first to launch a public health campaign delineating the consequences of obesity, alcoholism and the like, and then to tackle public health when the Americans start to demonstrate better overall health.

BY ASHLEY LYSTNE

Ashley Lystne is Editor-in-Chief of Cal Literature and Arts Magazine.

By now, I’m sure my roommates are sick of hearing me talk about how sick I am. They’ve got to deal with the woes and worries that unfold every time I check the mail and open another past-due medical bill or debt collection notice, and last year they had to drive me to Alta Bates, sit with me in the ER for hours on weekends, and check on me when I was stuck home in bed for a month.

I’ve been dealing with being sick for a good portion of the time I’ve been alive. I chalk this up mostly to bad luck: I was diagnosed with asthma when I was 8, had surgery to remove a ruptured appendix at 10, and over the past four years have had mononucleosis, two bouts of bronchitis, and six episodes of tonsilitis. I’ve also been struggling for a while with Panic Disorder and Acute Anxiety. To top it all off, last year after a cheating boyfriend gave me an STI, I discovered that the infection was worsened because I had a thenceforth undiagnosed autoimmune disorder called Grave’s Disease, which was keeping my body from recovery and working in a mutually causal relationship with my stress to spiral me into severe depression.

Fortunately for me though, I had family and friends to care for me, and more importantly, I had health care. Despite my bad luck in the past, I would never have guessed that I’d end up taking incompletes in my fall classes and spending weeks taking blood tests and seeing specialists. Nor could I have foreseen the costs of my condition. My insurance didn’t cover a seven-block ambulance ride for which I personally will have to pay in full ($1,460) to the Berkeley Fire Department. SHIP covered 80% of my costs at the emergency room, leaving me with about $760 (plus late fees, since I still haven’t quite found a way to get all that cash) to pay Alta Bates. And I’ve more than once discovered CARS bills with forgotten charges: $38 for the Xanax they put in my IV once at UHS Urgent Care, $7 for a Tang Center lab fee, another mysterious $7 fee, and another and another. Currently, too, I’m paying upwards of $100 a month on copays for prescriptions ranging from anti-depressants to antivirals, hormone replacements, and beta blockers.

But without SHIP, I’d be in a much steeper mountain of debt than I already am. I’ve heard Cal’s system compared to what’s being proposed nationally to solve our health care crisis, and I’m speaking as someone who’s benefited from something analogous to the "public option." I’m grateful that our university cares enough about its students to mandate comprehensive coverage, and that they offer SHIP as an alternative to students who don’t already have insurance. Because I have SHIP, I’m only worrying about having to use up the rest of my student loans on a couple hundred dollars a month to keep myself well — if I’d instead been uninsured last year, I’d now be several thousands in the hole and wondering whether I can actually even pay my senior year’s tuition. And if I had tried to insure myself after my diagnosis, I’d probably be shit out of luck. Everyone knows that according to private health insurance standards, folks with "preexisting conditions" just don’t get health care, unless they’d like to pay for it out of pocket.

My sister Shannon, who’s 23, also has a preexisting condition. She was diagnosed with Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis in her right knee at age 2. Shannon’s JRA was in remission until she was 12, but by the time she was 15, she was forced to leave high school for homeschooling because she could no longer walk without extreme pain. These days, her arthritis has spread to every major joint in her body: her fingers, wrists, elbows, back, hips, both knees and ankles, and even the balls of her feet. On rainy days she wakes up with a paralyzing ache in nearly every area of her body, but for the most part, she just deals — sometimes missing a week of work, sometimes agonizing through it. Unlike me, Shannon doesn’t attend a school that offers her an affordable and nondiscriminatory insurance plan. A few years ago, she got notice that her coverage under my dad’s insurance policy was going to expire, so her benevolent doctor wrote her extra prescriptions she could fill before it went into effect. She now has a stockpile of medications that she should be taking daily but which she instead rations for her worst days.

Shannon’s been trying to insure herself, but is disheartened by the rejection she’s faced so far. The public school district where she works purposefully keeps her, along with most of its employees, at just under 30 hours a week so that they won’t be obligated to provide her with insurance. She’s applied for private coverage, even knowing she might not be able to afford it, but has been denied. She says it takes days to fill out the paperwork, months to hear back from insurance companies, and that the answer is always the same — they won’t cover her because she has RA; they won’t cover her because her condition requires her to take too many prescription medications.

I read an op-ed in the Daily Cal last month in which Roman Zhuk, the author, argued against compulsory SHIP coverage for Cal students, and, more generally, against President Obama’s plans for health care reform, which could institute a national system similar to that currently enforced on the UC Berkeley campus. Zhuk claimed, "Young people can easily make do with bare-bones coverage because they are generally healthy."

It’s against this sort of heartbreaking optimism that I’d like to rally. My sister and I are just two of many cases that show serious illness can affect anyone, regardless of age. Last month I also encountered an article on CNN.com called "Dying for Lack of Health Insurance." Young adults, the article explained, are one of the most likely demographics to be uninsured, largely because "they don’t have options." So while I, like most Berkeley students, have made my fair share of complaints about SHIP — the difficulty of seeing "real doctors" at Tang, the long waits at Urgent Care, the pharmacy’s ridiculous co-pays on prescriptions — I’m nonetheless grateful that I at least have this option. And should Obama’s reform bill make its way through all the political red tape it’s wrapped up in, I’m sure a lot of other young people would be glad for a new affordable public option to insure themselves, too.

BY NATALIE MARSH AND KATHLEEN ZARATZIAN

Berkeley students already have it rough this year — state budget cuts have led to fewer courses, larger classes, and higher student fees; a slow economy will make it harder for college grads to find jobs in the near future; Cal Football has experienced yet another frustrating mid-season meltdown. But now the media warns that the swine flu pandemic is expected to peak in October and that the virus could spread like wildfire through college campuses. Given the circumstances, how serious a threat does the virus pose to the Berkeley campus?

As far as the symptoms go, swine flu (H1N1 virus) is generally no worse than the seasonal flu. While a number of swine flu-related deaths have been reported, the Center for Disease Control notes that a vast majority of persons infected by the virus have "recovered without requiring medical treatment." As such, hospitals generally recommend that patients who suspect they have swine flu seek professional care only if they experience very severe symptoms.

But what is troubling about the virus is its incredible ability to spread. The virus is an exceptionally different strain of influenza to which the general population has little immune protection, and this means it can affect communities and populations of people who would not otherwise get sick. College students are part of a wide demographic, persons between ages 5 and 25, that has reported the highest rates of the illness, according to the CDC.

Michael Ranney, a professor at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Education, has been closely following statistics on the swine flu since the World Health Organization declared it a pandemic in June.

"Initially it seemed a little out of proportion as a pandemic to sweep the planet quickly," Ranny said. "At the time there were only 1 or 2 deaths."

But as the months went by and the numbers began picking up, Ranny notes that the swine flu had clearly moved out of "ballpark of shark bites and bee stings."

He quotes a statistical spread of 30,000 to 90,000 expected deaths from the 2009 H1N1 virus. This huge spread denotes the grand scale and uncertainty associated with the H1N1 virus. Part of the uncertainty is involved with the developing vaccine, which did not exist at the outset of detection because the H1N1 virus was so new. There has been good news in the development of the vaccine, but the reality is that doses available in the short term will be for pregnant women, medical care professionals, and those populations at highest risk.

At Berkeley, reducing the spread of the flu is a concern but the campus is far from crisis mode.

"The Tang Center doesn’t seem too concerned about Swine Flu when you go in unless you look really sick," according to Emily Burnell, a sophomore who sought medical attention at the Tang Center for severe flu symptoms. "In the end they suspected I had [Swine Flu] so they gave me a mask and Tami Flu and told me to rest up. It didn’t feel like a crisis."

The swine flu has had some effect on university dorms though. According Noelle-Grace Ochiang, a Resident

Assistant in Unit 3, on some floors of the dorm over half of the residents experienced flu-like symptoms in September. The students in Ochiang’s building, however, were far from panicked. As a joke, they posted tombstones on the doors of their peers whom they believed had swine flu.

To prevent further transmission of the virus, the university encourages sick students to rest-up in their rooms and stay away from others as much as possible. University dining services now also supplies sick meals, which can be picked up for sick residents by their friends so that the dining halls remain virus-free. There’s even a "safe room" for residents who are afraid of catching the virus from sick roommates.

But according to Jennifer Lachance, a graduate student at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health, the best defense against the flu is simply "being aware." Students should be aware of the fact that desks, door handles and elevator buttons might be crawling with germs. Basic hygiene — washing your hands frequently, being careful not to rub your eyes or touch germ-infected areas — goes a long way.

Last month’s Walkout against the UC Regents’ and their emergency financial measures shows that Berkeley can still draw the crowds when it needs to. Thousands strong, the protestors rallied around the charge that the Regents were using the state’s financial crisis to transform the UC into a private corporation. “They make the crisis,” read one picket sign. Noticeably absent from the Walkout, however, were any signs blaming the legislature for making unprecedented cuts to the UC in the first place. “We blame those overpaid, fat cats for everything!” seems to have been the Walkout’s message. But a closer look at the forces at play in the UC’s funding crisis reveals that while the Regents made some very poor decisions, the real source of the UC’s troubles is the unslain dragon of Sacramento politics: the state budget process.

First, a look at the numbers: the final 2009-10 state budget enacted in late July cut funding for the UC system by $813 million — the largest one-time cut to the UC budget in state history — and this is the immediate shortfall that the UC Regents are trying to close this year. But by reducing the UC’s funding, the state also left the system with $335 million in unfunded costs associated with higher enrollment for the 2009-10 academic year. So the total shortfall facing the UC is actually a hefty $1.15 billion.

An $813 million shortfall doesn’t look so bad against the UC’s total operating budget of $19 billion, but according to the UC Office of the President, most of this $19 billion consists of restricted funds that can’t be shuffled around to offset losses elsewhere. The UC’s core budget, which supports the essential campus functions like teaching, is only $5.4 billion deep. Before this year’s cuts, $3.2 billion or 60 percent of these core funds came from the state. Now that the state has reduced its share by $813 million, the UC has 15 percent less funding for its day-to-day activities.

Even before the state’s final budget was passed, the Regents were aware of the potential shortfall and decided in May to raise student fees by 9.3 percent, a move that bumped undergraduate tuition to $8720 a year. Then in July when the state budget deal was close to being finalized, the Regents delegated “emergency powers” to UC President Mark Yudof, which gave him the green light to implement the current staff furlough plan that reduces the pay of university employees between 4 and 10 percent depending on their annual salary. Currently, the Regents are considering two additional 15 percent student fee increases — one to take effect in the spring 2010 semester, the other in fall 2010 — that would put annual tuition for the 2010-11 academic at $10,302 for undergraduates.

As we’re all aware, the plan didn’t go over so well. But the ensuing Walkout put the entire mess on the shoulders of the UC front office and didn’t offer a clear strategy to lobby Sacramento. To be fair, the Regents deserve a spanking for hiking student fees and giving two UC Chancellors pay raises at the same meeting. And they definitely should have consulted more with interested parties before giving Generalissimo Yudof the go ahead to chop salaries and tax the students. But in limiting themselves to dueling only with Yudof et al., the Walkout-ers have either forgotten or ignored the most important question to the university’s present condition: how did we end up losing $813 million in state funding?

It turns out that state support for the UC has actually been eroding for almost four decades. In 1970, funding for the UC accounted for roughly 7 percent of the annual state budget and today it accounts for a mere 3 percent, which is less than what the state spends on its prisons. An even more striking trend is that the legislature routinely cuts the UC’s budget when the state’s economy is doing poorly. In 2005, Gerald Kissler and Ellen Switkes published an academic study titled “The Effects of a Changing Financial Context on the University of California.” Among their key findings was the fact that “during each of the last three economic downturns in the early 1980s, 1990s, and the current decade, the state appropriation to the University of California and other core financial support fell behind.” So based on these two trends alone, we would expect the UC to take an extra hard shot in 2009.

But the reason why the UC is always the first in line for cuts has to do with two features of the state budget process. Unlike K-12 education, whose yearly funding allocation is protected by mandatory spending requirements in the state constitution, the UC is part of the budget’s general discretionary spending, and as a general rule, legislators look first to discretaionry spending when they need to make cuts. Moreover, they find it easy to justify cutting the UC budget because the system has other sources of revenue, namely student fees.

And then there’s the two-thirds rule, a force that has caused endless nightmares and delays for the budget year after year. As one of only three states nationwide that requires a two-thirds super majority to pass a budget, California empowers a one-third minority to “hold a budget hostage” until radical concessions are made — last year, Democrats in the State Senate were forced to give $2 billion in tax cuts in order to court two Republican votes they needed to close the deal. So in lieu of honest debates over the which programs matter and how to best address the shortfall, we have back-and-forth politicking that inevitably leads to budget gridlock and important programs slipping through the cracks — programs like the UC.

According to State Senator Loni Hancock (D-8th), the UC is “a victim of the budget process,” and in her mind, cuts of this proportion never should have happened in the first place.

“Higher education has been our economic engine and it has also been our social glue: our public universities are where all Californians meet,” Hancock said. “To cut that access now is unconscionable. We need to put more money into UC.”

To fix the state’s broken budget system, Hancock is currently pushing a constitutional amendment (SCA 5) that would eliminate the two-thirds budget rule. She is optimistic that her bill, if passed, will help stabilize the UC financially.

“I do think it’s a important step to restoring funding to the UC,” she said. “It will enable us to set priorities in a more rational way, and as far as I’m concerned higher education is a top priority in this state in every way.”

A similar effort to fix the budget process is being spearheaded by renowned Berkeley linguistics professor George Lakoff. His grassroots movement, “California Majority Rule,” seeks to put a citizen’s initiative on the November 2010 ballot that would eliminate the two-thirds budget rule and the two-thirds tax rule (Incidentally, California also requires a two-thirds supermajority to approve a tax increase.)

“Changing the vote requirement to a majority for budget and revenue will ensure that California’s budget can meet the state’s needs and be passed on time.” Lakoff wrote in a blog entry on the Huffington Post explaining his proposal. “In no other state can a ruthless minority cause the chaos, disruption, pain, and near-bankruptcy that our state has suffered.”

Up to now, the UC community has chosen to target Yudof and the Regents as the source of all of our ills. While the effort to fix the Regents is certainly worthwhile — increased transparency from our front office would definitely help us better prioritize funds and stop them from approving outrageous pay increases — we must move beyond attacking the Regents. Focusing all of our energy on getting the Regents to do a more honest job slicing the pie distracts us from the blindingly obvious point that we need a bigger pie. And to get that we need to be part of the effort to defeat the faceless enemy that is our state budget process.

Bruce Cain is Heller Professor of Political Science at UC Berkeley and Director of the UC Washington Center, Washington, DC .

Congratulations. Your candidates across the board won. Your hard work and enthusiasm have paid off. Now your party controls both the executive and legislative branches. You expect great things. You are fired up and ready to go, anticipating change you believe in.

But hold on! It’s a few months into the new government, and you discover that that those pesky officials from the wrong-minded, defeated party have a stranglehold on the policy process, obstructing some of the most important initiatives and modifying others beyond recognition. What’s up with that, you ask yourself?

Welcome to Obstruction 101, lessons in the harsh realities of American governance. For Californians, obstruction is everywhere. Each summer we are treated to the spectacle of prolonged and often bitter budget negotiations that follow a now familiar script: the Democrats offer a budget to their liking, the Republican Governor or the legislative caucus says no (especially if it costs any money), talks break down until state funds run out, fatigue sets in, the Democrats cave and Republicans get a much reduced budget.

Moreover, no matter the outcome of next year’s Gubenatorial race, unless the Democrats gain a two-thirds majority in the Assembly and Senate, the Republican legislative caucus will retain its budgetary veto. And if you have been paying attention to your local elections at home, you know that many worthy library and school measures have been going down even though a majority voted for them.

Meanwhile, on the national level, the exhilaration of an historic election has passed, and the potentially dramatic policy shifts you were promised have been postponed, perhaps indefinitely. Health care reform and the environmental legislation that would limit carbon emissions and slow global warming have stalled, particularly in the Senate, because its super-majority rules have given the minority Republicans enormous political leverage. In order to end debate (and foreclose the prospect of filibuster), the Democrats must secure 60 votes to invoke cloture. Yes, it is true that they have the 60 votes, but it turns out that some of those votes are shaky by virtue of ideology or health, and there are only one or two potential Republican recruits.

But how did it come to this? Isn’t a democracy supposed to be about majority rule? Shouldn’t elections matter? What’s the point of working hard to change the administration or the Congress if the minority party gets to call the shots on the most important pieces of legislation?

What makes this all the more perplexing is that the majority in both settings could take this power away from the minority. No one is holding a constitutional gun to their head. Californians are a simple ICA (initiative constitutional amendment) away from changing the budgetary and taxing rules to a simple majority. A few million dollars (pocket money by the normal standards of California politics) would qualify the measure, and then if the majority Democratic electorate wants to vote itself more favorable rules, it could. Similarly, US Senate Democrats are a point of order and motion to table away from abolishing the filibuster and allowing their historic legislation to move forward.

So what’s stopping them? Until recently, polls in California have suggested that a measure abolishing the supermajority vote would fail. How come? In the end, it seems that there are enough independent and Democratic voters who would join the Republicans to oppose the measure, because they do not trust the Democrats in the legislature to tax and spend wisely. Is this a sensible strategy? It might be if as a centrist you worry that leadership pressure and powerful Democratic interest groups will push government spending beyond your taste.

In Washington, it seems that centrist Democrats and blue dogs are putting restraints on their party for similar reasons. A majority vote on health care would lead to something more like the House bill with its public option and higher price tag. With the 2010 elections looming and a likely swing against the President’s party (if history is any guide), these centrist Democrats are looking for something they can defend at home. The supermajority vote seems like their ticket to that path.

But what happens when the minority party realizes that it has the majority over a barrel and pushes its advantage too hard? That could mean that the supermajority protection process undermines centrism in the other direction. If the US Senate negotiations lead to no outcome, or to bills so weak as to be ineffectual, then perhaps it will be better for centrist Democratic Senators to vote no on the bill but yes to cloture, thereby letting a majority of Democrats from safer seats and states carry the day. The centrist Democrats get to claim ideological purity to the home folks, but keep their party happy by getting out of the way.

In California a similar logic could play out. If cuts to state services are too severe, and the public decides that it wants them restored, the prospects for new majority rules could brighten. That Californians might want a below average taxation level is hardly surprising. But do they really want a Mississippi level of services? Once the waste and inefficiency myth is dispelled (i.e. that you can cut government by 20 or 30% and still provide the same level of services), some of them may have a change of heart.

The game of obstruction in a democracy has to be played with skill. In the end, you better know the boundaries of acceptable obstruction, or the obstructed will lose their patience and roll you.

The selection has been made and the debate is underway. Until her Senate confirmation, Sonya Sotomayor, President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, is under fire. As the first Latina and third woman ever to be nominated for the bench, Sotomayor represents great progress, both for the legal profession and for American politics alike. However, some have questioned whether it was truly her merits and not just her demographics that earned her this nomination.

Conservatives, who are aiming to unearth anything and everything that might prove her unsuitable, have recently focused on a 2001 speech delivered right here on the UC Berkeley campus. In this speech entitled “A Latina Judge’s Voice”, Sotomayor declared that she “would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life”.  According to Obama, “She was simply saying that her life experiences will give her information about the struggles and hardships that people are going through…that will make her a good judge”. However, some see this as blatant reverse discrimination, epitomized by Patrick J. Buchanan’s comment in the SF Chronicle:

“Imagine if Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. has said at Bob Jones University, ‘I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his life experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Hispanic woman, who hasn’t lived that life.’ Alito would have been toast.”

Regardless of your stance on Sotomayor, it is hard to brush her aside as a mere token minority in light of her impressive story: a daughter of Puerto Rican immigrants, raised in a Bronx housing project, who went to Princeton, then Yale Law, where she was Editor of the Law Review before her eventual appointment to the 2^nd Circuit Federal Court of Appeals.  Perhaps she truly does have it all.