On Friday, the Daily Cal published a rather shocking op-ed by one Matthew Soldad concerning the possibility of future war with Iran. The publishing in and of itself, of course, was little surprise: the managerial staff of the newspaper notoriously is as efficacious in weeding out offensive material before printing as a basketball hoop would be in straining linguini. Neither was it the article's anti-Semitic sentiments that caused this particular piece to stand out. Instead, it was the well-read, almost traditionalist tenor of Mr. Soldad's anti-Semitic argumentation that has led even the most cynical of Berkeley Jews (yours truly) perplexedly to furrow his brow. Ordinarily in such instances, the most appropriate course of action is to take the high road, and rather than lending credence to the inflammatory discharge by analyzing its logical flaws, instead demanding to know how such nonsense could have been given the floor in a public forum to begin with. In this case, though, the piece itself demands specific attention, not to issue rebuttal, but to explore context.
The purpose of Mr. Soldad's article is to unmask and berate an influential cadre of Neoconservatives who successfully demanded and orchestrated the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and who plan to launch war against Iran to reinvigorate the flaccid American economy and protect Israel. He grants said cadre an unusually all-encompassing sphere of influence for a Berkeley political theorist, going so far as to relieve George W. Bush and Dick Cheney of some of their ordinary moral culpability by arguing that their road to warpath was Google mapped by Neoconservative "slight of hand." He also takes the unusual (though by no means original) approach of relating Neocons to Trotskyites, whom, he argues, are their Soviet analogues. Soldad's piece takes the leap from contentious – and bizarrely placed – to objectionable when it defines Neocons as a "group of largely Jewish members who follow the teachings of the Jewish academic and neo-Machiavellian Leo Strauss." He accuses them of employing a "fog with which [they] disguise themselves," and cites Joe Klein (political writer for that bastion of governmental theory, Time magazine) in placing them among "people out there in the Jewish community who saw [Iraq] as a way to create a benign domino theory and eliminate all of Israel's enemies."
Of course, the notion of Jewish conspiracy stretches back centuries, at least as far as the Jewish Emancipation of the Enlightenment. The famous manifestations of these theories are widely recognized, and even, to some minds, excessively taken advantage of: the dissemination of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the echoes of its vitriolic fear in the Beilis Trial and Doctors' Plot; the danger of the "Jewish peril" as described in Mein Kampf and the enacting of the Holocaust; American assertion that Jews were responsible both for the abandonment of the gold standard and for communism; and the recurring ideas of Zionist Occupation Governments, political lobbies, and control of the media. Though one would be irresponsible in comparing Soldad's powerless missive to these historical atrocities, one would be hard-pressed to miss the parallel arguments. What's described is nothing more or less than a concealed group of Jews, united behind a perverse code (some Straussian take on The Prince), manipulating world affairs to suit their own greed- and ideology-driven agenda.
Briefly, in anticipation of claims that these arguments are based not on racism, but on modern political exigencies: why mention Judaism here at all? Why describe Leo Strauss – with his city-first (i.e., tradition-unfriendly) philosophy and his profoundly uncertain stance on the truth of religion – as a "Jewish academic," unless you believe his ethnicity to be central to his appeal to the apparently Jewish Neoconservative alliance? For that matter, why label the Neocons "largely Jewish" to begin with? Is it to suggest that the vocal, rich, Fundamentalist Christian sector of the Israel Lobby has, like Bush and Cheney, been manipulated by Jewish slight of hand? Or to return to the lead-in of the article – and the oldest anti-Semitic chestnut in the canon – and imply Jewish conspiracy aimed at pecuniary gain?
One can only wonder what purpose the editors of the Daily Cal believed Mr. Soldad's op-ed would serve in the context of their (very) local newspaper. Presumably, they intended to give much-needed voice to the community, and possibly, to spread awareness of an alarming growing trend in the modern world. Yet what they've demonstrated most palpably is that as long as the fire of bigotry rages on within the hearts of small, hateful men, racist tropes need not necessarily adapt themselves to the times. It is, in fact, these oldest and most grizzled trees whose foundations bind the soil of this toxic forest, and we must be vigilant never to let our callous familiarity with their thorny branches distract us from our duty to uproot them.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Look Out Below
The internet has negated the severance formerly granted (or forced, depending on your point of view) by graduation. True, it's made it easier to follow the humiliating exploits of your alma mater's rudderless football program, and easily possible to keep contact with a bevy of friends who would otherwise have been lost to the ages. But along with those blessings, the internet has also made it easier than ever to keep in visceral touch with the worst parts of your undergraduate experience – a particularly damning situation when you attended as spectacularly moronic an institution of higher learning as Cal.
Former readers of this blog will remember my disgust at the mass protests against university budget cuts that happened last year. My basic criticism boiled down to the following points:
--that students protested higher tuition by cutting one of the few remaining days offered at the old tuition rate;
--that protests against tuition hikes were used as overarching forums to complain about all the world’s ills, restricted to the University of California or otherwise; and finally,
--that protesters used the rallies as an excuse, at best to satisfy their own needs for indignation and attention, and at worst, to break storefront windows and roll burning dumpsters at cop cars.
Suffice it to say, like the producers who brought you Scary Movie 12, the powers that be are stirring up another unwarranted sequel – in this case, another day of communal rhetorical masturbation aimed to change the system from within. And suffice it to say, the plan is exactly the same as it was last time. In fact, this time they're even more open about it: the Facebook event for the “October 7th Strike & Day of Action for Public Education” calls for a united front composed of “a mosaic of communities that recoil from the unbearable.” Accordingly, the Facebook community has organized other factions whose lives are being ruined by the man. These include teenagers who can no longer abide the fact that getting high is, strictly speaking, illegal, as well as outraged citizens intent on taking a stand on Arizona's “fascist” SB 1070 by demonstrating against the University of California.
I understand the ethical dilemma of the Berkeley radical. For one thing, it’s easy to lose self-confidence under the withering guiding light provided by such patron saints of public condemnation as Mario Savio and that homeless guy with the John Lennon glasses on the corner of Telegraph and Bancroft who yells at you when you don’t give him what he considers enough of your spare change. For another, where students of Savio’s day ostensibly had some legitimate complaints – widely prevalent national racism (only 7 years removed from Little Rock, for chrissake) and an administration actually denying students the right to say whatever they wanted on Sproul Plaza – the modern-day indignant Golden Bear has little more to complain about than a nationwide financial crisis and the persistent encroachment of such vanguards of capitalism as Panda Express. After four years of feeble high school rebellion against one’s parents spent dabbling in coke and figuring out which hole you can let him put it in before people start calling you a ho in public, the lack of an immediate opening to change the world with your original stance on troubling issues must be hugely sobering. In that light, it's hardly a surprise that such a large collection of angsty youth would happily gather their multifarious grievances into one slimy package and spew it forth at the first convenient opportunity. And of course, it must be said that the purported central focus of the get-together - education, something many of the people to be involved no doubt care deeply about - is obviously something worth holding on to (my hard-earned diploma affirms my sincerity on that count).
On the other hand, the setup of the modern world dictates that the road to practical educational reform doesn't run through soapbox pedagogy or mass demonstrations: it's a battle that can only be fought - much less won - armed with a ballot and valiant enough to trudge through a dark, bureaucratic swamp. More importantly, the sort of juvenile, potentially dangerous bullshit this bastardization of free speech will inevitably engender simply shouldn’t be allowed. So this ultimately powerless call for overdue change goes not to the perennially hopeless student body or the polio-stricken administration, but to Berkeley and UC police: if and when the impending rally is about to get out of hand, please see to it that all soon-to-be-rioters are arrested before they set poor, powerless Chancellor Bob’s house on fire, rip the copper wiring out of the walls in Durant Hall, or break more of the windows of innocent Southside business proprietors. Because the longer you wait to restore order, the more blatantly you’re going to be proving the need for vigilante justice to counteract vigilante idiocy. And I live too far away to be your goddamn Superman.
Former readers of this blog will remember my disgust at the mass protests against university budget cuts that happened last year. My basic criticism boiled down to the following points:
--that students protested higher tuition by cutting one of the few remaining days offered at the old tuition rate;
--that protests against tuition hikes were used as overarching forums to complain about all the world’s ills, restricted to the University of California or otherwise; and finally,
--that protesters used the rallies as an excuse, at best to satisfy their own needs for indignation and attention, and at worst, to break storefront windows and roll burning dumpsters at cop cars.
Suffice it to say, like the producers who brought you Scary Movie 12, the powers that be are stirring up another unwarranted sequel – in this case, another day of communal rhetorical masturbation aimed to change the system from within. And suffice it to say, the plan is exactly the same as it was last time. In fact, this time they're even more open about it: the Facebook event for the “October 7th Strike & Day of Action for Public Education” calls for a united front composed of “a mosaic of communities that recoil from the unbearable.” Accordingly, the Facebook community has organized other factions whose lives are being ruined by the man. These include teenagers who can no longer abide the fact that getting high is, strictly speaking, illegal, as well as outraged citizens intent on taking a stand on Arizona's “fascist” SB 1070 by demonstrating against the University of California.
I understand the ethical dilemma of the Berkeley radical. For one thing, it’s easy to lose self-confidence under the withering guiding light provided by such patron saints of public condemnation as Mario Savio and that homeless guy with the John Lennon glasses on the corner of Telegraph and Bancroft who yells at you when you don’t give him what he considers enough of your spare change. For another, where students of Savio’s day ostensibly had some legitimate complaints – widely prevalent national racism (only 7 years removed from Little Rock, for chrissake) and an administration actually denying students the right to say whatever they wanted on Sproul Plaza – the modern-day indignant Golden Bear has little more to complain about than a nationwide financial crisis and the persistent encroachment of such vanguards of capitalism as Panda Express. After four years of feeble high school rebellion against one’s parents spent dabbling in coke and figuring out which hole you can let him put it in before people start calling you a ho in public, the lack of an immediate opening to change the world with your original stance on troubling issues must be hugely sobering. In that light, it's hardly a surprise that such a large collection of angsty youth would happily gather their multifarious grievances into one slimy package and spew it forth at the first convenient opportunity. And of course, it must be said that the purported central focus of the get-together - education, something many of the people to be involved no doubt care deeply about - is obviously something worth holding on to (my hard-earned diploma affirms my sincerity on that count).On the other hand, the setup of the modern world dictates that the road to practical educational reform doesn't run through soapbox pedagogy or mass demonstrations: it's a battle that can only be fought - much less won - armed with a ballot and valiant enough to trudge through a dark, bureaucratic swamp. More importantly, the sort of juvenile, potentially dangerous bullshit this bastardization of free speech will inevitably engender simply shouldn’t be allowed. So this ultimately powerless call for overdue change goes not to the perennially hopeless student body or the polio-stricken administration, but to Berkeley and UC police: if and when the impending rally is about to get out of hand, please see to it that all soon-to-be-rioters are arrested before they set poor, powerless Chancellor Bob’s house on fire, rip the copper wiring out of the walls in Durant Hall, or break more of the windows of innocent Southside business proprietors. Because the longer you wait to restore order, the more blatantly you’re going to be proving the need for vigilante justice to counteract vigilante idiocy. And I live too far away to be your goddamn Superman.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
A Quick One
In response to the swastikas posted at Clark Kerr, the Daily Cal editorial staff urges the student body of UC Berkeley to "Ignore the Ignorance." I urge you all to do just that by not clicking on that link.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Writing on the Wall
To the surprise of no one with their cognition fully intact, three swastikas were recently discovered drawn on the walls at the Clark Kerr dorm compound. According to the UCPD, the first one was drawn last Wednesday night (4/21), followed shortly by two more early Saturday morning (4/24). They stand as the latest in what has been an unbroken series of incidents over my four years here – many of which I’ve been party to firsthand – of open, casual anti-Semitism. And lest you preempt me, in case you’re one of those indignantly callous Berkeley jerkoffs who considers any Jew crying anti-Semitism an act of inbred cowardice or overpreened sensitivity, allow me to define my terms: by an “act of anti-Semitism,” I mean some hateful resident of this monstrous wasteland employing racial epithets or traditionally anti-Semitic imagery to harass local Jewry.
As I said, though, that swastikas were drawn on University-owned walls came as a surprise to no one. After all, Berkeley is a hotbed of generalized sociopathy with a more-than-casual history of dalliance with anti-Semitism. What’s most irritating about the affair to date is the Daily Cal article covering the action, published on Monday. As ace journalists Jordan Bach-Lombardo and Javier Panzar reported, “though campus officials have condemned the drawings, classifying them as “hate incidents,” the drawings have elicited little student response.” They go on to note that “no students attended a community meeting hosted Thursday to discuss the incident, according to [dorm magistrate Marty] Takimoto.”
Since Bach-Lombardo and Panzar seem so confused by the apparent lack of student response, here’s mine: try asking anyone in the Jewish community, for whom this is nothing more than another bump in the proverbial untended San Francisco back alley of a road to their degree. You’ll find that used to such incidents though we may be, we were, as usual, unhappy to learn of the presence of yet another sociopath who took it upon himself to remind Berkeley Jews they’re not welcome here. As far as the unadvertised “community meeting” hosted less than 24 hours after the first swastika was drawn – and days before either of the other two were – take it from me when I assert that the lack of student turnout there was as representative of reaction to the swastikas as a freckle is to skin cancer.
In past posts, I’ve made perfectly clear my feelings about Nazi imagery in modern life. I recently assembled a Holocaust memorial issue of the Berkeley Jewish Journal, and encourage interested readers to check it out here. I’d offer some final, hopeful comment here that someday we wouldn’t be exposed to this sort of racist misanthropy, but I'm not inclined towards that kind of hope. So it goes.
As I said, though, that swastikas were drawn on University-owned walls came as a surprise to no one. After all, Berkeley is a hotbed of generalized sociopathy with a more-than-casual history of dalliance with anti-Semitism. What’s most irritating about the affair to date is the Daily Cal article covering the action, published on Monday. As ace journalists Jordan Bach-Lombardo and Javier Panzar reported, “though campus officials have condemned the drawings, classifying them as “hate incidents,” the drawings have elicited little student response.” They go on to note that “no students attended a community meeting hosted Thursday to discuss the incident, according to [dorm magistrate Marty] Takimoto.”
Since Bach-Lombardo and Panzar seem so confused by the apparent lack of student response, here’s mine: try asking anyone in the Jewish community, for whom this is nothing more than another bump in the proverbial untended San Francisco back alley of a road to their degree. You’ll find that used to such incidents though we may be, we were, as usual, unhappy to learn of the presence of yet another sociopath who took it upon himself to remind Berkeley Jews they’re not welcome here. As far as the unadvertised “community meeting” hosted less than 24 hours after the first swastika was drawn – and days before either of the other two were – take it from me when I assert that the lack of student turnout there was as representative of reaction to the swastikas as a freckle is to skin cancer.
In past posts, I’ve made perfectly clear my feelings about Nazi imagery in modern life. I recently assembled a Holocaust memorial issue of the Berkeley Jewish Journal, and encourage interested readers to check it out here. I’d offer some final, hopeful comment here that someday we wouldn’t be exposed to this sort of racist misanthropy, but I'm not inclined towards that kind of hope. So it goes.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
What More Can I Say?
On my way to Friday night services at Chabad this evening, as I was watching my feet while walking down Prospect St. with my kippah exposed, some asshole in a Nissan Sentra shouted “Jew Bastard!” at me as his friend drove by. What more indignities and ethnic slurs do I need to endure in this gangrenous hemorrhoid of a city before I leave?
It’s telling that this bastion of liberal thought is so engrained with the racism it vehemently denounces that I – an enormous kid with light brown hair who looks as little Jewish as any Jew I’ve ever met – have suffered the indignity of “drove-by” ethnic slurs at least 3 times since I arrived in Berkeley, when I’ve chosen to go outdoors with a kippah on. These actions can no longer be denounced as solitary assholes ruining some socialist utopia for the rest of us, nor can I ever again even entertain the notion of the hatred endemic to this modern-day Sodom being a ghoulish figment of my tormented imagination.
This city is a disgrace to its country; may all of its hateful bigots burn in the hell they so richly deserve in perpetuity.
It’s telling that this bastion of liberal thought is so engrained with the racism it vehemently denounces that I – an enormous kid with light brown hair who looks as little Jewish as any Jew I’ve ever met – have suffered the indignity of “drove-by” ethnic slurs at least 3 times since I arrived in Berkeley, when I’ve chosen to go outdoors with a kippah on. These actions can no longer be denounced as solitary assholes ruining some socialist utopia for the rest of us, nor can I ever again even entertain the notion of the hatred endemic to this modern-day Sodom being a ghoulish figment of my tormented imagination.
This city is a disgrace to its country; may all of its hateful bigots burn in the hell they so richly deserve in perpetuity.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Veto, vidi, vici
Even amidst all the animosity on display at Wednesday’s ASUC meeting, the most hostile demonstration of all came from the sun. By 7am, the first rays of an unwelcome daylight had already broken over the fearsome silhouette of Barrows Hall and confirmed for all those who remained in Pauley Ballroom that they had just spent an entire night arguing to no purpose.
Our cause célèbre centered around ASUC President Will Smelko’s veto of Bill 118; the Senate spent what my addled brain would guess was 8½ hours listening to debates and arguing over whether or not they should overturn the veto following the GE Bill’s 16-4 passage nearly a month ago. Unsurprisingly, each Senator had their mind made up before they arrived. The final outcome was that the veto was upheld by one vote – an abstention – then reconsidered and tabled for future discussion.
Proceedings molded to the expected form. The requisite analogies were drawn: Israel as apartheid South Africa; the United States as a leading human rights violator; UC student activists as Mario Savio; ASUC senators as Martin Luther King, Jr. Speakers discussed our now-assured collective place in history. An antagonistically bipartisan effort ensured a filibuster worthy of a Frank Capra film. In sum, like a session at the United Nations, the events of the evening had no practical ramifications, but egos were defended, feathers were ruffled, and the bill was gleefully sent to Uncle Sam.
The drafting, acceptance, and defense of the GE Bill have proven at least four things beyond a doubt. First, that while like the Golden Gate, Berkeley is a rocky, suicide-ridden gateway to an endless expanse, unlike the Golden Gate, Berkeley is marked by enormous gaps that will never be bridged. Second, that smarmy, holier-than-thou graduate students settle in Berkeley as much for the pulpits provided by its ubiquitous open fora as for its academics. Third, that the ASUC Senate will continue to consider itself impressive in its ability to get a few hundred students out of 36,000 to stay at a meeting overnight, even as it openly refuses to take a stand. Finally, that neither wastes of time nor wastes of money and energy will ever convince the powers that be that the system is broken.
Having already called to disassemble the ASUC infrastructure brick by brick, I will here simply offer a sentimental toast to the memories of our collective dignity and pride. May they rest in peace.
Our cause célèbre centered around ASUC President Will Smelko’s veto of Bill 118; the Senate spent what my addled brain would guess was 8½ hours listening to debates and arguing over whether or not they should overturn the veto following the GE Bill’s 16-4 passage nearly a month ago. Unsurprisingly, each Senator had their mind made up before they arrived. The final outcome was that the veto was upheld by one vote – an abstention – then reconsidered and tabled for future discussion.
Proceedings molded to the expected form. The requisite analogies were drawn: Israel as apartheid South Africa; the United States as a leading human rights violator; UC student activists as Mario Savio; ASUC senators as Martin Luther King, Jr. Speakers discussed our now-assured collective place in history. An antagonistically bipartisan effort ensured a filibuster worthy of a Frank Capra film. In sum, like a session at the United Nations, the events of the evening had no practical ramifications, but egos were defended, feathers were ruffled, and the bill was gleefully sent to Uncle Sam.
The drafting, acceptance, and defense of the GE Bill have proven at least four things beyond a doubt. First, that while like the Golden Gate, Berkeley is a rocky, suicide-ridden gateway to an endless expanse, unlike the Golden Gate, Berkeley is marked by enormous gaps that will never be bridged. Second, that smarmy, holier-than-thou graduate students settle in Berkeley as much for the pulpits provided by its ubiquitous open fora as for its academics. Third, that the ASUC Senate will continue to consider itself impressive in its ability to get a few hundred students out of 36,000 to stay at a meeting overnight, even as it openly refuses to take a stand. Finally, that neither wastes of time nor wastes of money and energy will ever convince the powers that be that the system is broken.
Having already called to disassemble the ASUC infrastructure brick by brick, I will here simply offer a sentimental toast to the memories of our collective dignity and pride. May they rest in peace.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
The G.E. Bill
Leave it to the ASUC to defy your expectations even as it's fulfilling them.
Early Friday morning (or late Thursday evening, depending on how normal your circadian rhythms are), the Senate approved bills demanding divestment from General Electric and United Technologies "because of their military support of the occupation of the Palestinian territories." That they passed was hardly unexpected: they're the latest in a string stretching back at least the 4 years I've been here of bills with no practical value except to divide further the student body, and to satisfy the ASUC's self-righteous lust for grandiose displays of intelligence and largess. What is surprising is the count by which they passed: 16 for, 4 against. This means that for the first time in memory, the voting did not progress strictly along party lines (though unsurprisingly, all the opposition came from Student Action). I suppose it's only appropriate to the stupefying incompetence of our money-sponge student government that the vote that crossed partisan lines would be one of the worst calls in recent ASUC history.
A brief examination of the bills themselves. They insist that "[these] ASUC resolution[s] not be interpreted as the taking of sides in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict" – yet realistically, despite their assurance that they also condemn Hamas for the rockets it launches, they don't leave any other recourse. A pro-bill speaker at the argument session last night suggested that his opposition would try to downplay the bills' merits by suggesting that companies that (directly or otherwise) fund nations like Saudi Arabia are more deserving of divestment. Of course, he was right – but then, so is that argument. Israel ranks 47th in the world on The Economist's Index of Democracy, and received the top score of 1 (out of 7) in political rights and 2 in civil liberties from Freedom House. By contrast, as examples, China is ranked 138th and Saudi Arabia 159th in the Index of Democracy; and both received scores of 7 and 6 from Freedom House. Israel is clearly held against a higher standard in Berkeley than any nation in the world, with the possible exception of the US ("John Woo should be arrested and tortured," etc.), and to suggest otherwise is either dishonest or – even more frightening – misguided.
But this isn’t really about politics, skewed though they may be. The bills are a moronic exercise principally because they demand divestment from General Electric and United Technologies. It's a clever ploy to sugar coat the bill's intent, and I applaud Tom Pessah and Co.'s ingenuity in framing their destructive political desires. Still, I can't imagine anything dumber than disassociating with two such faceless conglomerates, in the hopes that such an action would send any message (except, perhaps, that we’re willing to lose money we desperately need if it’ll make the student government appear sympathetic to the local AARP crowd in the IRA t-shirts). GE doesn’t give any more of a crap about the ASUC's opinions than Israel itself does.
The biggest problem the affair suggests is that the ASUC will continue to disregard the consequences their actions hold for the student body in whose interest they were purportedly democratically elected to serve. Last night, more than any other time in my all-too-long tenure here, the senators showed no hesitation in parting yet further the gap between the Israel crowd and the Palestine crowd. In other words, the ASUC is intent on appearing to care about peace in the Middle East, 7500 miles away, but not remotely interested in ending conflict here in Berkeley.
It was somewhere between the first and second rounds of finger snaps synced to quotations of Mario Savio last night that I came to a realization: there is no way to reason with Berkeley's student government. It will always act in its own best interests, and to promote its own image in its own eyes; it will always waste money and time; it will always act as though more important than it actually is. It’s time to either redirect our efforts towards dismantling the hateful machine once and for all, or to leave our senators – all, that is, except for Parth Bhatt, Sandra Cohen, Anish Gala, and Noah Stern – to their beloved circle jerk in peace.
Early Friday morning (or late Thursday evening, depending on how normal your circadian rhythms are), the Senate approved bills demanding divestment from General Electric and United Technologies "because of their military support of the occupation of the Palestinian territories." That they passed was hardly unexpected: they're the latest in a string stretching back at least the 4 years I've been here of bills with no practical value except to divide further the student body, and to satisfy the ASUC's self-righteous lust for grandiose displays of intelligence and largess. What is surprising is the count by which they passed: 16 for, 4 against. This means that for the first time in memory, the voting did not progress strictly along party lines (though unsurprisingly, all the opposition came from Student Action). I suppose it's only appropriate to the stupefying incompetence of our money-sponge student government that the vote that crossed partisan lines would be one of the worst calls in recent ASUC history.
A brief examination of the bills themselves. They insist that "[these] ASUC resolution[s] not be interpreted as the taking of sides in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict" – yet realistically, despite their assurance that they also condemn Hamas for the rockets it launches, they don't leave any other recourse. A pro-bill speaker at the argument session last night suggested that his opposition would try to downplay the bills' merits by suggesting that companies that (directly or otherwise) fund nations like Saudi Arabia are more deserving of divestment. Of course, he was right – but then, so is that argument. Israel ranks 47th in the world on The Economist's Index of Democracy, and received the top score of 1 (out of 7) in political rights and 2 in civil liberties from Freedom House. By contrast, as examples, China is ranked 138th and Saudi Arabia 159th in the Index of Democracy; and both received scores of 7 and 6 from Freedom House. Israel is clearly held against a higher standard in Berkeley than any nation in the world, with the possible exception of the US ("John Woo should be arrested and tortured," etc.), and to suggest otherwise is either dishonest or – even more frightening – misguided.
But this isn’t really about politics, skewed though they may be. The bills are a moronic exercise principally because they demand divestment from General Electric and United Technologies. It's a clever ploy to sugar coat the bill's intent, and I applaud Tom Pessah and Co.'s ingenuity in framing their destructive political desires. Still, I can't imagine anything dumber than disassociating with two such faceless conglomerates, in the hopes that such an action would send any message (except, perhaps, that we’re willing to lose money we desperately need if it’ll make the student government appear sympathetic to the local AARP crowd in the IRA t-shirts). GE doesn’t give any more of a crap about the ASUC's opinions than Israel itself does.
The biggest problem the affair suggests is that the ASUC will continue to disregard the consequences their actions hold for the student body in whose interest they were purportedly democratically elected to serve. Last night, more than any other time in my all-too-long tenure here, the senators showed no hesitation in parting yet further the gap between the Israel crowd and the Palestine crowd. In other words, the ASUC is intent on appearing to care about peace in the Middle East, 7500 miles away, but not remotely interested in ending conflict here in Berkeley.
It was somewhere between the first and second rounds of finger snaps synced to quotations of Mario Savio last night that I came to a realization: there is no way to reason with Berkeley's student government. It will always act in its own best interests, and to promote its own image in its own eyes; it will always waste money and time; it will always act as though more important than it actually is. It’s time to either redirect our efforts towards dismantling the hateful machine once and for all, or to leave our senators – all, that is, except for Parth Bhatt, Sandra Cohen, Anish Gala, and Noah Stern – to their beloved circle jerk in peace.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
No Surprises
Husam Zakharia. What a stupid asshole.
Oh, I beg your pardon – what was that? That was uncalled for? I see. You mean to tell me that Berkeley is an institution that fosters dialogue; that my hostility does nothing to advance meaningful exchange.
Well, having been raised as a human being (someone inclined to treat people well, because that’s what human beings should do), I’m of the opinion that some actions rob of you of your normal right to be treated with any shred of respect. And being a good man, I consider hitting a girl – a short girl – from behind – with a shopping cart to be one of those actions. To be fair, though, you’re right: I should have chosen my words more carefully.
Husam Zakharia. What a stupid, cowardly asshole.
(Additional props to Daily Cal political reporter Zach E. J. Williams – who, incidentally, between the perpetually sweaty brow and the buzz cut looks like a future repeat sex offender – for somehow erroneously suggesting, after a year of coverage of the very case, that John Moghtader was involved in the Zakharia-inititated throwdown of November 2008. Good thing you don’t need a good memory or scruples to go into journalism.)
Friday, February 26, 2010
For What It's Worth
The conditions conspired on behalf of my ignorance. Last night, as another small riot paraded through Telegraph, I was a mere four blocks away, yet nestled in a small, crowded room in a friend’s apartment, playing boisterous poker. This morning, though Telegraph looked like a mess, it didn’t seem like anything out of the ordinary – especially given the winds foretelling the storm that would shortly rage, which by noon were already strong enough that they were hurling trash cans across the Bancroft sidewalks. All things considered, then, there was no reason for me to expect that another parade of self-righteous Berkeleyites had trashed Southside yesterday, even though I’d effectively been there during and after; it was left to Facebook to raise my ire.
To summarize, courtesy (shudder) of the Daily Cal: “A crowd of more than 200 people swarmed the streets of Southside early Friday morning in a riot involving six law enforcement agencies, runaway dumpsters, flaming trash cans, shattered windows and violent clashes between rioters and police.” The aftermath added up to only two arrests: Marika Goodrich, a 28-year-old senior, charged with assault on a police officer, inciting a riot and resisting arrest ($32,500 bail), and 26-year-old Berkeley alumnus Zachary Miller, charged with inciting a riot, resisting arrest and obstructing a police officer ($22,500).
The disorder began with an occupation of Durant Hall, once the home of the East Asian Library and soon to become office space for L&S. To get in, the “occupiers” broke a few locks; once inside, they broke some windows, applied some graffiti, and scattered some construction equipment. They chose Durant Hall with the idea that they would “reclaim it for students”. A brief pause here. It’s presumably safe to say that none of these people had ever set foot in the East Asian Library – even in its expansive new location, much less its cramped old ones in Durant Hall – because if any of them had ever done so, they wouldn’t have been laboring under the false impression that it had been anything to “reclaim for students.” In fact, it was a squat, poorly ventilated, ugly edifice with inadequate access to bathrooms; further, as a library, it had never exactly been the hangout spot they’re making it out to be. Another sad consideration in that the best these political heroes could do was a fenced-off, hollowed-out building whose year-long construction was bemoaned by anyone at Berkeley only because it meant you could no longer cut through the low road past Dwinelle on your way to the west side of campus. But I digress.
From there, our fearless leaders moved to the intersection of Bancroft and Telegraph, where one of their number – presumably in a desperate act of compensation for a laughably small set of genitals – broke windows at Subway around 1:40 AM. The mob settled at Durant and Telegraph.
Police on the scene included “[o]fficers from UCPD, Oakland, BART and the California Highway Patrol, in addition to all but four Berkeley Police Department officers on duty that night.” They made a line in front of the Bank of America, and watched as the crowd, gathering momentum, pushed a dumpster into the intersection and set it on fire. The Berkeley Fire Department and Blakes employees cooperated to put the fire out.
The mob then threw glass bottles, plastic buckets, pizza and other objects at the police line, in between call-and-response exchanges of “Whose street? Our street!” Its leader, if anyone, was a shopping cart with a stereo in it, whose movements dictated the movements of the mob. In a similar display of missing touch with reality, the crowd ghost rode the whip alongside a white Dodge Charger, apparently blissfully unaware it was February, 2010. It was finally dispersed shortly after 3 AM by cop cars, after sending two dumpsters riding down Durant Ave. toward police.
Throughout, as our Mario Savio wannabes wandered, destroying private property in their wake, they offered choice epithets for the cops on the scene: “assholes,” “fucking pigs,” and other clichés of middle-class suburban unrest. To offer an idiom that would sail tellingly far over the heads of these troglodytes, sounds to me like the pot calling the kettle black.
All signs indicate that this petulant display of destruction will serve primarily as a warm-up for next week, when more large-scale rallies are expected in protest of the fee hikes. For now, the justifications will, of course, be the same as before. The responsible parties will offer either that desperate times call for desperate measures, or simply that there was nothing wrong with what they did, at all. This is all one can really expect from this crowd, the fists and testicles of the proverbial body responsible for Berkeley’s response to these fee hikes. The time has come to take the blame to the source: the brain.
In class this week, one of my wishy-washier professors (not herself a bad person, it should be emphasized) likened the wave of Berkeley protests to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. It’s people like this that claim that these repeated instances of violence in response to the fee hikes are examples of a legitimate form of protest taken to an extreme by radicals. Yet really, it is they – and their ridiculously lofty rhetoric – that enable this sort of behavior.
This crusade is nothing like the Civil Rights movement. That was a group of minorities seeking the legal rights to which they were justly entitled by the Constitution: not a “just” cause, but a right cause, one to which there was no justifiable alternative, legally or morally, to taking direct action. This is a group of entitled post-adolescents (and others who should be way too old to qualify for this category, but aren’t) protesting fee hikes at a school whose tuition – even after the hikes – is still an unqualified bargain relative to other schools of its caliber. Now, this isn’t to say that the University doesn’t need to take drastic steps to remodel its finances. (And let the record show that I regularly feel guilty forcing my parents to endure a semester of yet higher tuition fees this Spring.) However, the simple truth of the matter is that the Chancellor’s reluctance to dig into his slush fund to keep fees low is not the reason fees are being raised. It’s because UC Berkeley is morbidly obese.
The mazes of paperwork and bureaucracy that Berkeley runs on puts Office Space’s Initech to shame. It has positions like a “Vice Chancellor for Equity and Inclusion.” It has a student senate that absorbs funding like a sponge, one which has an External Affairs VP and feels compelled to offer statements of solidarity with the victims of the Darfur Genocide. Most of those who make arguments like that detailed two paragraphs back retort that a progressive university needs institutions like these to keep it running. They could be right (they aren’t, but that’s a different story), but Berkeley isn’t a “progressive” university – it’s a public university. In a state like California, this necessarily means limited funds to run an enormous school. Period.
By raising the conflict over the fee hikes to something more noble than it actually is, the “brain” of the movement has made no progress, and actually, moved backwards. Certainly, there’s been no movement towards lowering fees; the only thing that it’s clearly accomplished has been enabling the imbeciles of the movement to indulge their destructive impulses. If Berkeley’s populist intelligentsia truly wants to lead the rest of the state forwards towards an ideal California, they need to begin by holding themselves accountable for the angry sheep their follow them blindly, instead of merely apologizing for them. Until then, I think the ASUC should divert some of its slush fund to helping the proprietors of Subway fix their windows, and I hope we see many more than two people rightfully arrested next week if any more property is destroyed. Otherwise, I’ll have to start calling for a lobotomy.
To summarize, courtesy (shudder) of the Daily Cal: “A crowd of more than 200 people swarmed the streets of Southside early Friday morning in a riot involving six law enforcement agencies, runaway dumpsters, flaming trash cans, shattered windows and violent clashes between rioters and police.” The aftermath added up to only two arrests: Marika Goodrich, a 28-year-old senior, charged with assault on a police officer, inciting a riot and resisting arrest ($32,500 bail), and 26-year-old Berkeley alumnus Zachary Miller, charged with inciting a riot, resisting arrest and obstructing a police officer ($22,500).The disorder began with an occupation of Durant Hall, once the home of the East Asian Library and soon to become office space for L&S. To get in, the “occupiers” broke a few locks; once inside, they broke some windows, applied some graffiti, and scattered some construction equipment. They chose Durant Hall with the idea that they would “reclaim it for students”. A brief pause here. It’s presumably safe to say that none of these people had ever set foot in the East Asian Library – even in its expansive new location, much less its cramped old ones in Durant Hall – because if any of them had ever done so, they wouldn’t have been laboring under the false impression that it had been anything to “reclaim for students.” In fact, it was a squat, poorly ventilated, ugly edifice with inadequate access to bathrooms; further, as a library, it had never exactly been the hangout spot they’re making it out to be. Another sad consideration in that the best these political heroes could do was a fenced-off, hollowed-out building whose year-long construction was bemoaned by anyone at Berkeley only because it meant you could no longer cut through the low road past Dwinelle on your way to the west side of campus. But I digress.
From there, our fearless leaders moved to the intersection of Bancroft and Telegraph, where one of their number – presumably in a desperate act of compensation for a laughably small set of genitals – broke windows at Subway around 1:40 AM. The mob settled at Durant and Telegraph.
Police on the scene included “[o]fficers from UCPD, Oakland, BART and the California Highway Patrol, in addition to all but four Berkeley Police Department officers on duty that night.” They made a line in front of the Bank of America, and watched as the crowd, gathering momentum, pushed a dumpster into the intersection and set it on fire. The Berkeley Fire Department and Blakes employees cooperated to put the fire out.
The mob then threw glass bottles, plastic buckets, pizza and other objects at the police line, in between call-and-response exchanges of “Whose street? Our street!” Its leader, if anyone, was a shopping cart with a stereo in it, whose movements dictated the movements of the mob. In a similar display of missing touch with reality, the crowd ghost rode the whip alongside a white Dodge Charger, apparently blissfully unaware it was February, 2010. It was finally dispersed shortly after 3 AM by cop cars, after sending two dumpsters riding down Durant Ave. toward police.
Throughout, as our Mario Savio wannabes wandered, destroying private property in their wake, they offered choice epithets for the cops on the scene: “assholes,” “fucking pigs,” and other clichés of middle-class suburban unrest. To offer an idiom that would sail tellingly far over the heads of these troglodytes, sounds to me like the pot calling the kettle black.
All signs indicate that this petulant display of destruction will serve primarily as a warm-up for next week, when more large-scale rallies are expected in protest of the fee hikes. For now, the justifications will, of course, be the same as before. The responsible parties will offer either that desperate times call for desperate measures, or simply that there was nothing wrong with what they did, at all. This is all one can really expect from this crowd, the fists and testicles of the proverbial body responsible for Berkeley’s response to these fee hikes. The time has come to take the blame to the source: the brain.
In class this week, one of my wishy-washier professors (not herself a bad person, it should be emphasized) likened the wave of Berkeley protests to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. It’s people like this that claim that these repeated instances of violence in response to the fee hikes are examples of a legitimate form of protest taken to an extreme by radicals. Yet really, it is they – and their ridiculously lofty rhetoric – that enable this sort of behavior.
This crusade is nothing like the Civil Rights movement. That was a group of minorities seeking the legal rights to which they were justly entitled by the Constitution: not a “just” cause, but a right cause, one to which there was no justifiable alternative, legally or morally, to taking direct action. This is a group of entitled post-adolescents (and others who should be way too old to qualify for this category, but aren’t) protesting fee hikes at a school whose tuition – even after the hikes – is still an unqualified bargain relative to other schools of its caliber. Now, this isn’t to say that the University doesn’t need to take drastic steps to remodel its finances. (And let the record show that I regularly feel guilty forcing my parents to endure a semester of yet higher tuition fees this Spring.) However, the simple truth of the matter is that the Chancellor’s reluctance to dig into his slush fund to keep fees low is not the reason fees are being raised. It’s because UC Berkeley is morbidly obese.
The mazes of paperwork and bureaucracy that Berkeley runs on puts Office Space’s Initech to shame. It has positions like a “Vice Chancellor for Equity and Inclusion.” It has a student senate that absorbs funding like a sponge, one which has an External Affairs VP and feels compelled to offer statements of solidarity with the victims of the Darfur Genocide. Most of those who make arguments like that detailed two paragraphs back retort that a progressive university needs institutions like these to keep it running. They could be right (they aren’t, but that’s a different story), but Berkeley isn’t a “progressive” university – it’s a public university. In a state like California, this necessarily means limited funds to run an enormous school. Period.
By raising the conflict over the fee hikes to something more noble than it actually is, the “brain” of the movement has made no progress, and actually, moved backwards. Certainly, there’s been no movement towards lowering fees; the only thing that it’s clearly accomplished has been enabling the imbeciles of the movement to indulge their destructive impulses. If Berkeley’s populist intelligentsia truly wants to lead the rest of the state forwards towards an ideal California, they need to begin by holding themselves accountable for the angry sheep their follow them blindly, instead of merely apologizing for them. Until then, I think the ASUC should divert some of its slush fund to helping the proprietors of Subway fix their windows, and I hope we see many more than two people rightfully arrested next week if any more property is destroyed. Otherwise, I’ll have to start calling for a lobotomy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)