Saturday, May 25, 2002 :::
I've got one last final and then I move into new digs, so this will be my last post for a few days, until I get everything set up at my new place.
I would like to comment on this, though. It's an op/ed piece in the NY Times about California's Prop 215, the Medical Marijuana initiative. While I agree that federal law does and should supercede state law (otherwise, the South might still have slavery), in the case of medical marijuana, you've got nearly a hundred years of propaganda and racism that fuel the drug wars. If you want to ban a drug that kills hundreds of thousands of people a year, ban tobacco or alcohol. I have no problem with marijuana, a drug that doesn't cause people to die or kill or rot away.
Marijuana, and its active component THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol) works by activating the body's endogenous cannabinoid receptors in the brain. These cannabinoids are everywhere, especially in the Cheetos center of the brain. They're not, however, in the brain stem, which regulates one's pulmonary and autonomic functions. Thus, you can't overdose like you can with heroin or cocaine. All legitimate tests performed in the last few decades (before the government was actively trying to find ways to link marijuana use with anti-US foreign policy- after all, it's what those damn hippies protesting Vietnam were smoking, wasn't it?) have shown that the true adverse effects of marijuana use- namely, short term memory loss- is returned to nearly 100% after just a few days, even in heavy users.
But that's not really the issue (although it should be). Regardless of whether or not pot is ok for recreational use is a whole other bag of tricks. The medical effects of cannabis are widely known- it's a potent analgesic and antiemetic medication. Marinol, the synthetic cannabis substitute (not a schedule I like marijuana) just doesn't do the trick for people dying of AIDS and cancer patients.
So what's the issue? It seems clear enough that if medication is available that will alleive the suffering of these dying people, they should have it. The tricky part is making Prop 215 work in a very misguided and misled country. All we do is compare drugs to terrorism without actual, real information. Think about the "This is your brain on drugs" ad campaign we all saw growing up. Very simple, effective, right? How much information did that tell you about drugs? Different kinds of drugs? Overdoses? Adverse reactions? Potency? Is it vegetable, animal, mineral, chemical, snuff, powder, pot? Why is it that the only accurate information about drugs comes from doctors and dealers, instead of from our friendly government? This federal appeals court business will ensure that not even doctors can freely speak about drugs.
I'm going to end this spiel before I spin too far out of control. Check out the op/ed, and drop me a line if you have some thoughts on the matter.
P.S. Oh, that Bono!
::: posted by Andrewski at 10:34 AM
Friday, May 24, 2002 :::
Oh, now this is just getting silly.
Scuba diving terrorists? Are they serious? Chalk it up to classic misdirection- our government has been doing nothing but spouting any inane terrorist warning that may or may not be legit, clearly as a means of making up for the fact that the Bush administration was given clues about September 11th.
The sad truth, though, is that if we keep calling "wolf!", one's going to show up. Too bad our leaders are too busy covering their asses instead of ours. As for Scuba diving terrorists... well, that'll be the day.
::: posted by Andrewski at 1:47 PM
Thursday, May 23, 2002 :::
Correction: It's Sean Byrne from Calstuff, not Kevin, who turned 21 a few days ago.
A couple of really great articles in the New Yorker this week. I almost never read this magazine, but I was craving intellectual stimulation and somehow when I was standing in the periodical store, my hand wavered over The Chronicle, Time, and Newsweek before I compulsively grabbed the New Yorker. Anyways, the article I thought was terribly relevant to a lot of Berkeley going-ons is on page 46, titled "The Girls of Princeton".
The story is this: A couple of weeks ago, the Nassau Weekly (which the New Yorker calls the "foil to the Princetonian, school's drab daily". I imagine the Nassau is to the Princetonian as the Berkeley Planet is to the Daily Cal) decided to go ahead and survey about a hundred of the school's undergrads and put together a top ten list of the most beautiful Princeton girls. It featured photos, writeups, shorts Playboy-like interviews for the top 10, all of whom graciously accepted the honor of being one of the Top Ten. Not surprisingly, when word got out that this was going to be printed, the shit hit the proverbial fan and several objecting Nassau editors threatened to quit en masse. There was a heated email debate and a statement from the Organization of Women Leaders, both of which ended up in the final feature, which was retitled "Talented Senior Women: A Different Top Ten".
One can't help but wonder what would happen if this controversy erupted in our little neck of the woods instead of Princeton. Would Berkeley-ites flood the streets in protest? I'm sure we'd see at least one Sproul explosion, and doubtless a ton of smarmy letters to the editor. One thing is for certain though: A heated "what is sexist?" debate would be a welcome change from the current, overdone "what is racist/anti-Semitic?" arguement going on now with SJP and BAMN, among others.
Oh well. I have my own nominations for Berkeley's exceptional women, if anybody's curious.
::: posted by Andrewski at 6:03 PM
Wednesday, May 22, 2002 :::
Brandon Mills, author of 3B, has introduced a pretty kickass little feature for regular blog readers. Instead of having to click around to see who's recently updated, now all you have to do is go here: Cal Updates. Highly reccomended.
::: posted by Andrewski at 1:18 PM
Happy 19th Birthday to me! People also born on May 22: Richard Wagner, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Naomi Campbell, and Sir Laurence Olivier. I'm one day removed from Notorious B.I.G. (May 21, same as Calstuff's Kevin) and Drew Carey (May 23).
::: posted by Andrewski at 1:00 PM
Tuesday, May 21, 2002 :::
A fond farewell to Amit, and a heartfelt thank you for providing our community with some of the best scoops and commentary I've ever seen. On a personal note, thank you for inviting me to start my own blog, and thanks also for all the encouragement. Best of luck with whatever plans you have post-Cal.
::: posted by Andrewski at 10:19 PM
The Berkeley webpage has an update on Snehal's class. Here's a rundown:
-The ill-begotten "conservatives" sentence has been removed from the course description and chalked up as an oversight.
-Students are encouraged to "express themselves openly and to have their work evaluated free of discrimination or harassment". If students feel that their opinions are being discouraged by the course or its instructor, this says they should feel free to contact the English Department.
-Apparently now, "faculty observation" is important. The class will be regularly observed and the mentor instructed.
-From now on, all courses will be reviewed by a special Academic Senate/ administrative committee.
Looks like they got this settled pretty nicely. I'd advise Snehal to watch his ass in the future, but it seems that due to the importance of "faculty observation", that's been taken care of by a third party. If anyone out there in Internet Land has landed one of the 17 hot spots in this class, "The Politics and Poetics of Palestinian Resistance", drop me a line. I'd love to be a fly on the wall at that little tea party.
::: posted by Andrewski at 9:58 PM
Here are my thoughts regarding this year of college compared to last year in high school.
High school, for me, isn't that distant of a memory. Only one year removed, I still wake up in sweaty bedsheets, gasping over the horrific image of my senior year biology teacher making a mountain out of a midterm molehill. In retrospect, I realize how insignificant those tests are in the grand scheme of things, how much sleep was lost over something that served no greater purpose than to scare the bejeebus out of us pre-college, naive High School turds. How nervous we were! How their little scheme worked! We fretted and worried, eyes blurry and fatigued, wondering if we'rd make that two point difference between a 90.0% or an 89.5%. How much time was wasted being forcefed poorly written, hideously dull facts! You learn more in a year of college than you do in four in high school, and he reason is clear- you're pretty much free of the shackles of GPA, the rack of college admissions, the scarlet letter you bear on your breast as well as your report card. Only freed from that tyranny are we free to learn unhindered.
::: posted by Andrewski at 11:38 AM
Monday, May 20, 2002 :::
Progressive at Cal that he has posted the winners of the Hugo Awards, Prog's very own online Oscars for Berkeley Blogs. While I'd hate to think that politics played a major role in deciding who the winners were (ha!), it's still nice to know that someone's keeping tabs. Albatross Perch received an honorable mention for Best New Blog, which is very nice- thanks to Prog for that. I've never been called conservative before, though, that's a new one.
I find some of the "awards" to be unnecessarily cruel, though. Is it really cool to have a "Worst Berkeley Blog" award? We're trying to foster an environment that will encourage new sources and opinions to create blogs and post. Also, it's my belief that politics shouldn't play such a big role in determining stuff like "Best Blog". Angry Clam is, I believe, one of the finest blogs out there but it received a "Worst Politics" Hugo instead of a "Best Blog". To be fair, Angry Clam did also win for "Most Hits", but I doubt even Progressive at Cal could give that one to a liberal blog. Broaden your horizons, man.
All these "quotation marks" are giving me a headache.
::: posted by Andrewski at 3:40 PM
Sunday, May 19, 2002 :::
Blame Game redux: People are becoming more and more critical of Bush's response to warnings he received about terrorists threats pre-September 11th, like this guy from the SF Chronicle. The "coverup" aspect of this doesn't sit well with me, and it just seems far more likely that our insanely complex government managed to let all the right clues just slip through the cracks in our intelligence. Especially disconcerting is the news that Cheney is basically saying "watch out, America, it's going to happen again soon".
So, people jab their fingers across party lines, sneering and blaming and talking about how this administration or that administration let all this happen. I'm more concerned about what the widespread effects of U.S. policy, and what part it's playing in all this. If someone really, truly wanted to, they could cause this country a great amount of damage and grief- the only thing we can do as a nation is be more careful about who we piss off, and why. It's just not true that terrorists hate us "because we're free"- they hate us because we are a money-driven society, and our hands aren't terribly clean in all this.
So, hate America? No, but realize that we don't live in a fortress, although we like to think we do. Elect competent leaders, and then we'll see how secure our nation becomes.
::: posted by Andrewski at 10:45 PM
I'd consider last night's Blogger Party at ADPhi to be quite a success- we had representatives from Calstuff, Calanon, Potato Chucker, SJF, The Puddle, a few well-wishers, and even the Daily Cal. There was much eating and drinking and conversation and Simpsons quoting and Cal trivia.
The Albatross Perch supports Cheesy Sticks in all its many forms. It's like make-your-own pizza, goes great with beer, and gets delivered right to your door.
::: posted by Andrewski at 12:48 PM
