I am probably wrong on both counts.

To start with the latter, not every student in 1964 was actively campaigning for free speech. While it is true that as many as 3,000 students protested together in October and November, many of them were likely fighting for different causes and many more were not involved whatsoever. Nonetheless, the idea that there could be one unified, collaborative movement is uplifting when surveying the current state of student activism, which is easily more diverse.

In regard to the first point about graffiti, I am wrong without a doubt. As much as I like to picture a student’s outstretched Sharpie as one of the microphones in front of Savio, most restroom graffitists are probably not seeking broader political freedoms. Instead, they write out confessions, pleas for advice, deeply held religious views or philosophical musings. Mirroring the activism of today, these sentiments are diverse.

But when I see a paraphrased Randy Pausch quote in the women’s restroom of Pimentel, “Brick walls aren’t there to keep you out. They’re there to give you a chance to show how much you want something” or the Doctor Who-inspired “Allons-y Allonso — We have a bathroom stall to take back!” in a recently cleaned Dwinelle restroom, I cannot help but think that Savio’s fire still burns inside students.

Herein lies the parallel. The graffiti of today and the protests of the past each represent the struggle to disseminate speech against those who wish to silence it. No matter how many arrests were made during the 60s sit-ins and protests, the voices never stopped. Likewise, no matter how many times bathroom partitions are scrubbed down, graffiti always resurfaces. In the case of the Evans Hall women’s bathroom, it’s even a competition, with some declaring, “First!” to show that they reached the blank stalls before anyone else.

Without diminishing the significance of the Free Speech Movement, graffiti has a uniqueness unto its own. It is inherently a dialogue among individuals, even those who do not actively write back responses. Simply reading a text already makes someone engaged in the conversation. Like all forms of communication, graffiti attempts to fish out an innermost thought and transform it into words or pictures. Sometimes, the words don’t come out quite right or the drawing is not how it was pictured in someone’s mind. Beneath a whale cartoon in the same Evans restroom, an artist wrote, “This came out slightly creepier than intended.”

As powerful as Savio’s words were, they might not have embodied the true essence of what he felt. As majestic as a whale might be in someone’s imagination, it inevitably loses its essence when given concrete form. The transformation of an idea into a verbalization is a challenge for everyone — from political activist to whale cartoonist. Although we might never understand what a person truly means in his mind pre-language or pre-art, we are united in the shared struggle to communicate such feelings. Speech has power not because it is perfect, but because it is the imperfect product of a common endeavor to make our thoughts known.

Contact Kimberly Veklerov at kveklerov@dailycal.org or follow her on Twitter: @kveklerov.

The post On graffiti and Mario Savio appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The video begins with the birth of the main character and travels with her through adolescence. She has two parents of the same gender, but so do all of her friends and family. Nearly everyone is homosexual, with the exception of few people, including the main character. Sexuality “norms” are reversed, and the main character comes to realize that she doesn’t fit in: She is heterosexual and abnormal.

All this too familiar to some queers like myself: The video delves into uncanny scenes depicting bullying, name-calling and pleas for acceptance. But are queer agenda issues really being portrayed?

First of all, it is important to recognize that the video portrays problematic (mis)appropriations of queer identity and unrepresentative portrayals of only white, middle-class folk. Still, it is beneficial because it puts sexuality-based oppression into a different lens — one for the oppressor to relate to. I don’t believe the target audience of the video is the queer crowd fighting for queer agenda and equality, but rather non-queers who are dubious of change.

The video implicitly advocates issues such as marriage equality and calls hatred into question. Personally, it took me a few minutes to realize what was really happening in the video, and it strikingly resembled something familiar to me, being one of those kids coming to realization. Although unfortunately extreme and dramatic, the common themes of bullying and realizing difference play out to highlight the opposers of queer agenda and their unjustified, harmful acts and sayings.

Does a world exist where heterosexuals are similarly oppressed and acting against the “norm”? No, but the video rhetorically employs oppression as such in order to highlight the questionability of sexuality-based oppression. After watching the video, I felt sick to my stomach, but to me this morbid newsflash isn’t anything new. Queer people — and many other marginalized communities — are discriminated against every day. It frustrates me that in order to emotionally portray the frustrations and struggles of the queer community to an outside audience, it is necessary to have so-called heterosexuals play the part. We have to target the oppressors by showing them being oppressed, not the victims.

Watching this video was not an easy thing to do, but something different was definitely brought to the table. I don’t feel auspicious about the video and its political agenda, just because we’ve seen it over and over and over. And not much is changing.

Year after year, I am realizing that although things are getting better, there are countless problems that marginalized communities face every day. Yes, videos such as “Love Is All You Need?” help in promoting awareness and consciousness of the problems communities like the queer ones face, however it is frustrating to me that the way people choose to do so is by relying on heterosexual privilege, those who commonly are the oppressors.

I hope not to come off as “heterophobic” or reversing oppression of any kind, but things aren’t changing fast enough and people are still feeling marginalized and discriminated against. Although “Love Is All You Need?” is a solid attempt to bring queer oppression into a different context, it only highlights the same problems we have been fighting against for years.

Contact Matthew Kirschenbaum at mkirschenbaum@dailycal.org or follow him on Twitter: @mpkirschenbaum.

The post Rhetorical heterophobia appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Community college, state university and private university students are coming together at UC Berkeley for a weekend aimed at creating an environmental community which transcends our individual campuses. The California Student Sustainability Coalition hosts a convergence happens every semester at a college around California, but I feel so incredibly lucky to be able to help host this event at my own college.

Last fall, I was invited by my good friend Zen to go to the CSSC’s Fall convergence, which was happening at Butte College, a community college in the Chico area. I hitched a ride with some other first-time convergers and found myself in the middle of nowhere on a two acre property littered with tents of different sizes and shapes. The three days that followed were filled with the sounds of laughter and guitar, pledges of dedication to the environment and workshops and speeches led by students with so much drive and dedication to their beliefs it amazed me.

I danced with strangers who became friends in front of bonfires, sang Radiohead songs and contemplated our common future. I asked honest questions and got even more honest answers, and got into long, complex discussions about climate change, pollution and permaculture. I ate tons of hummus and huddled close to new friends in our freezing cold tent and went to sleep each night in disbelief that I had found a community such as this one.

As I drove back through Davis and into Berkeley, my experiences at the convergence lingered at the forefront of my mind. There, I had found hundreds of people my age, all equally passionate,  motivated and dedicated to the very things I hope to spend my life fighting for. When Zen told me of his plans to bring the spring convergence to Berkeley, I found myself psyched at the possibility of reconnecting with this community and puzzled at how we would be able to pull this off. In Butte, we had acres of space to talk, hang out and sleep, as well as a relatively empty community college to take over. In Berkeley, we don’t have that kind of space, and so we’ve had to adjust the convergence model to prepare to deliver the best experience in relatively little urban space.

But we’ve gotten this far. We have more than 450 people who have RSVP’d for the convergence at Berkeley. Various co-ops have opened their doors to our community, offering sofas, floors and lawns as we try to house students in this immense urban landscape. I personally have worked since early March planning the food for this event, which has been an incredibly frustrating and rewarding experience ordering immense quantities of food and drink and accommodating a range of dietary choices and restrictions. I can feel my excitement building and a fierce pride for my school and the accomplishments of the amazing CSSC team here at Cal and throughout California.

The CSSC has introduced me to countless individuals that are going to be leaders in the environmental field once they begin their professional lives. The action on individual campuses comes together to create meaningful change for our state. Last semester, we discussed fossil fuel divestment and through the work of campus organizers and CSSC staff, along with substantial mobilizations on each campus, many colleges including Berkeley have passed fossil fuel divestment bills in their student government.

Not only is this weekend an opportunity to share ideals and exchange thoughts and possible solutions, it is also a place where tangible change does occur. Through this network of young California environmentalists we cannot only work together to solve problems, but hold each other accountable to the goals of our movement and ensure that these efforts don’t fade away once people graduate. I can’t wait to introduce so many new Berkeley students to this organization, this movement. I look forward to reconnecting with my “sustainabilibuddies” and reveling in the power of around 500 students coming together with a shared optimism in our ability to control our future and thus save our planet.

Contact Carli Baker at cbaker@dailycal.org or follow her on Twitter: @carliannebaker.

The post Sustainibilibuddies, unite! appeared first on The Daily Californian.

As word broke yesterday that ASUC President Connor Landgraf would not veto SB 160,  the divestment bill targeting companies involved in Israeli human rights violations, which passed in the ASUC last week, I was not sure how to respond.

On the one hand, it means divestment passed – an end with which I am not pleased. At last Wednesday’s senate meeting, I spoke against the divestment bill and criticized how it did not consider the inextricable link between Jewish and Palestinian self-determination. Nor did the bill propose a strategy of political engagement with which to advance American diplomatic leadership in the region.

But on the other hand, I am sort of relieved. There will be no more all-night Senate meetings, no more claims of pro-Israel lobbies buying off ASUC senators and, thankfully, an end to the repeated claims of many of my peers in Berkeley’s Jewish community that this bill’s very nature “silences” the Jewish community on campus.

Berkeley’s Jewish students are blessed with tremendous resources, including many that came to bear fully in opposition to divestment.  Whether it was coming together in our multi-million dollar Hillel building to voice our complaints, or strategize with professional support staff and Jewish ASUC Senators to provide a legislative alternative to divestment – Jewish students have had ample space in which to voice their frustrations and feel supported.

I don’t doubt that some Jewish students do indeed feel marginalized. I do, however, wonder if they are aware of how much damage these accusations of “marginalization” do to our community when we frame our own claims as mutually exclusive to those of Palestinian students and their allies.

Is a senate chamber divided between “students of color” and “Jewish students” the kind of portrait of campus engagement that we want to symbolize our community? Is it possible that the privilege of the established Jewish community at Berkeley has blinded them to these harmful dynamics?

This self-awareness is absent from the discussion in the recent Daily Cal op-ed written by ASUC leaders Natalie Gavello and Oren Friedman. According to their version of events, divestment supporters “had the opportunity to take a progressive and innovative approach to this issue but instead renewed feelings of alienation and discomfort reminiscent of 2010.”

Let me backtrack– I applaud Gavello and Friedman’s support for a two-state solution in their piece, and attempt not to “detract from the Palestinian suffering.” Sadly, the authors still have a long way to go.

First, I don’t know what an “innovative approach” to this issue looks like, or why the authors felt they should be involved in how to handle divestment. Most vocal leaders of the Jewish community have unfortunately never before indicated that they care to make change on this issue (except when they are trying to defeat divestment). This has become evident as almost none of these leaders, including Friedman and Gavello, returned to advocate for SB 158, the pro-Israel bill they were championing the week before.

Moreover, if Israel love-a-thons like “Israel, Peace and Diversity Week” with a giant, spinning Star of David in the middle of Sproul Plaza are the best our community has to offer in terms of “innovative” campus engagement with this issue, then no wonder many don’t consider us partners for change.

Friedman and Gavello are correct that divestment “renewed feelings of alienation and discomfort” – the problem is that it goes both ways. For every Jewish student complaining of their “marginalization” on this campus, there is a pro-divestment student with a similar claim that divestment supporters are being painted unfairly as anti-Semitic and that members of our community are trying to whitewash their oppression.

This also perpetuates alienation within the Jewish community. It is a sad day when my fellow opponents to divestment attempt to create this illusion that the Jewish community is united on this issue by smearing Jews who support divestment as somehow less relevant and, implicitly, less legitimately Jewish.

I remember when I, sitting in the “Jewish” section during the senate meeting, heard my peers snicker when Palestinian students told stories of their families’ suffering. And while I too am frustrated by cheers of a Palestine from the “river to the sea,” I was also stunned hearing some in the Jewish community condemn a peaceful student protest in solidarity with Palestinian hunger strikers as a “hate rally.”

I have heard many in the Jewish community cite what Israeli politician Natan Sharansky calls “the three D’s” that distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism: demonization, delegitimization, and double standards. It is with a deep sense of irony that I realize one could apply those same criteria to my community’s behavior this week.

Palestinian students and divestment supporters are “demonized,” slurred as bad people, for pursuing non-violent political actions in our student government. And they also are “delegitimized,” as many in the Jewish community simply dismiss the real tragedies of occupation as being mistruths or mischaracterizations. And Jewish students treat divestment supporters with a “double standard,” content with the other side feeling silenced or marginalized if it in any way threatens our own comfort on campus.

If the Berkeley Jewish student community wants to be fair-minded and inclusive, I fully support that goal and will work aggressively toward that end. That being said, as long as venomous discourse and acts of exclusion typify how we, as a community, respond to acts like divestment – nothing will change, nothing will get better.

Celebrated American Rabbi Joachim Prinz, speaking right before Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. at the famous 1963 March on Washington, urged that “America must not become a nation of onlookers. America must not remain silent.”

If Jewish students seek to build bridges with minority communities on this campus, it begins with a refusal to be “silent” and remain “onlookers” of the struggles communities of color face on this campus and in our country. It will not come if our loudest voice is the one that complains about being “silenced.”

Image source: kateausburn via Creative Commons.

Contact Noah Kulwin at nkulwin@dailycal.org or follow him on Twitter: @noahkulwin.

The post Some thoughts on divestment and the Berkeley Jewish community appeared first on The Daily Californian.

We allow ourselves to live in a world of poisons because, frankly, there is not much we can do about it. Case in point: My Unit 1 dorm, the building in which I write this article, is in “the presence of numerous substances known to the state to cause cancer,” according to the cheery Proposition 65 warning on the door. But I’m not planning on leaving the building’s shelter in protest or fear. To be constantly wary of disease-causing materials would mean dashing from place to place in a foolish attempt to outrun the inevitable. Soaking up the asbestos seems to be the less exhausting option here.

These days, everything seems to be a carcinogen — dormitories, cooked meat, cellphones, soy, even alcohol. The list is endless. No matter how ostensibly “good” or “natural” or “healthy” something is, it will probably kill you if used or ingested it in excess. Moderation is the purported hero of these battles, but how can a person balance his whole life when balancing a fall semester schedule is challenging enough?

The idea of simply succumbing to toxicity is tempting when facing the “world of poisons.” In Heideggerian philosophy, there is this notion that each second of our lives, we are coping with — dealing with — our state of being in the world. As we cope, says philosopher Martin Heidegger, we are “running ahead” toward our ultimate possibility: death. In other words, every moment is a struggle to be in tandem with the flow of people and events around us. Each of these moments brings us one step closer to the end.

Accepting that the world is slowly poisoning us, fatally or otherwise, is dismal. Here is an even drearier thought: What if the most pernicious of all these toxins were self-inflicted? What if, instead of the world poisoning us, we were the ones imposing such harm on ourselves?

In college, there is an underlying feeling that destructive habits are OK because they are temporary. Pulling a few consecutive all-nighters is innocuous enough because we can make up for the lack of sleep once the weekend rolls around. An hour at the gym can be sacrificed when the workload becomes too heavy. Ramen wins over home-cooked meals because it can save you a few extra minutes. Or maybe you’re the guy who sleeps enough, exercises daily and eats right, but as soon as Friday night hits, you drink so much you forget which way is home.

Everyone is guilty of self-destruction to some degree. A good friend of mine — a smoker — once bought this huge box of cigarettes in bulk. On each face of the boxes were warnings in bold, black ink. One read, “Smoking reduces blood flow and causes impotence.” None of the warnings bothered him. A cig was just a temporary stress relief. Quitting is always possible down the road.

We have no control over most of the toxic crap the world flings at us. The few lifestyle choices that we actually have a say in should give us the chance to enrich our health, to enrich every second of our lives. Sure, the little decisions might not amount to much. Extending your life just a few years longer doesn’t seem to be a grand award. And as for the present moment, it is also true that spending an hour at the gym will likely take away from time that could have otherwise been spent studying for that upcoming midterm. But living a healthy, wholesome life is not about the end result or the present need. It’s about making the slow march to death as enjoyable as it can possibly be.

Contact Kimberly Veklerov at kveklerov@dailycal.org or follow her on Twitter: @kveklerov.

The post Toxic lifestyles: Pick your poison appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The grounds?

The Russian government reportedly stated that these Americans were responsible for the “legalization of torture” during the Bush years, and chief among the bureaucratic offenders is Berkeley law professor John Yoo.

Independent of the tit-for-tat quality of the Russians’ announcement, there is good reason to express concern over Professor Yoo’s role in expanding the role of torture after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. And from the perspective of Berkeley students, it is tough to consider he is allowed to draw salary from the University of California given his integral role in shaping American policy around indefinite detention and “enhanced interrogation” (read: torture), and the circumstances under which he adopted such views.

While I firmly believe John Yoo has the right to speak his mind and advance the ideas in which he believes (as he is wont to do under our campus’ firm principles protecting academic freedom), he should not dishonestly vacillate between positions as we elect different presidents into office.

And funnily enough, it’s a Berkeley professor who makes this case best.

In February 2009, campus economics professor Brad DeLong called for John Yoo to be fired. In a blog update illustratively titled “I Never Thought I Would … Be The Kind of Crank Who Wrote Letters to the Chancellor Trying to Get My Colleagues Fired,’ Delong posts a copy of a letter he wrote to UC Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau demanding the dismissal of Professor Yoo.

In the letter, he paraphrases rather accurately how Professor Yoo advocated in a 2003 document referred to as the “Torture Memo” that “President Bush’s commander-in-chief power is without limit save for impeachment itself” and that it “is unlawful for any member of the United States armed forces to disobey a presidential order to torture prisoners.”

However, it was only three years earlier in essay entitled “The Imperial Presidency Abroad” that Professor Yoo asserted “President Clinton’s commander-in-chief power is crabbed and restricted.” And that Clinton was “accelerat[ing] disturbing trends in foreign policy that undermine democratic accountability and respect for the rule of law.”

If Professor Yoo believed that “democratic accountability” was necessary in 2000, what made him completely flip to arguing that the commander-in-chief’s power was “without limit?” Having never substantively addressed this reversal, one must conclude (as Professor DeLong did) that if Professor Yoo “could write ‘The Imperial President Abroad’ in 2000 and the “Torture Memo” in 2003 … he does not believe what he writes–at least not for any meaning of believe’ that any of us would recognize.”

And it is this damning cynicism pervading Professor Yoo’s time both working in government and at Berkeley that eats away at the integrity of whatever academic endeavor he pursues.

In journalism, The Washington Post’s conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin is guilty of the same sin. Writing shortly before Election Day extremely bullish articles on Mitt Romney’s chances of winning the presidency, she lamented after his loss that “the [Romney] communications team was the worst of any presidential campaign I have ever seen … It was hostile, indifferent and unhelpful to media.”

It should be noted that Ben Smith observed in October of 2011 that she scored “a rare interview with the candidate [Romney] after a recent foreign affairs speech,” whose staff she described as “‘the most professional of the presidential campaign staffs, because they are the most experienced.’” One could reasonably suggest that she changed her mind over the course of the next year, but I invite the reader to read any number of salivatory posts discussing the Romney campaign that she wrote up until she trashed him after Election Day.

Rubin’s rank dishonesty is right up there with Professor Yoo–the professions of journalism and academia respectively entail a certain of amount of respect and protection. But both that honor and shielding end up severely tested should the occupants of these jobs fail the obligations of sincere thought demanded.

Russia was politically posturing when it banned Professor Yoo from crossing its borders. And as inscrutable as Professor Yoo’s motives were in changing his opinion, the fact he does not provide sufficient justification for neither his amended thoughts or the political influence they earned him is reason alone to release him from Berkeley’s employ.

The university is a special place; in this space we are able to bring new ideas to the table and debate them fairly. But part of the contract upon entering here is that one argues her ideas with some measure of conviction. Professor Yoo, in his shameful and calculated “transformation,” has violated that contract.

Make no mistake I – unlike Professor DeLong – am not questioning Professor Yoo’s right to teach here. Nonetheless, it seems clear that censuring him and setting a precedent of serious consequences for this sort of un-academic behavior is called for.

At the very least, it would be the first step in fully grasping his deeply problematic actions and starting a campus conversation about responsible academic and intellectual behavior in a democratic society.

Image source: Miller_Center via Creative Commons.

Contact Noah Kulwin at nkulwin@dailycal.org or follow him on Twitter: @noahkulwin.

The post The hypocrisy of Berkeley professor John Yoo appeared first on The Daily Californian.

But not all porn is beneficial, as much of it is falsified and altered to fit a certain commodity framework. However, the porn I’m talking about is porn with a purpose: to excite and educate its viewers, not to replace their personal sex lives.

Porn provides a medium for education, exploration and art. There are so many genres and subgenres of porn out there, ranging from barebacking orgies to softcore to bondage — everyone should be able to find an outlet for sexual creativity in porn. I think that viewers are drawn by intimacy and curiosity of others’ sexual fantasies in order to meld their own.

Recently, I spoke with a friend regarding my sex blog, in particular the implications of being open to discussing sexuaity. The conversation naturally progressed into discussing commitments and pornography — not just theory, but rather social problems. It’s vital to be clear with partners regarding porn usage. If your partner isn’t ok with bringing porn into the relationship, recognize their discomfort and talk it through. Porn is an artistic medium that is immediately shut down when discussed, but there are many pornographic merits that go unspoken. There is awesome radical feminist queer porn, anti-patriarchal sado masochism porn, and porn that interacts with viewers directly (chat rooms, wrestling tournaments, etc.) out there that needs to be spoken about.

Ethical porn can be found at sites like Kink, which so happens to be based in San Francisco in the Mission. I recently toured their studios at the San Francisco Armory and saw magnificent filming sets, learned more about the mechanics and architecture of a pornographic set and discussed the benevolence of a pornography conglomerate such as Kink.

Kink is a BDSM-oriented video business that makes BDSM and bondage more accessible to all. Unlike some other pornographic hubs, Kink makes sure to emphasise “real” porn in that it requires actors to consent and enjoy their work. As long as porn is ethical, which is indeed possible thanks to sites like Kink, porn is an excellent means of communication and exploration.

Although many types of pornography portray exaggerated orgasms and minimal foreplay, remember what type of porn you are referring to. The free stuff is free for a reason: These clips are often excerpts from longer, full-length films. Because some find the orgasms and timeliness of porn to be misleading, their arguments are incoherent in that they usually refer to short segments of a longer, more foreplay- and orgasm-heavy film. It is important to note that much of the commonly used, free pornographic sites purposely cut clips in order to keep providing free material. Just be wary and knowledgeable about what you watch.

Porn-induced erectile dysfunction is a serious problem not to jerk around with. Although there is psychological reasoning behind how one would develop porn-induced erectile dysfunction, I simply believe that the issue lies in an imbalance in the relation between the self and the other. Make sure to make “the self” happy, whether it be by watching porn, masturbating or reading erotica. But also make sure to focus in on the outward relation with “the other” by going out on dates, hitting the bath house or spending time with your partner in bed. I believe that as long as you don’t put too much attention into porn, there should be no worry about developing porn-induced erectile dysfunction.

If you’re an avid porn-watcher and are worrying about your habits unwantedly carrying over into your relationships, I would recommend being clear to your partners as to what exactly you like, consent to and appreciate in the art of pornography.

Image Source: IsabelleTheDreamer via Creative Commons

Contact Matthew Kirschenbaum at mkirschenbaum@dailycal.org or follow him on Twitter: @mpkirschenbaum.

The post Porn with a purpose appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Developed in 1970 by U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson as an environmental teach-in, Earth Day has grown into a celebration of environmentalism — a day of action against environmental threats and an international day of acknowledgement to the environmental leaders that have gotten us where we are today. It’s the greenest day of the year, with cities around the globe participating in environmental events in solidarity with the global struggle for the environment.

Earth Day is more than a congregation of hippies singing kumbaya. On New York City’s Earth Day in 1970, an estimated 20 million people participated, holding teach-ins and demonstrations that resonated with the anger that many felt about their inability to make tangible environmental change. Fast forward 20 years to Earth Day 1990, where the anger had turned into action. Two hundred million people in 141 countries urged their peers to support small consumer actions to create change, such as recycling. The overwhelming popularity and the strength of people from all over the world helped propel the United Nations Earth Summit into existence in 1992.

Each year, more and more people use the power of their collective voice to inspire and enact global and environmental change. Earth Day is not just a symbol of an environmental movement: It is a day of solidarity. It is a day during which we acknowledge our common struggle and use the energy of an entire planet to force our leaders to create change.

As you would expect, the Bay Area is a hub of activity during Earth Day, so much so that many groups have expanded the holiday into a whole week of activities, workshops and speakers geared toward environmental activism, sustainability and consumer consciousness. The City of Berkeley’s Earth Days have already started and its activities are as diverse as the environmental movement itself.

I do have to give special props to UC Berkeley though, for creating an incredible schedule of environmental activities for the next week. If you’re interested in participating in some of the amazing Earth Week events on campus, below I’ve listed a few that you won’t want to miss. For a full list of on-campus events, check out the Facebook event.

• First on Monday from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. is the 10th Annual Sustainability Summit hosted by the Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on Sustainability, which will feature plastics recycler Mike Biddle as the keynote speaker, remarks from the chancellor and snacks provided by the Berkeley Student Food Collective, where I’m the fundraising coordinator.
• On Tuesday, be sure to check out the film screening of Thin Ice from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., a documentary that follows scientists from all over the world to gain insight into the climate change debate. Not only will you learn a ton about climate science, but there will be free Cheese Board as well.
• Wednesday’s big event is a campaign workshop with sponsors including the Student Environmental Resource Center and the California Student Sustainability Coalition. It will be held in 251 Dwinelle from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. It will focus on how to effectively use online tools to further your activist goals.
• Friday’s biggest event will help all those looking for a way to get into environmental work, but aren’t quite sure where to start. From 3 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. in the Sutardja Dai Hall Kvamme Atrium will be the Green Speed Networking Event, which will host dozens of professionals in environmental fields for a speed-dating style of networking. Start securing your next internship, make connections for post-grad life and RVSP here.

I have not even gotten close to giving credit to all the amazing work our countless environmental organizations have done to make this Earth Week rock. This is a testament to the power of our environmental community when we can all come together, and I hope that everyone tries to at least check one of these events out. We all have finals coming up way too close for comfort, but next week I encourage everyone to take a second to stop, smell the roses and give thanks to the countless environmental leaders of past generations who fought tirelessly to ensure that us modern environmentalists had opportunities to fight for a greener tomorrow.

Image Source: Missoula Public Library via Creative Commons

Contact Carli Baker at cbaker@dailycal.org or follow her on Twitter: @carliannebaker.

The post The greenest day of the year appeared first on The Daily Californian.

In addition to the Memorial Glade scene for cannabis enthusiasts, the Bay Area will also play host to Hempcon 2013 in San Jose — a medical marijuana convention that I was initially made aware of via, you guessed it, a bathroom wall graffito. On the third floor women’s restroom of Wheeler Hall, in a stall closest to the entrance, “HEMPCON” is written in all caps. Probably just another doped up student promoting a little gathering, I assumed. How very wrong I was.

Just a few days after seeing the bathroom wall endorsement, I noticed hundreds of bright pink Hempcon advertisements posted on telephone polls throughout South Berkeley and Oakland as I drove to Santa Barbara. Later came the billboards. When driving back home through San Francisco, I saw the most costly and conspicuous one yet: a giant Hempcon billboard along highway 101, a prime location. Keep in mind these types of advertisement campaigns likely cost thousands of dollars, at the very least, even without televised or radio-broadcasted commercials.

So what exactly is Hempcon and where is all the money coming from?

The idea that there could be so much financial and professional event planning put into a weed convention clashes with the way many Berkeley students probably view marijuana. Smokers here might like to think that each leaf they buy is homegrown by a guy named Sunshine who talks to his plants every night and only uses organic, sustainable growing practices.

Hempcon, on the other hand, seems to be a slightly different narrative. Mega Productions is the corporate entity that is responsible for planning the event. According to Mega Productions’ website, its clients have included AT&T, Pepsi, State Farm Insurance, Microsoft and Ebay. The convention itself, which is touted as America’s largest medical marijuana exposition, will showcase exhibitors, a keynote speech and even musical entertainment. Legal advocates, medical practitioners and dispensary representatives should also be present.

There is this sentiment among many pot smokers that weed is one homogenous, counter-culture movement that champions camaraderie, peace and relaxation. Wherever you are, whatever strain of grass you’re smoking — it’s all one love connected by the beauty of getting baked.

Sure, marijuana might have some of those qualities. It certainly promotes love more than a plastic appliance from Walmart would. But just as it is important to know where your fruits and vegetables are coming from, it is also prudent to understand where your weed originates. Was it delivered from outside the U.S. in a giant illegal transport? Through which hands has it passed? If there are any negative externalities associated with the production or transportation of the good, then it is the responsibility of the consumer to make a sound decision based on such information. In the same way that a bathroom wall scribble can turn out to be part of a larger corporate event, what lies behind bud can be more than meets the bloodshot eye.

Contact Kimberly Veklerov at kveklerov@dailycal.org or follow her on Twitter: @kveklerov.

The post Capitalism and weed appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Everyone must masturbate.

And almost everybody does, too, but masturbation is still not typically openly discussed. Instead of embracing it an act of self-exploration, many times people keep it hidden back in the bedroom. But masturbation should be at the forefront of discussion when it comes to sexuality, because it allows people explore their own bodies at their own pace, to whatever feels good.

Masturbation many times is frowned upon more than sex itself is. But how does this make sense? Since masturbation is typically a solo act, why are people more hesitant to discuss masturbation before sex?

Before having sex, you need to masturbate to learn the ropes. Even though many people masturbate before having sex, the act is still hidden. Think back to your pubescent years — was there ever a time that hiding masturbatory habits wasn’t necessary? Maybe it was a family member walking into your room, maybe explaining a cum-stained sock, maybe taking an extra 20 minutes in the bathroom: Masturbation is almost always hidden.

Although I am totally comfortable talking about sex, masturbation time is still not something I declare. I find it interesting that if me or my roommate were to have a partner over, being “sexiled” would be acceptable. But we definitely don’t ask each other to have personal masturbation time. Why is asking for privacy to have sex easier to communicate than asking for privacy to do a little self-exploring?

Think of masturbation as an informative approach to the body, regardless of gender. Masturbation is also commonly viewed as a male-only act, but most women masturbate, too. Because the genital (and anal) regions are so sensitive, it is important to understand their functions, features and feats. And spending a little alone time in the bedroom under the sheets may play itself out to be useful when understanding your body and recognizing when things go wrong.

All of this is not to say that masturbation should be done in public. Private masturbation exists for a reason: in order to permit lengthy quests of self-discovery. But there is a difference between keeping masturbation behind doors and keeping discourse surrounding masturbation behind doors. Maybe it’s time to start sharing what feels good, what techniques or toys one uses, or even what one thinks or watches when masturbating.

I love the topic of masturbation because it is an act that majority of people in the United States engage in. But what is so fascinating about masturbation is that even though I know the person next to me most likely will go home after studying econ to jerk off, it still would be so out of place to openly talk about masturbation preferences and practices.

Being more open to discussing sexual preferences and pleasures would allow people to identify sexual similarities and differences. Sexuality is something that many are not open to talking in public. But think about how great it would be if sexual preference was as common to talk about as food preference. We would be able to understand sex like diet. Talking about masturbation goes hand-in-hand with sexuality and personal identity. The more people communicate about these things, the better they can understand what they like, what their partners like and what others appreciate while having sex.

Be open to discussing masturbation. It’s not bad for you — it’s actually excellent.

Image Source: bjo_ via Creative Commons

Contact Matthew Kirschenbaum at mkirschenbaum@dailycal.org or follow him on Twitter: @mpkirschenbaum.

The post Masturbation talk appeared first on The Daily Californian.