Melanie Chan/Staff

One of the biggest challenges for sustainable international economic development is the need to control greenhouse gas emissions. Before we can make meaningful progress toward stabilizing the planet’s climate, we need to have an international roadmap for economic growth, job creation and poverty alleviation that still bends the curve on emissions.

Solutions for saving the planet need to be ones that contribute to economic growth! Certainly, for developed economies, we need to have a plan for sustainable growth that includes emerging energy-efficiency technologies, novel green generation technologies and new infrastructures. For the developing world, however, the path to development goes through an increase in per capita consumption of energy. A fundamental sticking point to agreeing to an international agreement on carbon emissions has been the concern in developing economies that such an agreement will stymie GDP growth.

I deeply believe, however, that it is possible to chart a course for economic advancement in both developed and developing economies while still curbing greenhouse emissions. On the demand side, overall energy consumption can be grouped into three categories: buildings, transportation and industry. For example, energy-efficiency technologies have the potential to reduce energy consumption in buildings in an economically viable fashion by as much as 50 percent in the next five years, with the consequent drops in greenhouse gas emissions. In countries in the midst of building booms, new advances in materials and green cement will lead to even higher savings.

On the supply side, new technologies such as smart grids, solar thermal, nuclear and hydrogen fuels hold rich possibilities. The specific trajectory to economic growth, however, will vary from economy to economy, and the overall trajectory will need to be set strategically through a rigorous and vibrant roadmapping process.

This carbon emission quandary, with stalled international negotiations and ineffective policies, is analogous to a problem faced by the semiconductor industry.

Although the semiconductor industry had been doubling every 12 to 18 months for close to three decades, by the late 1980s, the complexity of the semiconductor supply chain began to dampen innovation and cost billions. Semiconductor industry groups, academics and manufacturers met to discuss best practices and fundamental decisions underpinning their industry and created the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors in 1992. The plan continues to be updated annually and exists like a living document.

If the current boom in the Information Age and the ubiquity of devices such as smartphones, which rely on cheaper and faster semiconductors by the Silicon roadmap, is any indicator, the plan is working well.

To pursue the analogy between the Silicon roadmap and a carbon roadmap, with colleagues at UC Berkeley such as professors Spanos, Zysman, Ramesh and Doyle, we have launched the Center for Research in Energy Systems Transformation. CREST is under the rubric of the campuswide Berkeley Energy and Climate Initiative.

CREST is working to create roadmaps that are owned by implementers and are cooperatively developed for the purpose of guiding the world’s energy system toward high efficiency while producing fewer greenhouse gases.

The CREST carbon roadmap has two arms. The first is to develop long-term plans for specific carbon-reducing technologies. As a test case, Berkeley engineers are investigating how sensors and networks deployed in smart, green buildings can be designed for easy adoption on different scales. CREST makes use of Berkeley’s deep vein of multidisciplinary, smart building-technology research.

Second, CREST seeks to develop locally adapted tools and technologies that are sensitive to place, politics and culture. That’s why the second part of the CREST carbon roadmap is to identify obstacles to cross-national technology development and implementation. Colleagues such as professors Brewer, Miguel, Gadgil, Wolfram and others power the Blum Center for Developing Economies’ new partnership with USAID in a project called the Development Innovations Laboratory, which includes the development of sustainable energy technology roadmaps in economies such as India, Indonesia, Kenya, etc.

I was recently asked to serve on a new United Nations Scientific Advisory Board, which will provide guidance to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on international sustainable development issues, staffed by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization with its mandate for science and technology.

I look forward to expanding on bringing the work that we are doing at centers such as CREST and Blum to the international conversation about sustainable development.

I am confident we can create a carbon-roadmap-style plan that outlines how equitable prosperity can be reached across the planet and shows that economic growth, job creation and greenhouse gas reduction are not mutually exclusive.

Shankar Sastry is dean of the College of Engineering and the faculty director at the Blum Center for Developing Economies.

The post A carbon map to development appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Katie Holmes/Staff

On Sept. 17 The Daily Californian ran an advertisement from Dr. Chase Lay, a San Jose-based plastic surgeon who specializes in Asian facial plastics throughout the Bay Area. The ad showed two unidentified Asian women in before-and-after photos of blepharoplasty, a procedure more commonly known as “Asian double eyelid surgery.” We want to share our opinions on why this ad is problematic and what steps members of the community can take to educate themselves on the damaging effects of Western beauty standards.

The controversy over receiving blepharoplasty boils down to one question: Are those who consider blepharoplasty or receive it motivated by a dislike of their Asian features? The specification of “Asian” in Lay’s practice confirms that Asian blepharoplasty, unlike breast augmentation, targets an ethnic group. Some Asians view it as an attempt to Westernize while others see it as just another way to enhance their beauty.

The most glaring message in the Facial Plastic Surgery ad lists “Double Eyelid Surgery” and “Asian Eyelid Surgery” toward the bottom. The distinction between double and Asian eyelid surgery unnecessarily racializes the procedure: The specification of “Asian” not only targets a certain group but also limits the practice to one demographic. On Lay’s website, there are before-and-after photos of patients who have undergone eyelid surgery. Under the category, “Eyelid Surgery,” many of the patients who chose the procedure are white and appear to be more than 40 years old, electing to undergo the procedure to look younger or less tired. This demographic differs highly from those under the category “Eyelid Surgery for the Asian Eye,” who are largely younger. One of the patients wanted to make her eyes look “brighter,” affirming how eyelid surgery for Asians is more often due to concerns over beauty than age or medical reasons.

The obsession over double eyelids in Asian culture, especially in South Korea, did not happen randomly. It stems from the standard of beauty in which Western eyes are more desirable because they are larger. Lay’s ad promotes more than just the practice of eyelid surgery targeting Asian Americans; it sends the message that in order to be accepted, Asian Americans must have the “Western” look, most noticeably in their eyes and nose. If individuals do not comply, they are excluded from this model of beauty. For a community that has struggled to represent itself in media, education and politics, it is a shame that the ability to succeed is dependent on conforming to a Western standard.

The TV career of Julie Chen is one example of what is at stake when Asian Americans are pressured to undergo eyelid surgery. Chen recently confessed she underwent blepharoplasty to advance her career. This announcement has sparked several reactions. The first is an attack on Chen herself as a cultural “sellout.” Angry Asian Man blog reports Julie Chen’s move to undergo eyelid surgery is essentially denying one’s own identity to be accepted by the dominant race. The second is in support and offers empathy, from both her fans and the Asian American community. The Asian American Journalists Association “applauds Ms. Chen for sharing this personal moment with her audience. Her story chronicles some of the daily struggles Asian Americans face in the workplace across all industries.” And lastly, others question whether Chen’s only option to advance her career was eyelid surgery. Clearly, Chen felt she had no other option at that time.

Most notably, these responses lack criticism of the agencies of power that made it very clear Asian eyes would prevent Chen from achieving her career aspirations.

By focusing on the individual, we fail to recognize that this occurs in the daily lives of Asian Americans, whether you are one of the nation’s most recognized talk show hosts or a UC Berkeley student.

At the UC Berkeley student level, ASUC Senator Sevly Snguon has asked for an official apology from the Daily Cal and more extensive screening processes for advertisements. Along with these requests, the Daily Cal must better represent the diversity of the students on our campus. The Daily Cal should reflect on what it means to “serve the UC Berkeley campus and its surrounding community,” which requires being more aware of the demographics it serves.

We believe this is an opportunity for the Daily Cal to reach out to the many resources that are here on campus, especially when screening advertisements for cultural sensitivity. One of those resources is the Multicultural Student Offices at the Cesar Chavez Student Center, equipped with staff and interns ready to respond. We urge the Daily Cal staff to approach its work with cultural sensitivity and be transparent about its selection of advertisements that may be offensive to minorities.

Christina Cho, Sam Lai and Whitney Wong intern at the Asian Pacific American Student Development Office at UC Berkeley.

The post Daily Cal needs to be more culturally sensitive appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The morning of Oct. 1, online healthcare exchanges mandated by the Affordable Care Act opened up around the country against the backdrop of federal agencies closing down and UC Berkeley students grudgingly accepting the reality of class despite the explosion on campus. While the launch survived Tea Party inanity, it did run into technical issues. Some of these issues — such as higher-than-expected site traffic — were unforeseen. Many, however, were known even before the exchanges launched, as The New York Times reported earlier that week. Although this seems like a Washington problem, allow me to propose a very Bay Area solution.

Economics teaches us our activities are limited by the quantity of resources we have. No doubt some of the technical issues with the health care exchanges were due to limited resources — specifically, time, money and ideas. The government could hire only a limited number of individuals to write code for its software and only had a limited amount of time before the exchanges had to be launched. But what if such limits on resources could be lifted? What if instead of just a couple hundred employees designing the exchanges, a couple hundred thousand could? What if we crowdsourced the development to the general public? We could have a nearly unbounded number of man-hours. And the outcome would surely be greater than the sum of the efforts put in by each individual due to a synergistic effect.

Crowdsourcing — taking a job usually performed by a designated agent and “outsourcing” it to a large group of people — can go beyond just the health care exchanges. Every November, we are reminded of issues with electronic voting systems, which can hinder our ability to perform perhaps the most basic of our civic duties. Instead of making voters feel uncertain about whether their vote is properly counted, government can ask for their help in making sure it is. Similarly, budgets can be crowdsourced. Instead of politicians and special interests deciding how government makes and spends money, let the citizens offer their best ideas. I can almost guarantee education would be made a higher priority, while senseless subsidies would be rolled back.

Further, crowdsourcing allows citizens to take part in government in a uniquely 21st century manner. As Newark mayor and U.S. Senate candidate Cory Booker likes to say, “Democracy is not a spectator sport.” Being part of the democratic process is a responsibility of living in a democracy. Not everyone wants to run for office or work on a campaign, perhaps on account of the antics witnessed on C-SPAN. Yet many want to do more than cast a ballot. This gives those people a chance to take part in government in a very meaningful way. And given the fact that government touches nearly every aspect of our lives, I’m sure anyone who wants to will be able to find someway to get involved. At UC Berkeley, with our strong inclination toward public service and activism, trying to solve some of the challenges our country faces could perhaps become part of relevant classes.

Of course, there are many unintended consequences and points of concern that should be considered — cybersecurity perhaps being the most significant. With so many people having access to specifications of what government needs done, questions about data security are only natural. Before croudsourcing government activity can become a reality, a dialogue must be had over who can know what. And ideas and solutions that come out of crowdsourcing ought to be thoroughly vetted to prevent any harm. Admittedly, many activities, perhaps those dealing with national security, would remain private. But just because people cannot work on every aspect of government policy does not mean they should be prevented from doing something.

We hear a lot about government being broken. Politicians often run for election on the platform of being outsiders wanting to “fix government.” But if we really want to reform our government and minimize its inefficiencies, we have to let new ideas permeate it. These new ideas are not going to come in the form of soundbites and filibusters. They will come from all of us tinkering with the nuts and bolts of our government. And, at a time when our government can’t keep itself up and running, these new ideas are invaluable.

 Tejas Dave is a sophomore at UC Berkeley sophomore.

Editor’s note: Tejas Dave is a former Daily Cal staff member.

The post Crowdsourcing: a Bay Area solution to a DC problem appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Amanda Burke/Staff

When Haiti was struck by an earthquake, people and charities across the world ran to the rescue with a total of $3.3 billion in aid for the 3 million people affected.  A few months later, when Pakistan experienced a flood that inundated 30 percent of its arable land, those same charities mobilized only $1.5 billion in aid for the 20 million people affected — less than half of the funds gathered for the less politically contentious Haiti.  While the media reminded people daily about the importance of help during the disaster in Haiti, that compassion did not translate to Pakistan. There were little to no attempts made to overcome the associations we make with Pakistan: extremism, violence and terror. While the amount of aid gathered for those in need is commendable, why have we become so easily tired of showing compassion to those in need? Why is it that we let macro-political associations overshadow the needs of the poor?

The fact of the matter is foreign aid policy is more political than personal. Often, even if a foreign country has high levels of extreme poverty, other nations will reduce aid if the foreign country’s political leaders act contrary to the prevailing will of the donating country. It is only deemed wise to help when it helps oneself. Even aid policy is based on inherently self-interested motivations, despite common rhetoric of social welfare.

These limitations on international development policy also exist in local aid organizations. Although local policy debates are not as explicitly conflicting with the politics of aid as international policy debates, they serve as an example of the discrete superiority complex practiced when speaking for others. Local policy issues still show the danger of speaking from an ivory tower, where culture inadvertently distances the practitioner from those he or she tries to help. This schema provides a new bastion people can point to when they say they know what is best for communities. This same language of local responsibility leads to the removal of community-based efforts to replace them with less “risky” alternatives.

In the early 1990s, President George H.W. Bush began a program promoting the “Thousand Points of Light,” an idea that later became a private nonprofit. The organization was founded on the idea that government should remove itself from local communities so that local organizations could prosper — the same justification was made for the reduction of domestic government-sponsored aid programs. Instead, however, this led to the rise of nonprofits with massive funding. Such large aid organizations have made it near-impossible for local organizations to prosper and successfully use their their knowledge of their community’s specific problems.

As stated by Paulo Freire in “Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” “to speak a true word is to transform the world.” This is what is missing in the discussion on aid organization, structures and their relationships with poor people rather than poor countries. Far be it from me to say that the organizations that exist now are acting incorrectly and that I have the right answer to these problems. Yet having discussions around development aid encourages both a more informed citizenry as well as more informed and thus more impactful solutions.

Free speech is the right not only to speak but also to be heard. Collective action is difficult, especially on an international scale. But this is why I believe in the project of One Degree (1deg.org).

One Degree uses the Internet to connect communities to the places they can work with. While it is San Francisco-based, its mission is global. In doing so, the organization has created a space for individuals to easily access information about opportunities to help others, place their opinions of them online and spread the word to other individuals who could make use of them. Any group can use this space to promote its community events, classes it offers, educational opportunities or anything in the way of social welfare and community support.

One Degree allows individuals to speak from their personal experience and encourages discussions that are both transparent and public. It gives local organizations a chance to promote their unique view on community problems and ascertain funding without being seen as a risky venue for social good. In doing so, a tool such as this helps stop the politicization of aid and welfare policy and encourages impactful and local solutions.

We must ask, does one practice naivety and help strangers without truly understanding their situation? How can we make an assessment of random people before even knowing them, and how can we deny them help without being certain? To know that only one degree of separation exists between you and an individual in need allows you to know that we are each not adamantly unencumbered, and it allows others to know they are not alone. This is what One Degree makes possible.

Shahbaz Shaikh is a senior at UC Berkeley and a volunteer at One Degree.

The post Fighting poverty more effectively at home and abroad appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Graham Haught/Staff

Since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, was signed into law March 23, 2010, the American public has endured a nearly endless and often vicious debate at every level of society. Even after the law was debated in Congress, signed into law by the president and upheld by the Supreme Court, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has voted more than 40 times to repeal or defund the bill. Last week, the unrelenting effort of House Republicans to link the passage of the federal budget to a one-year delay of the ACA led to the first government shutdown in 17 years.

 Politics aside, confusion and misinformation about the law persists. Recent polls indicate that 44 percent of Americans are still uncertain about the status of the law and that only about a third are actively seeking more information about it. In a less-than-scientific experiment, Jimmy Kimmel recently sent his staff out to ask everyday Americans how they felt about Obamacare vs. the ACA (hint: They’re exactly the same). The way that people attack Obamacare but laud the ACA in the sketch speaks to the polarized environment in which we live. As consumers begin to more directly experience the ACA’s benefits and consumer protections, we hope the conversation will become more constructive, honest and informed.

 Similar to the way our country believes it is the right of every child to get an education, the ACA provides a framework for advancing a culture of coverage in which having quality, affordable insurance will be the norm for everyone. To achieve such a goal, health insurance needs to be accessible and affordable.

 Under the ACA, health insurance plans can no longer deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions or charge a premium that effectively prices you out of the market. In return for a more accessible system, all U.S. citizens and permanent residents must purchase insurance, if affordable, or pay a fine. This is known as the individual mandate.

 The mandate, however, affects only a small part of the population, because 86 percent of Americans have insurance and thus satisfy its requirement. Although controversial, this is a necessary mechanism that balances the number of healthy and sick people in the insurance pool. This ensures costs are spread out over a larger group and results in more affordable care for everyone.

 While many of us already have insurance, nearly 47 million Americans are uninsured. Many are low-income, working individuals and families whose employer does not offer insurance or who do not qualify for public insurance programs such as Medicaid. For states such as California that authorize the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, millions will become newly eligible for the program, depending on annual income.

 If you do not qualify for Medicaid, you may be able to receive advance tax credits that defray the cost of premiums for private health coverage in the new insurance marketplaces known as exchanges. The exchanges, which opened enrollment last week, facilitate improved health, better care quality and reduced costs by granting access to health coverage regardless of employment status and fostering competition among health plans. A simplified enrollment process and shopping tools are available at healthcare.gov. We strongly encourage everybody to visit the site and explore the options.

Expanded coverage options are also good for the economy. Uninsured Americans experience worse access to care and receive less primary and preventive care. Having a more regular source of care holds significant promise for lower health care costs due to early intervention for chronic conditions. For those in the workplace, the coverage options could reduce sick days and job-lock, in which employees feel forced to stay at a job simply because they have access to benefits. This will allow individuals to pursue entrepreneurship and increase their productivity in more fulfilling opportunities.

 Comprehensive health care reform has eluded this country for nearly three-quarters of a century. The ACA is far from perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. At the very least, the law has decidedly shifted the way everybody, from policy wonks to the average citizen, thinks about the health care system. The ACA is a work in progress, one that will surely see successes and shortcomings.

 This is a historic and exciting time, fraught with challenge and promise. Rather than reverting to the status quo, a more constructive dialogue should move toward improving and building upon the ACA. As Abraham Lincoln once said, “The best thing about the future is that it comes one day at a time.”

Keith Nevitt and Vishaal Pegany are graduate students in the joint Master of Public Policy and Master of Public Health program at UC Berkeley.

The post Expanding coverage for all appeared first on The Daily Californian.

That’s trillion with a T. Twelve zeros.

Here at UC Berkeley, our tuition has increased 300 percent since 2002, and the average debt burden per student is $20,000.  Perhaps needless to say, post-graduation salaries have not risen 300 percent but in fact have declined in the past decade, with about 50 percent of graduates taking jobs that do not require a college education. Students from low-income households are regularly charged more than one-third of their family’s annual earnings for a year of tuition at a public college, making debt inevitable for many. On that note, the rate of black and Latino students graduating with unmanageable debt burdens is about 20 percent higher than that of their white counterparts.

The driving up of student debt is no doubt tied to higher tuition. That increase in tuition is based upon satisfying investor interest — investors who have taken advantage of a vital phenomenon: the elimination of public funding. When one sees how in these past years the state of California uses only $7 of every $1,000 of personal income toward education. In 1980, the state used $13 of that same amount. Thus, clearly the student debt crisis is in fact a funding crisis. This has pushed UC Berkeley to pursue interest rate swaps and other debt-driven profit strategies over the past decade, all guaranteed by our tuition and increasingly financed by the global market.

Students, faculty and workers bear the risks of these financial deals but rarely see the rewards. The prioritization of revenue and capital assets makes the university more of a financial business partner then a provider of a vital social good.

Student debt as a consequence of these processes constrains choices about the future. It perpetuates inequality even though the education system is meant to reduce inequality. It often leaves debtors feeling isolated and ashamed as they are hounded by debt collectors and judged by credit-scoring agencies. A debt-constrained and frustrated group of graduates makes the building of a participatory citizenry, a major pillar of public education, less and less of a possibility. Not to mention that the ever-increasing rate of defaults on student loans — in some schools higher than graduation rates — is beginning to look a lot like the mortgage market before the 2008 crisis.

The conventional debate over solutions to this crisis has been limited to Band-Aids: tinkering with interest rates on student loans such as Obama’s education bill. There has been no serious debate focused on addressing the underlying causes— skyrocketing tuition at “public” schools, stagnant wages, systemic unemployment and ongoing public service cuts. It is not that revenue is not there — it would only cost about one-tenth of a percent of the federal budget on top of what the government already pays to fully subsidize education. Rather, the issue is that policy is completely focused on perpetuating a debt-financed system that prioritizes financial institutions and those that benefit from their actions.

We in the Coalition for a Public Education believe higher education should be a debt-free and fully subsidized public good rather than an increasingly exclusive, high-priced service that forces us to think about our entire lives as investment decisions.

Composed of autonomous graduate students, undergraduate students and union representatives, the Coalition for Public Education holds that we should fight for the basic necessities of life, such as education free from debt. We are pursuing a long-term strategy for organizing in the UC system around this principle in solidarity with a national and global movement against debt and austerity. At UC Berkeley, this means we need to use debt as a means of unity, not individual shame, and this school year we invite you to help construct a new education-focused movement for a rebirth of public funding in education.

Join us for an open assembly on this topic Oct. 10 at 5 p.m. at Sather Gate.

Justin Tombolesi is a member of the Coalition for a Public Education.

The post Rising student debt sinks American youth appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Irene Chen/Staff

I’m writing this op-ed as a response to the deeply problematic Huffington Post blog post “Miss America and the Indian Beauty Myth,” by Asha Rangappa, an associate dean at Yale Law School.

In the article, Rangappa situates herself in the recent discourse surrounding the choice of Nina Davuluri as Miss America 2013 by stating that “the real shame target” of the results of a U.S.-based beauty pageant should be a country on the opposite side of the world — India. While Rangappa is not wrong in calling India out for the British-inherited fair skin vs. dark skin “racial stratification” that continues to play out in post-independence Indian entertainment and everyday life, her argument about shifting the target of shame to India avoids dealing with the real issue at hand — that of national identification.

Rangappa states that India has failed to elect a Miss India that in fact “looks” Indian. This method of evaluating national identity based on physical attributes is flawed from the very beginning. It is reminiscent of racially charged discourse in America that itself has a historical and contemporary ideal of national identity that ignores minority populations such as Hispanics, African Americans, Sikhs and other various people of color originating from countries outside Western Europe.

Rangappa’s “realistic” ideal of Indian beauty is middle-toned, skinny and tall. With such an ideal, Rangappa ignores entire segments of the Indian population. These might be extremely light-toned Indian women who, albeit socially privileged due to their fair skin, perhaps stare at an undeniable proof of a colonial past in the mirror every day. Or it might be extremely dark-toned Indian women who might think a skin tone just a single shade lighter is the ticket to a loving marriage. We might even imagine populations living at the India-China-Nepal-Burma borders that might “look” Chinese or Nepalese or Burmese but instead identify themselves as Indian.

The thing to be learned from Nina Davuluri’s win as Miss America 2013 is not that America is better at promoting a “realistic ideal” of Indian beauty but that neither beauty nor looks has anything to do with national identity. We live in a globalizing world of immigrants, diasporic communities, moving populations, etc., who choose to identify themselves with certain nations due to personal experiences and histories that are not reflected in our slow-dying notions of “looking” like a certain nationality.

Additionally, characterizing people as “looking” Indian plays upon certain cultural connotations that differ in American and Indian contexts. It is not far from saying someone “looks” Muslim, Mexican, Arab, etc. — innocent and objective adjectives that can be and have been dangerously misused and misunderstood depending on the stereotypes and cultural connotations associated with them in an Islamophobic, xenophobic, immigrant-phobic, post-9/11 America. In contrast, Rangappa’s article reveals that saying someone “looks” Indian is not so polemic in America, something that can perhaps be attributed to the generally positive stereotypes associated with being an Indian immigrant. We don’t often hear of cases in which looking Indian has caused someone to be arrested, accidentally killed, detained or deported. But the fact remains that continuing to judge in terms of “looking” like a particular nationality holds for some ethnicities dangerous interpretations and consequences.

Even in India, saying someone “looks” Indian is not a healthy form of discourse. By extension, someone can “look” Muslim or Pakistani, and in post-Partition, post-countless-Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts, such a method of evaluating identity based on physical appearance fuels segregation and ignorance.

Perhaps simply critiquing a few errant choice of words borders on over political correctness. However, as an associate dean of Yale Law School, a woman of color and of Indian origin, Rangappa has an immense amount of credibility that is far-reaching and extremely powerful. Her article has been liked almost 43, 000 times on Facebook and shared almost 6,000 times.  Even as I critique her, I find Rangappa an empowering role model. From being a law clerk at the U.S. Court of Appeals to a special agent in the FBI, Rangappa certainly embodies an ideal for many women I know.

That being said, for her to frame this issue using language such as “realistic ideal of beauty” and “looking” Indian greatly reduces our understanding of evolving definitions of nationality, immigrant identity, minority privileges and what it means to be Indian, American or both. The words “real shame target” propagate a discourse of continuous blame-shifting that suddenly stop short of blaming the entire fiasco on British colonialism. Essentially, Rangappa exports the focus from culturally ignorant hate-tweeters, a highly understated problem given the recent case in which a Sikh man was told in a court of law “to take off that rag,” to a problem only tangentially related to the racist remarks generated after Davuluri’s win.

 Adity Tibrewala is a senior at UC Berkeley.

The post Miss America pageant misses the point appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Katie Holmes/Staff

The battle lines have been drawn. As the government shuts down, our leadership continues to be uncooperative. The government’s traditionally routine authorization to keep its doors open, known as the continuing resolution, has once again devolved into gridlock. Both political parties continue to bask in national attention as they herald their plans as the most responsible solution to today’s manufactured crisis and demonize their opposition in the media. The parties are hoping to energize their bases and open the wallets of high-profile donors. We are witnessing the firing salvo of the 2014 congressional elections as both sides bask in national attention. Our leaders should instead be working together toward solutions rather than blaming one another.

Understandably, the American people are disgusted by Washington’s consistent inaction. The global community laughs at the inability of our leaders to resolve their petty differences. I find it egregious that eleventh-hour-deadline-induced fights have become the forum of “debate” about fiscal responsibility, especially when the real loser to emerge from these cyclical crises is our generation.

The financial trajectory of our nation is particularly important to young adults, as we are the ones who will feel the greatest burden of today’s fiscal policy in insolvent social programs, rampant costs of education and more. Financial uncertainty threatens the prospect for generational equity, that we should have the same, if not better, opportunities than our parents and grandparents. This concept is central to our mission at Common Sense Action, especially here at Berkeley, where our rich history of activism further encourages our desire to make student voices heard.

Our lawmakers must find a way to rationally discuss fiscal reform instead of treating the subject as another excuse to engage in partisan warfare and political hostage-taking. House Republicans have made a risky tactical decision to conditionally tie government funding to weakening segments of the Affordable Care Act, a stance that is anathema to Senate Democrats and President Obama, who fought tooth and nail to get the law passed in the first place. These non-negotiations highlight the parties’ seemingly irreconcilable prescriptions to our greater financial unsustainability.

Our national debt must be controlled in order to make the necessary investments for economic growth, not in spite of them. Moreover, financial sustainability is essential in ensuring that our government works for us rather than forces our generation to work ever harder to support bloated social programs, an aging population, etc.

The government shutdown will have far-reaching economic consequences as a result of market uncertainty, direct federal unemployment and bureaucratic inefficiency. Other than being unable to celebrate Yosemite’s birthday on site this weekend, Berkeley students should be more concerned about the potential for an economic shock that could have long-lasting effects on job growth at the critical moment many of us are preparing to enter the workforce. Hundreds of thousands of federal employees are experiencing furloughs that will have immediate negative economic consequences resulting from reduced consumer spending. Resource-strapped federal agencies will have to continue essential operations but in doing so must forfeit much of their capabilities, especially in terms of regulation and enforcement.

Nonetheless, the government shutdown is only a precursor to the looming debt-ceiling crisis that will threaten the already fragile economy in the coming weeks. The framing of that negotiation is not yet entirely clear, but we’re on track for the funding and borrowing debates to be wrapped together into a very dangerous confrontation and a maelstrom of government paralysis. If a continuing resolution is not passed and the government shutdown continues until we reach the debt ceiling, the federal government will simultaneously lack the legal authority to borrow money and spend on “nonessential services,” which are for the most part quite important. Despite the name, these services include things such as access to federally operated parks and museums, nutritional supplements and disaster-preparedness funding.

As a result, the economic impact of inaction will be disastrous, with the Bipartisan Policy Center estimating an immediate 32 percent cut in government spending in one scenario. With a systemic debt crisis, the last thing we need is to risk a relapse into recession or another credit downgrade, potentially worse than that of 2011, which the BPC estimates is costing taxpayers more than 18 billion dollars. This outcome will only make our debt less manageable and further burden our generation with future financial uncertainty.

Considering the political constraints set by the fast-approaching midterm elections, the only solution seems to be the late-night joint committees we have become all too familiar with. Cooperation is understandably difficult with the two parties holding very divergent philosophies about the role of government. However, I believe that only through mutual concessions can a responsible solution be reached without either side having to initiate the compromise. The larger issues of long-term fiscal responsibility must then be methodically approached during times of legislative peace to ensure thoughtful discussion and formulation. Ultimately, both sides are also going to have to compromise on some of their key values to make progress on our dire financial situation.

Sam Syde is the co-founder and vice president of Common Sense Action at Berkeley.

The post Why Congress lacks any common sense appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Charlotte Passot/Staff

It’s no secret that our political system is broken. House Republicans are using the threat of a government shutdown as an acceptable means of negotiation. Gun background checks supported by more than 90 percent of Americans were tabled by lobbyists. Disapproval ratings of Congress hit an all-time high this past summer — and have hardly budged. Political scientists say that misinformed voters, who are often the most partisan, are becoming a growing concern and pose a risk to the integrity of our democratic process.

At UC Berkeley, we’re not immune to problems stemming from misinformation. Last week, a story ran on the front page of the Daily Cal about a complaint filed against the Berkeley Democratic Club alleging the group had illegally hired homeless people to hand out misleading campaign literature nearby voting stations. According to the complaint, the literature was paid for under the counter and inaccurately said that the Democratic Party supported Measure S, the sit-lie ordinance on the Berkeley ballot.

Although the information in the article was factual, the headline was gravely misleading. The title, “Berkeley Democratic Club under investigation for alleged illegal activities,” caused much confusion. Many students inaccurately assumed that Cal Berkeley Democrats was the same club. However, Cal Berkeley Democrats and the Berkeley Democratic Club are two completely separate organizations, both in name and in values. While the Berkeley Democratic Club endorsed the sit-lie ordinance, we voted to oppose it and actively campaigned against it. We opposed Measure S because it immorally sought to evict the homeless from their communities on our streets, foreclosing on the lives of those who looked to Berkeley as a beacon of social justice and fairness.

The dedication and persistence of countless campaign volunteers defeated the sit-lie ordinance — one of the only sit-lie ordinances in the country to be rejected by voters — which is something Berkeley should be very proud of. Our communities are better off when we refuse to support the kicking of community members out of our cities.

The troublesome allegations against the Berkeley Democratic Club are a microcosm of the disturbing trend of misinforming the public to sway political outcomes. Power-hungry politicians and sensationalized media outlets are pushing boundaries to keep our eyes glued to their content, often using biased studies, reports and out-of-context statistics to win points with voters — and yes, lying by omission is still lying.

For example, take the birther movement: a group trying to prove that President Obama wasn’t born in the United States. Due in part to the coverage of the birthers by pundits on the evening cable news, this movement was able to continue to the point where the president had to release his birth certificate. While the news continued to focus on a movement whose sole purpose was exposing a lie when there clearly wasn’t one to expose, it distracted voters from other pressing events, such as the ongoing debates over budget cuts.

Or for example, take Sen. Ted Cruz’s 21-hour speech from the Senate floor last week, in which he made various misleading statements. In the speech, Cruz stated that Rutgers student John Connelly was an example of someone who would soon graduate into a job market destroyed by the Affordable Care Act. However, Connelly later appeared on MSNBC to clarify that, not only does he strongly support the Affordable Care Act, he is in fact a direct beneficiary of the legislation. The bill’s provisions allow him to stay on his parents’ plan until age 26 and cover his younger sister’s pre-existing conditions, which Connelly said made him “the worst example of the point (Ted Cruz) was trying to quote.”

Research has shown that people often take political positions without knowing any facts or statistics about the topic and that it’s much more difficult to change someone’s mind once they’ve taken a stance. Even when confronted with indisputable facts, instead of changing their positions, voters will actually strengthen their convictions to avoid the discomfort of subscribing to contradicting viewpoints or losing pride and credibility. Providing misleading information about unfamiliar topics — such as sit-lie ordinances — jeopardizes the ability of our citizens to make informed choices, damaging the fundamental fabric of our democracy.

Distrust and distaste for politicians is at an all-time high. The fact that our country is facing a sluggish recovery from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, imminent environmental degradation from climate change and eroding educational opportunities as student debt continues to rise past $1 trillion doesn’t help.  Yet our country’s ability to survive these challenges rests largely on the decisions made by our elected representatives, rendering reliable channels of information necessary as ever in the battle for control of the political system. We must hold our institutions accountable to disseminating all the news that is fit to print — for our democracy’s very survival depends upon it.

Sofie Karasek is the president of Cal Berkeley Democrats.  

The post More misinformed voters appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Every time I visit the Dixon Correctional Center website, I hope that somehow this date has changed so that there are fewer years between my father and me. On Oct. 28, 2010, I received a phone call from my uncle, “No vas a ver a tu papa por mucho tiempo, mija.” My heart sunk, and I had no words. My world went black. I didn’t know when I would be able to see my father again.

I have had many emotional moments in my life given the experiences of my family. I lost my mother to substance abuse and homelessness at the age of 12, and after being in and out of jail, she has committed to a drug program and is now 150 days clean. During the time my mother was absent, I moved in and out of family members’ homes and for the better part of a year, lived in my father’s mechanic shop. Despite having experienced these ups and downs with my family, I have to say that seeing my father again was the most emotional.

Before walking into the waiting room, my brother and I had to be searched. As the guard ran her hands down my body, I couldn’t help but think, “I’m not dangerous — I just want to see my father.” I didn’t expect to be able to touch my father, but in what may have been one of the most overwhelmingly joyful moments of my life, I was granted permission by the guards to not just touch, but actually hug him. It was a moment I can’t put into words.

I value the time I spend with my father in the correctional center. But that time is often cut short. Several hours into our visit, my father usually gets restless because the prisoners are not allowed to get up or walk around. At most, we spent four hours a day together. I wish I could be with my father without all of these restrictions. I wish it weren’t always a mystery when I would get to see him again.

Angela Davis, a radical black educator, scholar and activist for civil rights said, “Jails and prisons are designed to break human beings, to convert the population into specimens in a zoo — obedient to our keepers, but dangerous to each other.” Her words almost hit too closely to home. Davis is right: Inmates like my father suffer the consequences of prison-manufactured racial lines, limited opportunities and inhumane treatment. When my father tells me about the relationships he has made in jail, he often talks about his black inmates. Most relationships are hostile, but not because he dislikes those inmates. Through his letters and over the phone, he says it’s because prison is a hostile place and the mentality is to “stick with your kind.”

He tells me how he wants to get an education and is spending his time wisely while he is there. But very few options are available to him. This was especially true when my father was sent to the Security Housing Unit for two weeks due to a group punishment. It is rare that he misses our Sunday calls, but throughout that time, I received no phone calls or letters. This made me very worried, so I called the correctional center, and they told me he was sent to the SHU and he was not allowed to call or have contact with any human beings. Fortunately for my father, two weeks is the longest he has experienced this type of inhumane treatment. Could you imagine enduring that for ten years? Or even longer? That is what some inmates face.

But these tactics can’t silence those behind bars. For example, on July 8, 2013, more than 30,000 prisoners in California commenced a hunger strike that lasted 60 days to demand several important items. They demanded the end of group punishment and administrative abuse, to abolish the debriefing policy and to end long-term solitary confinement. They demanded the centers provide adequate and nutritious food, modify the criteria that constitutes gang membership and expand constructive programming for those who will spend their life in solitary confinement. This was the longest recorded prison hunger strike in history, but it shows the solidarity of those behind bars, across all races, and illuminates the needs of those who society has purposefully made invisible.

These prisoners are not alone. At Berkeley there are several efforts to mitigate the effects that incarceration has on students and their families, both on and off campus. I had the opportunity to be a part of a class that was comprised of formerly incarcerated students and those who had loved ones behind bars. In our conversations, we agreed that the University of California had failed to provide desperately needed resources to formerly incarcerated students and those with family members in prison. We and other students began to meet over the summer to discuss ways to increase resources for students like us. As a result, we created the Phoenix Scholars Project at Berkeley, a student working group that discusses the kinds of support that could be institutionalized for students with these particular experiences.

Additionally, a coalition of organizations on and off campus are working together to address these issues through the IGNITE campaign. IGNITE, or Invest in Graduation, Not Incarceration: Transform Education, was one of the most popular campaigns adopted by the University of California Student Association at their Congress conference in August. The office of the EVP at every UC campus will be working on the IGNITE campaign to organize tangible ways to divest from prisons, invest in education and increase the UC diversity pipeline.

Some of the organizations involved include: Human Rights for the Incarcerated at Cal, MEChA De UC Berkeley, All of Us or None, the Black Student Union, the office of the EAVP’s State Affairs Department and the Phoenix Scholars Project.

I look forward to creating a collaborative effort between students to dismantle what we know as the prison industrial complex and hit this issue at its core. UC Berkeley is known as a flagship university. We, as members of this University, must band together in this movement to make a difference.

Wendy Pacheco is an ASUC senator. 

The post Searching for reform, resolving the injustice of incarcerated loved ones appeared first on The Daily Californian.