Police beat UC Berkeley students during protest. Why?

There are two issues on my mind as we approach Thanksgiving Day. One is why the great University of California at Berkeley would allow police to surround and beat defenseless students? The other is why we seem to applaud police brutality.

I'm chaffing a bit that some local San Francisco Bay Area columnists seem afraid to point out police misconduct, writing instead that in one case - the case of the BART Police officer who slammed the drunk BART rider's face into the window at West Oakland or at least seemed to want to do that - the police officer was "just doing his job".

The job of a police officer is dangerous, we know this. But to allow or expect police violence in that case - or in the more awful example of the police called in at Berkeley for the protest - calls the very values of our society into question.

This video set collected and presented at the blog Millicent and Carla Fran is what got me. The good news is that protesting students were only cited for trespassing but the images of clashes between police and student are jarring.

As reported in the excellent blog post, students were protesting the 32 percent increase in student fees and the custodial firings. UC Berkeley Police arrived to close off the Wheeler Hall and surrounding it. In the second video, Students are attempting to talk with police. In the third video, a female student falls under the yellow police tape, with weird results. In the final video, Professor Robert Dudley, a member of the Department of Integrative Biology at Cal joins the protest and is arrested peacefully:









All of this was happening as Cal Alums like myself who remember a time when students could afford to go to Cal, were playing touch football and just trying to have fun to balance our stressful lives. For us Cal is and has been a source of great joy and accomplishment. We were looking forward to the Big Game and the idea that someone was being harmed by police never entered our minds at the time. But I will say that's not what Cal's about. Even if it's part of Cal University History, it's not something any Cal grad is proud of.

The Cal police certainly have a hard job and have done some incredible public safety work, but it does not mean we can't question what they do when they're obviously wrong. But to put a finer point on it, many of the officer on hand were not Cal police, they were from the City of Oakland and had riot gear.

The problem of this fee increase is not going away. What's next? I hope not another protest like this one. I'm sure Cal Chancellor Robert Birgeneau would agree. He was happy to be able to enjoy the Big Game win Saturday:



In a closing note, one may wonder why I didn't take time to ask the Chancellor Birgeneau about the protest as were celebrating Cal's Big Game win. Well, I did think about it as we were celebrating and talking even though at the time I was unaware of the violence that took place the day before.

But frankly the reason I did not ask the Chancellor about the protest on camera was because he was kind enough to give me his time because I told him I wanted to talk about the win. We were happy and I didn't want to spoil it (in fact, not one bothered him at all). To do anything different would have been dishonest on my part.

That's not how I am.

In the past the Chancellor has been very nice to me and from my experience is a good person. I'm sure he would have liked to see a different outcome on Friday and is as upset about it and how students were treated as anyone of us.

Police brutality is not something to expect or defend. It is to be eliminated as a problem. We don't have to rubber stamp it and think that it's part of the police just 'doing their job.'

Adam Lambert AMA Video controversy - CBS blurs male kiss

Ok, the Adam Lambert AMA video controversy has gone too far. CBS blurred the image of Adam Lambert kissing his male guitarist, but would not blur two women kissing.

Here's CBS' explanation:

"We gave this some real thought. The Madonna image is very familiar and has appeared countless times including many times on morning television. The Adam Lambert image is a subject of great current controversy, has not been nearly as widely disseminated, and for all we know, may still lead to legal consequences."

"Legal consequences"? Like what? Communicating H1N1 via video? Oh, God.

What's all this kiss blurring stuff anyway? Look, I'm a straight black male but I really don't care that two men or two women were kissing on television. CBS' attempt to shield this aspect of society from a new media savvy, video saturated teenage culture (if that was the idea) is just plain nuts.

Perez Hilton is right on in pointing to a double standard I'm shocked to see in action. From where I sit, I thought good old male-to-female kissing was under attack to start with. Plus, as upset as Perez is about this, he should consider that it's almost as rare to see a black man passionately kissing a white woman on television even today. In fact it's more common to see a white man sucking face with a black woman on TV.

CBS - and mainsteam television (not cable) - could do itself a favor and show the World as it is, not as CBS thinks it should be (as if anyone asked them). There's a "straight white male ethic" at work which has a weird pecking order on television and sends this message:

1) Kissing between white men and white women is desired so we will show that to you.
2) While kissing between a white woman and another white woman isn't really that normal or desired, straight white men love it, so we'll show it to you.
3) A white man kissing a black woman or an Asian woman or a Latino woman is less desired than white men kissing white women, but the minorities are becoming the majority, so we'll show that.
4) Two white guys kissing is not desirable but because there are so many gays in power in entertainment, we'll show the scene but blur out the kiss.
5) A black man kissing a white woman is less desired because its threatening to white guys, so we won't show that on television if we can help it; Asian woman? Sure. Latina woman? OK, but dark-skinned. But, if it's Tiger Woods, we'll give him a pass because he's really good at golf. Heidi and Seal's ok because, well, Heidi's just plain hot.

That's the idea communicated on mainstream or Broadcast television today, at least on CBS. But then ABC booted Adam Lambert from Good Morning America, so it too has a long way to go. While Cable TV still has a distance to go in catching Broadcast TV, it's closing the gap; censorship as practiced by CBS may help close it. But even then, one can always turn to YouTube for the real image of 21st Century America.

One day, YouTube might replace both Broadcast and Cable TV. At least I hope so.

Stay tuned.

Members of Congress who voted for the Stupak ban are expressing “buyer’s remorse”

Members of Congress have been saying in public interviews that they didn’t realize the impact of Stupak's amendment before they voted for this proposal. Now that they have come to fully appreciate the impact of the Stupak ban they're rethinking their positions. Like President Obama, members of the House are indicating that the Stupak amendment went too far.

The Stupak ban would prohibit any coverage of abortion in the new "exchange," or marketplace, established by health reform. This ban would apply to both the proposed public option and to private plans.

Currently, a majority of private health insurance plans cover abortion care - even the one offered to employees of the Republican National Committee. But if your employer obtains your insurance in the future through the new exchange you will lose that coverage.

There is an alternative.

The Capps compromise, worked out by both pro-choice and anti-choice members of Congress, ensures that no federal funding would be used to pay for abortions while also ensuring that women do not lose the benefits they currently have. Under Capps, no federal funds would be used for abortion. The funds would be segregated from private dollars.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, and political analyst who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Oakland Taxi Problem due to Friendly Cab monopoly

Even though I pay attention to national cultural issues, I've not forgot about Oakland. I scanned the blog post on the Oakland Taxi Cab problem with a chuckle because neither the Oakland North newsite or A Better Oakland blog actually hits on the real problem.

(A momentary aside. It's time to call Oakland North what it is, a news website. It's not a blog. A blog contains opinions and adheres to a blogger's code of ethics. Oakland North is a site for journalists. I don't go there to get the views of one of their writers; I go there for the news. What's annoying is that as more journalists and journalism students discover new media, they call whatever they do online a blog. Wrong. I cry foul on this. If you're going to blog, let me know what you think, not what someone else thinks; but if not, then its a news website, period. Ok, back to the issue.)

The City of Oakland let Friendly Cab have a monopoly role in the industry in Oakland. Friendly Cab is the only active cab company in Oakland. It has all of the licenses for the city and has owned them for decades.

Oakland City Attorney John Russo tried to fix the problem 10 years ago when he was a councilmember and got nowhere. The problem still exists and there's zero political will to eliminate it.

The Oakland North blog post really focused on the parking ticket problems (which an initiative can fix) not the cab problems. But the real issue behind Oakland's Cab problems can be solved if the City of Oakland takes several steps:

1. Makes all cab companies lower the daily "gate fee" of $65 to $40 - This is a real problem and yes, I know it's $120 in San Francisco, but the Oakland fee to rent a cab from a company should be fixed by the City of Oakland. A cab driver has to buy gas and then make enough daily money to offset the cost to have the car for a day. At $40, a cab driver only needs to have four passenger pickups at $10 each per day to break even. A ride from Lake Merritt to 19th Street BART is $6.86 per day.


2. Lower the license cost to establish a cab business in Oakland to $10,000 - Why it's at reportedly $40,000 is beyond me and reads like a total racket in my view. The license cost is a barrier to entry into the cab industry at a time when people need to create employment for themselves. What the City of Oakland is doing here is just plain terrible.


3. End the Oakland Parking ticket problem - which can only be done effectively via the initiative process.

The City of Oakland should be working to help cab drivers build their business, not punish them for being in it. A better cab system will hopefully avoid incidents like the one I experienced here:



I understand that At-Large Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan wants to jump in and solve the problem, but she's already behind the eight-ball because the City Council's putting her out there by herself. If she had a group of councilmembers with her, I'd say she's going to fix the problem, but there's no indication of a coalition of Oakland elected officials ready to change the state of affairs.

But it's clear from the number of cab drivers and people I've talked to that there's a perception the City of Oakland's allowed an organized scheme to keep one company - Friendly Cab - active to go too far. I'm not advocating the end of Friendly Cab, just some competition for it. That will lower fare prices and make cabs more abundant in Oakland.

Finally, I'll keep my car, thanks.

Adam Lambert AMA Video YouTube - Lambert "Got Carried Away"

 Adam Lambert likes girls too!

The Adam Lambert AMA Video on YouTube is viral, in fact when you think of all the versions of the video flying around the Internet and not just on YouTube, Adam Lambert's going to give Miley Cyrus a run for her money in the raunch department. Well, OK, he makes Miley Cyrus look like, well, a Disney TV show.

This is Adam Lambert in action in a YouTube video at the AMA:



But remember that woman who stormed the stage when Adam Lambert performed at his high school earlier this year? This scene that I talked about in my video:



I'll bet that woman's wishing she was on stage with Adam Lambert at the AMAs. Which gets to my point: such actions as the one that Adam Lambert performed at the AMA do impact what the audience thinks these artists are "about" and so causes more possible future "rush the stage" actions. If Adam Lambert's fans thinks he's that free and accessible, someone who's not wound tight will try that again or stalk him, or worse.

Look, I hope that does not happen, but again my point is such outlandish public actions don't happen in a closet: they impact society in different ways, some unpredictable.

I can understand Adam getting carried away with, er, himself and others, but it wasn't necessary. Does it get his name out there? Heck, yes! But think about what Adam Lambert just did. In a new media environment with this video going all over the place, Adam Lambert pushed the bar of what's acceptable taste to a higher level.

Or lowered it depending on your perspective.

Adam Lambert also, perhaps unknowingly, ushered in an era of sexual expression as performance art, but separated by sexual orientation. In other words, I'm waiting for the female performer to grab a male guitarist and push his head "down there".

Lambert said the female artists like Lady GaGa and Janet Jackson get away with actions wilder than his, but I have to totally disagree with him because no woman's ever done anything that tops his act. I've never seen a female singer do what he did at the AMA Awards.

But I'm betting someone will try. The question is who? My money's on Lady GaGa. What say you? Adam Lambert has started a 'sexual stage performance nuclear war' that has no end in sight, except possible the FCC.

But what's the FCC gonna do that stops this indecency battle in its tracks? The Federal Communications Commission hasn't shown the ability to put the breaks on visuals distributed via new media to date; I don't see them getting a handle on it without the help of companies like Google.

Stay tuned.

Ron Artest forgets clothes for Jimmy Kimmel Live

OK. I've seen a lot of stunts, but other than Adam Lambert on the AMA, this is one of the biggies. LA Lakers new star Ron Artest came on to the Jimmy Kimmel Live show with just his boxer shorts. He claimed he was late arriving to the show and was going to dress on stage.

Artest talks about how he talked to Kobe Bryant about coming to the Lakers, how he introduced Lamar Odom and Khloe Kardashian, who recently married, and his unique relationship with Lakers fans.

The video has become one of the most viewed on YouTube as of this writing today. Here's videos part one and two of Ron Artest on Jimmy Kimmel Live:

Part One:



Part Two:



And on the matter of YouTube, here's my new video on the YouTube Community Roundtable:

Free Thanksgving Day Luncheon in Oakland at 410 14th Street

I received an email from Geoffrey Pete (the former owner of "Geoffrey's Inner Circle" Club) reporting that the Oakland Black Caucus is hosting a free Thanksgiving Day Luncheon at 410 14th Street, near Oakland City Hall, in downtown Oakland, California from 12 noon to 2 PM.

NBA stars Derrick Brown from the Charlotte Bobcats and Antonio Davis (who's retired) will be in attendance. Volunteers include Youth Uprising and The Oakland Tech Basketball Team.

The lunch event is for everyone, so come to downtown Oakland on Thanksgiving Day.

A's Owners want to move to San Jose? Run my Oakland Baseball Sim first

The Oakland Athletics baseball team owners, specifically Lew Wolff, are on record as wanting to move the Oakland A's to San Jose and specifically a new stadium downtown. There are a lot of reasons why this will not work, many of them legal. There are also some reasons why the deal could work, and they are financial.

But the one fact is the Oakland A's owners are - as is common for that group - flying blind without the use of an appropriate tool to help them as they determine what the best steps for the organization are.

I have one tool that they, and you, can use: my Oakland Baseball Simworld.

I created the 2,936-variable, 956-equation simulation in 2002 and based on a system dynamics simulation I created to help John Keriotis, then a limited partner with the Sacramento Kings, see how the Athletics or a professional baseball team in Oakland would perform fiscally in the future.

At the time - 1997 - I was Economic Adviser to Elihu Harris when he was Oakland's Mayor. Mayor Harris assigned me to Coliseum issues and one of those was the possible sale of the Athletics. I helped assemble three "teams" of possible groups, and got one to merge consisting of Frank Robinson and Magic Johnson. Eventually, the sale did not take place but out of it, for me, came a simple 56-variable model of the Oakland Athletics.

After I left the City of Oakland in 2001, I learned a system dynamics simulation programming language called Forio Macro Language (FML), the creation of Forio Business Simulations in San Francisco. FML allows for the development of online sims.

With FML, and Forio's advice, I worked to create two sims: the XFL Simworld, which is still operational, and the Oakland Baseball Simworld, which was delayed for almost a year because I could not figure out an elegant equation model for player contracts.

I finally did that in 2002. I finished the simulation on October 22, 2002 at 6:30 AM (the Tuesday of the week the San Francisco Giants were in The World Series). It received some media notice, both in the Oakland Tribune and in the Sportsbusiness Daily, as well as on the TV show Inside Silicon Valley Business.

Later, I met University of San Francisco sports economics professor Dr. Dan Rascher and together with our Simulation Advisory Board updated the new Oakland Sim.

The idea of the simulation is to have the user understand "baseball business dynamics" and how such actions as building a stadium impact the team's fiscal behavior. It consists of every possible financial combination one may employ to build a stadium. And all of the numbers are "real" and based on information I had to work with at the City of Oakland, then updated annually as the years progressed.



Both sims, and a new beta sim I created called "Buffi The Gym Girl" are the basis of Sports Business Simulations and are used in college classrooms around the country from Memphis to Old Dominion, as I write this. Once students are finished using the Oakland Sim, I'm going to redesign it to specifically include a "San Jose Scenario."

Really, it's already there but encapsulated in a "Move the Team" option called "In Bay Area." But unlike the other options (you can even build a downtown stadium in Oakland)  that one doesn't have the stadium costs or public politics entirely built in it. (I'm not going to remove the downtown Oakland option, either.) 

There's now enough good information for me to quickly install a set of equations and codes within part of a day and have the sim up and running. I will also update the Oakland Coliseum stadium alternative and other scenarios.

The sim target date: November 30, 2009 at 5 PM.

The sim will have a three-day free trial setting so you can try it yourself.

Do I expect the A's owners to pay attention?

No. Frankly, I'd be surprised if they did; this is for the common people who want to know what is or isn't possible in this whole discussion. In 2006, I personally offered Wolff the opportunity to use a specially designed version of my Oakland sim for free and he never followed up on it, but he did say "Free? I like free."

Interview with an expert: The healthcare reform bill - who wins? who loses? what does it mean for you?

[This post was originally published on the City Brights section of SFGate. You can find more of DocGurley's writing at www.docgurley.com]

DoctorPundit (aka Dr. Michael Douglas) is a full-time practicing physician, MBA, and the creator of the nationally-noted, oft-quoted site, "Get Your Health Policy On @ www.doctorpundit.com." He's an up-to-the-minute wonk, and health-geek extraordinaire, and he graciously agreed to peel himself away from C-Span for a few moments (it was painful, but he did it) to give us the inside dirt on the current state of healthcare reform, and what it means to you. As a physician, his approach to covering healthcare reform is one of, as he describes it, "neutrality - keeping the patient and doctor relationship out of the politics as much as possible." Check it out, as Doc Gurley goes toe-to-toe with Doctor Pundit on the reality behind healthcare reform as it stands now:

---

1) Mammogram Guideline Changes Kickstart Healthcare Politicking:
2) Life Expectancy Milestone Reached:
3) Obama's Speech: What's an Internist To Do?:
4) Hospitals and Debt Collectors: Two Extremes:
5) FDA Finally Cleaning House?:

---

DocGurl: So, Dr. Pundit, most people know that Congress passed something that's being called "healthcare reform," but lots of us - particularly those people without insurance, or those people watching their COBRA payments eat up all their unemployment benefits - are wondering, specifically, what's in it for me? If the devil is in the details, we're hoping you're here to exorcise (exercise?) that devil for us. You're an oft-quoted expert, but this behemoth legislation-passing has been a tortured process, with millions of lives, mega-money, and even bigger egos at stake. Are you feeling up to the challenge of explaining it in a nutshell?

DocPund: Wow, that's a pretty loaded question, and one that I feel is probably most appropriately handled by many and not just via the pontifications of one geeky health policy wonk. I'll take a stab at it, though.

Essentially, the bill just passed in the House of Representatives is a referendum of sorts -- meaning, no matter which side of the political aisle your beliefs lie, there's one thing all Americans can agree on. The increasing numbers (we're on the brink of 50 million) of uninsured in this country have served as a wakeup call to all politicians and lawmakers that healthcare access and affordability are under siege by statistics like these, and that something has to be done. Hence, we are witnessing the passage of a bill whose seeds of reason and debate are at least 35 years in the making. That there has to be a debate on this is the easy part; getting a solution to which Republicans and Democrats can agree -- well, that's a different beast altogether. The Senate will soon get its chance.

DocGurl: Is this really healthcare reform? In other words, what monster-by-committee did our Congressional Dr. Frankensteins make?

DocPund: Many times, policyspeak comes down to semantics. I think that is what's going on here is that the art behind getting an initiative passed has much to do with perceptions. Since we all know that lawmakers and their staffs are usually loathe to read entire bills (in this case upwards of 2000 pages), framing a party's ideology in terms their constituencies are willing to accept makes the process a whole lot easier.

DocGurl: Has this legislation pissed off absolutely everybody? Or does it just seem that way?

DocPund: I think that ongoing media coverage has added fuel to the proverbial fire. The overwhelming attention the reform debate attained just prior to the end-of-summer recess in the Congress was reflected in the various healthcare townhalls all across the country. Talk about a good idea gone very badly. I don't think anyone could have predicted the media circus revolving around these events billed as ostensible constructive dialogue. With passage of the HR 3962 bill, I don't think that either ideological side really has traded converts -- people are waiting to see what the Senate does with this.

DocGurl: Who's getting the shaft the most, in your opinion - the passionate progressives who went hard for Obama because he was going to represent REAL change, or the right wing for the vast new deficit-busting this legislation represents to them?

DocPund: With regard to health reform, labels given to the process are just as predictable in their origins as the parties that manufacture them. For many, if not all, Republicans, true reform involves overhauling the healthcare system if taxes aren't raised or imposed to get it done. For Democrats, on the other hand, those critical of the Republicans' motives are terming this "insurance reform" (as opposed to "health reform"), a nod to the corporate back-scratching the latter are famous for in implementing fiscal policy. So, is this really reform of healthcare? Depends on whom you ask.

DocGurl: So then who's doing a secret happy-dance? The progressives, because they got something done to loosen insurance companies' stranglehold on health, or the right, because of the Starkey abortion-banning amendment?

DocPund: Right now, I really don't think either side is claiming victory...in the truest sense of the word. We are definitely in a holding pattern with regard to this legislation. In fact, there is the real possibility that the Senate will not take up serious debate until January 2010, as Majority Leader Harry Reid -- seen by many (even in his own party) as possessing anything but strong leadership qualities -- is taking his own sweet time tweaking the bill, making sure that the Congressional Budget Office estimates square with President Obama's fiscal goals prior to putting forth the motion for the Senate to proceed.

DocGurl: If we ban funding for abortion nationally, does this mean we can now elect a woman-dominated panel to legislate restrictions on impotence and prostate treatment? Why not?

DocPund: Doc, as long we live in a male dominated legislative political "society", don't look for any concessions that can affect their, um, potency as voting body. I will say that threat to a woman's right to choose, while a backdrop to the House structure of the bill to attain passage, will -- while heavily politicized -- be modified to strike such a provision from entering Senate passage, ultimately becoming law, and heading down the slippery slope toward repeal of Rowe v Wade.

DocGurl: That's the politics - now the important stuff. As with all crimes, so the saying goes, follow the money. Who won out, financially? How much are we talking about? After all, once we're talking more than fifty bucks, most of us can't imagine it any more.

DocPund: I think that the fiscal issue before us is what is often termed as the "cost curve" by the Obama administration. He and his team of economic advisers are essentially getting behind a measure that will pass the muster of the arbiter of cost of all bills passed by the legislature: the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO. With the recent vote of 60-39 to allow senate debate to occur, at the very least, the scored pricetag assumed by the CBO is somewhere in the neighborhood of $850 billion over ten years -- all while predicting a reduction in the U.S. deficit by about $130 billion over that time frame.

DocGurl: Seems like the bill, as it stands, allows states to worsen healthcare coverage, but bans them from improving it - true or false? Isn't this a blow to the states-rights folks?

DocPund: It seems the further along we go on watching this bill meander its way through both houses of Congress, the only thing that seems certain is that the language present in its current incarnation will not be there once President Obama places his pen to paper for its signature. Although, among other things, the bill sets out to expand Medicaid programs and eliminate the use of insurance companies' provisions of pre-existing claims denials, one can assume that this bill's final form will probably be more of a benefit to Big Insurance and not the individual patient, ultimately really doing little to increase healthcare access on a sweeping level.

DocGurl: When can the average American sign up for insurance he/she couldn't get before? How much will it cost?

DocPund: These changes to healthcare coverage will be fashioned out in a gradual manner. There really is not a set date to "sign up" for plans and programs. For instance, individual states would have to determine when to implement an enrollment period when federally matched funds are available for Medicaid programs over the next three to five years.

DocGurl: Bottom line - should I hold my breath? And if I do, will I just pass out and then start breathing again, thereby demonstrating the futility of waiting for real change?

DocPund: This last question really piggybacks off the previous one. Whatever initiatives are begun as a result of whatever form the reform bill takes once Obama signs it will depend on many factors. These factors, in turn, will affect what is offered to patients-as-healthcare-consumers. Although no one can really predict when reform changes will infiltrate the healthcare marketplace, one can bet that they will be at the benefit of the marketplace itself and not the individual patient. So, holding your breath in this case would not only be an exercise in futility but also would result in death by asphyxiation -- something which no amount of health reform would benefit.

What do you think? Is this the bill that makes ALL of America angry? Or will it make a positive difference to your life? Share in the comments section and keep up on the latest health issues in the news, and healthcare reform insanity/hilarity by signing up for a Doc Gurley RSS feed with the tiny orange button at the top. Do you want to be on the inside, fast track of news and tips? Get on the Twitter bandwagon and follow Doc Gurley! Also check out Doc Gurley's Joy Habit twitter feed - and get fun, effective tips on how to de-stress for the holidays, right to your smartphone (hurry, before Black Friday hits!).

Got a thingie on your doohickey? Or are you pondering how to tell your doctor he's a jerk? Send your burning healthcare questions to Doc Gurley by emailing docgurleyatgmaildotcom. Doc Gurley cannot answer every question, and she cannot practice medicine through a keyboard (not even with her stethoscope pressed firmly against the monitor) but be assured - your questions will be kept strictly confidential and identifying traits are changed.

The Big Game: Cal 34, Stanford 28 - Cal alumns storm the field!

This is but the first of a set of videos from Big Game Weekend to come. I figured I'd get the storming of the field at Stanford Stadium out of the way as it capped what was one of the greatest games in Cal Football History, The Big Game: Cal 34, Stanford 28. Yes, I write that as a proper noun because college football's place as such a vital part of our American Culture is too often ignored.

That game - Cal's 34 to 28 Big Game win over Stanford - will never be forgotten by anyone who has long suffered - both Cal fans and Cal Alums - through major losses over the years.

And as I wrote before it serves to remind us that a simple thing like a sports event can help ease the pain of university threats to raise tuition and it may even just cause the University of California's executives to rethink what they're doing.

Look, one can dream, OK?

But for the moment captured on video, we were all one big giant family. Some were walking around just basking in the moment. Others were joining in a reminder to Stanford alums that Stanford Stadium was Bear Territory (and would be for another two years). Still others were singing along with the Cal Band to such classic Cal works as Psalms of Victory (in the video, and here as well.) It was a glorious moment, forever locked in time here for us to repeat again and again and again...

Until we return to Stanford Stadium in 2011 and win again.

GO BEARS!

Battlestar Galactica's Katee Sackhoff in Big Bang Theory: Internet hit

Katie Sackhoff suds it up with Howard Wolowitz (Simon Helberg)

The super-hot Katee Sackhoff , star of the remade and cult-level popular Battlestar Galactica Sci-fi series (and who also has a very cool blog), is steaming up the Internet after appearing on the CBS show The Big Bang Theory - which, truth be told, I saw for the first time on the United Airlines flight from San Francisco to Chicago - and burned up the episode with this steamy (for that show) scene in a bath tub:



I still believe one reason Bionic Woman didn't last beyond the first half of season one in 2007 was the lack of focus on, and eventual jettisoning of, Katee Sackhoff's character "Sarah Corvus". Sarah Corvus was an excellent, if off-kilter, sidekick to Michelle Ryan's "Jamie Sommers" in the show. That's one series I'd love to write for, but I digress; it's gone.

Here's Katee talking about her character in Bionic Woman:



Battlestar Galactica's season's coming to an end as well as Katee's five-year long role as the mythical "Starbuck". Her blog has an excellent video Q and A where she answers fans questions about her Battlestar Galactica work:



On January 10th, 2010, Katee will return to weekly television with her regular appearance on 24, playing a character named "Dana Walsh".

For an excellent deconstruction of Battlestar Galactica, read SF Chronicle Television Columnist Tim Goodman's March 22, 2009 take here.

Marc Shaiman is Music Director for 82nd Academy Awards

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences reports that Marc Shaiman was named Music Director for the 82nd Annual Academy Awards.

Marc Shaiman

Marc Shaiman is a five-time Oscar nominated composer nominated three times for Original Score on The American President (1995), The First Wives Club (1996) and Patch Adams (1998), and for Original Song: A Wink and a Smile from “Sleepless in Seattle” (1993) and for the hilarious Blame Canada from South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999).

This is Robin Williams performing “Blame Canada”:



And the same song as it was presented in South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut:



Ok. I just had to get that out of the way before one of you asked for the videos!


Marc Shaiman is also an an Emmy winner with a wicked sense of humor. He won for co-writing Billy Crystal's "Oscar Medley" for the 64th Annual Academy Awards in 1992. More recently, he was the composer for The Bucket List (2008)

In 2007 he was honored at the ASCAP (The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers ) Awards:




With Marc Shaiman creating music for Oscar hosts Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin, the 82nd Academy Awards promises to be a classic event.