Steven Chu, recipient of the all-powerful NL parking spot, continues to radiate Berkeley sunshine to the world. In a recent interview with NPR, the Nobel Laureate energy secretary (and Cal Bear) invited more Americans to get on the Chu Chu train as it chugs towards a more energy-independent destination.

Chu ain’t no foo’. He’s optimistic about our chances of beating the lurking environmental sh*tstorm, but he’s not “cockeyed.” He cites Newton and others (while standing on their giant metaphorical shoulders), claiming, “Scientists by their nature are very optimistic.” (We suppose that’s true, although that clearly means that the masterminds behind the upcoming movie 2012 do not have any advanced degrees.)

But let us remember that this is not just what Chu can do for you. Chu may not be a full-on Marxist, but he has some words for the lazy bourgeoisie. He claims that most Americans use their energy as if they have countless servants at their beck and call, and gosh darn it, that needs to change.

According to Chu, “every person in the United States uses energy as if they had 100 personal servants at their beck and call.” So Donald Trump, please give your solid gold toilet a night off. For all of us.

So go ahead and paint the town red (or rather, paint your roof white and reflect that damn heat to save the environment). Chu asks, and Berkeley delivers.

Image Source: Center for American Progress Action Fund under Creative Commons
Energy Secretary ‘Optimistic’ But Cautious [NPR]
Earlier: Chusing a Better Future

A few weeks ago, the Daily Cal reported that this year’s incoming students will be the largest group yet, but the post-apocalyptic classes will be damned if they don’t continue Cal’s 10-year tradition of breaking enrollment records.

It looks like the UC system is planning on relaxing its admission standards, and we’re not quite sure how to feel. Among the proposed changes are scrapping the SAT Subject test req, a total review of some apps that don’t quite reach the minimum standards, and–this one puzzles us the most–for-sure admission to a few of the unqualified.

Maybe we’re a little fuzzy on the semantics, but it would seem that–by definition–someone who’s unqualified can’t be admitted. So what are the minimum qualifications now, if they aren’t really minimum qualifications?

“Suggested standards?” “Proposed conditions?” “Gosh darnit, you did your best but didn’t quite make it so we’ll let you in anyway and give us a hug?”

Image Source: joebeone under Creative Commons
UC close to new admissions requirements [Contra Costa Times]