Friday, February 27, 2004
"Depression feeds on ignorance"
Says the DC editorial staff"
"Depression feeds on ignorance, engaging the problem means getting information out to the public. People need to know that depression can be treated—it’s a matter of biology, not character."
Well, you know, character is a matter of biology, too. The fact that something depends on biology doesn't mean it requires drugs to treat it. You could consider any thought to be a "chemical imbalance." And, of course, therein lies the problem of depression: too much thought.
Sadly, treatment for depression is a bit of a sham. It's really just "which mental disorder would you like to have? You can trade in your depression for hyperactivity, if you like. We've also got bipolarity, if you prefer variety." Thank God for psychology.
. . .
Do GA folks have anything better to do than whine "Woe is me"?
"This statement (that GA executives get a much larger stipend than ASUC executives) is totally correct but out of relevant context. For example, as a graduate student, I spend at least 60 hours a week on coursework, teaching and research. Without this compensation, there would be no Graduate Assembly executive office and administration."
That's right. How dare they expect someone to sacrifice to do public service?
If you can't do the job, then don't do the job. If no one can do the job, then the job won't get done. This job doesn't need to be done. I don't see a problem here.
. . .
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
I've tried to stop doing this, but...
I just couldn't resist this time.
Quindel gets all the fun.
Student government leaders maintain that the referendum process is viewpoint neutral because all students can place propositions on the ballot if they collect 1,000 signatures or are approved by the ASUC Senate.
“As long as everyone has access to the process, it is equal for everyone,” said Graduate Assembly President Jessica Quindel. “We believe that viewpoint neutrality is that you can’t not fund somebody, not that you have to fund them.”
Now, I agree. But Quindel and her flunkies also seem to support affirmative action, which seems to be a vastly different argument, such as "While technically conservatives can get measures on the ballot, because they are not a majority they lack the ability to get representative funding in any real sense" or some such.
If students vote for it, it means they want it.”
It means that more than 50% of the voters want it. That's very different from "students want it."
Also in the funnies:
Assembly officials still hope to maintain financial dependence on ASUC auxiliary services, such as operational costs and revenue from the ASUC bookstore.
Quit your whining. Either you want independence or you don't. "I want to be able to spend independently, but receive free funding" doesn't wash.
. . .
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Who aborts whom?
The term "abortion" is a horrible, horrible term. I mean, really. While not technically passive tense, the intent is the same. "I got an abortion"? Abort is a verb, and it needs an object. If folks are so comfortable with the idea of abortions, then why not say "I aborted my fetus"?
. . .
What causes war?
It's a difficult question. Land claims? Cultural differences? Basic human needs?
Take some examples. The Spanish-American war was started out of boredom. Folks had nothing better to do than to get angry at the Spanish, and all it took was an enterprising news magnate to start a war.
The Norse killed each other because, well, why not? We were given sticks and stones to break bones, so why not do it?
The ASUC goes to war because they think they're supposed to. It's a tradition. The students fight the university, and we have a rich cultural heritage to live up to.
My immune system detects a set of chemical signals and goes off to war, heedless of the inconvenience caused to its host.
Crusaders march off to save the heathens from themselves with large death-causing implements because God says so.
Pepsi and Coca Cola war over the hearts, minds, and taste buds of the consumer base for the allmighty dollar.
And bloggers war because, after all, egos must be gratified.
. . .
I can't let this go unmentioned
UC has drafted a policy that explicitly bars student governments from spending mandatory student fees on ballot initiative campaigns, angering ASUC officials who say the university is cutting back their free speech.
Is it a free speech right to spend mandatory student fees on whatever you want? I'd doubt it. After all, no legislature makes budgets on free speech grounds. You don't hear Congress saying "How dare you question our budget, you're cutting back our free speech!" Seriously, the "Your violating my free speech" line is so worn it's becoming meaningless. Save it for free speech issues, not budgeting.
. . .
Saturday, February 21, 2004
I was looking at my non-partisan ballot for this March's election and felt pretty lonely. I thought I might look at some other ballots, and noticed the "American Independent Party" ballot. And then I remembered why I hate voting.
. . .
Friday, February 20, 2004
How far will you go?
Misha Leybovich, unofficial useful-thing-doer of the ASUC, has this to say:
"The fact is everyone hates campaigning. It gets really old and stale and turns students off.”
Does this mean Leybovich won't be campaigning? If he represents the students...
(Actually, I don't know much about Leybovich beyond bookswap stuff and Upper Sproul construction petitions, so I don't know if he's running again or not. He may be graduating, for all I know.)
. . .
Where's the news?
On Bowditch and Durant, there's an SF Chronicle newsbox which still has two-week-old papers in it. I pass by it every day, and have been wondering why I keep seeing the same headlines every day.
Not that it's important, just curious.
. . .
"But student groups were worried they would lose visibility if people were allowed to pass by Upper Sproul as in the original plan..."
It's our right to annoy and harass any who wish to travel by a main corridor on campus. How dare they make it so that traversing Upper Sproul is a pleasant experience?
In fairness, this claim comes from the PR chick of the company doing the project.
. . .
Friday, February 13, 2004
Personal foul. Illegal use of Hitler reference! Loss of argument.
. . .
Monday, February 09, 2004
From The Daily Cal. Copy shops and university professors disagree about who has liability for copyright issues that may come up when making readers.
University Copy, in particular, has the professors sign a waiver that says that they accept responsibility for securing copyright permissions.
UC Berkeley law professor Mark Lemley said because UC Berkeley is a state government agency, it is immune from lawsuits in federal court for damages for copyright infringement.
And this response is classic.
University Copy manager Patrick Fay said he was not concerned with what UC Berkeley law professors have to say on the matter.
“He might be a law professor, but that waiver was written by lawyers,” he said. “Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.”
Oh, no! But I have to be interviewed by newspapers and such because I'm a law professor, and really, really important. Really!
. . .
Friday, February 06, 2004
A funny thing happened on the way to work...
I've been shirking my bitching duties.
Nanotechnology does not deal with things smaller than an atom. Quantum computing does, though, so maybe that's what they meant.
The lack of editing on The Daily Cal's opinion page is absurb.
Yes, stealing is bad. But you really should have already known that.
And Mr. Dean, how about some less crappy humanities courses for us students in real majors? You can only tolerate so much English before you realize "Oh, wait, if it takes professional training to actually appreciate these pieces of writing, that means that the writers suck, not that they're good."
. . .
. . .