. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nap Time!!!

Monday, October 23, 2006
Dimitri Reponds

Dimitri responded to yesterday's post, and I'll post the response here. I'll note that he doesn't really address most of the issues I raised, and suggests that the structure of the ASUC itself is flawed. Again, I recommend that if that structure is flawed, the ASUC must correct itself through the internal procedures that exist for that purpose. We cannot simply ignore rules delegating authority to the Judicial Council whenever we feel that they aren't getting us the right result. If you don't feel the Judicial Council should have the power to disqualify candidates, then you need to act to change the Senate-written rules that give them that power, rather than complain about the Judicial Council whenever it tries to follow those rules.
Dear Beetle Aurora Drake,
Thanks for all the trouble of going through my email. [non-argumentative information removed for privacy reasons] I would really like to address one main thing you wrote:
"The alternative precedent, if the ASUC stands up and fights this, might be that those who run for the ASUC office agree to work within the ASUC's constitutional structure, which puts these decisions in the hands of specific ASUC officials."
Who in the ASUC should stand up and fight for the elimination of the democratic process and the failure of the Judicial Council to uphold democracy? Fighting this bill SB 51 amounts to this. Furthermore, these decisions should not be "in the hands of specific ASUC officials," as you suggest, they should be in the hands of the students. The students had made the decision to elect these four individuals. This was the principle of democracy the Judicial Council was not respecting: the candidates had already been elected and the rules had all been followed, and all censures had been declared; the candidates had been democratically elected. My question is, why did the Judicial Council think it could get away with putting a wrench in the works by making a ludicruous decision, and then rescinding it? If we simply say that we do not know if the lawsuit had any effect, that it is speculation, then this could mean that it did or it didn't. I stand by my support for SB 51. We the students should never be unwilling to pay the price for democracy.

P.S. Ben Narodick. I am sorry that I offended you. I did not mean to suggest that you were the mastermind behind the evil plot on behalf of Squelch! and the JC. I kind of meant to say you were on the same planet during the time. More than anything, I admire your hard work and know-how. See you in the funny pages.
I think he mistook "Punch My Ballot" for Ben Narodick. I find it odd that "this could mean that it did or it didn't" leads to the conclusion that the right thing to do is spend $22,679 on that speculation.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 10/23/2006 01:13:00 PM #
Comments (9)
. . .
Comments:
hmmm, i hear this argument a lot, but whether you like it or not, a judicial system filled by appointed judges is an integral part of the democratic system. these judges are just as democratic as elected officials, but the process of their coming to power is different -- and for good reasons. i think these reasons are obvious, but if you still don't follow, just think of a Student Action slate running for Judicial Council seats...
 
I suppose I appreciate the apology, despite the fact that it has the wrong name attached. Though, I've gotta say, if I were Ben, I'd be more pissed off given the specific inclusion of his name in that e-mail. And I hope that, while Dimitri makes attempts to rectify his intended meaning here and they are much appreciated, that he also does so in any personal correspondence that he has sent, because the implication is quite offensive.

By the way, I'm pretty sure I'm the first result when you google "Punch My Ballot"...it's a proud day for me and my family. And I have to assert that the intended sexual innuendo wouldn't be quite as cute if it was referring to Ben. (Sorry Ben, you know I love you...I'm just hard to beat in the sexy category...ya know, clearly.) :P
 
I want to clarify that I told Dimitri that I would publish any response he gave, so he may have been relying on me to convey the apology. I dunno if that actually changes your point.
 
yeah, it doesn't--if he individually e-mailed students and implied (intentionally or unintentionally) that my colleague, my party, and myself by association were part of a collusion attempt, I would appreciate it if he would e-mail those same students back and rescind/clarify his comments.
 
If I were Ben Narodick, I'd be a little pissed off.

I am aware that many people don't separate Andy and I because we are part of the same forty-member fraternity. Clearly, we're all the same person.

In any event, the thing that bothers me the most is that people continue to assume each other's motivations, especially when public evidence suggests the opposite. I publicly stated my opposition to Andy Ratto's lawsuit several times based on its procedural grounds.

That being said, I support the idea of Andy's suit - that lying, cheating, and deceiving have negative consequencing. I support the fight against Oren Gabriel's extortion because protecting student money from an unjust cause is the right thing to do. But I am not behind either of these movements - merely an invested spectator.

While Dimitri's comments upset me, I greatly respect the fact that he is at least trying to semi-publicly defend his position, and don't mind sacrificing my remaining shreds of public dignity on this campus for some sort of political dialogue. I definitely agree and disagree with some of his points, and the messages exchanged on this blog shed light on the fact that there is still a large information gap between both sides of this argument.

As for sexual innuendoes, Lauren, I still like "Check My Box" the best.
 
"Check My Box" is definitely sexual, but I think it crossed the "innuendo" line a few miles back.
 
I really appreciate the indignation you guys are showing and the efforts you are taking to publicly distance yourself from me and any of my previous actions.

:-)

[Just kidding, I love being the villain.]
 
Oh, Andy my love, my objections to being associated with you stem from things completely unrelated to the ASUC, you know that :P

Seriously though, I'm not trying to say I have a problem with Ratto vs. Vakil, for I do object to the lying and the cheating. What I do have a problem with though is the suggestion that you and SQUELCH! and the JCouncil had some sort of sneaky underhanded scheme to purposely appoint myself and Benjamin and disqualify the SA Execs, as if that even makes sense. Note that my comments are specifically aimed at the limited relationship between myself and JC members...you I just don't acknowledge at all ;)
 
countdown until I just accept that I'm not getting an apology and that Dimitri has no intention of correcting himself to the potentially several people he's slandered me mercilessly to: 1 day.
 
Post a Comment


. . .