Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Last week, on ASUC
Last week was the discussion of the ASUC's vitally important football-tree-hippie stance.
Lisa Parker gave a guest announcement in favor of boring trees.
On the topics of biodiversity and mitigation, Ms. Parker said the oak grove was a 100-year-old community of living organisms and was the very definition of an ecosystem and of biodiversity. There were over 100,000 microfungal and microbial communities there.Yes, there are ecosystems everywhere. Also up your ass. Do you wash your hands? How many microbial communities do you destroy on a daily basis?
Ms. Parker said she would like to appeal to the great athletes and would like them to consider whether or not they want to breath artificial air with a century-old community of ecosystem buried beneath their feet, earning corporate money.Let's go ask.
Hey, Mr. Athlete, would you rather breathe artificial air with a century-old community of ecosystem buried beneath your feet, or would you like to use a practice facility somewhere else, which will also include artificial air, dead ecosystems under your feet (much older than 100 years), as well as the added benefit of longer distance to your field?
At the City Council meeting, a lot of students, especially the women athletes, were very articulate and outspoken. Ms. Parker asked if fighting adversity those athletes faced hadn't also increased camaraderie.She couldn't be... could she? She's not saying "our beating up on them was for their own benefit," right?
The grove was a memorial, and she would ask if it was their students' place, in their short time at Berkeley, to take down a whole 100-year-old memorial. This also was a microcosm of what was also going on in the world.Parker is what we call a "mindless conservative," who is terrified of change. To her, the mere fact that something's been around a while is sufficient for her to think it's wrong for her to change it. Are all things older than 100 years off-limits for change? Students will always be on Berkeley for a short time, after all.
Michael Kelly is one of those angry neighbors.
Mr. Kelly said he believed the fourth Whereas Clause was fundamentally inaccurate. It stated that for the entities that brought a lawsuit, the aim of lawsuit was to prevent the construction of a Student Athletic Center. That was not the case. The goal was to create a plan that did not violate California law.Haha. Yeah. I bet. They didn't care at all about the building. They're really just a bunch of legal nerds like me who wanted to make sure things were in order. That's totally believable.
There was also some funny stuff going on procedurally. An attempt to prevent Senators from yielding to old geezers failed. Also...
Mr. Weiner moved to ask each speaker to state whether or not they were a student during Guest Announcements. Ms. Allbright said that would require a main motion, and require one week's notice. But the request was noted, asking speakers to identify whether or not they were students. It was up to individual speakers whether or not to acknowledge that request.So, so likely.
On a point of parliamentary inquiry, Ms. Kuo said that it appeared to her that during the voice-vote, people in the public voted who were not elected officials. Ms. Allbright said a division could be requested, and Senators should make that request if they felt a voice-vote was inaccurate. She would ask guests to please remain silent during voice-votes.
Kingsley Cloane said she was a student, and to her, what was important about student politics, government, and activism was that as they learn and study, they also learn to interact with institutions. If they look at the grove now, the trees and people there have been ghettoized, which spoke volumes about the ethos of the institution, and of what was happening in this country and all over the world. This wasn't just students against an institution, but the City as well was taking legal action against the institution.Ghettoized? I suppose that could, technically, apply, though it seems to be more upper class hippieized. And this may come as a surprise, but the City is also an institution.
Marcella Sadlowski said she was a student there, a Peace and Conflicts major. She would urge the Senate to vote against the bill. The oak grove was a sacred site, and even though there may not be expertise about bodies found at the site, it was indigenous land. People living in the trees were not anti-football, but were about life and about respecting sacred grounds.Are you sure they're not anti-football? Because some of their supporters sure are.
Zachary Running Wolf said he came there in total respect. He was a Native American elder and leader. An elder in the Native community was considered a library.So many jokes, so little time. Tell yours in the comments.
Matthew Taylor said a lot of stuff was flying around about why they should save the oak trees, but the bottom line was that people love these trees, probably thousands of people. Very deep scars would emerge in the relationship between the University and the community if those trees were harmed. The grove was sacred to people. It was childish logic to say that this spot was the only place at which to build a training facility. The University and City had enormous resources, and people could have such a facility as well as keep this sacred part of Mother Earth.Odd words, coming from a fellow deriding "childish logic."
Anyway, the folks just kept on coming. If you ever get a chance, look at the minutes.
Ms. Allbright said the next speaker was Jessica Karadi. Ms. Karadi said she was a fourth-year student there. The Resolution under consideration was brought up out of concern for the athletes. She would like to compare the athletes, a minority of students, to the tree sitters.Uh... obvious detail about tree sitters and minority status omitted.
Ms. Allbright said speaking time had expired. (Applause)Well, not really. It's funnier without context, though.
Both Van Nguyen and Kriss Worthington pointed out how pointless the whole effort was. While I don't disagree... Kriss Worthington is complaining about pointless resolutions?
Taylor is called "Madam Allbright" in the FiComm report. I found that really funny, for some reason.
I'll mention it here, because there's no where else to mention it. The Attorney General Selection Committee, which was supposed to submit a nominee for approval by the third week (that is, tomorrow), hadn't even set a time by last week's meeting. They are going to be accepting applications until next Friday, which means they're going to be at least 2 weeks late. (When will they accept nominations? I dunno) If only there was an Attorney General to make sure they did their job...
. . .
. . .